The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions 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 111

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/stdj The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions

Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity

Kipp Davis

leiden | boston Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Davis, Kipp. The cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic traditions : prophetic persona and the construction of community identity / by Kipp Davis. p. cm. – (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; volume 111) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-27825-7 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-27844-8 (e-book) 1. Apocryphon of Jeremiah–Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title.

BS1830.J572D38 2014 229'.913–dc23 2014018271

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 978-90-04-27825-7 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-27844-8 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. 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.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Acknowledgements ix Abbreviations xi List of Tables and Figures xii

Introduction: The Enigmatic Prophet Jeremiah and His Manifestations in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1

1 From Rewritten Bible to Reputation: A Fresh Methodological Approach to Appropriating Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls 14 1.1 Is the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c a “Rewritten Bible” Text? 15 1.2 Perceptions of Prophets and Prophecy in Second Temple Judaism 29 1.3 Reputation and Authority: Jeremiah the Prophet As a “Founder” in the Dead Sea Scrolls 37

2 The Apocryphon of Jeremiah: A Material and Synoptic Overview 46 2.1 “Paraprophetic Narratives” or “Pseudo-Prophetic Texts”? An Introduction to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and Pseudo-Ezekiel 47 2.2 The Classification of Manuscripts 53 2.2.1 Devorah Dimant and Arguments for Multiple Compositions 53 2.2.2 Monica L.W. Brady and Arguments for a “Single Work in Multiple Copies” 59 2.2.3 Cana Werman et al., 4Q390 and Pseudo-Moses Revisited 62 2.2.4 A New Edition by Elisha Qimron 68 2.3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a): Reconstruction and Location of Fragments 70 2.3.1 Material Joins 73 2.3.2 Distant Joins 84 2.4 Descriptions of the Other Witnesses to the Apocryphon c: 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389 93 2.4.1 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cb (4Q387) 93 2.4.2 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cc (4Q388a) 98 2.4.3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cd (4Q389) 99 2.5 Conclusion: The Extents and Limits of Reconstruction 101 vi contents

3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a): The Reconstructed Text and Translation with Notes, in Conversation with the Other Witnesses (4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389) 103 3.1 Introduction to the Reconstructed Text 103 3.2 The Reconstructed Text with Translation, Notes and Comments 104 3.2.1 Group i—Fragments 1–6 104 3.2.2 Group ii—Fragments 10–18 119 3.2.3 Group iii—Fragments 8 and 9 140 3.3 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389: Textual Witnesses to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c 141 3.3.1 An Introduction to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c? 141 3.3.2 Second Temple Apocalypse: 4Q385a 3–5; 4Q387 1–3, 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 8 ii 144 3.4 A Proposed Synopsis of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c 157 3.4.1 Introduction (4Q389 frg. 1) 157 3.4.2 Historical Discourse 158 3.4.3 Second Temple Apocalypse 160 3.4.4a Eschatological Prediction 165 3.4.4b Prophetic Oracles 166 3.4.5 Prophetic Oracle of Judgement: A Previously Unattested Version of Nahum 3:8–10 168 3.4.6 Post-destruction Narrative Summary 169 3.5 Conclusion: The Apocryphon of Jeremiah c As a Jeremianic Composition 172

4 4Q390 and the Second Temple Apocalypse Redux 175 4.1 More Apocrypha of Jeremiah: The Apocryphon of Jeremiah a–b? (4Q383, 4Q384), and 4Q387a in Perspective 176 4.1.1 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah a (4Q383) 176 4.1.2 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah b? (4Q384) 177 4.1.3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cf (4Q387a) 179 4.2 4Q390: Differentiation from the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, and the Evidence for Reworking 180 4.2.1 Material Rationale for Separation 180 4.2.2 Variation in Verbal Constructions in 4Q390 188 4.2.3 Ideology, Religion, and History in 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c 192 4.3 4Q390 and the Second Temple Apocalypse: Text and Translation in Structural Parallel with 4QApocrJer ca–d 208 contents vii

4.4 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c: Echoes of Jeremianic Discourse 227 4.5 Conclusion: 4Q390 As an Historical, Ideological Pastiche 233

5 Character and Content: The Emerging (or Diminishing?) Jeremiah in the Literature of the Yaḥad 234 5.1 The Prophet Jeremiah in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390: A Progressive Appraisal 235 5.1.1 Prophetic Persona in the Jeremianic Narrative of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c 235 5.1.2 Dual Audiences: From Egypt to Babylon in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390 246 5.1.3 Deuteronomy and “the Land” in the Second Temple Apocalypse i–ii 253 5.2 Jeremiah Traditions in the Qumran Literature 264 5.2.1 The Damascus Document 269 5.2.2 4QCatena a (4Q177) and 4QCatena b (4Q182) 273 5.2.3 The Hodayot 277 5.2.4 4QText Mentioning Zedekiah (4Q470) 281 5.3 4Q390, the “Admonition,” and Pseudo-Daniel a 286 5.3.1 cd 1:3–11 288 5.3.2 Pseudo-Daniel a (4Q243–4Q244) 296

Conclusions: Jeremiah, Community Leadership, and the “Origins Myth” for the Yaḥad 302

Bibliography 309 Index of Modern Authors 333 Index of Ancient Sources 339

Acknowledgements

This book is a substantial revision of my doctoral dissertation, “Re-Presentation and Emerging Authority of the Traditions of Jeremiah in Second Temple Juda- ism,” at the University of Manchester in 2009. The original work was a much broader exploration of traditions directly tied to or more allusively associated with the prophet Jeremiah throughout Second Temple Jewish literature. What appears in this volume is a more focussed study of these traditions strictly as they appear in the Qumran scrolls, and more precisely through the lens of the Jeremianic composition, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389). There are many people to thank who have contributed in various ways of the long process to seeing this book emerge. First and foremost, I am very grateful to my supervisor and friend, Prof. George J. Brooke, who saw some potential in my early wranglings with rewritten Bible and the prophetic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. His wisdom, guidance and exceptional patience were instrumental in my completion of the programme at the University of Manchester. Since he assumed the editorship of Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, I am doubly grateful to him for his continued support of this volume. I am also grateful to Prof. Florentino García Martínez for his original provisional acceptance of my dissretation for the series, and to my friend and former colleague Prof. Peter W. Flint for his promotion of my work while he was still a mem- ber of the editorial board. Perhaps most prominently, I am indebted to Prof. Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar for his meticulous handling of the manuscript, and for his longsuffering support of this project. Through his persistent encouragement and constructive criticism he has taught me a great deal and challenged me as a scholar. Thank you also to the Fakultet for Humaniora og Pedagogikk at the Universitetet i Agder for additional funding to help with the completion of the book. Several of the chapters were presented at various stages in conferences and seminars, and I received much valuable feedback from a number of respon- dents. My thanks are extended to Prof. Hindy Najman, who has long been a supporter of my work; to my external reader, Prof. Lutz Doering; to Prof. Martin G. Abegg, Daniel K. Falk, Robert Kugler, and the members of the West Coast Qumran Working Group; to many of my former colleagues at Trinity Western University, including Prof. Jim Scott and Kyung S. Baek; and to my current colleagues at the Universitetet i Agder, particularly Prof. Tor Vega and Morten K. Beckman. I am greatly indebted to Prof. Torleif Elgvin for his enduring support of this project, and the time I have spent to see it through during my post doc- x acknowledgements toral appointment. Thank you to Kristin Heskje for her help in compiling the indices for this volume, and to my friend James Tucker for his meticulous and scholarly prodigous work to ensure that these were completed and accurate. I am grateful to my friend and close colleague, Årstein Justnes, for his constant support, for some laughs, and a good deal of very valuable feedback on several drafts of this work. Most importantly, I am thankful for such a loving and supportive family. To my parents Sandra Woltmann and Phillip Davis, my brother Jordan Davis, and my step-parents, Catherine Davis and Heinz Woltmann, all for their efforts in teaching and shaping me to be the best man I can be. This book is dedicated to my beautiful wife, my partner, and my best friend, Lisa. Thank you for your enduring love, encouragement and enthusiasm over the course of this long journey. Finally to my sons, Jaydon Luke, Nicholas Michael Alexander, and Jacob Aaron James; each of you makes me honoured and proud to be your dad.

Kristiansand, Norway, 27 April, 2014 Abbreviations

The title abbreviations for all journals, series, and texts follow Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds, The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Bib- lical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). List of Tables and Figures

Tables

2.1 Assignment of fragments in Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c 50 2.2 Optional sequences of the fragments for the Apocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a) 83 3.1 List of variants and orthography for fragment group i, cols. iii–v 119

Figures

2.1 4Q385a frgs. 1–5 (arranged from images in pams 41.893, 42.505, and 44.194) 76 2.2 4Q385a frgs. 16–17 i–ii (arranged from images on pam 44.194) 79 2.3 Appearance of 4Q385a frgs. 18 i–ii + 1a–b i–ii + 2 (based on images on b-298224) 81 2.4.1 4Q385a: a physical comparison of frgs. 18 ii and 1b i–ii 82 2.4.2 4Q385a: a physical comparison of frgs. 5–6 and 10–11 83 2.5 4Q387 frgs. 1+2 i–iii + 3 (arranged from images in pam 41.864) 97 4.1 A proposed arrangement of the fragments for 4Q390 based on pam 43.506 182 introduction The Enigmatic Prophet Jeremiah and His Manifestations in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Admonition from ms. a of the Damascus Document concludes with the following curious exhortation 8:16–21:

ודיעהרשאםינשארהתאלאתבהאבםעהךרדמורסלארשייבשלטפשמהןכו 1 וירחא ואנושבותובאהתירבםהליכםהירחאםיאבהתאבהא 2 ופאהרחץיחהינובתא רמארשארבדהאוהםבלתורירשבונפיוםבזעיולאתוצמבסאומהלכלהזהטפשמכו ץראבהשדחהתירבבואברשאםישנאהלכורעניזחגלעשילאוהיירנןבךורבלוהימרי קשמד

And such is the judgement for the returnees of Israel, who turned aside from the way of the people. On account of the love of God for the former ones who bore witness after him, he loves those who come after them, because theirs is the covenant of the fathers. Because of his hatred for the wall-builders his anger is kindled. And this same judgement will be for everyone who rejects the precepts of God and abandons them, and they turn away in the stubbornness of their heart. This is the word that Jeremiah declared to Baruch the son of Neriah, and Elisha to Gehazi his servant: all the men who enter into the new covenant in the land of Damascus …3

This instance represents one of only three clear references to Jeremiah from the entire corpus of Qumran sectarian literature (cf. also 4Q163 1 4; 4Q182

in ms a, which is a probable scribal error. Cf. ms b 19:30, which וריעיה This is corrected from 1 . לאירחאםעהלעודיעהרשא reads . לאבעתמואנושו ms b 19:31 reads . יאנושבו Corrected from 2 3 The text breaks off at the end of the folio here. ms b contains an alternative reading that makes ץראבהשדחהתירבבואברשאםישנאהלכןכ :no mention of Jeremiah, Elisha and their protégés Therefore all“ , ףסאהםוימובתכיאל̇ם̇בתכב̇וםעדוסבובשחי̊אלםייחהםימראבמורוסיוודגביוובשוקשמד the men who enter into the new covenant in the land of Damascus, and turned away, forsook, and departed from the spring of living water will not counted among the council of the people, nor will they be written in their list from the day of the gathering.”

1 4),4 and is the only place where the name does not function as part of a citation from the scriptural book of Jeremiah.5 The appearance of Jeremiah here appears significant in that it possibly serves as the concluding statement for the Admonition in ms. a: the final word on the matter of who is included among the “returnees (or the “converts) of Israel”6 seemingly belongs

4 The issue of what is meant by “sectarian” and how to define “Qumran” in the context of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship has become increasingly more complex, especially by recent studies in the nature and extent of sectarianism such as those by Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule (stdj 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009), esp. 21–47; John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010); idem, “Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 151–172; Jutta Jokiranta, “Sociological Approaches to Qumran Sectarianism,” in Lim and Collins, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 200–231; idem, “Social Scientific Approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. Maxine L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 246–263. While several of these issues will receive more deliberate attention throughout this study, it must suffice at the outset for matters of simplification to use the terms “Qumran,” with reference to the Khirbet Qumran site, and its residents from between the second cent. bce and the first cent. ce; “sectarian” with reference to peculiar ideas and religious distinctions represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls that differentiate the writers and collectors of the scrolls and the Qumran residents as a Jewish faction; “Yaḥad” to refer to the wider community or communities beyond the Qumran site that shared various ideas, and exhibited characteristics as an elite sub-group from the much more extensive “Essene” movement of the later Second Temple period. My understanding of the sectarian literature conforms to the general but imprecisely defined limits of the collection of texts classified in Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Content and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way of the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls, by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (ed. D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman; stdj 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–58. ,also appears on an unclassified fragment pam 34.685 frg. 65 1 והימרי It should be noted that 5 but owing to the ambiguity of its context and with no indication that it might be assigned to one of the sectarian texts, it is not included in this study. 6 Cf. translations by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1: 563; Edward Cook in Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, a New Translation (2nd revd. edn.; San appears 23 times in the םיבשׁ Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005), 60. The Qal plural participle those“ , עשׁפ Dead Sea Scrolls in which it is translated either as “converts” (e.g. in construct with the ones who return from the“ , רבדמהיבש .who turn from sin,” 1QHa 6:35), “returnees” (e.g 4Q171 col. iv 24). The , לארשייבש .wilderness,” 4Q171 col. iii 1), or occasionally “captives” (e.g use of this word in the Damascus Document appears to be partially symbolic, and containing the enigmatic prophet jeremiah and his manifestations 3 to Jeremiah.7 Or rather, Jeremiah’s prophetic statement to his companion Ba- ruch is held in comparison or contrast to Elisha and his servant Gehazi, serving in some way symbolically to distinguish between those who either fulfilled or rejected the “new covenant.” If the ms. b recension offers any indication about how to understand this passage, then it makes the best sense to see these pairs of figures—Jeremiah and Baruch, and Elisha and Gehazi—as somehow connected to the distinction implied between those who “turned aside from the way of the people” and followed God, and those who “rebelled against the precepts of God and abandoned them.”8 And yet, despite his lofty distinction in cd, the importance of Jeremiah’s words here in contrast to the apparent paucity of usage of the book of Jeremiah in the sectarian literature strikes one as something of an enigma. When compared to much more conspicuous citations, allusions, and echoes of other Hebrew prophets such as Isaiah, the book of the Twelve, Daniel, or even Ezekiel, Jeremiah indeed looks to be a “bit player.”9 This impression is further reinforced by the absence of any Jeremiah pesharim from the Dead Sea Scrolls. What of Jeremiah? The book of Jeremiah appears to have enjoyed an un- remarkable level of popularity for the Qumran group. Six copies of scriptural Jeremiah were discovered in Caves 2 and 4. These scrolls range in dates from 200bce to the first cent. ce,10 and they preserve a variety of textual

הירפוחו :a double-meaning that equates captivity and exile with repentance; cf. cd 6:4–5 its ‘diggers’ are the repentant (or“ , קשמדץראבורוגיוהדוהיץראמםיאצויהלארשייבשםה ‘captives,’ or ‘returnees’) of Israel who went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of Damascus.” 7 This sentence referring to Jeremiah and Elisha has been omitted from ms b; cf. cd 19:33–34. 8 Cf. Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (cd),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth; ptsdss; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 4–58, 28–29; Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 171–172. 9 For a fairly comprehensive listing of citations and allusions of the Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cf. Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature (JAJSup 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), esp. 141–147. 10 Cf. B. Webster, “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert,” in The Texts from the Judaean Desert Indices, and An Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E. Tov; djd 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 351–446. To this inventory may also be added ms 4612/9, a fragment from the Schøyen Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls which has preserved text from Jer 3:15–19 that possibly dates to the first half of the first cent. bce. 4 introduction traditions.11 The provenance of scriptural Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls is supplemented by an apparent interest in the figure Jeremiah. The finds from Qumran included six copies of a previously unknown narrative/apocalyptic composition that features the prophet as a sort of national leader, a teacher, and a prophet with special insight into the future and the last days. These manuscripts have been assigned the title Apocryphon of Jeremiah c by the official editor,12 and are the primary representatives of a narrative/apocalyptic tradition for Jeremiah in the scrolls that included at least two additional compositions, the Apocrypha of Jeremiah a–b? (4Q383, 4Q384).13 One might expect that both the prophet and the book of Jeremiah would have loomed large in the imagination of the Yaḥad; he was after all the prophet who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple, he correctly predicted the exile, wrote prolifically, and was marginalised by his opponents in the Jerusalem priesthood. Perhaps most importantly, he was remembered in antiquity for his connexion that has practically dominated in modern times to the “new covenant” in Jer 31:31–34.14 Covenant renewal was an identifying feature occasionally applied by the Qumran Essenes to their own movement (cf. cd 6:19; 8:21; 20:12). These themes are all prominent within the literature of the Yaḥad, and yet, despite a smattering of explicit mentions, the sectarian compositions themselves appear to be nearly silent regarding the sixth cent. Hebrew prophet. There is an inconsistency in the available data drawn from the Dead Sea Scrolls concerning the provenance and prominence of the prophet and the book of Jeremiah. On the one hand, the presence of copies of scriptural Jere-

Cf. Torleif Elgvin and Kipp Davis, “ms 4612/9. 11Q(?)Jer (Jer 3.15–19),” in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artifacts from the Schøyen Collection (ed. Torleif Elgvin, et al.; lsts; London: T & T Clark, forthcoming). 11 Cf. the helpful brief summary of the scriptural Jeremiah manuscripts in George J. Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Jeremiah anditsReception (ed. A.H.W.Curtis and T. Römer; betl 128; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 183–205, 184–187. 12 Devorah Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, Volume 21: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-prophetic Texts (djd 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), has assigned 4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389, and 4Q390 to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. 13 Dimant, djd 30, 117–127, M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4. xiv, Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (djd 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 132–157. 14 The importance of the “new covenant” is especially strong in the New Testament, where Jer 31:31 is explicitly cited in Heb 8:6–13; cf. 7:22; 9:15; 10:16–17; also in the nt, Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; 2Cor 3:6–18. the enigmatic prophet jeremiah and his manifestations 5 miah, multiple copies of an extensive narrative work featuring Jeremiah, and the significant reference in the Damascus Document cited above all indicate some level of importance attached to either or both the figure and the book of Jeremiah for the Qumran sect at some point in its history. On the other hand, sporadic references in the sectarian literature would otherwise suggest that much reflexion on those things “Jeremianic” was of little consequence. In the most thorough treatment of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls to date, George J. Brooke concluded that “in the subsequent environment of the movement whose library the Qumran collection represents the book played no outstand- ing role, though some of its prophecies remained significant.”15 However, he nuanced this claim by noting that there is a stronger sense of Jeremiah’s influence in earlier texts that seems to have dissipated over time. The challenge here is to consolidate and account for this discrepancy: to uncover the solution for Jeremiah’s enigmatic appearance in the Admonition that plausibly reflects the presence, number, and distribution of scriptural and apocryphal traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A Marginal Prophet or a Prophet in the Margins? Adjusting Criteria and Methods for Assessing Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The purpose of this study is not primarily to determine the function of the book of Jeremiah in the Qumran literature. Rather, our goal is to locate and explain “Jeremianic traditions” that appear in the collection, and to ascertain their relationship (if any) to the historical and social development of the Yaḥad Essenes. Jeremianic traditions include any that are explicitly or implicitly rooted in the text of scriptural Jeremiah, or perhaps more importantly, those which reflect or echo characteristics or themes that may be directly connected to the Jeremiah persona that emerged in Second Temple Jewish literature. The presence of Jeremiah scriptures and other Jeremianic traditions in so-called “non-sectarian” texts attest to some level of regard for these traditions, at least among some from within the Qumran group. Nevertheless, the apparent limited handling of Jeremiah in the sectarian literature commonly assigned to the Yaḥad would seem to challenge this assumption. It will not do merely to acknowledge the presence of the Jeremianic traditions in the whole collection without at least attempting to offer some sort of account for their presence and relationship to the more narrowly confined sectarian

15 Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah,” 204. 6 introduction literature, and their place in the Qumran Cave 4 manuscripts.16 If there is a detectable stream of Jeremianic traditions within the texts and the overall collection, then there are quite plausibly some observable unifying principles that underlie the use of the Jeremiah scriptures and the function of Jeremiah the prophet. The task at hand is to attempt to uncover and to explain the presence of Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the paucity of explicit references and quotations of Jeremiah presents a significant challenge. The passage from cd 8:16–20 can be taken as a microcosm for the problem: Jeremiah’s words—which are recalled, but not necessarily quoted—are endowed with authority that seems to hinge on his vaunted reputation, but their precise contents are ambivalent.17 The reference to things said by two Hebrew prophets, Jeremiah and Elisha, suggests that there is a contrast being made here in their reception by their closest followers, Baruch and Gehazi. Even without specific knowledge about the contents of what was said, we can reasonably infer that the prophetic distinction of the speakers was intended to convey a special assurance for their hearers regarding their own legitimacy. For most of the Jeremianic traditions in the scrolls, these do not necessarily operate on the same sort of scribalised plane of authority as some of the more dominant scriptures and traditions at Qumran. For example, compared to the 16 instances of citation formulae used with quotations from the book of Isaiah

16 It is perhaps noteworthy that virtually all of the Jeremianic traditions surveyed in this study appear in texts from Cave 4 and the Hodayot, which was extant in Cave 1 as well as seven copies in Cave 4. No single ms. from any of the other caves appears to have contained much of any Jeremianic material except for a minute, papyrus scrap of the Greek text of EpJer 43–44 from Cave 7—although the fact that all the mss in this cave were written in Greek suggests that this was possibly a specialised collection. This may be significant given the distribution of scriptural Jeremiah exclusively between one copy in Cave 2, and five copies in Cave 4. 17 Cf. Ben Zion Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatologi- cal Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation, and Commentary (stdj 56; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 243–244. This reflects an intriguing component to how Wacholder , רמארשא ל … ,understands this passage, by drawing attention to the verbal construction which he believes to be a specific formula for recalling “general statements” distinct from textual citations. The evidence for the variety of methods for textual citations in cd— which includes the formula mentioned, does not seem to support his assertion (cf. e.g. 9:7–8). Nevertheless, Wacholder’s instincts are likely partially correct, in that the combination of statements made by Jeremiah and Elisha in this instance were not textually significant by virtue of the connexion made here between them, since Elisha, at least, was never among the “writing” prophets. the enigmatic prophet jeremiah and his manifestations 7 in the Qumran scrolls,18 there is only one such marked citation from Jeremiah in 4Q182 1 4. Where Isaiah boasts six continuous pesharim, there are none for Jeremiah. Because the Jeremianic pericopae are often not obvious from explicit usages of scriptural Jeremiah, they have tended to escape the notice of modern observers. More importantly, the characteristically more implicit Jeremianic traditions at Qumran have also possibly been neglected for their cohesive function and contribution to the ideology and history of the Yaḥad movement. How do we go about locating the Jeremianic traditions themselves? Tradi- tional methods for reading the relevant texts and mining them exegetically as exclusively textual products have failed to uncover much of their real significance. Jeremiah’s persona and influence appear in the scrolls silhouetted in the margins; his features discernible, yet their details obscured. Most of the Jeremianic traditions conform in varying degrees to the classification of “rewritten Bible,” and much like the implicit construction of these types of texts, the purpose and function for the Jeremianic traditions is equally implicit. In order to fully appreciate the subtleties in their use, two governing principles will be applied to this investigation. First, while the rather broad category of rewritten Bible is useful in helping to isolate some of the Jeremianic traditions discussed in the following pages, current and on-going debates about this Second Temple scribal phenomenon do little to advance our understanding of why certain of these traditions were developed and transmitted almost exclusively according to this form. Rewritten Bible is a good starting point, and this study will proceed on the premise that the implicit nature of the Jeremianic traditions presents a crucial link to their origin and function. Second, the Jeremianic traditions are neither generically consistent nor are they handled or interpreted according to the same exegetical presuppositions or techniques. Because of this, they should be evaluated primarily on the basis of whatever it is that draws them together beyond their parent textual bases. In other words, if the authoritative employment and function of Jeremianic traditions does not appear grounded in the text of scriptural Jeremiah, it rather may be located within the character or persona of the prophet behind the text. We can fairly clearly see that the employment of Jeremiah in cd 8:16–20 depends greatly upon his reputation as a device for conferring authority. His

18 Cf. Peter W. Flint, “The Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah in the Qumran Scrolls: Quota- tions, Citations, Allusions, and Diachronic Implications,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (ed. Eric F. Mason et al.; 2 vols.; JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1: 389–406, 396–397. 8 introduction relationship to Baruch as a prophetic mentor is contrasted with that of Elisha to Gehazi, and the message conveyed helps to affirm the recipients’ standing as members of the “new covenant.” Jeremiah’s reputation, then, will serve as an alternative “lens” for reading and interpreting the Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. His own persona as a prophet, a leader, and a teacher of the Torah will form the primary basis for discerning how and why Jeremiah was significant. An obvious place to begin an investigation of Jeremiah’s reputation is in those texts in which his reputation appears to be most prominent. I refer here to the ApocryphonofJeremiahc, and to the ApocryphaofJeremiaha–b?. Curiously, while these compositions have been the subject of some scholarly discussion, to this point they have been practically ignored for their contribution to the study of Jeremiah more generally in the Qumran scrolls, including their own place relative to the sectarian literature. If we are to gain a comprehensive perspective of the Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls, then naturally these Apocrypha19 will have much to offer. Unfortunately, the Apocrypha a– b? are highly fragmentary, and their contribution to this discussion of Qumran Jeremianic traditions is impeded by their poor preservation. On the other hand, the Apocryphon c survives in multiple, overlapping copies, several of which have preserved whole pericopae, and even nearly complete columns. Our ability to more confidently reconstruct this text makes it a superior witness, and it will form the basis for the following investigation. The Apocryphon c is founded almost exclusively upon the figure Jeremiah, and it seems to subsist apart from the actual text of the book of Jeremiah. In other words, it draws authority from the reputation of Jeremiah, and from widely disseminated ideas of who he was. This collection seems otherwise to be not much concerned with the specific content of the many prophecies and oracles already attributed to him. The contribution of the Apocryphon c to the leadership myth and authority structures that developed around this figure more widely in the Qumran scrolls has suffered neglect, in large part for the failure of scholars to recognise the reputational links that exist between this composition and the Jeremianic traditions elsewhere in the collection.

19 For the purposes of this study, the texts featured will be distinguished from one another more simply as “Apocryphon a” (4Q383), “Apocryphon b” (4Q384), or “Apocryphon c” (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389). The designation of 4Q390 remains disputed, but is included as a witness to streams of tradition within the Apocryphon c, and is occasionally included with this composition under the more general designation “the Apoc- ryphon.” the enigmatic prophet jeremiah and his manifestations 9

The Apocryphon c belongs to a larger group of Jeremianic traditions from Second Temple Judaism, which includes whole compositions in the Epistle of Jeremiah and 1Baruch, clear references and supplements in Chronicles, Daniel, 2Maccabees, 픊 Lamentations, Ben Sira, and Lives of the Prophets, and a smattering of echoes and allusions in Deutero-Isaiah, Susanna, and the New Tes- tament.20 These were employed, rewritten and adapted to an assortment of different situations and in different ways in an effort to draw from the figure of Jeremiah idealised templates for prophecy, leadership and national survival in the imperial world, and institutional support. In a similar vein to these largely implicit traditions, the Apocryphon c functioned at various points in the history of the Yaḥad Essene movement to reflect their own thoughts with regards to prophecy, the Jerusalem temple institution, their own history, and conceptions of leadership. In conjunction with a selection of other intriguing echoes of the Jeremiah persona elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, this composition presents an important piece for tracing history from the early stages of the sectarian movement, its emergence and self-conception, and the development of its leadership structures.

20 The most exhaustive treatment of the use and interpretation of scriptural Jeremiah in post-exilic Judaism is still Christian Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (tugal 118; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976). The first part of Wolff’s study is committed to the “figure” Jeremiah in early Judaism and formative period of Christianity, and divides the sources into three groups: 1) Jeremiah in the Old Testament outside of the book of Jeremiah surveys pericopae in 2Chron 35–36; 2) Instances directly dependent upon the book of Jeremiah from outside and in “post-biblical” Judaism include Sir 49:6, lab 56:6, and Josephus; 3) Independent traditions that are influenced by the book of Jeremiah from outside and in “post-biblical” Judaism survey Eupolemos, 2Macc 15:12–16, 2Macc 1:10ff., Matt 16:14, 2Baruch, LivesoftheProphets, and “Jeremia-Schriften” which appear in the form of more detailed, narrative accounts (p. 44). This final category includes Paraleipomena of Jeremiah (4Baruch), and two works from the third and fourth cent. ce Syrian Church, the “Syriac Jeremiah Apocryphon,” and the Cave of Treasures 50:24ff. His very thorough study did not have the advantage of access to all of the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and scholarly developments in discussions about the shape and interpretation of scripture that have accompanied their publication. On the Cave of Treasures, cf. most recently Alexander Toepel’s new translation in Richard Bauckham, James Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Mich: 2013), 531–584. 10 introduction

Chapter Synopsis

This study will plot the pursuit of the Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the following five chapters. In Chapter One, it is necessary to begin with a discussion about the phenomenon of “rewritten Bible,” and its suitabil- ity as a classificatory devise for describing the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. First, a brief overview of the history of the employment of this term will help to show that previous attempts to read the Apocryphon c that prioritise its grounding in earlier, authoritative scripture do not do justice to the quality of Jeremiah’s prophetic persona, which must be regarded as an essential component of this text. Jeremiah’s reputation as a prophet requires us to explore the perception of prophets and prophecy in Second Temple Judaism. In this second part of the chapter, I will argue that the transformation of prophecy after the Babylo- nian exile from an oracular to a scribal medium, and the emergence of scripture interpretation as a prophetic medium help to shift our thinking about the Apoc- ryphon c: it is not a rewritten Bible text, but rather a new revelation grounded in Jeremiah’s prophetic reputation. In the third section, I shall introduce briefly the study of collective memory theory, and various sociological studies of “reputation” that have proceeded from it as a method for identifying and tracing the development of Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with the Apoc- ryphon c at the centre. Chapter Two is the first of two chapters committed to a comprehensive appraisal of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first of these is a rehearsal of the history of scholarship for the Apocryphon c, a text with a troubled past punctuated by on-going uncertainty regarding its identity and the placement of various of its fragments. Determin- ing the limits of the composition is necessary to gain an accurate understanding of what this text is and how it grew and functioned in antiquity. The second part consists of a thorough discussion of the fragments that were assigned to the most extensively preserved copy of the Apocryphon c, 4QApocrJer ca (4Q385a). The challenges presented by the reconstruction of the Apocryphon c are discussed by way of this manuscript in conversation with the overlapping witnesses, 4Q387, 4Q388a and 4Q389, for how they contribute to a more precise, holistic view of the composition, with particularly close attention paid to uncovering a continuity of themes and ideas throughout. This investigation will provide a robust, physical analysis of all the fragments from 4Q385a, and will attempt to place them sequentially according to their material and distant joins, and taking into careful consideration the various overlaps supplied by the other witnesses. Through the course of these exercises I hope to construct a more detailed synthesis of the fragments, and to test the merits of the synop- the enigmatic prophet jeremiah and his manifestations 11 sis of the Apocryphon c that was originally formulated by Dimant in the editio princeps.21 Chapter Three is an extension of the preliminary work performed in Chapter Two, and consists of a new transcription and translation of the most clearly identifiable fragments assigned to 4QApocrJer ca (4Q385a), along with textual notes and commentary. New transcriptions, notes, and comments for the most pertinent and overlapping fragments from the other Apocryphon c witnesses are featured in the following section. These include a possible introduction to the historical text in 4Q389 frg. 1, and what I have designated the “Second Temple Apocalypse” in 4Q387 frgs. 1, 2 i–iii, and 3; 4Q388a frgs. 3 and 7 ii; and 4Q389 frg. 8 ii. Following this I will offer a detailed, alternative synopsis for the text, which illustrates the shape and purpose of the Apocryphon c with special attention paid to the amalgamation of important and recurring ideas and themes for the whole composition. Establishing an accurate construction of this text provides a foundation for correctly identifying the feature of the Jeremiah persona that informs other Jeremianic traditions as they appear in the Qumran literature. Chapter Four contains a comprehensive evaluation of 4Q390: a text that Dimant has assigned to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c; a decision that has been met by convincing arguments from several other scholars for reading it as a separate composition altogether. In the first part, following a brief discussion of the highly fragmentary and less significant Jeremiah apocrypha from Qumran (4Q383, 4Q384, and 4Q387a), I will explore the rationale for separating 4Q390 from the Apocryphon c on the basis of its material remains, some of its grammatical features, and a careful consideration of the variances in ideology and history that appear to distinguish it. It will be argued that while 4Q390 and the Apocryphon c are clearly separate compositions, the two texts share a close, structural compatibility that suggests a strong relationship between them, and perhaps a common source for the Second Temple Apocalypse (Apocalypse i) that appears in overlapping fragments of the Apocryphon c. The second part of this chapter consists of a transcription and translation of 4Q390, a “Second Temple Apocalypse Redux” (Apocalypse ii) with textual notes and comments, but presented in parallel to the complementary section of the Apocryphon c.I will argue for reading 4Q390 as a sort of historical, ideological pastiche of Apoc- alypse i in the Apocryphon c that retains some echoes of Jeremianic authority.

21 Devorah Dimant, djd 30, 99–100. 12 introduction

Chapter Five will proceed from the extensive treatment of the Apocryphon manuscripts—including the closely related 4Q390, and will attempt to address the presence and effect of Jeremianic traditions more broadly in the Qumran scrolls in two principle parts. In the first section, I shall return to a comparison between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 in an effort to assess the presentation of the prophet Jeremiah, and how his persona imbued and developed in the transmission of their shared streams of traditions. I shall consider the impact of the prophetic persona of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon c and his presentation as an idealised national leader, the dynamic, symbolic interchange between the two principle locales “Egypt” and “Babylon,” and the influence of the book of Deuteronomy and its various interpretations in Apocalypse i–ii. This will help to lay the groundwork for investigating the Jeremianic traditions and the extent of Jeremiah’s prophetic persona as an authorising feature throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. The second section will move from the Apocryphon texts to consider the impact of the prophet Jeremiah’s persona in the wider realm of Qumran sectarian literature. I will examine various traditions as they appear in the Dam- ascus Document, in 4QCatena a–b (4Q177, 4Q182), the Hodayot, and in the enigmatic 4QText Mentioning Zedekiah (4Q470) in an effort to show how these texts elucidate the presentation of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon c, as an ideal prophet and a national leader for communities struggling with imperial rule during times of perceived exile. Following this, I will examine literary parallels between 4Q390, the “Admonition” in cd and portions of Jubilees, along with Pseudo-Daniel a (4Q243–4Q244). This comparison shows how all of these compositions depend on a complementary “origins myth” that is rooted in a Jeremi- anic tradition, and most explicitly developed in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. Conclusions will be drawn from this investigation to gain a more comprehensive and realistic picture of the perception of the prophet Jeremiah, scriptural Jeremiah, and the influence of his prophetic persona in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Moreover, it is believed that this study will have significant implications for the topics of rewritten Bible, scripture and authority in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that its findings are more broadly applied to Second Temple Judaism. It has been over thirty-five years since the publication of Christian Wolff’s study of Jeremiah in early Judaism,22 and a more comprehensive treatment of the Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls should offer substantial room for supplementation to his impressive survey. This study will also make contributions to the study of the textual and ideological development of the Yaḥad

22 Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum, cf. n. 20 above. the enigmatic prophet jeremiah and his manifestations 13

Essene movement, their self-understanding, and the sectarian nature of this group. At the end of this study I will offer some thoughts and questions for further exploration, especially pertaining to the scriptural Jeremiah scrolls at Qumran, the development of the book of Jeremiah, and the relationship of the Jeremianic traditions to other so-called “paraprophetic” narrative texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. chapter 1 From Rewritten Bible to Reputation: A Fresh Methodological Approach to Appropriating Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

There are six copies of scriptural Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,1 along with a loosely defined inventory of quotations, allusions and echoes of Jeremiah in the sectarian literature. However, in the absence of any Jeremiah pesharim, and given the paucity of direct citations of scriptural Jeremiah in the scrolls— especially compared with widely cited Isaiah, the Psalms, or Deuteronomy— the process for both analysing and situating the Jeremianic traditions becomes complicated. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah c (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389) is well represented within the Qumran scrolls,2 but this presents a bit of a contradiction with the comparatively sparse manuscript evidence and a seemingly lower interest in scriptural Jeremiah within the same collection. Because of this apparent inconsistency it becomes at the outset difficult if not impossible to locate any sort of meaningful continuity with regard to the Jeremianic traditions, when considered at a conventionally, primary textual level. Attempts to uncover the purpose and function of these traditions ultimately fail when Jeremianic authority is constrained in a purely literary analysis, without much consideration for how the prophet’s persona, or reputation, might have served as a galvanising feature for these traditions. I submit that part of the problem with understanding Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the past is largely a generic one: because the primary witnesses in the Apoc- ryphon of Jeremiah c have been classified as “parabiblical”3 there is a tendency

1 2QJer (2Q13) in Maurice Baillet, J.T. Milik and Roland de Vaux, eds., Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân (djd 3; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 62–69. 4QJera (4Q70), 4QJerb (4Q71), 4QJerc (4Q72), 4QJerd (4Q72a), and 4QJere (4Q72b) in E. Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4.x: The Prophets (djd 15; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 145–207. 2 Dimant, djd 30, 93 includes 4Q390 as another copy of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, but this designation has been challenged by a number of scholars on the basis of the absence of any textual overlaps with any of the other copies. Cf. discussion in Chapter Two, section 2.2.3. Cana Werman et al., 4Q390 and Pseudo-Moses Revisited. 3 According to the ambitious taxonomic inventory of Qumran scrolls in A. Lange with U. Mitt- mann-Richert, “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert Classified by Content and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278448_003 from rewritten bible to reputation 15 to appreciate them exclusively in terms of how they functioned exegetically, in their treatment and relationship to other texts. Ironically, perhaps this concentration on the writtenness of so-called “rewritten Bible” actually serves to diminish the value and purpose of many of these compositions that stems from their connexion to important events and figures from Israel’s memory. Despite efforts to distinguish certain texts by virtue of their dependency upon prominent biblical themes, significant events or characters,4 careful study of most of these so-called “parabiblical” compositions rarely escape textualised, exegetical treatments. In what follows, I shall consider the appropriateness of the designation “rewritten Bible” to describe the Apocryphon c, and will proceed to discuss alternative methods for reading the Apocryphon c that focus more attention on the prophet Jeremiah’s persona, his distinction as a renowned “founder,” and as a revered prophet.

1.1 Is the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c a “Rewritten Bible” Text?

The Apocryphon of Jeremiah c has been commonly referred to as a type of “rewritten Bible” composition, similar to other elaborate and expansive scrip- turally based narratives. George J. Brooke, for one, saw the Apocryphon c to fit his definition of rewritten Bible as “any representation of an authoritative scriptural text that implicitly incorporates interpretive elements, large or small, in the retelling itself.”5 On the basis of this definition, Brooke has classified the Apocryphon c as a sort of “parabiblical prophetic narrative”: a composition that drew from the life and times of Jeremiah preserved in scripture, and which seemed to indicate for the Qumran sectarians an on-going interest in older

Genre,” in djd 39, 115–164, 126–127, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah texts are designated “parabiblical.” This is a broadly defined generic distinction which the editors construe as “a form of scriptural revelation comparable to the phenomenon of literary prophecy” (p. 117). Cf. also George J. Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter W.Flint and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999), 1: 271–301. 4 Cf. Sidnie White Crawford, “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts,” in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; N. Richland Hills, Tex.: Bibal, 2000), 173–195. 5 George Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L.H. Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2: 777–781, 777. 16 chapter 1

“prophetic traditions.”6 However, there is some uncertainty as to which texts might have formed the base for a composition like the Apocryphon c, and as such, it does not so easily conform to this classification. Consider an alternative definition forwarded by Sidnie White Crawford for those texts that she prefers to refer to as “rewritten scripture”: “A category or group of texts, which are characterised by a close adherence to a recognisable and already authoritative base text (narrative or legal), and a recognisable degree of scribal intervention into that base text for the purpose of exegesis.”7 If there is an “authoritative base text” or “authoritative scriptural text” that has informed the Apocryphon c, it is not obvious, and this seriously complicates its classification as rewritten Bible, at least as far as we have come to understand the term. This problem of classification is a product of the flexibility and ambiguity in how rewritten Bible emerged, and how it has come to be understood in contemporary scholarship. The terminological confusion that has developed since Geza Vermes introduced “rewritten Bible” in 1961 precipitated another issue, which stems from his attempt to group these texts as a sort of literary genre.8 For Vermes, rewritten Bible texts were any that exhibited a “close attachment, in narrative and themes, to some book contained in the present Jewish canon of scripture, and some type of reworking, whether through rearrangement, conflation, or supplementation of the canonical biblical text.”9 He was working from the theory of his colleague at the University of Paris, Renée Bloch, who had previously argued persuasively for considering the rabbinic midrashim as products of an ancient form of scripture transmission, that at one time produced

6 Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives,” esp. 278–285, 288–229. 7 Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scriptures in Second Temple Times (sdssrl; Grand Ra- pids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 12–13. To this discussion must now be included Molly M. Zahn’s insightful summary of the issues pertaining to rewritten Bible in “Rewritten Scrip- ture,” in Lim and Collins, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 323–336, as well as her new monograph, idem, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exe- gesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (stdj 95; Leiden: Brill, 2012), esp. 7– 12. 8 Geza Vermes. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961). 9 Vermes, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” Eretz-Israel 20 (1989): 184–191, 185–186; cf. also idem, “The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Jewish Studies during the Last Twenty-Five Years,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (ed. W.S. Green; bjs 1; Mis- soula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 201–214, 210. from rewritten bible to reputation 17 scriptural works like Deuteronomy and Chronicles through an extensive programme of rewriting and implicit interpretation.10 Vermes saw a close relationship between the literary and exegetical techniques in these scriptural texts and the much later products of rabbinic midrash, and concluded that “rewritten Bible” effectively described the same activity for a variety of other Second Tem- ple Jewish compositions.11 Others have attempted to clarify or refine Vermes’s category, in an effort to explain the exegetical activity in an increasing number of “rediscovered” ancient texts.12 Philip S. Alexander, for one, sought to provide for a more meaningful description of the term according to a set of nine char-

10 Renée Bloch. “Midrash,” Supplément au Dictionnaire de le Bible, Volume 5 (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1952), 1263–1281; idem, “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la littéra- ture rabbinique,”rsr 43 (1955): 194–227. 11 Vermes, “Biblical Midrash,” The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: A New English Version, Volume 3.1 (ed. Emil Schürer; Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar; revd. edn.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 308–341, esp. 321. 12 Vermes and Bloch were both instrumental in focusing scholarly attention on the enor- mous collection of rabbinical, haggadic literature and Christian and Jewish Pseudepi- grapha, which contained ancient Jewish traditions that in many cases traced back to the Second Temple period. The most ambitious, previous attempt to assess these traditions historically was undertaken by Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadel- phia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938). Ginzberg’s work built upon the studies of Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaïten (2 vols. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner, 1890–1903); idem, Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer (3 vols. Strassburg: K.J. Trüb- ner, 1892–1899); idem, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (2 vols. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899–1905). He was indirectly influenced by Leopold Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: ein Beitrag zur Alterthums- kunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: A. Asher, 1832); idem, Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin: Verlag von Veit und Comp, 1845), and Abra- ham Geiger Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte von der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels biszumEndedeszwölftenJahrhunderts.InzwölfVorlesungen.NebsteinemAnhange:Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Professor Dr. Holtzmann (3 vols. Breslau: Schlechter, 1865–1871). Cf. also other notable studies by Solomon Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Veröffenttlichungen der Oberrabbiner Dr. H.P. Chajes-Preisstiftung an der Israelitisch- theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien. Wien: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930), who argued for the roots of Josephus’s interpretive methodology in haggadic literature. Also the work of André Robert in tracing the origins of midrash to the post-exilic period, “Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov 1–9,”rb 43 (1934): 42–68, 172–204; 44 (1935): 344– 365, 374–384, 502–525, and the studies and lectures by Paul Kahle on the Cairo Geniza, e.g. The Cairo Geniza (2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959). 18 chapter 1 acteristics.13 Emanuel Tov,14 Michael Segal,15 and Moshe Bernstein16 have each provided working definitions for rewritten Bible, all on the premise that this group of texts is most helpfully understood as a literary genre. For all of them, a sharp divide exists between any text classified as “rewritten Bible” and biblical texts from which they proceed.17 Bernstein in particular sees the employment of this term on a set of universally agreed upon criteria as essential “in order to achieve greater methodological precision in our work on the ways in which the Bible is transmitted, translated, retold, and interpreted in early Judaism.”18

13 Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scrip- ture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ssf (ed. D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson; Cambridge, 1988) 99–121, esp. 116–118. Alexander’s nine characteristics which he used to define “rewritten Bible” are summarised as follows: 1) Rewritten Bible texts are narrative, and chronologically sequential; 2) they seek to “replicate” the biblical text through seamless retellings which make no effort to highlight their sources; 3) they are self-sufficient literary works, not intended to replace or supersede their progenitors; 4) rewritten Bible texts are substantial in their breadth and depth of episodic retelling; 5) they are sequential yet selective in what they represent; 6) they are intended to comment and provide implicit interpretation to sacred narrative in a “fuller, smoother, and doctrinally more advanced” fashion; 7) they treat original sources as “mono-valent”; 8) they make use of a midrashic method to solve obscurities and inconsistencies in an implicit manner; 9) rewritten Bible texts depend upon sacred narrative, but with the appendages of non-biblical sources present a synthesis of whole traditions: “They seek to draw out the sense of scripture and to solve its problems, and at the same time to read non-biblical material into scripture, thereby validating it and preventing the fragmentation of the tradition” (p. 118). 14 Emanuel Tov, “Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with special attention to 4QRP and 4QparaGen-Exod,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam; cja 10; South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 111–136, 113. 15 Michael Segal, “‘4QReworked Pentateuch’ or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery 1947–1997. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in Cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 391–399; idem, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze; sdssrl; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28. 16 Moshe Bernstein, “Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Fea- tures in the Genesis Apocryphon,” dsd 3 (1996): 37–57, 38–39; idem, “Pentateuchal Inter- pretation at Qumran,” in Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years 1: 128–159, 148–149; idem, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which has Outlived its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–196, 174, 195. 17 Cf. esp. Tov, “Biblical Texts as Reworked,” 112. 18 Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 175. from rewritten bible to reputation 19

His own definition for what texts should be characterised as rewritten Bible are those that exhibited “comprehensive or broad scope rewriting of narrative and/or legal material with commentary woven into the fabric implicitly, but perhaps not merely a biblical text with some superimposed exegesis.”19 Bernstein’s efforts to retain the distinction of rewritten Bible texts from what are now more commonly understood to be biblical texts, and his insistence upon arriving at a generic definition may be construed as an anachronistically derived apologetic for the enterprise of modern, biblical scholarship. Some scholars have come to consider such rigid distinctions and generic limits to be artificial, untenable, and not helpful for describing the actual process of textual transmission that was taking place in the construction of so many new “scripture-like” compositions in the Second Temple period. Yigael Yadin’s publication of the Temple Scroll in 1976, which he also published in English in 1983,20 and his cautious endorsement of this massive text as “a veritable Torah of the Lord,”21 shifted the discussion of rewritten Bible away from matters of genre and scriptural interpretation squarely into the realm of scripture transmission and prophecy.22 His work was influential, and in a wide-ranging, programmatic survey by George W.E. Nickelsburg, rewritten Bible was presented as a scribal and exegetical technique exemplified through “writings and traditions of diverse genre and date.”23 It had become clear at the time of Nickelsburg’s publication that while much of this literature within the Qumran library remained regret- tably inaccessible, it was clearly significant.24 Nickelsburg sensed, even in the absence of so much material from Qumran, that attempting to define rewritten Bible in terms of a genre was ill conceived given the generic variety even in

19 Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 195, emph. orig. 20 Yigael Yadin, TheTempleScroll (3 vols.; English trans.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983). Cf. also his short, preliminary survey in idem, “The Temple Scroll,” ba 30 (1967): 135–139. 21 Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1: 392. 22 Yadin avoided describing the Temple Scroll as rewritten Bible. Nevertheless, he seemed to understand it as similar for its treatment of scriptural halakha as either 1) pseudepigraphic re-presentation, 2) merging commands on the same subject, or 3) harmonisation of duplicate commands (Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1: 71–75). In contrast to Vermes, Yadin considered the Temple Scroll as equal in status to the other writings of the Torah through which its framers legitimated their own halakhot (cf. e.g. 1: 228–235, and pp. 272–275). 23 George Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone; crint 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 89–156, 90. 24 Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 107. 20 chapter 1 those texts that were known.25 Instead of defining rewritten Bible, Nickelsburg simply declared that any implicit interpretation of biblical traditions through any employment of paraphrasing, retelling, or supplementation might qualify as part of this imprecise scribal phenomenon.26 Building on the work of Nickelsburg, some scholars drew their attention back to similarities in the rewritten Bible texts and many of the later compositions in the Hebrew Bible, which prompted the developing sense that rewritten Bible had much to do with scribal practices in the transmission of scriptural texts. First, Daniel J. Harrington and Maurya P. Horgan argued that the only element common to these sorts of texts was evident in their adaptability.27Second, Michael Fishbane demonstrated that the features of what he called “inner- biblical interpretation” mirrored those in rewritten Bible, and these provided even greater clarity to the relationship between rewriting and scripture transmission, particularly in the Second Temple period.28 Third, George J. Brooke then directed the discussion of rewritten Bible away from genre and into matters of scribal activity.29 In the pluriform nature of rewriting that extends across a wide variety of scriptural works, Brooke recognised rewritten Bible as “a general umbrella term describing the particular kind of intertextual activity that always gives priority to one text over another.”30 Around the same time that Nickelsburg and Harrington were challenging the generic distinction of rewritten Bible, the rapid publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls had begun to have a dramatic effect on scholarly concepts about the shape and development of “scripture” in Second Temple Judaism. Shemaryahu

25 Cf. also observations by George J. Brooke, “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible, and Pesher,” dsd 17 (2010): 332–357, 341–342, 349–350 that further call into question the usefulness of “genre” as an apt description for what takes place in rewritten Bible texts. He notes that literary genres are unstable and prone to necessary and frequent change by the inclusion of any given composition: “The participation of such texts in the definition of the genre changes it so that it even becomes unclear if some of the other texts previously or originally assigned to the genre should remain as part of it” (p. 342). 26 Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 130. 27 Daniel J. Harrington, “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives: The Bible Rewrit- ten,” and Maurya P. Horgan, “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Prophecies: The Bible Explained,” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nick- elsburg; bmi 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 239–255. 28 Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Clarendon: Oxford, 1985). Cf. 4–5, 7–13. 29 Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 777. 30 Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 781. from rewritten bible to reputation 21

Talmon,31 Emanuel Tov,32 and Eugene Ulrich33 have all made significant contributions to the pioneering efforts of W.F. Albright34 and Frank Moore Cross,35 and their theory of locally produced text types or versions. In place of the tidy textual family groupings that situated the Masoretic Text (픐) in Babylon, the Septuagint (픊) in Alexandria, and the Samaritan Pentateuch (⅏) in Palestine, the evidence from Qumran rather suggested a network of “textual multiplicity” that could not be explained exclusively by geographical separation. Rather, the existence of an unknown number of versions of individual books of scripture appear to have been interconnected at various points, in such a way that there is little hope of recovering an Urtext—theoretical or otherwise—at the beginning of textual production.36 Theories regarding scriptural production and trans-

31 Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Old Testament Text,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. F.M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 1–41; repr. from The Cambridge History of the Bible 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome (ed. P.R. Ack- royd and C.F. Evans; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970) 159–199, 39–41. Cf. also idem, “The Transmission and History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Bib- lical Manuscripts from Qumran and Other Sites in the Judean Desert,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 40–50; idem, “The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook,” in Cross and Talmon, eds., Qumran and the History, 321–400. 32 Emanuel Tov, The Text Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981); idem, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism,” in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic–Roman Period (ed. S. Talmon; JSPSup 10; Sheffield: jsot, 1991), 107–137; idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Min- neapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992; 2nd revd. edn.; Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 2001); idem, “Scribal Practices Reflected in the Documents from the Judean Desert and in the Rabbinic Literature: A Comparative Study,” in Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Trib- ute to Menahem Haran (ed. M.V. Fox; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 383–403. 33 Eugene Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. (ed. Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks; stdj 20; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 78–105; idem, “Horizons of Old Testament Textual Research at the Thirtieth Anniversary of Qumran Cave 4,” cbq 46 (1984): 613–636; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, 1:79–100. 34 W.F. Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” basor 140 (1955): 27–33. 35 F.M. Cross, “The Contribution of the Qumrân Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text,” iej 16 (1966): 81–95. 36 Cf. Tov, Textual Criticism, 160–163. Tov more recently has argued that the seemingly dom- 22 chapter 1 mission have progressively become more acutely aware of the complex phenomena of the sociological relationship between communities, scribes, and texts, which likely overlapped with production for a variety of forms of rewritten Bible.37 Brooke, for one, has provided a helpful discussion of the various features observed in the practice of rewriting scripture and their social reality, and how these reveal to varying degrees an authoritative interdependency between base texts and their reworkings.38 These new perspectives regarding the development of scripture in the Sec- ond Temple period prompted the introduction of supplemental terminology that more effectively described what scholars observed in their various conceptions of rewritten Bible, but with closer attention to the process of scripture transmission. In part, this stemmed from a desire to ensure that rewritten Bible continued to function as a meaningful classificatory device, but this in- clination also recognised that the boundaries between scripture and its interpretation in Second Temple Judaism were becoming more difficult to pinpoint with much accuracy. Generally speaking, texts that in one way or another are loosely related to events or themes from pre-existing scriptural texts, but lack- ing an extensive dependence upon them, have been re-classified as “parabi-

inant position of 픐 from the third cent. bce onward is an accident of sociological development whereby the groups that used other editions of texts merely ceased to exist; Tov, “Reflections on the Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture in Light of the lxx and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” Shnaton 18 (2008): 133–148 (Heb.). Cf. also his most recent edition of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 174–180. Only a handful of scholars still hold to the idea of an actual Urtext for each Hebrew Bible book, cf. e.g., Bruce K. Waltke, “How We Got the Bible: The Text and Canon of the Old Testament,” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (ed. Peter W. Flint; sdssrl; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 27–50. The theoretical commitment to an Urtext possibly informs the method behind the eclectic Hebrew Bible edition in the Oxford Hebrew Bible project. Cf. Ronald Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Pro- logue to a New Critical Edition,” vt 58 (2008): 324–351. 37 Cf. most recently Steve Delamarter, “Shemaryahu Talmon and His Sociological Models for Understanding the Community at Qumran: Including an appendix with email responses from Dr. Talmon,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Region of the sbl. Moscow, Idaho., 25–27 April, 2003, esp. 21. My thanks to Prof. Delamarter for providing me with a copy of this essay. 38 Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible at Qumran in the Context of Second Temple Judaism: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 15–17 January, 2002 (ed. E.G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R.A. Clements; stdj 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104. from rewritten bible to reputation 23 blical.”39 The inclusion of a large number of texts that now conform to this description and a growing sense of the nearly impossible distinction that is created between “scripture” and “rewritten” has led to the use of the terms “rewritten Bible,” and/or “parabiblical” on a spectrum of degrees of rewriting.40 Sidnie White Crawford and Daniel K. Falk41 have published on the subject of rewritten Bible, and both have approached the topic in terms of how closely any given text may reflect its authoritative parent text. White Crawford has distinguished between “rewritten Bible” and “parabiblical” texts as types of “rewritten scriptures,” but all with the single distinction that they exhibit adherence to a recognisable base text, along with a recognisable degree of scribal intervention for the purpose of exegesis.42 She has characterised “parabiblical texts” specifically as those that “use a passage, event, or character from a scriptural work as a ‘jumping off’ point to create a new narrative work.”43 Falk posits that the “para-

39 Cf. Emanuel Tov, “Forward,” in H. Attridge et al., eds., in consultation with J. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4: viii, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (djd 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), ix. In the Dead Sea Scrolls Reader edited by Tov and Donald Parry, an entire volume is dedicated to “parabiblical texts,” which are defined as “a wide variety of compositions connected in some way or other to texts (books) and themes in Hebrew Scripture.” Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 3: Parabiblical Texts (6 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2005), xxiii. The editors have divided their collection into five very broad categories to include, “(A) Rewritten Bible”: the Genesis Apocryphon, 4QDiscourse on Exodus/Conquest Tradition, Jubilees, Apocryphon of Moses, pseudo-Jubilees, Apocryphal Pentateuch a, the Temple Scroll, Reworked Pentateuch, Apocryphon of Joshua, 4QVision of Samuel, Pseudo- Ezekiel, and Prayer of Enosh; “(b) Narratives Based on Biblical Themes”: Birth of Noah, and the Aramaic Levi Document; “(c) Testaments”: Testament of Jacob, Testament of Judah, Tes- tament of Benjamin, Visions of Amram, and 4QApocryphon of Levi? ar; “(d) Texts of Mixed Genre”: Book of Watchers, Book of Giants, Astronomical Enoch, Book of Dreams, Letter of Enoch, Naphtali, Testament of Joseph, Testament of Qohath; “(e) Unclassified Fragmentary Texts,” includes sixteen such fragmentary compositions. The term “parabiblical” was first suggested by Sidnie White Crawford as distinct from rewritten Bible in “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran,” 174. 40 E.g. George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E.D. Herbert and E. Tov; London and New Castle: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 2002) 31–40, 37. 41 Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (cqs / lsts 63; London: T & T Clark, 2007). 42 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 13–14. 43 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 14: Examples of these texts include 1Enoch, the Pseudo-Ezekiel texts from Qumran Cave 4, Vita Adae et Eva and Joseph and Aseneth. White Crawford locates the texts in her study from one end of the spectrum—closest 24 chapter 1 biblical” texts are the product of varying strategies for extending scripture, but all from the understanding that scripture was “a community project and a process.”44 He preserves the sense of Brooke’s approach that views rewritten Bible as an important component for understanding scripture transmission, while never straying far from Tov’s earlier classificatory spectrum of texts in terms of their relationship to the known editions.45 However, Falk is more cautious than White Crawford in conferring the term “scripture” to designate certain texts from others within a larger group: “The text and a definitive collection of texts are only the most visible parts of what scripture is, and to borrow Philo’s language, only the εἰκῶν of which the archetype is dynamic function in a living community.”46 Falk concludes that these texts are better considered as part of the process of scripture writing/development; what he calls “strategies” for “extending scriptures.”47 The reworking process is part of the formation of scripture, while the “open character that calls forth further interpretation and application” is an indispensable element of what constitutes scripture.48

in terms of their recognisable dependence upon a base text and their implicit claims of authority—to the other in the order of Reworked Pentateuch, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and the Genesis Apocryphon. White Crawford argues that the phenomenon of rewritten scripture developed through a distinct method of “innerscriptural exegesis” that was characteristic of a pro-levitical priestly line of interpretation extant in such texts as Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and the Genesis Apocryphon. These texts developed partly in opposition to those she has identified as “proto-Pharisaic,” which was also a priestly group, but emphasised the Aaronic lineage and the Zadokite priesthood (pp. 146–149). 44 Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 152. 45 Cf. Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 140–141. Falk’s study is limited to the Genesis Apocryphon, the Reworked Pentateuch, and 4Commentary of Genesis a–d. All three texts—much like in White Crawford’s study—have been set on a sort of interpretive spectrum. 1QapGen is “flexible in its attitude to the scriptural text” (p. 140), and employs methods of simple pariphrastic additions, streamlining omissions, and broad harmonisations to achieve a more aesthetic retelling of Genesis narratives (pp. 101–102). The rewritten Pentateuch texts are “much more constrain[ed] with regard to the text of the Pentateuch” (p. 140). They are located closer on the spectrum to their base texts, and appear to systematise and provide a more “straightforward presentation” of their parent texts (p. 119). The 4QCommGen texts are furthest along the spectrum in that they are characterised by formal markers between “scriptural authorities” and “interpretation” (p. 140). The purpose of which is to provide eschatological commentary on contemporary events from ancient written authorities (pp. 137–138). 46 Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 21. 47 Cf. Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 14–17. 48 Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 153. from rewritten bible to reputation 25

These disputes concerning the limits of the term “rewritten Bible,” its distinction from other terms such as “parabiblical,” and the determination of whether it is best construed as a literary genre or only part of a more complex process of scripture transmission have produced a lingering sense of dissatisfaction with their usefulness as classificatory devices. Jonathan G. Campbell has argued that the terms assigned to products as “rewritten Bible” and “parabiblical texts” fail to describe them accurately as “historical realia.”49 According to Campbell, the term rewritten Bible is anachronistic, and to consider many texts as such fails to acknowledge their function for those whom these texts were produced. Texts were rewritten only from the author’s perspective, but as far as their audiences were concerned they made legitimate claims to be “scripture.”50 While parabiblical or “parascriptural” may prove to be more functional in that they place these texts alongside the so-called “biblical” products, they retain in their classification a negative implication in their status as somehow second rate or faulty in relation to the imagined Bible of the Second Temple period.51 Campbell’s dissatisfaction with the terminology stems from his own observation that terminology extends from ideology. The nomenclature employed to describe texts as “rewritten,” “parabiblical,” or even “apocryphal” and “pseudepigraphic” has been formulated from a post canonical perspective—which is in many ways an inherent predilection in the field of “biblical studies” itself.52 He advocates a tentative replacement of the current terminology with labels that more accurately reflect these written products as “late Second Temple scripture,” or “scripture” and “parascripture.”53 Campbell’s suggestion effectively addresses the issue of priority, nevertheless, it is still inadequate in that it perhaps misplaces the locus of authority in the writtenness of these texts, and it fails to reflect the function of rewriting as something more than merely an auxiliary activity for appending, or even “extending” existing scriptures. It may work well for describing what is taking place in texts such as the Reworked Pen-

49 Jonathan G. Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Col- loquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September, 2003 (ed. J.G. Campbell, W.J. Lyons, and L.K. Pietersen; lsts 52; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 43–68, 44. 50 Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’,” 49. 51 Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’,” 51–52. 52 Cf. the discussion in Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’,” 62–64. 53 Although it remains unclear how Campbell would draw a distinction between texts as either “scripture” or alternatively “para-scripture,” it would follow that “late Second Temple scripture” is a much more apt description only if it is applied to all products of sacred literature from the era. 26 chapter 1 tateuch, the Genesis Apocryphon, or the book of Jubilees, as these compositions all fairly clearly are intended to provide an interpretive rendering of a pre- existing text or texts. The application of this term to these works prioritises their exegetical quality, as elaborate reworkings of well known and highly regarded authoritative scriptures. But are we correct in asserting that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c shared the same concern for textual representation as these other examples? If not, then what was the Apocryphon c intended by its handlers to do? The application of the term “parabiblical” to a text like the Apocryphon c is problematic in that, while it does distinguish it from the more commonly recognised rewritten Bible texts that function as interpretations of other texts, it still presumes a “biblical” or “textualised” grounding for its authority. Most recently, Molly M. Zahn has argued that plotting texts along a spectrum as a gauge for determining their conformity in one direction or another to previously known “editions” is artificial and not especially helpful for increasing our understanding of the function of these texts in antiquity. For Zahn, the problem has stemmed from a confusion between the “quantitative” and “qualitative” differences between texts when determining their relationship and status to one another:

If we classify the 4QRP mss as copies of the Pentateuch, it should not be primarily because of their closeness to the pentateuchal text relative to other works, but because there is no literary or functional indication that they are anything other than pentateuchal. Conversely, if we classify the Temple Scroll or Jubilees as non-biblical (though quite probably scriptural!) compositions, it should not be primarily because of the amount of difference between them and the text of the Pentateuch, but because each has been given a new literary setting and a new literary voice.54

Zahn’s observations are helpful to remind us of the persistent problems in dealing with ancient texts, and attempting to extrapolate from our own modern experiences their purposes, function, and value in antiquity. However, her study is much more concerned with compositional techniques and textualised, exegetical methods, and is not especially applicable to the dynamic interaction between persona and product that appears in works like the Apocryphon c. Hindy Najman has argued against applying anachronistically derived concepts of textualised authority to much earlier texts, and has proposed an alter-

54 Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 10. from rewritten bible to reputation 27 native model, which may prove to be more effective for reading the Apoc- ryphon c, and for determining the presence, purpose and function of the other Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Najman rightly cautions that in addition to the development of texts themselves, concepts of authority that informed them also have a complex history.55 Contrary to more modern ab- stractions, Najman offers an alternative concept of authority in Second Tem- ple Judaism, asserting that some “discourses” were “inextricably linked to their founders.”56 Her study explores how later reworkings and “re-presentations” of the Mosaic Law were authoritatively imbued by their participation in “Mosaic discourse,” which is defined according to the following four common traits: i. By reworking and expanding older traditions through interpretation, a new text claims for itself the authority that already attaches to those traditions. ii. The new text ascribes to itself the status of Torah. It may portray itself as having either a heavenly or earthly origin, but in any event as an authentic expression of the Torah of Moses iii. The new text is said to be a re-presentation of the revelation at Sinai. There is repeated emphasis on gaining access to revelation through a re-creation of the Sinai experience. This strategy emphasizes the presentness of the Sinai event, even in the face of destruction and exile. iv. The new text is said to be associated with, or produced by, the founding figure, Moses. This claim serves to authorize the new interpretations as divine revelation or dictation and as prophecy or inspired interpretation. The new text can be seen as an extension of earlier ancestral discourse.57

The important thing to note from Najman’s model is particularly the fourth point: that the authority conferring device at work in later re-presentations of Mosaic discourse is not their authoritative base texts, but rather the perception of Moses, the “ultimate prophet” (Deut 34:10–12).58 Najman is also careful to point out that there were other operative discourses in Second Temple Judaism beyond the Mosaic discourse, and these all have in common a form of authentic

55 Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSupp 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003), 9–10; Cf. also idem, “The Symbolic Significance of Writing in Ancient Judaism,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. H. Najman and J.H. Newman; JSJSupp 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 139–173. 56 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 12, emph. orig. 57 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 16–17. 58 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 36–39. 28 chapter 1 claim tied to a “founder.”59 Najman’s study is an exploration of the scribal practice of pseudepigraphy, but her work has far reaching implications for those compositions that are even more implicitly linked to figures of renown from antiquity. Is the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c then better considered as a “participant” in a sort of “Jeremianic discourse”? This question concerns the way in which we choose to understand “authority” as it is applied to the text. Najman’s observations regarding the idea of a discourse tied to a founder would suggest that the potential answer is “yes.” The application of the term rewritten Bible to certain compositions like those mentioned above underscores the authoritative quality of other texts: the Temple Scroll depended upon the pre-existing ideas about the authority of the text of Deuteronomy;60 the Reworked Pen- tateuch depended upon the authority of each of the well established Torah scrolls. This is clearly evident for each of these works because we can see the

59 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 17. She suggests other possible examples in n. 34 to include “Davidic discourse” that combined the ideas of messianism and kingship into interpretive traditions, and “Solomonic discourse” that fused relationships between ancient wisdom traditions and contemporary notions about divine revelation. Cf. also Najman’s comments in idem, “Reflections on John Barton’s Oracles of God,” jhs 7/14 (2007): 22–28, 26: “It is not that traditions are invented in order to glorify a founding figure, still less that they are invented in order to deceive their audience; rather, the place occupied by the founder in the minds of certain people attracts certain traditions to the man.” Cf. also Philip R. Davies, “The Social World of Apocalyptic Writings,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. R.E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 251–271, 268, who observed that the conditions for apocalyptic writing during the Hellenistic crises of the late third and early second centuries bce produced another form of discourse tied to a founder: “By means of the authority of ancient figures bearing divine revelations (scribes) consoled their flock with the assurance that God was in control of both history and nature; that evil had a rational explanation and an imminent end.” 60 It seems that 11QTemple also derived authority directly from God, and has been described elsewhere as a “divine pseudepigraphon”; cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple Literature,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceed- ings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997 (ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone; stdj 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 121–131, 131; Najman, Seconding Sinai, 67–68. In Yigael Yadin’s preliminary analysis, the TempleScroll was to be understood as a complementary Torah: “A divine decree given by God to Moses” (Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 136), made apparent through the methodical changes the author made to the biblical text to render the discourse to the first person singular; cf. also idem, The Temple Scroll, 1: 392. from rewritten bible to reputation 29 base texts themselves within each new composition, and track the various ways and degrees to which the rewritten texts compare to their sources.61 The description of the Apocryphon c as “parabiblical” is helpful in how it distinguishes it from other more textually derived rewritten Bible texts, but this term fails to take into consideration the important authoritative connexion made between this text and its “founder,” Jeremiah. As Najman draws from Moses’s reputation for prophetic excellence in the re-presentation of Mosaic traditions, it is analogously possible that Jeremiah’s prophetic reputation should serve as the starting point for reading the Apocryphon c, and for assessing the contribution of Jeremianic traditions more generally in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Apocryphon c was obviously an important text for some within the Yaḥad Essene movement—as evinced by the several copies at Qumran—but most likely not for its commitment to some pre-existing authoritative text. Rather, it presents itself as a combination of inspired history and new prophecy: it is new revelation for its handlers that is not necessarily derived from older, written scriptures, although it may contain various echoes and allusions to other scriptures. The Apocryphon c then, is best considered in light of what we know about prophecy, prophets, and perceptions about them in Second Tem- ple Judaism.

1.2 Perceptions of Prophets and Prophecy in Second Temple Judaism

John Barton’s ground-breaking work on the reception of prophetic literature in Second Temple Judaism revolutionised modern concepts about the continuity that existed between the biblical prophets and later Second Temple interpretations of prophetic activity and prophetic books.62 A central component of Barton’s thesis was his persuasive argument against the presence of a tripar- tite canon in early Judaism. He rather proposed that while the picture of the organisation of scripture remains fuzzy, it was generally accepted that there was only one division in scripture between what was considered to be the law of Moses, and everything else that was assigned to the prophets.63 For Barton,

61 Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 25–132 provides an excellent discussion of the various compositional techniques that were employed in the 4QRP mss. 62 John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986). 63 Barton, Oracles of God, 75–79. For a concise summary of the debate over the bipartite/tri- partite shape of the Second Temple Jewish scriptures, cf. James A. Sanders, “The Scrolls and the Canonical Process,” in Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty 30 chapter 1 before the rabbinic period there were only “scriptures” that were distinguished from one another as being either “Torah” or “not Torah,” and all those compositions that fell into the second grouping were “prophets,” in the sense that they all revealed divinely communicated knowledge that was not contained in the law of Moses.64 Barton argued that this perception of the prophets as distinct from the writings of the Torah carried with it significant implications for how they were received by their readers:

There are some scriptural books which are meant for those who are more advanced in spiritual understanding, and others which all can be permitted to hear and meditate upon. And the Torah comes under the second class, not the first. For a thinker who adopts this way of thinking, a book such as Ezekiel thus has a higher status, in one very important sense, than the Law itself. Thus we reach a paradoxical conclusion that the work which has the highest authority in matters of halakha, the Torah, is for some other purposes considerably less valuable. If one is seeking the kind of “advanced” wisdom which many in the New Testament times longed for, then one should turn to various other books, which can provide information that the Torah itself does not contain, since God does not wish to reveal it to all and sundry.65

In the process of painstakingly redefining this whole body of literature outside of the Torah, Barton also courageously erased the imaginary lines that had crept into place between texts that were in the post-Temple era Jewish and Christian canons, and those that had been denied entry.66 He illuminated rather brightly the reception of a vast collection of sacred literature in a variety of Jewish circles as prophetic, beyond the traditional confines of the Bible, and made the important observation that prophetic interpretations of scripture were at least as highly valued in some communities as their parent oracles.67 According to Barton: “Indeed, it is tempting to say that the gift of interpreting prophecies is a higher gift than that required to deliver them in the first place: one would not

Years, 2: 1–23, 2–7. Also Eugene Ulrich, “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and the Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (sdssrl; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 51–78, 60–61. 64 Barton, Oracles of God, 143. 65 Barton, Oracles of God, 72–73. 66 Barton, Oracles of God, 66–75. 67 Barton, Oracles of God, 197. from rewritten bible to reputation 31 be surprised to find someone who had it, such as the Teacher of Righteousness, described as a ‘prophet’!”68 The growing consensus especially since Barton wrote this is that “prophecy” did not end with the Babylonian exile, but rather that it continued in a variety of new forms throughout the Second Temple period. The evidence from Qumran accords with ancient traditions that held that the prophets were those who wrote and collected scriptures,69 but in considering their own prolific and varied scribal activity, the consensus is building that the practice of prophecy itself was still on-going.70 It comes as no surprise then, that for the writers and collectors of the scrolls this continuity they perceived with the ancient prophets was reflected in their own self-conception as participants in the succession of prophets as scribes and interpreters of scripture. The most extensive study on the subject of prophecy in Second Temple Judaism was produced by Alex P. Jassen, who contends that while there was a clear distinction between the ancient “biblical prophetic heritage” and its subsequent modifications, prophecy remained an active institution under a variety of different guises until the Christian era.71 Jassen identifies three manifestations of the “continued viability of prophecy and revelation” at Qumran in particular. First, the rewriting of the ancient prophetic experience, by which the community participated in on-going prophetic activity through the reap- propriation and transformation of “biblical models.” Second, the Qumran community believed that it was living in the “last days,” and it viewed itself as a principal player in the unfolding of eschatological prophetic activity. Third, the

68 Barton, Oracles of God, 197, cf. also 194–196. Barton used the Qumran sectarian scrolls as an example for this phenomenon of authoritative interpretation, but he also saw the same thing taking place in the Christian collection of Gospel traditions, and in the creation of the New Testament, cf. pp. 186ff. Brooke has suggested that the inordinate importance attached to the Torah over the Prophets may have proceeded from much later text critical pursuits of an Urtext. Cf. Brooke, “Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms,” 36; idem, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism,” in Campbell, Lyons, and Pietersen, eds., New Directions in Qumran Studies, 26–42, 33–35. 69 Josephus, Ag. Ap. §1.37; m. Abot 1:1; cf. Barton, Oracles of God, 96, 103–104. 70 Cf. Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and For- wards,” in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M.H. Floyd and R.D. Haak; lhb / ots 427; New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 151–165, 158–163; James E. Bow- ley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” in Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years 2: 354–378, 371–376. 71 Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Second Temple Judaism (stdj 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 17. 32 chapter 1 community also considered itself the heir to the ancient prophetic tradition. Jassen lays out in detail how the ancient prophets were reconstrued at Qumran as forecasters of future events, but with direct implications for the community’s immediate present. He discusses extensively how the “progressive revelation” that the community believed itself an heir to was worked out in their re-presentation of the prophets as “lawgivers”: interpreters of the Mosaic Torah. This transformation of prophets into legislators is demonstrated in the appro- -anointed,” and the employ“ , חישמ ”,seer“ , הזח priation of the prophetic epithets ment of the terms “man of God” and “servants” in new contexts as divinely inspired lawgivers. In the second part of his study, Jassen considers the transformation of the revelatory process in the Second Temple period from an ecstatic visionary one to a scribal exegetical practice of illuminating ancient prophetic scripture. He reasons that the practice of rewriting scripture, or of recasting biblical figures, events, and themes was all part of the practice of prophecy: “The contemporary reformulation of ancient scripture in several parabiblical texts was understood as a revelatory process.”72 Jassen’s careful analysis of the practices of Second Temple prophecy reveals a considerable variety of methods for how prophecy continued, and these confirm a central component of Barton’s thesis: that prophecy came to function through the application of “modes” for reading prophetic scripture, based on the various kinds of information people sought from the sacred texts. The substance of Barton’s description of Second Temple prophets was summarised by Philip R. Davies as follows:

The prophet was understood to be more “like an apocalyptist” than the moral spokesman of modern scholarship, and “non-esoteric” media, such as the speaking of oracles, were probably even regarded as inferior to the supernatural knowledge displayed by other forms of supernatural divina- tion. There was no recognition of prophecy as a genre; rather, prophets were understood as (a) moral instructors; (b) predictors of the future in a general way; (c) revealers of secrets about the end of history and (d) mysteries about the transcendental world; “speculative theology.”73

72 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 207; cf. also Najman, “Symbolic Significance of Writing,”152ff., esp. p. 165, where she points also to the emergence of writing in the Second Temple period as an indicator of the growing efficacy of the act of re-presentation as part of the prophetic process. 73 Philip Davies, “Beginning at the End,” jhs 7 (2007): 6–11, 7, emph. orig. The four “modes” of prophecy are introduced in Barton, Oracles of God, 152–153. Cf. also Davies, “The Social World of Apocalyptic Writings,” 263–267, where he argues persuasively for a broader from rewritten bible to reputation 33

The first two categories are by far the most recognisable, and the most frequently recurring modes of reading the prophets in the Second Temple period. In the first, the ancient prophecies of Israel were regarded more for their descriptions of correct ethical conduct. The expectation that prophets would have special access to divine secrets and were consequently inspired teachers on matters of conduct was a result of their own accuracy in their conveyance of the oracles of God.74 In the second mode, the ancient prophecies were read by members of what Barton called “religious schisms,”75 with reference to events in the immediate future, in a manner that had a direct impact on the readers themselves. The prophetic books were considered pregnant with hidden meanings, that could only be extracted by members of an authoritative community.76 This kind of mode for reading the prophets is particularly evident in the Qumran sectarians’ handling of texts, which resulted in the production of a number of commentaries, commonly called pesharim. As mentioned above, Barton keenly observed that this emphasis on coded meanings resulted in a very high view of the interpretative process itself. He suggested that in all probability, the gift of interpreting prophecy was perceived as a higher voca- tion than that required to deliver the original oracles.77 Shani Berrin clarified how the explicit interpretations of scripture that appear in the Qumran pesharim may have been perceived to be on a higher level than the texts they decoded.78 Jassen similarly draws attention to the heightened level of authority for the interpreter in the pesharim, and has identified the pesher technique as a

context of the “apocalyptic” outside of religious schism and more a part of Near Eastern mantic scribal practice. 74 Barton, Oracles of God, 168–169. Michael H. Floyd, “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period,” in Floyd and Haak, eds., Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Text, 276–297, 288–289 has furthermore observed that the precision of those pre-exilic prophets who “got it” was actually a factor in the transformation of prophecy after the exile into a scribal activity. 75 Barton, Oracles of God, 175–178. 76 Barton, Oracles of God, 182–183. 77 Barton, Oracles of God, 197. In James Kugel’s re-assessment of Barton’s work, he points to the “transformation” of the ancient understanding of such texts as “an act of radical rewriting” which in fact was the impetus behind their entry into authoritative status. Kugel, “The Bible of Changed Meanings: Some Thoughts on John Barton’s Oracles of God,” jhs 7 (2007), 12–21, 20–21. 78 Shani Berrin, “Qumran Pesharim,” in Henze, ed., Biblical Interpretation, 110–133, 124. Cf. also idem, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (stdj 53; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 34 chapter 1 reformulation of prophecy and revelation into what he calls “revelatory exegesis.”79 The third mode of reading prophecy,which Barton has described as a presentation of the “divine plan for history,” is similar to the second reading in that the oracles are valued for their predictive quality. However, it differs in its perspective. That is, where an eschatological reading is forward looking and exclusive, a reading which emphasises God’s involvement in Israel’s history is much more general, and looks back in an effort to provide assurance for the present and future.80 Apologetically formulated presentations of “history” are a feature of significance particularly among a number of texts classified as ancient Jew- ish “apocalypses,”81 but this distinction is brought more sharply into question, in light of Barton’s third mode and his assertion that so-called “eschatological apocalyp(tic)” is not about predicting the future:

The real writers of eschatological apocalypses … were not looking into the distant future; on the contrary, their whole effort was directed to convincing their readers that the decisive divine intervention in world affairs was on the very point of happening. Whatever the nature of their inspiration, however different their view of the righteousness of Israel, in this respect they were no different at all from the prophets.82

Lorenzo DiTommaso has classified these sorts of texts as “apocalyptic historiography.”83 He refines Barton’s observations regarding the link between apocalypticism and history, and posits that the production of apocalyptic literature in Second Temple Judaism stemmed from an apocalyptically charged worldview:

79 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 350–353. 80 Barton, Oracles of God, 197. 81 Dimant, djd 30, 100; also idem, “Apocalyptic Texts at Qumran,” in Ulrich and VanderKam, eds., The Community of the Renewed Covenant, 175–191. 82 Barton, Oracles of God, 199; cf. Edward M. Cook, “What Did the Jews of Qumran Know about God and How Did They Know It? Revelation and God in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 2, Worldview, Comparing Judaisms (ed. A.J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B.D. Chilton; hosa 1 / nme 5; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 3–22, 7; also comments by Davies, “Beginning at the End,” 6–7. 83 Lorenzo DiTommaso, “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek; ejl 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 497–522. from rewritten bible to reputation 35

Apocalypticism asserts that a transcendent reality, concealed from casual observation yet operative on a grand scale, defines and informs existence beyond human understanding and the normal pale of worldly experience. It reveals a cosmos that is structured by two forces, good and evil, which have been in conflict since the dawn of history. It discloses the necessity and imminence of the final resolution of the conflict at the end of time, and the truth about human destiny.84

DiTommaso states that apocalyptic historiography involved constructing a comprehensive and coherent arrangement of historical data that accurately revealed God’s plan from the beginning of time to the end of the world.85 It was a powerful form of revelation that presumed the prophetic power for those who wrote such histories, which could only proceed through some sense of divine inspiration. The popularity of this mode of prophecy may have given rise to a Jewish belief that the distinguishing characteristic of the classical “prophet” extended to include those individuals who were traditionally understood to have written all of scripture.86 Jassen similarly argues that this transformation of the classical prophet is part of the transition from inspired oracle to inspired scribe and exegete whereby “[t]he process of reading, writing and interpretation [of the word of God in written form] is … a revelatory experience.”87 The designation of prophet as an inspired historian and scripture writer is one that in all probability is a much older ideal than what is presented in the first two modes of reading the prophets. This is apparent in the presentation of prophets

84 DiTommaso, “Apocalyptic Historiography,” 498–499, reproduced from DiTommaso, “The Apocalyptic Other,” in TheOtherinSecondTempleJudaism:EssaysinHonorofJohnJ.Collins (ed. Daniel C. Harlow, et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 221–246. 85 DiTommaso, “Apocalyptic Historiography,” 506–508. 86 Cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. §1.37 formulates this idea as follows: “Naturally, then, or rather necessarily, seeing that it is not open to anyone to write of their own accord, nor is there any disagreement present in what is written, but the prophets alone learned, by inspiration from God, what had happened in the distant and most ancient past (ἀλλὰ μόνον τῶν προφητῶν τὰ μὲν ἀνωτάτω καὶ παλαιότατα κατὰ τὴν ἐπίπνοιαν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ μαθόντων) and recorded plainly events in their own time just as they occurred.” Translation by John M.G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10: Against Apion (ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2006). The transmission of “scripture” is recounted in m. Abot 1:1 in a line from God to Moses, from Moses to Joshua, from Joshua to the elders, from the elders to the prophets, and from the prophets to the “men of the great assembly.” Cf. also Barton, Oracles of God, 96, 103–104. 87 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 206. 36 chapter 1 and prophecy in the Books of Chronicles. William Schniedewind has noted that it is here that prophets first become the transmitters of law and the “bearers of Torah,” much in accordance with their perceived function as inspired chroni- clers of the divine (Deuteronomistic) history.88 In his recent monograph, Bennie H. Reynolds iii has classified the Apoc- ryphon c as an apocalypse, depending upon John Collins’s definition from Semeia 14 and primarily on the basis of the presence of another, supernatural world.89 However, he qualifies this further on the basis that the entire question of “apocalypse” as a genre has become exceptionally complicated by the vast accumulation of new evidence from the Qumran scrolls, and the current dramatic changes presently occurring in form-critical methodologies.90 The Apocryphon c would seem to be better perceived as an apocalyptic history, according to DiTommaso’s definition, and especially by way of association with its founder, the prophet Jeremiah. Barton’s efforts and the recent reflexion that his work has produced has drawn a heightened awareness of the role and the impact of scribes upon the products of their craft. These insights have alerted scholars to the value and function of prophecy that continued in Second Temple Judaism, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls in particular. The literature reveals a strong sense of

88 Cf. William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period. (JSOTSupp 197; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 135– 136. Cf. also Christoph Levin, “The ‘Word of Yahweh’: A Theological Concept in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Floyd and Haak, Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts, 42–62, 45, n. 9, where he applies the call of Jeremiah in Jer 1:7–9 back onto Deuteronomy’s “prophetic law” as an authorising feature: “Deut 18:9–22, picks up the call of Jeremiah, as the context there shows. It is not that Jeremiah is a second Moses; Moses is a first Jeremiah.” Also Davies, “Beginning at the End,” 9, where he credits the transformation of prophets into historian on the notion that Moses was the “archetypical historian,” and that the Torah substantially became a work of history. Cf. also Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 235– 238. Sterling argues analogously that because of Josephus’ own self-understanding as a priest and a prophet (cf. Ag. Ap. 1:54), his own work is understood to be a competing translation of the Hebrew scriptures: “Not replacing the Hebrew scriptures themselves but on actual footing with 픊 and actually displacing it” (p. 255). Josephus thus believed himself competent and justified in producing a “history” from his own prophetic credentials. 89 John J. Collins, Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.: Schol- ars Press, 1979), 9; Bennie H. Reynolds iii, Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–363b.c.e. (JAJ- Supp 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 269–270. 90 Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 29–31. from rewritten bible to reputation 37 participation in the revelatory process that was then expressed in a prolific variety of scribal activity, which might all be classified as “prophetic” to varying degrees. According to Brooke:

Given the interest in prophets and prophecies in the scrolls, it need be no surprise to encounter the view that some in the sectarian movement saw themselves as standing in the line of the prophets as inspired by God to disclose all the mysteries of his servants the prophets (cf. 1QpHab 7:4–5) and to understand the story of their own experiences as an unfolding of the events predicted by their prophetic forebears.91

This prevailing fascination is reflected in a composition like the Apocryphon c, in which Jeremiah’s reputation forms the base for a new revelation. A revelation that was not primarily mined from existing authoritative texts, but authoritative by way of its association with the great prophet.

1.3 Reputation and Authority: Jeremiah the Prophet As a “Founder” in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Studying the Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls will require some careful survey work of his reputation, but with close attention paid to how reputations formed and how they functioned in ancient Judaism. We will be proceeding from the assertion that the Jeremianic traditions are in various ways tied to their “founder” Jeremiah, and that his reputation as a prophet is what likely drew these traditions into its orbit. Najman reminds us that the relationship between traditions and their founders is reciprocal, and that as the body of traditions grows the founder’s reputation will be irrevocably shaped and transformed: “The place occupied by the founder in the minds of certain people attracts certain traditions to the man. To this I should like to add, however, that the founder is not unaffected by this accumulation of traditions.”92 What Naj- man is referring to here is the process by which social groups choose to remember their heroes, and how their memories are selected and shaped to suit their own cultural composition. This widely attested phenomenon has come to be termed “collective memory,” or “cultural memory” in scholarly circles, and it is more progressively having a greater impact on the study of biblical literature

91 Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives,” 272. 92 Najman, “Reflections on John Barton’s Oracles of God,” 26. 38 chapter 1 and ancient Judaism.93 For our purposes, a brief overview of the development of various theories of collective memory will suffice to show how such a study of reputation is possible, and how it will take place in the chapters that follow. Maurice Halbwachs is widely regarded as the “father” of collective memory theory.94 He distinguished between what he considered actual history and what he coined collective or “social memory”95 in terms of what might be objectively conceived and what was socially constructed. For Halbwachs, history is “situated external to and above groups,”96 sustained by evidence, developed, and maintained outside of any social context. Halbwachs believed that actual history was fixed and stable. By way of contrast, collective memory is the way in which social groups and “ordinary people” conceive of the past.97 Collective memory is different from traditionally construed concepts of history, as it is a product of society, and is always a reflexion of immediate interests and concerns. What this meant for Halbwachs, and for others who followed him was that for what he considered traditional societies, there was no actual history, only socially reconstructed, culturally influenced manip- ulations or fabrications of the past. This sort of pessimistic view of history is otherwise called a “presentist” or “strict constructionist”98 view, and was promoted, in addition to Halbwachs, by Pierre Nora,99 Eric Hobsbawm and

93 Cf. for example Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (München: Beck, 1992); idem, Moses the Egyp- tian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997); idem, Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (Stanford: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 2005); Doron Mendels, Memory in Jewish, Pagan, and Christian Societies of the Graeco-Roman World: Fragmented Memory—Comprehensive Memory—Collective Mem- ory (lsts 45; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004). Also Philip R. Davies, The Origins of Biblical Israel (lhb / ots 485; New York: T & T Clark, 2007). 94 Barbara Mitzal, Theories of Social Remembering (Theorizing Society Series; Maidenhead; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003), 51. 95 Cf. Maurice Halbwachs, Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (reprinted. Archontes 5; Paris: Mouton, 1976). 96 Maurice Halbwachs, Collective Memory (trans. by Francis J. Ditter Jr. and Vida Yadzi Ditter; New York: Harper and Row, 1980), 80. 97 Barry Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 10. 98 Gary Alan Fine, Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controver- sial, (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 7–9; cf. Mitzal, Theories of Social Remembering, 55–56. 99 Pierre Nora, Realms of Memory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996); Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory, 11. from rewritten bible to reputation 39

Terence Ranger.100 This approach to historical narratives and documented sources is popular among the so-called “revisionist” historians in biblical studies. Scholars such as Niels P. Lemche,101 Thomas L. Thompson,102 and Davies103 promote an inordinate degree of scepticism and argue that a real history of Israel is impossible, positing that the biblical texts are constructed out of whole cloth from the much later post-exilic and Persian periods. In a critique of Halbwachs and Nora in particular, Barry Schwartz has called such extreme pessimism a “distorted version of history,” and argues that collective memory is inseparable from genuine recollections of the past.104 For Schwartz, collective memory is actually rather “the reciprocal working of history and commemoration.”105 He goes on to argue that the distinction between the tangible past (history) and its reformulation into a narrative (what he has called “commemoration”) is still an important one, but unlike Halbwachs, one is not antithetical to the other. Schwartz acknowledges that commemoration is founded in history, but also that history depends upon commemoration for its meaning and sustenance: “History always reflects the ideals and sentiments that commemoration expresses; commemoration is always rooted in historical knowledge and can only be intellectually compelling when it symbolizes values whose past existence history documents.”106 This is a basic description of how collective memory functions, which is “tentatively” defined by Schwartz as follows: “… collective memory is based on two sources of belief about the

100 E.J. Hobsbawm and T.O. Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Mitzal, Theories of Social Remembering, 56. 101 Niels P. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998). 102 Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (Lon- don: Basic Books, 1999). 103 Philip R. Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel” (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). 104 William G. Dever, “Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up? Archaeology and Israelite Histo- riography: Part i,” basor 297 (1995): 61–80, levels a similar charge against the revisionist historical movement in biblical studies, calling them the “new nihilists.” See also his critique in idem, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What ArchaeologyCanTellUsabouttheRealityofAncientIsrael (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 23–52, and responses by Lemche, “Ideology and the History of Ancient Israel,” sjot 14/2 (2000): 165–193; idem, “Conservative Scholarship–Critical Scholarship: Or How Did We Get Caught by This Bogus Discussion: On Behalf of the Devers-Davies Exchange,” The Bible and Interpretation (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Conservative_Scholarship .shtml); and Davies, “Crypto-Minimalism,” jss 50/1 (2005): 117–136. 105 Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory, 11. 106 Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory, 12. 40 chapter 1 past—history and commemoration. Collective memory is a representation of the past embodied in both historical evidence and commemorative symbolism.”107 With regards to the study of founders, Schwartz argues that collective memories are structured around the social recollections of individuals, their actions, and their words. The Apocryphon c is literature that may draw from a variety of literary sources, but its significance is in what it reveals about how and why it was deemed necessary to “commemorate” the prophet Jeremiah, and what this commemoration proceeded to communicate about the author(s) and his/their social reality. Schwartz is part of a wider school of thought that is grounded in what sociologist Gary Alan Fine calls “cautious naturalism.”108 He affirms that social groups will irrevocably impact the structure and presentation of the past in their commemorations. However, for these commemorations to remain meaningful and relevant, they must retain within them elements of historical “fact.”109 Fine’s

107 Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory, 9, emph. orig. For alternative definitions of collective memory, cf. Mitzal, Social Remembering, 7, as “the representation of the past, both that shared by a group and that which is collectively commemorated, that enacts and gives substance to the group’s identity, its present conditions and its vision of the future.” See also Eviatar Zerubavel, Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 2: “In transcending strictly personal recollections, the sociology of memory effectively foregrounds what we come to remember as social beings. While there are many memories that we share with no one else, there are specific recollections that are commonly shared by entire groups.” 108 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 16–17. Schwartz’s moderate approach has also been called a “popular memory theory,” developed from the writings of Foucault: Cf. Schwartz, “Popular Memory: Theory, Politics, and Method,” Making Histories: Studies in History-Writing and Politics (ed. R. Johnson, et al.; London: Hutchinson, 1982), 205–252. 109 Cf. Fine, Difficult Reputations, 16: “If factual claims cannot be definitively proven, they should still be treated as true—or at least plausible. A ‘history’ without facts is depressing and deconstructive. Other analysts (reviewers, colleagues, advisors, students) and their facts and theories affirm findings, creating a machinery of validation.” The importance of an historical realism in the construction of collective memories is made particularly salient in a study by Luise White, “Social Construction and Social Consequences: Rumors and Evidence,” in Rumor Mills: The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend (ed. G.A. Fine, V. Campion-Vincent and C. Heath; New Brunswick, nj: AldineTransaction, 2005), 241–254. White explores the location of rumours in “collective and socially constructed ideas about evidence, about what constitutes a true story, about how people evaluate what they hear (or read)”; also Jody Enders, “Dramatic Rumors and Truthful Appearances: The Medieval Myth of Ritual Murder by Proxy,” in Fine, Campion-Vincent and Heath, eds., Rumor Mills, 15–29 on the “transhistorical” nature of Medieval theatre in its “hyper-real” presentations of legend via performance. from rewritten bible to reputation 41 work deals with “reputations,” or “socially recognized persona.”110 These are collective perceptions of famous (or infamous) individuals that are culturally framed and embedded within social relationships. The study of reputations is integral to collective memory because history is structured as a narrative, and features historical actors as either heroes or villains in the re-enactment of a meaningful drama. “It is through stories about representative persons— who are typical in their atypicality—that societies define themselves.”111 Fine cites sociologist Charles Horton Cooley to enforce this point: “Fame exists for present use and not to perpetuate a dead past.”112 In this study, we shall read the Apocryphon c as a literary composition that features the prophet Jeremiah as a sort of object for “commemoration.” Working from this text outwards, the model supplied by Fine and Schwartz, and applied in this way to the Apoc- ryphon c will hopefully also help to bring into sharper focus the Jeremianic traditions and the existence of a Jeremianic discourse in the Qumran scrolls. Najman has already confirmed Jeremiah’s potential place as an authoritative centre for the collection and reproduction of various traditions, but the reputational model introduced by Fine facilitates this study by showing the interdependency that takes place between a founder’s persona, texts, and their social worlds.113 This perspective of public persona is intentionally linked in this study to the idea of authority as the product of discourse tied to a founder. We recognise the prophet Jeremiah’s “reputation” as the central component for accumulating

110 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 2. 111 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 7; drawing upon Michael Billig, Talking of the Royal Family, (London: Routledge, 1992); cf. also Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, 11, where he identifies these sorts of public persona as “figures of memory.” 112 Charles Horton Cooley, Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind (New York: Sho- cken, 1983), 116; Fine, Difficult Reputations, 21. 113 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 21. In the fifth chapter of his book Fine has explored the phenomenon of “contradicting reputations” through the “multiple audience problem.” His test case is Henry Ford, and the outrageous shifts that occurred in his public popularity; a result of Ford’s need to appeal to a variety of contrasting social groups in securing his reputation: “To manage the impressions of several groups simultaneously is a complex task that is subject to failure, particularly when these groups have dramatically different values and expectations” (p. 26). Cf. “Chapter Five: Henry Ford and the Multiple Audience Problem,” with Adam King, 167–194. Barry Schwartz’s entire book explores the changes that occurred in the commemoration of Abraham Lincoln through the late nineteenth, and early and later twentieth centuries in an effort to explain Lincoln’s impact on social worlds, and the impact of social worlds on Lincoln’s reputation, primarily as he was perceived to be the “great emancipator.” 42 chapter 1 various Jeremianic traditions in the Qumran scrolls, but also as a reflexion of its social world at various points in the history of the community. “Reputa- tional authority” was introduced by Barry Schwartz,114 and applied by Bruce Malina to Jesus’ persona as it is presented in the Gospel tradition.115 According to Malina, reputational authority is most simply “a ‘collective representation,’ a visible symbol of the values and the tendencies of [a] society rather than as a source of those values and tendencies.”116 Moreover, he has said that “it is rooted in a person’s ability to influence a change in the broadly encompassing norms that constrain recognition of legitimate authority.”117 Jeremiah’s reputation was a social construction that both reflected and shaped the cultural and religious ideals of the communities who produced the Apocryphon c, and who recalled his memory as one way to distinguish insiders and outsiders of the new covenant in cd 8:16–20. A good deal has been written to date regarding the value and application of social scientific approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls,118 but most of these studies have concentrated on how to formulate group identity, and the nature of the Yaḥad as a “sect.” My purpose here is rather different, in that I am concerned with the broader social impact that is inseparable from perceptions of past figures and their reputations, as opposed to the social organisation and description of the movement itself. Mine is a similar undertaking to that which was employed by Malina to the historical Jesus in an effort to situate this figure more accurately in his social world.119 However, where this investigation differs is in our pursuit not to uncover some historical “kernel” of who Jeremiah “really was,”120 but rather to discover popular percep-

114 Barry Schwartz, George Washington: the Making of an American Symbol (New York: Free Press, 1987). 115 Bruce Malina, The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels (London: Routledge, 1996). 116 Malina, The Social World of Jesus, 140. 117 Malina, The Social World of Jesus, 129. 118 Cf. especially Jokiranta, “Sociological Approaches to Qumran Sectarianism,” in which she provides a very helpful overview of the benefits and drawbacks of various sociological models applied to the Qumran movement. She argues in “Social Scientific Approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls” in favour of a “social identity approach” to assessing how the group distinguished itself from others as a means for forming a “positive social identity” (p. 254). This approach attempts to gauge the interchange between individual members’ self-conception and their incorporation as part of a group. 119 Malina, The Social World of Jesus; idem, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” Interpretation 37 (1982): 229–242; idem, “Jesus as a Charismatic Leader?” btb 14 (1984): 55–62. 120 Cf. criticism by Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority: On the Historical Appli- cability of a Sociological Model,” JAAR 73 (June 2005): 395–427. from rewritten bible to reputation 43 tions of who he was thought to have been. If we can discover who the Qumran Yaḥad imagined Jeremiah the prophet to have been, we can in turn provide some meaningful reflexion on how, why, and to what end Jeremianic traditions were employed in their literature. As we will come to discover in this study, perceptions of Jeremiah are not static. Their dynamic shaping correspond to specific points in what social historian Wendy Griswold mapped out and called the “cultural diamond.”121 Gris- wold formulated a model for understanding social interaction; in this model, there is presented an interconnection between four distinct elements of culture: what Griswold has identified as the “cultural object,” the “social world,” the “creator,” and the “receiver.”122 Each one acts upon and in cooperation with the others to form cultural identity, or—in Gary Allen Fine’s case—a facet of cultural identity that might be construed through the reputations of notable figures. Barry Schwartz’s distinction between “history” and “commemoration” in the development of collective memory is important for this study, because while all the objects of commemoration at our disposal are textual, aspects of what they have deemed commemorable are quite different.123 We see this played out, for example, in the recollection of Jeremiah’s words, and the appeal to his authority in cd 8:16–20: we recognise his importance and the importance of what he said in this text, but are left unclear about both why he was important, and what significance his word contained. The task of this study will be in part to attempt to show that the locus of Jeremiah’s authority presides in two parts of his commemoration: in either the strength of his character, or in the strength of his words, or in both, as appears to be the case of the example from the Damascus Document. Fine’s description of “cultural objects” may aid in discovering the difference between the authoritative man and his authoritative word. He speaks of cultural objects as stable and fixed representations of a given figure from the past.124 These accord closely to what Schwartz considers “real” history: those points in the records of the past that are verifiable.125 Both Fine and Schwartz

121 Wendy Griswold, Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theater, 1576–1980 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), and idem, Cultures and Societies in a Changing World (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge, 1994). 122 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 17–22. 123 Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory, 9. 124 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 18–19. 125 This is the substance of the argument by White, “Social Construction and Social Conse- quences” who claims that the degree of realism behind a rumour is relative to its popularity and degree of dissemination. 44 chapter 1 affirm that history is not merely a fiction. Unlike standard “presentist” or biblical “revisionist” models that have reduced the past entirely to a set of interpretations, the “cautious naturalism” of Fine and Schwartz acknowledges that the past is knowable: “There is a real world with real problems, and there are real techniques in which we can invest some measure of confidence.”126 Within a matrix that recognises the social impact upon history as collective memories are formed, history is built upon plausible, stable memories that become universally agreed upon points of interest. Fortunately, our task is not to reconstruct the history of the scriptural Jeremiah, but to understand those historically derived components of his character for how they functioned in the imagination of their handlers. When these ideas are applied to the traditions of Jeremiah, the most consistent points of interest may be found in his reputation as either a priest, a prophet, or both (cf. Jer 1:1). It remains to be seen how the traditions of Jeremiah in the Qumran scrolls capitalise upon these distinctions, but these may be forthwith regarded the “stable memories” of Jeremiah: the cultural objects from which his reputation develops, and which in turn shape his reputation. In Naj- man’s study of Mosaic discourse, she points to the characterisation of Moses as a prophet in the book of Deuteronomy as the essential element behind his authority as a founder.127 Similarly for Jeremiah, he is honoured for having “got it right,” in his past prophecies, and is re-presented as a source for continued, divine revelation in the Apocryphon c. In addition, we will come to see in this text and elsewhere in the Qumran literature that Jeremiah’s priestly credentials may have served to convey his authority in matters of national leadership over and against the existing Jerusalem priesthood. His sharp criticism of the priests of Jerusalem in the last days of Solomon’s temple128 would understandably have distinguished him as a person of interest for the Yaḥad Essenes, who had their own differences with the presiding temple establishment. These two elements serve to provide us with a basic definition for “Jeremianic discourse” moving forward, as the dissemination of traditions that are tied to Jeremiah’s prophetic and priestly reputation.

126 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 15. This “measure of confidence” is tempered by what Jan Ass- mann writes concerning the process of “remembering” whereby “there is no absolute and objective truth in memory. Remembering is always transformation and reconstruction”; Jan Assmann, “Ancient Egyptian Antijudaism: A Case of Distorted Memory,” in Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past (ed. Daniel L. Schecter; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995) 365–376, 365–366. 127 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 36–39. 128 Cf. e.g. Jer 2:7–8; 5:29–31; 8:8–10; 14:17–18; 23:9–12. from rewritten bible to reputation 45

However, in a slight departure from the work of Fine and Schwartz, both of whom deal exclusively with public persona, the traditions of Jeremiah may be located in another aspect of plausible reality apart from his reputation. The content of Jeremiah’s words and his message appear to at some point have superseded his status as a founder, to the extent of obscuring his explicit influence. Herein is where we may observe an aspect of how the scribalization of prophecy emerged from the reputation of a biblical prophet to eventually usurp it. In the historical unfolding of the Jeremianic traditions, Jeremiah’s own persona fades into the background, and those oracles and prophecies attributed to him become authoritative points of departure for later scribes and interpreters who show little concern for whom the ancient prophet was who uttered them. The reputation of the prophet may remain intact, but is only recognisable if we can determine a clear perspective of who he was perceived to have been prior to the time when his reputation was eventually eclipsed. This will become particularly obvious in further discussion of the echoes of Jeremianic traditions outside of the Apocryphon c, in various of the sectarian compositions, and especially as they appear in 4Q390. It should be clear by this point that addressing the issue of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls will require more than merely a review of the exegetical treatment of Jeremiah scriptures. The introduction of the terms “rewritten Bible” and “parabiblical literature” have drawn attention to the dynamic ways in which biblical traditions generally circulated in Second Temple Judaism. However, the Jeremianic traditions are not primarily textually based, but rather draw authority, significance, and function from their attachment to the reputation of Jeremiah the prophet. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah c is presented as the starting point for this study primarily because it contains the most richly developed explicit reflexion on the prophet Jeremiah in the form of descriptive narrative. This text will provide for us a fuller appreciation for Jeremiah’s distinction as a founder. In turn, this information will help us to identify and more clearly understand the meaning and purpose of the various Jeremianic traditions surveyed from elsewhere in the Qumran scrolls, which have been pulled into the orbit of a type of Jeremianic discourse. chapter 2 The Apocryphon of Jeremiah: A Material and Synoptic Overview

The dynamic composition history of the biblical Book of Jeremiah and its reception provides a sense at the outset that the Jeremianic traditions in Sec- ond Temple Judaism retained a certain flexibility. This composition history is also reflected in the various versions of scriptural Jeremiah preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls in 4QJera–e (4Q70–72b) and 2QJer (2Q13), and the existence of these texts adds to the intrigue surrounding the somewhat anomalous presence of Jeremiah throughout the Qumran literature. A rich literary tradition for the prophet Jeremiah in this period is evident in the explicit use of scriptural Jeremiah in Daniel, the appearance of the book of Baruch and other Baruch traditions, the Epistle of Jeremiah, and the narratives featuring the prophet in 2Maccabees. To these must now be added a collection of works from the caves of Qumran, catalogued in manuscripts ranging between 4Q383 and 4Q390, which mention the prophet by name, and are thematically linked to the Babylo- nian invasion of Jerusalem, the exile, and Jeremiah’s abduction to Egypt (Jer 43– 44). These manuscripts were originally included among a closely related group of fragments featuring the biblical prophet Ezekiel, where they were construed together as part of a large “Second Ezekiel” composition. Over time, scholars have seen fit to distinguish between two separate works, Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385, 4Q385b, 4Q386, 4Q388), and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387b?, 4Q388a, 4Q389, 4Q390). Focussing on the Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls should lead one to consider the latter set for its contribution to the perception of Jeremiah elsewhere in the Qumran literature. Another group of fragments have been designated as distinct other Apocrypha of Jeremiah, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah a (4Q383), and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah b? (4Q384). Owing to their especially fragmentary nature, they will not be featured prominently in this study beyond a brief overview of their contents in Chapter Four below. This chapter will lay the necessary groundwork for a more comprehensive reading of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c in two sections. First, I shall review the history of publication of the Apocryphon c, and will discuss the various issues that have emerged regarding the shape of this text, the number of copies assigned to it, and their provenance. In the second part, upon establishing which scrolls are to be assigned to the Apocryphon c, I shall engage in a

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278448_004 the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 47 thorough analysis of the material remains of the most extensively preserved copy, 4Q385a. The advantage of this manuscript is that it preserves fragments from a wide range of places within the composition, and the physical relationship between them helps to provide a good sense of structure for at least some sections. The goal is to provide as clear a picture as possible of the shape and contents of the entire composition, and its connexions to its “founder,” Jeremiah the prophet. The remaining copies of the Apocryphon c are included in the discussion in those places where they supplement and help to fill in the missing lacunae in 4Q385a. Admittedly, the physical analysis of the fragments is a tedious and techni- cally demanding exercise for all but the most ambitious reader. The undertaking is necessary for producing as clear an impression as possible of the Apoc- ryphon c, and it forms the foundation for the analysis of the contents and the significance of this text in Chapter Three. In much the same fashion, the material analysis forms a skeleton to which the structure and the literary contents of the Apocryphon c are attached. In the interest of making the results of this process more accessible, the fruits of this investigation may be found in a more digestible form in the final section 2.3.2. Distant Joins. The final impression is one of an extensive, composite text, that is divided into two parts. The first is an historical discourse that features an elaborate forecast of the events of the Second Temple period. The second contains a series of prophetic oracles, and a possible forecast of the “last days,” as well as a narrative account featuring the prophet Jeremiah in his interactions with the outgoing Jewish exiles on their way to Babylon, and then in company with the Egyptian Jewish residents in Tahpanes.

2.1 “Paraprophetic Narratives” or “Pseudo-Prophetic Texts”? An Introduction to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and Pseudo-Ezekiel

The fragments of 4Q385 had been mentioned in several publications by John Strugnell and Józef T. Milik since 1956,1 and were the first from the group to

1 John Strugnell, “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits de Qumrân,” rb 63 (1956): 49–67; idem, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumrân—4QSerek Sîrôt Ôlat Hassabbat,” in Congress Volume, Oxford, 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 318–345, 344; J.T. Milik, “Problèmes de la littérature Héno- chique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumrân,” htr 64 (1971): 338–378; idem, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (trans. J. Strugnell; sbt 26; London: scm Press, 1959), 36. Cf. possibly also Jean Starcky’s comments on 2Macc. 2:2 in F.-M. Abel et J. Starcky, Les livres des Maccabées (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961), 227: “La grotte 4 de Qumrân a … livré un apocryphe jérémien …”; also Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum, 44, 97 n. 3. 48 chapter 2 be published by Strugnell and Devorah Dimant under the title “4QSecond Ezekiel.”2 The manuscript was described as consisting of 48 fragments, mostly small pieces; only three of which preserved the width of entire columns.3 The text’s contents were described as “a curious mixture of biblical elements, pseudepigraphic patterns, and concepts and terminology similar to that of the sectarian literature.”4 Second Ezekiel followed the biblical text of Ezekiel closely, but in many instances was “reworked,” “enlarged,” or “supplemented with blocks of other material,” in a manner similar to other pseudepigraphic texts.5 Strugnell and Dimant made mention of the frequent use of sectarian terminology throughout, and the striking resemblances to other “historical apocalypses,” Daniel, Jubilees, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1Enoch, 2Baruch and 4Ezra.6 But most significant for the editors at this early stage was the ancient character of the text: its close association to other early literary corpora “casts doubt on the generally accepted assumption that the non-Biblical literary corpus found at Qumran all came into being during the second cent. bce, or later. The picture is much more complex; at least some parts of the ‘sectarian literature’ or its sources, must go back to a much earlier time.”7

2 John Strugnell and Devorah Dimant, “4Q Second Ezekiel,”RevQ 13 (Oct 1988): 45–58. Strugnell had originally designated the fragments “4QPseudo-Ezekiel,” and this title is maintained throughout his preliminary notes on the text; cf. Monica L. Walsh Brady, “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran: A Study of 4Q383–391” (2 vols. Ph.D. diss., The University of Notre Dame, 2000), 1: 77; Strugnell and Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel,” 45; Devorah Dimant and John Strugnell, “The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4),” RevQ 14/56 (Jan 1991): 331–348, 331–332. While Strugnell’s original notes were never published, he had made them available to Brady and many of them are reproduced in detail throughout her dissertation; Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” viii, also 6, n. 11. 3 Strugnell and Dimant, “4Q Second Ezekiel,” 45; only 4Q385 2 and 4 were published there. 4Q385 6 was published in Dimant and Strugnell, “The Merkabah Vision”; 4Q385a 18 i a + b–ii was published much later and independently by Dimant in “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385B = 4Q385 16),” in New Qumran Texts & Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organisation of Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. G. Brooke; stdj 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11–30. All of Strugnell’s original transcriptions for 4Q385+4Q385a are found in Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg Jr., A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle 3 (Washington d.c.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995), 228–244. 4 Strugnell and Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel,” 48. 5 Strugnell and Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel,” 48. 6 Strugnell and Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel,” 48. 7 Strugnell and Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel,” 58. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 49

At some point after 1988 Strugnell entrusted to Dimant the publication of the entire group of texts.8 In the intervening years several brief mentions appeared of the other manuscripts related to 4Q385,9 and in 1991 Dimant presented the first serious study of the texts at the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Madrid.10 Through a closer inspection of structure, style and content in the group, Dimant detected three distinct compositions as opposed to the multiple copies of the single Ezekielic work proposed by Strugnell.11 Dimant’s new organisation now distinguished between “Pseudo-Ezekiel” comprising 4Q385, 4Q386 4Q387, 4Q388, and “most of” 4Q391; the newly named “Pseudo-Moses” in 4Q385a, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389 and 4Q390; and a narrative work entitled the “Apocryphon of Jeremiah” in 4Q383(?), 4Q385b, 4Q387b, and 4Q389a (Cf. Table 2.1. below).12 In her study of 4Q390 in this particular essay, Dimant observed a close affinity in this text with Qumran sectarian theology.13 Her suspicions were bolstered by a number of similarities in content, ideology, and style with other compositions such as Jubilees, the Testament of Moses, and the Animal Apocalypse.14 Furthermore, the close association of key words,

8 Dimant, djd 30, 1. 9 On 4Q386, 4Q387 cf. Florentino García Martínez, “Las tradiciones apocalípticas en Qum- rán: 4QSecond Ezekiel,” in Biblische und judaïstische Studien: Festschrift für Paolo Sacchi (ed. A. Viviano; Frankfurt: Lang, 1990), 303–321. On 4Q389 cf. C.A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions (ab 44; Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1977), 270. On 4Q390 cf. J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 254–255; García Martínez, “Nuevos textos no bíblicos procedentes de Qumrán,”Est- Bib 49 (1991): 97–134, 130–134. 10 Published in Devorah Dimant, “New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha— 4Q390,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991 (ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Mon- taner; 2 vols.; stdj 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2: 405–448. 11 Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 408. 12 Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 408–413. 13 Cf. also Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9:24–27) in the Light of New Qumranic Texts,” in The Book of Daniel in Light of New Findings (ed. A.S. van der Woude; Leuven: University Press, 1993) 57–76; idem, “The Four Kingdoms in the Book of Daniel 2 in Light of Compositions from Qumran,” in Many Voices: Memorial Volume for Rebekah S.Z. Oppenheimer (ed. R. Elior and J. Dan; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1996), 33–41. 14 Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 411, 443; cf. also idem, “L’apocryphe de Jérémie c de Qoumrân,” rhpr 85 (2005): 497–515, 499 concerning the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 89:51–94:4) and Jub. 1:9–15; 23:11–26: “Cependant, les deux étaient étudiés et probablement copiés par des membres de la communauté de Qoumrân puisque des copies des deux textes ont été découvertes parmi les manuscrits. En fait, les deux textes présentent des liens remarquables avec l’Apocryphe de Jérémie c.” 50 chapter 2 phrases, and the locution of biblical passages in 4Q390 and the Damascus Doc- ument prompted Dimant’s assertion that this text was quite possibly part of the Qumran community’s ideological base.15 table 2.1 Assignment of Fragments in Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c

Dimant Strugnell

4Q383 frg. 1 4Q383 frg. 1 frg. 2 4Q385 frg. 39 frg. 3 – frg. 4 4Q389 frg. 16 frg. 5 – frg. 6 frg. 15 frg. a – frg. b – frg. c 4Q383 frg. 3

4Q385 frg. 1 4Q385 frg. 40 frg. 2 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 12 frg. 4 frg. 3 frg. 5 frg. 5 frg. 6 frg. 4 4Q385a frg. 1a–b i–ii frgs. 13+46 frg. 2 frg. 15 frg. 3a–c frgs. 14+45 frg. 4 frg. 44 frg. 5a–b frgs. 41+43 frg. 6 frg. 42 frg. 7 – frg. 8 frg. 19 frg. 9 frg. 18 frg. 10 i–ii – frg. 11 i–ii frg. 36 i–ii frg. 12 frg. 7

15 Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 445–446. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 51

Dimant Strugnell

frg. 13a–b frgs. 8+21 frg. 14 frg. 11 frg. 15 i–ii frg. 10 i–ii frg. 16a–b frgs. 5+17 frg. 17a–e i–ii frgs. 9 i–ii + 6, 22, 24, 34 frg. 18 i–ii frg. 16 i–ii + 38 frg. a – frg. b frg. 25 frg. c frg. 3016 frg. d frg. 32 frg. e frg. 35 frg. f – frg. g – frg. h frg. 47 frg. i – frg. j – frg. k – 4Q385b frg. 1 4Q385c frg. a frg. 28 frg. b frg. 23 frg. c frg. 31 frg. d frg. 21 frg. e – frg. f – frg. g frg. 3016

4Q386 frg. 1 i–iii 4Q386 frg. 1 i–iii frg. 2 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 3

4Q387 frg. 1 4Q387 frg. 1 frg. 2 i–ii frg. 3 ii–iii frg. 3 frg. 2

16 The fragment designated by Strugnell as Frg. 30 was assigned by Dimant to both 4Q385a, and to 4Q385c. 52 chapter 2 table 2.1 Assignment of Fragments (cont.)

Dimant Strugnell

frg. 4 i–ii frg. 4 i–ii frg. a frg. 5

4Q388 frg. 1 4Q388 frg. 11 frg. 2 frg. 10 frg. 3 i–ii frg. 12 i–ii frg. 4 frg. 13 frg. 5 frg. 14 frg. 6 frg. 9 frg. 7 frg. 8 4Q388a frg. 1 frg. 5 frg. 2 frg. 17 frg. 3 frgs. 2+3 frg. 4 frg. 4 frg. 5 frg. 7 frg. 6 frg. 6 frg. 7 i–ii frg. 1 i–ii frg. a frg. 16 frg. b frg. 18 frg. c frg. 20 frg. d frg. 21 frg. e frg. 22 frg. f frg. 19 frg. g – frg. h frg. 11 frg. i –17 4Q389 frg. 1 4Q389 frg. 6 frg. 2 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 3 frg. 4 – frg. 5 frg. 4 frg. 6 frg. 9

17 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 3: 257 designate this fragment frg. 16, and Dimant, djd 30, 217 asserts that it was originally frg. 24. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 53

Dimant Strugnell

frg. 7 frg. 8 frg. 8 i–ii frg. 1 i–ii frg. 9 frg. 10 frg. a frg. 5 frg. b – frg. c – frg. d frg. 14 frg. e frg. 17

Dimant later eliminated the Pseudo-Moses distinction in favour of grouping this manuscript with others from the previously identified Apocryphon of Jere- miah.18 Nevertheless, her innovative work in the publication of 4Q390 imposed a revised view of the previously so-called “parabiblical” or “pseudo” prophets: three distinct streams of tradition, preserved in three discernibly different genres all within the collection of a single group of texts that showed a remarkable variety in the handling of the classical Hebrew prophets. The discovery of the intricacies within Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon (including Pseudo- Moses) together appeared to defy the application of the term “rewritten Bible” to describe them, and this confusion has further complicated attempts to clearly understand the nature and function of these texts. Dimant’s decision to separate the Jeremiah material from the original group has met with some criticism, and before any further analysis of its contribution to the Jeremiah traditions at Qumran can occur, the relationship between the Apocryphon of Jeremiah and Pseudo-Ezekiel must be clarified. The issue which requires resolution is whether the Cave 4 documents represent a single Ezekiel/Jeremiah composition in multiple copies, or whether they are in fact separate works, which can be distinguished according to their subject matter.

2.2 The Classification of Manuscripts

2.2.1 Devorah Dimant and Arguments for Multiple Compositions The official editions of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and Pseudo-Ezekiel were published in 2001 by Dimant in the Discoveries of the Judaean Desert Vol-

18 Dimant, djd 30, 129–131; to be discussed in greater detail below. 54 chapter 2 ume 30, under the subtitle Pseudo-prophetic Texts. In her “General Introduc- tion” Dimant reveals that early in his analysis of the fragments, the original editor Strugnell suspected a distinction between separate works. She writes that “from the very beginning, Strugnell discerned two types of material, one connected with Ezekiel, the other with Jeremiah.”19 Citing exchanges between Strugnell and Milik,20 Dimant used Strugnell’s speculation to preface her own decision for assigning material to Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jere- miah c respectively.21 The evolution of this organisation is recounted in the Madrid Congress Volume:22 from her initial acceptance with Strugnell of a single “Second Ezekiel” composition, to her own independent research, which produced the impression that she was dealing with three distinct works, and finally to her arrival at a fairly decisive conclusion that the fragments in fact belong to two separate pieces of literature. The basic premise for this conclusion comes primarily from distinctions between the texts in literary style, terminology and ideology. These differences have been summarised by Dimant as follows:

While the fragments assigned to Pseudo-Ezekiel mention Ezekiel by name, rewrite some of his canonical prophecies, and strive to imitate his scriptural style, those assigned to Apocryphon of Jeremiah c draw mainly on Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. The extant passages from Pseudo-Ezekiel deal with eschatological issues, while Apocryphon of Jeremiah c produces a review of history.23

This division between texts then enabled her to observe some physical attributes among the manuscripts that validated the separation. Among these she detected different orthographies, paragraph indicators, and slight differences in palaeography. For example, she noted that copies of Pseudo-Ezekiel have a tendency to mark the end of paragraphs with small vacats and spaces of several letters, whereas that is a feature that rarely appears in the Apocryphon

19 Dimant, djd 30, 1. 20 Cf. John Strugnell, “Le travail d’édition,” also Milik, “Problèmes de la littérature,” 357. 21 Dimant indicated that Strugnell mused about distinguishing between the fragments, and provided no explanation for keeping the fragments together. Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 1. 22 Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 406–407; also idem, “4Q389 2—‘Pseudo-Moses’: Evi- dence of a Past Connection,” in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht (ed. Y. Hoffman and F.H. Polak; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997), 220–226 (Heb.). 23 Dimant, djd 30, 7. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 55 manuscripts.24 Those scrolls assigned to the Apocryphon c, on the other hand, show a wide range of orthography, only some of which is characteristically “extremely defective,” while the Pseudo-Ezekiel scrolls consistently use the regular defective orthography of 픐.25 In the preliminary publication of what would become 4Q385a 18 i a + b–ii, Dimant offered differences in the ʾālep and the final kāp as examples of the slight distinction between scribal hands as a means to separate between the two compositions in two manuscripts (cf. e.g. 385a 18 i 6, These differences notwithstanding, Dimant did caution 26.( ךמש ,4Q385 2 2 ; ךליו that it is not impossible for a single composition to exhibit a pluriformity in literary character, but the detected discrepancies between the Pseudo-Ezekiel and Apocryphon c groups were “too pronounced,” she claimed, to sustain any theory of homogeneity among the fragments.27 Dimant’s division of the fragments emerged initially from her treatment of those fragments that were at once assigned to 4Q385. Because some of these fragments arrived at the Palestinian Archaeological Museum (pam)28 in “wads” it was originally assumed that they came from the same scroll. Dimant explains that the common practice was to treat these wadded fragments as an indicator that they were part of the same manuscript: “The layers of each pile represent the various sheets of the scroll as it was originally rolled.”29 In the case of 4Q385, very close similarities in scribal hand and material appearance substantiated the classification of these fragments together as part of the same scroll. However, an absence of any discernible literary cohesion between them prompted Dimant to distinguish two compositions from the fragments by separating them into two groups. Dimant describes the results as follows:

… once re-classified, the two groups emerge as distinct literary entities, which show different affinities with different manuscripts. The Pseudo- Ezekiel group, 4Q385, displays affinity of style, themes, and vocabulary with the manuscripts designated 4Q385b, 4Q386, and 4Q388. Moreover,

24 Dimant, djd 30, 7. 25 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 104; unfortunately, Dimant doesn’t provide any means by which she distinguishes between “defective” and “extremely defective” orthography. 26 Dimant, “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 13, n. 11. Cf. also pams 41.893 (4Q385 frg. 2) and 42.505 (4Q385a frg. 18). 27 Cf. Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 408; In the footnotes she has noted that this is particularly the case for 4Q386 and 4Q390. 28 Called the “Palestinian Antiquities Museum” by Dimant, djd 30, 129. 29 Dimant, djd 30, 129. 56 chapter 2

4Q385 overlaps with passages in 4Q386 and 4Q388. 4Q385a of the Apoc- ryphonof Jeremiahc group shows affinity with other manuscripts, namely, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389, and 4Q390. It partly overlaps with 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389.30

As part of her inspection of the 4Q385 group, Dimant also suggested a difference in the manner in which the scrolls were rolled. Depending in part upon Hartmut Stegemann’s methodology for material reconstruction,31 and drawing upon the several overlaps between five of the manuscript groups (the 4Q385 group, 4Q386, 4387, the 4Q388 group, and 4Q389), Dimant stated that 4Q385— belonging to Pseudo-Ezekiel—was last rolled in the normal fashion from left to right, with the beginning on the outside. But in the case of 4Q385a, she provides the following interpretation of Strugnell’s notes to mean that the layers of the fragments in the piles when they arrived at the pam reveal that this document was otherwise rolled with the beginning on the inside:

Initially, Strugnell arranged the fragments following the sequence of the layers in the pile, namely 39-40-41–42-43-44. However, subsequent joins of frgs. 13+43 (now frg. 1), 40+44 (now frg. 5), and 42+14 (now frg. 3) were suggested by similar shapes and the overlapping text of 4Q387 1 and 4Q388a 3. This means that in the original scroll frg. 14 followed frg. 42, and not vice versa. However, in the original pile frg. 14 had lain one layer above frg. 42. Both fragments were laid on top of frg. 13b. This fact, as pointed out by Strugnell, can be explained only if the ancient reader did not re-roll the scroll when he finished reading but left it rolled with the beginning at the inside.32

Dimant appears to have misread Strugnell’s description of these fragments, and then presumes an order for their arrangement upon all of the fragments, based

30 Dimant, djd 30, 129. 31 Hartmut Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Frag- ments,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Confer- ence in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman; JSPSupp 8; jsot / asor Mono- graphs 2; Hapog Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies at nyu; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 189–220. 32 Dimant, djd 30, 130–131. The entire excerpt from Strugnell’s notes pertaining to this is reproduced in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran,” 1: 235–238. The sequences of the layers in 4Q385a will be featured in greater detail in the section 2.3.1. Material Joins below. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 57 on her misunderstanding of Strugnell.33 The order for this particular group is actually what we would expect for a scroll stored correctly, with the beginning layers on the outside, as clearly demonstrated in the location of frgs. 1a–6 in a wad from bottom-to-top in pam 41.643, and then separated and labelled accordingly in pam 41.859. Upon separating the literary units, Dimant managed to identify a number of key words and phrases that appear to be particular to each composition. Worth mentioning among these are the “stylistic peculiarities of the canonical discourse” that the scribe of Pseudo-Ezekiel has adopted in his re-presentation son of“ , םדאןב of the visions of Ezekiel, namely the address of the prophet as man,” in 4Q385 2 5; 3 4 and 4Q386 1 ii 2. Dimant has also drawn attention in Pseudo-Ezekiel to the extant multiple occurrences of the phrase from the book ;and they will know that I am yhwh,” (4Q385 2 1, 4“ , הוהיינאיכועדיו of Ezekiel 4Q386 1 ii 1).34 Among the fragments assigned to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, Dimant noticed that while the author strove to maintain a “biblical style” through his use of vocabulary, locutions, and verb forms all familiar to 픐, he has done so with slight variations and alterations that betray his “post-biblical environment.”35 She has provided a list of vocabulary and expressions used in the Apocryphon c that correspond to what she identifies as “biblical locutions” and those “shared with Qumran sectarian literature,” as well as a list of peculiar , ךלה terms, including, for example, several variations on the Hitpaʿel stem for “to walk about” (4Q388a 3 2 || 4Q385a 3 2; 4Q387 2 ii 4 || 4Q385a 4 1; 4Q387 3 4–5 seek” (4Q385a 16 7; 18 ii 2–3, 8; 4Q387“ , שרד 4Q385a 5 7; 4Q389 2 7), the root || ;Gadĕpān,” or “blasphemer” (4Q385a 4 6“, ןפדג ii 2; 4Q389 2 1), and the titles 2 the angels of Maśṭēmot” (4Q387“ , תומטשמהיכלאמ 4Q387 2 ii 8; 4Q389 8 ii 9) and 2 iii 4; 4Q390 1 11; 2 i 7).36 Further, Dimant has drawn attention to a number of fairly distinct locutions shared with other ancient Second Temple compositions. The Pseudo-Ezekiel fragments are centrally concerned with Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones from Ezek 37:1–14, but there is a subtle incorporation of language and terminology reminiscent of the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and perhaps the book of the

33 Eibert Tigchelaar, “Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” jsj 43 (2012): 519–550, 533, n. 51 and 537–538. 34 Dimant, djd 30, 10; cf. Ezek 5:12–14; 6:9–11, 13–7:1; 7:26–8:1; 12:14–17; 24:26–25:1; 25:10–12, 16– 26:1; 26:5–7; 28:21–29:1; 29:8–10, 20–30:1; 30:7–9, 18–20, 24–31:1; 32:14–16; 33:28–30; 34:26–31; 35:14–36:1; 36:37–37:1; 38:22–39:1; 39:5–7, 27–29. 35 Dimant, djd 30, 100–101. 36 Dimant, djd 30, 101–104. 58 chapter 2

Twelve.37 She has also noted a thematic affinity with Pseudo-Philo’s LiberAntiq- uitatum Biblicarum, 4Ezra, and 2Baruch centred around the theme of resur- rection and the hastening approach of the last days.38 However, the parallels in Pseudo-Ezekiel are quite different from those most common to the Apoc- ryphon c. Present in the list of biblical locutions in the Apocryphon c is a concentration of similarities with Deuteronomy in particular, and with the narratives from Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, as well as Ezra/Nehemiah.39 Dimant has also detected numerous points of contact between the Apocryphon c and the sectarian Damascus Document,40 and has located the composition in the stream of early Jewish apocalyptic literature, bearing similarities to other such “historical apocalypses.”41 Dimant’s editorial efforts are commendable, and were at first generally well received.42 Nevertheless, the praise does not come without reservations regarding her separation of the material on primarily literary and stylistic grounds. Benjamin Wright said that the emergence of these fragments from one into three and finally to two compositions “suggests that the data themselves present to the interpreter a complicated and somewhat obscure picture.”43 He went on to say that while his own research with Pseudo-Ezekiel was conducted on the basis of Dimant’s conclusions,44 he would have preferred a more definitive res-

37 Dimant, djd 30, 10. 38 Dimant, djd 30, 13–14. 39 E.g.: 2Kgs 20:3; 2Chron 6:37–38; 2Sam 7:1; 2Kgs 19:29; Dimant, djd 30, 101–102. 40 Dimant, djd 30, 103. 41 Dimant, djd 30, 107–109. 42 George J. Brooke comments that her work exhibits “greater detail than almost any in the djd series other than mmt.” Cf. Brooke, “Devorah Dimant, Qumran Cave 4., Volume 21: Para- biblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-prophetic Texts (djd xxx)” [Review], jsot 99 (June 2002): 26; Benjamin G. Wright iii credited her for laying “an excellent foundation for the conversation that will certainly follow.” Wright, “QumranCave4, Volume21: ParabiblicalTexts,Part4: Pseudo-prophetic Texts” [Review], dsd 9 (2002): 249–253, 253. 43 Wright, “Pseudo-prophetic Texts” [Review], 251. 44 Cf. Wright, “Talking with God and Losing His Head: Extrabiblical Traditions about the Prophet Ezekiel,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. (ed. M.E. Stone and T.A. Bergren; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press, 1998), 290–315; idem, “Qumran Pseudepigrapha in Early Christianity: Is 1Clem 50:4 a Citation of 4QPseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385)?” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceed- ings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997. (ed. E.G. Chazon, M.E. Stone and A. Pinnick; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 183–193; idem, “The Apocryphon of Ezekiel and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel,” in Schiffman, Tov, and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 59 olution to whether Pseudo-Ezekiel and Apocryphon of Jeremiah c are distinct or homogeneous: “It seems, though, that this crucial problem is not yet settled, and debate about it appears certain to continue.”45

2.2.2 Monica L.W. Brady and Arguments for a “Single Work in Multiple Copies” Much of Wright’s uncertainty regarding Dimant’s classification of 4Q383– 4Q391 stemmed from Monica L. Walsh Brady’s unpublished dissertation entitled “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran: A Study of 4Q383–4Q391.”46 In an exhaustive survey completed shortly before the appearance of Dimant’s volume, Brady sought to demonstrate that Dimant’s literary and stylistic arguments were not sufficient to maintain her subdivision of the fragments into multiple compositions. Brady’s work engaged with the preliminary release of the material that Dimant had presented in a series of publications—two in collab- oration with John Strugnell—between 1988 and 1998.47 Her disagreement was with the method Dimant had employed in distinguishing and organising the fragments, which she argued was according to “qualities” that had been perceived only in the largest three of the collection. She asserted that this was problematic because of the highly fragmentary nature of the manuscripts in question, and believed that Dimant was too hasty in dismissing connexions between fragments on her inability to make sense of their contents.48 Brady’s entire work is largely descriptive, in which she sought to provide an exhaustive presentation of the evidence to demonstrate how the fragments might be construed together as “a single work in multiple copies.”49 Her study stood as a methodological exercise in manuscript editing and reconstruction, through which she sought “to counteract the problems caused by the publication of

462–480; idem, “Notes on 4Q391 (papPseudo-Ezekiel) and Biblical Ezekiel,” cbq 62 (2000): 344–345. 45 Wright, “Pseudo-prophetic Texts [Review],” 252. 46 Cited by Wright, “Pseudo-prophetic Texts [Review],” 252. 47 Cf. Strugnell and Dimant. “4Q Second Ezekiel”; Dimant, “New Light from Qumran” and idem, “Seventy Weeks Chronology,” above; also idem, “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel at Qumran,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (ed. I. Gruenwald, S. Shaked, and G. Stroumsa; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), 31–51; idem, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” dsd 1 (1994): 151–159; idem, “4Q386 ii–iii—A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?”RevQ 18/72 (1998): 511–529. 48 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 1: 11–12. 49 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 2: 543; cf. 1: 13–15. 60 chapter 2 limited parts of manuscripts and the naming, numbering, classifying, and interpreting of them outside the context of the entire collection.”50 Brady relied heavily upon two manuscripts in particular to inform her approach and from which she drew her conclusions. The 4Q385 group was used to undermine Dimant’s attempts to distinguish the manuscripts according to their content, since, in Brady’s estimation, the fragments were too similar to be separated.51 For her, the presence of Jeremianic and Ezekiel (as well as Mosaic) material among these fragments constituted a composition which incorporated all of these figures in an harmonious fashion. Perhaps the most conclusive piece of evidence for Brady was in her reading of 4Q386 1 i–iii. Accordingly, this fragment provides some substance for her argument in its preservation of the vision of the valley of dry bones from Ezek 37 in col. i; a dialogue between yhwh and the prophet concerning the imminent return from exile in col. ii; דיבסוככ ) ”and a characterisation of Babylon as “a cup in the hand of yhwh -in col. iii. The last column is especially important because of its relation ( הוהי ship to Jer 51 where the prophet describes Babylon as a “cup of gold in the ־לָכּתֶרֶכַּשְׁמ ) ”intoxicating the entire earth ,( הָוהְי־דַיְבּלֶבָבּבָהָז־סוֹכּ ) hand of yhwh Jer 51:7).52 Brady argued that these varied biblical locutions all together ; ץֶרָאָה on the same fragment presented the clearest evidence for a text of diverse subject matter, themes and literary style. Unfortunately, she has been unable to construe a plausible inter-relationship, or to identify any unifying principles present between these biblical elements.53 Brady has maintained her position even after the publication of Dimant’s edition.54 In her most recent essay she reiterates her low opinion of Dimant’s methodological grounds for separating the fragments, and remains highly critical of their new arrangement in djd 30:

Certainly information gleaned from analysis of the fragments is helpful, but it is pushed beyond its limits when it is used as the basis for assigning the fragments to distinct works. When fragments are that small and

50 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 1: 16. 51 Cf. Brady’s extensive presentation of the 4Q385 group in “Chapter 4: 4Q385,” 1: 61–239; also in her concluding chapter worth noting is the summary discussion “A Single Work in Multiple Copies or Three Distinct Works in Multiple Copies?” 2: 543–556. 52 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 1: 14, n. 31; 2: 247; 2: 556. 53 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 2: 247–250. 54 Monica Brady, “Biblical Interpretation in the ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’ Fragments (4Q383–391) from Cave Four” in Henze, ed., Biblical Interpretation, 88–109, 92. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 61

without a clear context, commonalities are overlooked while differences are highlighted.55

She suggests that an evaluation of the fragments assigned to 4Q383–4Q391 together yields a number of agreements in their combinations of “biblical and nonbiblical elements,”56 from which she isolated seven shared exegetical features in their treatment of the biblical prophetic books.57 Brady concludes that the fragments as a whole appear to be concerned with the exilic and postexilic periods, and part of a text which likely was composed in order to address matters related to sin, exile and the hope of return.58 The vague characterisations of the biblical interpolations that Brady has used to bind these fragments together have been maintained, particularly in relation to some of the Deuteronomic and quasi-sectarian allusions clearly distinguished in those fragments now belonging to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. While she has furnished a possible explanation of the common features in the fragments, it remains to be established how they functioned together as a single composition based on their treatment of traditions from the scriptural prophetic books.59 Much of her argument for multiple copies of a single composition leads to a conclusion which is unacceptably inconclusive.

55 Brady, “Biblical Interpretation,” 92–93; much of her discussion in this essay has been reworked from the concluding chapter of her dissertation. Cf. “Chapter 11: Conclusions” in “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 2: 535–561; especially sub-section 11.1: “Summary Overview of 4Q383–391,” 2: 535–542. Her central piece of evidence is still the inter-related elements from 4Q386 i–iii, but this can no longer be considered a difficulty for Dimant’s position, as the whole text of 4Q386 remains intact and part of only 4QPseudo-Ezekiel. Moreover, those fragments that were separated by Dimant as part of the Apocryphon distinct from the Pseudo-Ezekiel group appear to be most closely associated with the latter part of 픊 Jeremiah, and lack any identifiable affiliation with 픐 Jer 51: the oracle from which the biblical locution in 4Q386 1 iii 1 is drawn, and which features as a prominent component of Brady’s evidence. 56 Brady, “Biblical Interpretation,” 106. 57 Brady, “Biblical Interpretation,” 95: (1) reworking of large biblical passages thematically linked to Jeremiah and Ezekiel; (2) reworking of smaller units drawn from biblical Jere- miah and Ezekiel; (3) linguistic and thematic similarities with Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets; (4) similarity in terminology or language common and distinct only to Jeremiah and Ezekiel; (5) arrangement of material into pseudonymous dialogues between God and a prophet; (6) reworking of smaller textual units from other biblical prophetic books; and (7) the assimilation of paraphrased Pentateuchal (Deuteronomistic?) pericopae. 58 Brady, “Biblical Interpretation,” 108; cf. also idem, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 2: 542. 59 Cf. Devorah Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c in Perspective,” 62 chapter 2

Dimant’s subsequent research after the completion of Brady’s dissertation seems to have resolved the most problematic elements of her preliminary work that Brady had challenged. In particular, the decision to re-classify the fragments into the two groups eliminated altogether the “Pseudo-Moses” category, which seems to have contributed to much of the earlier confusion.60 Brady appeared so determined to disqualify Dimant’s three-work theory from 1991 that she left no room in her thinking for two compositions, as nowhere has she indicated that dividing the texts into two groups as Dimant has done was ever a viable option. Dimant’s re-classification has also revealed some other distinctions—albeit minor—in scribal hands, condition and quality of the leather,61 and orthography.62 In a 2003 essay dedicated to the features of what he calls “Torah-paraenesis”63 in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, Lutz Doering offered a cautious endorsement of Dimant’s method and categorisation over against Brady’s, in large part because of the additional physical evidence that appeared in the djd edition.64 After careful consideration of the evolution of Dimant’s classificatory work, the scrupulous counter-analysis carried out in Brady’s dissertation, and the publication of Dimant’s edition in djd 30, several of the more problematic issues that were raised in Brady’s examination are deemed to have been satisfactorily resolved. The history of the publication of the Apocryphon c to this point serves as a nice example for the process of fal- sification at work in Qumran studies, as Dimant’s two composition hypothesis has passed the rigour of Brady’s counter-analysis relatively intact.

2.2.3 Cana Werman et al., 4Q390 and Pseudo-Moses Revisited Despite the satisfaction in separating the Apocryphon c from Pseudo-Ezekiel, Cana Werman has lead the charge mounted by several scholars who chal-

RevQ 25/97 (2011): 17–39, 21: “Brady’s alternative proposition lacks such a unifying framework. In fact, her insistence on viewing the entire collection as copies of a single work results in a strange and mixed assemblage, in which passages about Ezekiel and Jeremiah are placed side by side without any clear structure or direction.” 60 Dimant, djd 30, 2–3. 61 Cf. e.g. Dimant’s introduction to 4Q385b, Dimant, djd 30, 71. 62 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 104. 63 Translated from Doering’s “Stichwort ‘Toraparänese’,” in Lutz Doering, “Jeremia in Baby- lonien und Ägypten: Mündlichte und schriftliche Toraparänese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah c,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie: Mit einem Anbang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (ed. Wolf- gang Kraus and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 50–79, 50. 64 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 52–54: “weshalb m.E. Dimants Sicht augen- blicklich als die besser begründete gelten kann” (p. 52). the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 63 lenged Dimant’s arrangement of the manuscripts in djd 30, and has advocated the distinction of material closer to her earlier separation of the fragments into three separate works: Pseudo-Ezekiel, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, and Pseudo-Moses.65 Werman based her re-configuration on the following lines of evidence. First, there are no overlaps present in 4Q390—what she has identified as Pseudo-Moses—with any of the other Apocryphon c texts. In this sense, it is unique among the six principal manuscripts.66 Second, Werman considers 4Q390 distinct in genre from the Apocryphon c. She argues that the Apocryphon c was written in reaction to Daniel according to an alternative, non-mythic worldview and theodicy,67 whereas 4Q390 was a later, sectarian, anti-Hasmonaean polemic.68 Third, and most importantly, Werman sees a significantly different chronological breakdown of the 490-year epoch in 4Q390 than what is presented in the Apocryphon c. She considers the Apocryphon c to be externally focused in terms of its historical description while 4Q390 is consistently more concerned with events taking place within Israel. For these reasons, she posits that three distinct works emerge, similar to Dimant’s earlier description of the manuscripts in the Madrid Congress volume.69 The strength in Werman’s argument is her recognition of the different streams of chronology, upon which two views of the exile and Second Temple period were presumably constructed: the first, which she identifies as “pre- Qumranic,” figures its timeframe of 490 years from the destruction of the temple to the beginning of the Hasmonaean revolt.70 Its concerns are primarily

65 Cana Werman, “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Liter- ature,” dsd 13 (2006): 229–255. This article is a translation of “The Eschaton in Second Temple Literature,” Tarbiz 72/1–2 (2003): 37–57 (Heb.). It should be noted that Werman’s compartmentalisation of the fragments differs from Dimant’s three-document theory that was published in the Madrid Congress volume. While Dimant had originally assigned a handful of the 4Q385 group of fragments to Pseudo-Moses, Werman views only 4Q390 as distinct from the Apocryphon c and Pseudo-Ezekiel. 66 There are no overlaps between 4Q383 and the other 4QApocrJer c texts, but this is not terribly surprising given its poor condition. Werman is non-committal regarding the allocation of this document with the other Apocryphon texts, however, presumably owing to the mention of Jeremiah within this manuscript, she alludes to the possibility that it is part of the Apocryphon c (Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 231–232; esp. 231, n. 7). 67 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 241–242. 68 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 246–247. 69 Cf. Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 407–408. 70 Werman, “Epochs and End Time,” 238–239, considers the pericope preserved in 4Q387 2 ii (|| 4Q385a 4 1–9 || 4Q389 8 ii 1–4) to have been written in the “post-decree period,” that is, fairly shortly after the decrees of Antiochus iv and his desecration of the temple, 64 chapter 2 with the distance created by idolatry between the people and God, who has 4Q387 2 iii 4; cf. col. ii 9). In her estimation, this ; ינפיתרתסהו ) ”hidden (his) face“ text draws comparisons with the same schema in Dan 9–12, but it has been de-mythologised, and was perhaps written in opposition to Daniel’s “mythi- cal bent.”71 The comparable chronology, preserved in 4Q390 1 and 2 is much more exclusive, and is distinguished by its strong, anti-priesthood polemics.72 Its highly symbolic 490-year scheme is reckoned from the destruction of the first temple, through the founding of the Qumran community, and into the last days.73 Werman observes that there is a difference between the two schemata: the Apocryphon c contains no subdivisions, where they are otherwise frequent and varied in 4Q390.74 Because of a clear correlation between the complaints issued in these fragments with those found elsewhere in the Qumran sectarian texts concerning the cause of the exile, she considers Pseudo-Moses to be a sectarian composition,75 concerned with the temple and cult violations of the priesthood. Unlike the other chronological scheme, the focus of the accusations in 4Q390 is upon the sins of the priests in the period of Hellenization and under Hasmonaean rule, rather than on the sins of the people in the First Temple and the Hellenistic periods.76 Other challenges to Dimant’s inclusion of 4Q390 with the Apocryphon c followed from Werman’s pointed criticism. Christoph Berner, while writing about the “heptadic” chronologies in Second Temple Judaism, has argued that the text is later than the other manuscripts which have been positively identified as the Apocryphon c, and that 4Q390 is independent from the Jeremianic corpus that includes the Apocryphon.77 The late Hanan Eshel also said that 4Q390

but also, not long after the Hasmonaean revolt. In her estimation, the uncertain mention of the Hasmonaeans, the cautiously guarded endorsement of their leadership, and the possible open-ended position of the fragments regarding the destiny of the Hasmonaean reign suggests a mid-second century bce date, and sets the Apocryphon as a contemporary of the book of Daniel (239–241; also cf. 254). 71 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 242; but cf. Martin G. Abegg, “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. James M. Scott; JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 111–126, 123. 72 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 248–249. 73 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 245–247; cf. also 254. 74 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 245. 75 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 246. This opinion is echoed by Christoph Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Antiken Judentum (bzaw 383; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 425. 76 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 248. 77 Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen, 393–430. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 65 appears to be “an independent work.”78 Although unlike Werman—who sees a close relationship between the contents of the Apocryphon c and the book of Daniel, both stemming from an independent source—Eshel argues that it is rather 4Q390 that is an “update” of the prophecy of 490-years in Daniel 9.79 He has furthermore made an impressively concise argument for situating the calendrical dispute shared by 4Q390 and Daniel within the mid-second cent. bce, contemporaneous with the adoption of the Seleucid solar calendar by the early Hasmonaean priests.80 The apparent absence of the same level of vitriol for calendrical infractions in the Apocryphon c provides a persuasive argument for retaining the division, and reading 4Q390 as a separate composition. More recently, Bennie H. Reynolds iii argued that Dimant’s placement of 4Q390 within her Apocryphon c scheme does not make good literary sense, and is not convincing. Nevertheless, he still maintains that this manuscript is a copy of the Apocryphon c, only that it preserved text stemming from another part of the composition.81 In the same year that Reynolds’ volume appeared, Dimant responded to her critics in a re-appraisal of the Apocryphon c and Pseudo-Ezekiel.82 Following a withering critique of Brady’s argument for a single composition,83 Dimant goes on to reassert the inclusion of 4Q390 as another copy of the Apocryphon c on the grounds of their stylistic and literary similarities. She states that “[t]he resemblance between 4Q390 and the copies of the Apocryphon in style and locutions is so great that one may almost say that 4Q390 is a pastiche of expressions from these copies.”84 Dimant addresses each of Werman’s four arguments for separation of 4Q390 individually, and essentially concludes that Werman is inappropriately “prejudiced by her own interpretive bent.”85 These objections are summarised as follows: (1) that the chronological discrepancy assumed by Werman is nullified by the smattering of references to smaller chronological units in other places in the Apocryphon c; (2) that the positive appraisal of

78 Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (sdssrl; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 24, n. 30; also 22, nn. 24–25. 79 Cf. also Eshel, “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy, and the Calendrical History of the Second Temple Period,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 102–110. 80 Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 25–26; idem, “4Q390,” 107–110. 81 Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 263–274. 82 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c.” 83 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 20–25. 84 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36. 85 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36.; cf. also pp. 33–35. 66 chapter 2 the returnees in 4Q390 is unwarranted in light of its overwhelmingly negative description of this period; (3) that the apparent failure to link the epochal change in 4Q390 to Antiochus iv’s decrees as in the Apocryphon c results from the incorrect placement of 4Q390 2 i immediately subsequent to frg. 1; and finally, (4) that the Apocryphon c’s concentration on idolatry is not accurate in light of its specification of several other accusations. Dimant has correctly challenged Werman’s attempt to resurrect the old title for 4Q390, “Pseudo-Moses,” and notes that in the absence of the identification of any figure in the text, the Mosaicised tendencies that commonly are attached to Jeremiah are quite persuasive for including this text as part of the Apocryphon c.86 Dimant concludes her appraisal of 4Q390 with a re-presentation of the shared “unique elements” with the Apocryphon c manuscripts, and claims that this “proves” that arguments for the separation of 4Q390 are “ill-founded.”87 Dimant’s basic disagreement stems from the charge that her critics are unduly influenced by their own interpretive preconceptions. However, her own interpretive bent notwithstanding, these counter claims do not really eliminate the various arguments that Berner, Werman and Eshel have put forward. Dimant’s best evidence for the inclusion of 4Q390 as another copy of the Apoc- ryphon c may be her suggestion that frgs. 1 and 2 are not successive, and are rather part of different sections of the historical discourse.88 One of the principle problems in each of the critiques of Dimant’s work is the basic assumption that frg. 2 i immediately follows frg. 1, and this—in her opinion—has resulted in incorrect interpretations of 4Q390. Dimant rather believes that damage patterns in these fragments indicate that they are separated by “at least three or four columns.”89 She depends upon this distance to explain the curious absence of any overlaps between 4Q390 and any of the other Apocryphonc manuscripts; a situation that seems especially odd, given the size of the surviving fragments from 4Q390, and the fairly good quality of preservation of the supposed intervening sections from the Apocryphon c in her synopsis.90 One would expect at minimum an overlapping line or even a word in context in any place between 4Q390 and 4Q385a frgs. 3–6, 4Q388a frgs. 3 and 7, 4Q387 frgs. 1–3, or 4Q389 frgs. 6–8, and yet, there is none. The fragments of 4Q390 may not be successive, but neither is their placement in Dimant’s sequence unproblematic. Rather, the sheer size of 4Q390 mitigates strongly against its inclusion with these fragments

86 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 35–36. 87 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36. 88 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 34. 89 Dimant, djd 30, 249; Cf. her synopsis on pp. 99–100. 90 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 99–100. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 67 from the Apocryphon c. Eibert Tigchelaar has made precisely the same point in a recent article, pointing out as one example that Dimant’s situation of 4Q390 2 ii between 4Q387 2 iii and 3 is physically untenable.91 Furthermore, the insertion of 4Q390 seems to interrupt the sequence in the historical discourse that is fairly logical in its absence.92 If this is the best piece of evidence for assigning 4Q390 to the Apocryphon c, we must then conclude in light of the success of recent challenges to Dimant’s sequence that her argument is unconvincing. Werman, Berner and Eshel have effectively shown the contrasts between the manuscripts in their calculation of the historical schemata. Nevertheless, the force of Dimant’s presentation of 4Q390 as a part of the Apocryphon remains in part compelling.93 Werman’s argument falls on the critical error that she has made in asserting an isolated view of the entire text, which she limits to only three columns of a composition that is demonstrably at least fourteen or fifteen

91 Tigchelaar, “Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls,” 540. The material reconstruction of 4Q387 that follows in the next section and which is featured in the following chapter more clearly illustrates in detail the shortage of space that cannot accommodate the insertion of 4Q390. 92 Note that according to her sequence, the seventy-year rule of the “sons of Aaron” in 4Q390 1 would follow the description of the late First Temple era in 4Q385a frg. 3 || 4Q387 frg. 1; 4Q388a frg. 3 || 4Q389 frgs. 6–7. The rule of the sons of Aaron would end with the first returnees, and then a meritorious period of least a 294-years would follow before the emergence of foreign rule in 4Q390 9, and a return to wickedness. The narrative would continue, then in 4Q385a frg. 4 || 4Q387 2 ii–iii || 4Q388a frg. 7 ii || 4Q389 8 ii to appoint first, a 490 year period of God’s abandonment—which seems strangely out of place so late after the mention of the seventh jubilee after “the devastation of the land” in 4Q390 1 7–8. Following this is an allusion to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar, the fracture of the Babylonian empire, and then the emergence of Antiochus iv; all following the prior mention of six jubilees without incident (4Q390 1 9). This schematic confusion is noted also by Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen, 298–299. Matthias Henze, “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (ed. Kristin De Troyer, Armin Lange, and L.L. Schulte; cbet 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 25–41, 38 attempts to diffuse the significance of the repetition of the events between the two by drawing comparisons with the four visions in the second-half of the book of Daniel. However, the case in the Apocryphon c is not analogous given that according to Dimant’s synopsis, the fragments of 4Q390 do not constitute a separate vision, but rather are part of an otherwise uninterrupted, logical, historical sequence. Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 265 offers a similar argument for removing 4Q390 from its placement in Dimant’s sequence. 93 Cf. Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36.; idem, djd 30, 3; also idem, “4Q389 2,” 220–226. 68 chapter 2 columns in length. Such a restricted appraisal of the text fails to account for the situation of this fairly complete portion of discourse relative to the many other fragments of the whole text and its elaborate review of history. Reynolds has noticed the same problem, and has similarly argued that the appearance that is exclusive to the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 תומטשׂמהיכלאמ of the locution attests strongly to the complementary relationship between them.94 While I share Reynolds’ outlook in part, the physical evidence implied by Werman and confirmed by Tigchelaar cannot sustain his reconstruction. The solution to consolidating Werman’s argument within a more comprehensive view of the fragments lies in two areas which were never addressed in Werman’s article: first, the effect of multiple audiences within the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 that appear to diverge from a coherent structural unity between these texts. And second, the very processes and practices in the transmission of traditions tied to a founder that might account for the abundance of similarities and differences between the manuscripts, including 4Q390. These features will need to be explored for how they might compensate for internal variances in ideology and other differences that Werman had isolated between the schemata.

2.2.4 A New Edition by Elisha Qimron The second volume of Elisha Qimron’s highly anticipated comprehensive He- brew edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls was published in 2013, and contains the fragments and manuscripts assigned to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c.95 In line with the recent, growing consensus, Qimron disqualified 4Q390 as a copy of the Apocryphon c, and assigned to it a new title, “Future Predictions (based on the periodisation according to Jubilees).”96 More significantly, Qimron has also added two new fragments to the overlapping sections of the Apocryphon c, 4Q387a frg. 5 and 4Q481d frg. 3, both of which he has aligned with 4Q385a frg. 1 ii.97 While Qimron has basically accepted Dimant’s assignment of fragments and manuscripts, and he seems to agree with her decision to distinguish between the Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Jeremiah groups, he does not agree with her interpretation of the text. He prefers to view the fragments as remnants of a “prophetic anthology” that included adaptations of texts not necessarily limited to only Jeremiah, and not as an historical apocalypse.98

94 Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 267–268. 95 Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2013), 94–103. ”. תודיתע ( םילבויהרדסיפל )“ ,Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 94 96 97 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 94, 101. 98 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 94. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 69

Qimron’s somewhat more minimalistic interpretation is in part compelling, but it fails with regards to some curious decisions that he has made for the arrangement of the fragments themselves. In his discussion of the overlapping section in 4Q385a 1 ii, 4Q387a 5, and 4Q481d 3, he makes mention of the first that arrived as part of a pile which also included frgs. 3a, 4, 5, and 6, but then seems to ignore this evidence from a purely literary perspective, which cannot reconcile their inclusion with the apocalyptic sections from the other pieces of 4Q385a.99 This has led to an inexplicable placement of frg. 1 following frgs. 3a–5; an untenable decision since this violates the situation of these fragments upon their arrival at the pam in a pile with frgs. 3a–5 clearly atop the bottom layer, frg. 1a.100 Qimron’s prioritisation of literary context over the physical evidence also informed his decision to separate frg. 17 from its clear placement as part of the same sequence containing frgs. 14–16.101 But even more problematic is his decision to remove this fragment from the Apocryphon c altogether, and to assign it to the Pseudo-Ezekiel group, 4Q385. These problems will receive more attention in the partial edition of 4Q385a in the following chapter. Nevertheless, Qimron’s new edition has been in part helpful for its identification of two new overlapping sections of text, and for a handful of provocative new readings. Werman’s counter-analysis and Qimron’s new edition have raised important questions regarding the organisation of the fragments and development in the Apocryphon, and how the various manuscripts are related to one another (i. e. do they represent “editions”? “versions”? or something closer to the so-called rewritten Bible?) They have drawn attention most significantly to the question of the order of the fragments, the sense and meaning of the whole composition, and the status of 4Q390 as another copy of the Apocryphon. However, these matters have not done enough to dismiss outright the many common features that bind 4Q390 to the other Apocryphon c manuscripts, which will be outlined in greater detail in Chapter Four to follow. What concerns us presently are these other four manuscripts that constitute the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, as it has been delimited by Werman, Berner, Eshel and Qimron, and validated through

99 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 101. 100 Dimant, djd 30, 130–131; Strugnell’s notes republished in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 1: 234–236; also cf. pams 41.643, which shows the pile containing frgs. 1a–6 before their separation, and then 41.859 with each fragment labelled according to their placement in the same wad from top (frg. 6) to bottom (frg. 1a). The physical features of the fragments and their arrangement will be discussed in greater depth in the following section. 101 Cf. Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 1: 138–139. 70 chapter 2 its many textual overlaps. In the second-half of this chapter below, I shall provide a more detailed physical description of the most extensive of these witnesses, 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a), in an effort to establish a better sense of the physical and literary shape of the text. The results of this analysis will then be applied in the following chapter to a new partial edition of 4Q385a that includes a translation, notes, comments, and a detailed synopsis. The other four overlapping texts, 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389, provide important additional information, and establish some control over our assessment of the Apocryphon c in 4Q385a. These manuscripts are briefly surveyed below, and the overlapping fragments between all the witnesses will then be included in conversation with the partial edition of 4Q385a in the following chapter.

2.3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a): Reconstruction and Location of Fragments

The question of identifying Jeremiah traditions within the Qumran literature hinges greatly upon gaining a comprehensive understanding of the Apoc- ryphon of Jeremiah c, and what it is about this composition that distinguishes it as predominantly “Jeremianic.” As I argued in the previous chapter, the presence of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls is revealed through his reputation as a “founder,” and it is within the most extensive treatments of his persona that we gain a much better sense of how and why these traditions continued to circulate. This would lead us most naturally to consider the ample amount of Jeremianic material in the Apocryphon c. Since 4Q385a presents the most complete surviving copy of the composition with the greatest range, it serves as the premiere witness that provides the most comprehensive picture of the text as a whole. This text is the primary participant in “Jeremianic discourse” that takes place within the Dead Sea Scrolls,102 and it follows then, that it should be carefully reconsidered for how Jeremiah’s authoritative presence pervades the whole composition. To understand Jeremiah’s presence is to understand what the Apocryphon c is all about, and gaining a clearer view of the Apocryphon c will require a rigorous review and reconstruction of its fragmentary remains in 4Q385a, and its overlaps in the other witnesses, 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389. Two much more fragmentary compositions that are possibly also classified as

102 My use of the term “Jeremianic discourse” here and throughout is loosely analogous to Najman’s definition of “Mosaic Discourse,” in Najman, Seconding Sinai, 13–17. Most broadly, it is the dissemination of traditions that are tied to Jeremiah’s prophetic and priestly reputation, with a detectable emphasis on matters of leadership and empire. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 71

Jeremianic are the Apocryphon of Jeremiah a (4Q383), edited by Dimant,103 and the speculatively titled Apocryphon of Jeremiah b? (4Q384) published by Mark Smith.104 Unfortunately, owing to their minuscule remains and poor preservation, they are of limited value in assessing the presence and function of Jeremi- anic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These two texts are relegated to a later discussion for how they supplement the features of Jeremianic discourse that are revealed in the Apocryphon c.105 Dimant isolated various structural features of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c fragments, and arranged them hypothetically into a sequence resembling other early Jewish apocalyptic works, based primarily on her reconstruction of 4Q385a.106 This copy consists of 34 pieces that have been joined to form 18 numbered fragments from 1–18 i–ii. In addition to these are 11 small fragments a–k that were at first assigned to 4Q385a, but then disqualified on material and palaeographical grounds as unidentified fragments belonging to other, unknown manuscripts.107 Dimant did not provide much of a physical description of the fragments, but Monica Brady’s dissertation contains a selection of Strugnell’s notes that does so effectively.108 The fragments are very dark in colour; predominantly brown, and almost black on the surface of several fragments. The leather is thick, and is prone to peeling in a number of places. Strugnell recorded an average letter-height throughout of approximately 2– 3mm, a variation of 6–9mm spacing between lines, and column-margins ranging between 8.5–15mm.109 The scribal hand is generally characterised as late Hasmonaean or very early Herodian. It appears to be “transitional”; preserving certain features between examples of semicursive Hasmonaean scripts and Herodian “rustic” semicursives and formals.110

103 Dimant, djd 30, 117–127. 104 M. Broshi et al., djd 19, 137–152. Werman, “Epochs and End Time,” 231, assumes that 4Q383 represents another “level” of first-person discourse within the Apocryphon c, featuring the Prophet Jeremiah. There is neither enough physical nor contextual evidence to advance this position, and thus, 4Q383 is tentatively treated as a separate Jeremianic composition in this study. 105 Cf. Chapter Four, section 4.1. More Apocrypha of Jeremiah: The Apocryphon of Jeremiah a–b? (4Q383, 4Q384) and 4Q387a in Perspective. 106 Dimant, djd 30, 99–100. 107 Dimant, djd 30, 167. 108 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 81–82. 109 Cited in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 81. 110 Cited in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 81. Dimant, djd 30, 93 suggested a date of 50– 25bce. For a full discussion of the various features that distinguish Hasmonaean semicursive scripts from the later Herodian formal hand, cf. Frank M. Cross, “The Development 72 chapter 2

Dimant’s restorative efforts occasionally attempt to engage with Stege- mann’s methods for scroll reconstruction, recounted in his seminal publication on the reconstruction of scrolls from smaller fragments.111 However, it does not appear that her application ever had much bearing on her findings. Dimant mentions Stegemann’s work in her description of the reconstructed column width of 4Q387 frg. 3,112 and then once more she cites a private communication with him regarding the distance between 4Q390 frgs. 1–2.113 However, somewhat curiously, these are the only references to what is arguably the standard work for reconstruction in the Qumran scrolls, in a group of fragments which require—and for which Dimant has supplied—elaborate levels of reconstruction. Stegemann’s method proceeded from the basic observations that scrolls were preserved in rolls, and that among the larger texts in the Qumran caves, the magnitude of deterioration increases from the centre of the roll to either end: “Large scrolls survived, damaged more or less only at their edges or at their outer and innermost surfaces (or both). What lay in between was protected by the sheer bulk of these scrolls, a factor that sometimes even pre- vented damage to the innermost layers—the ‘walls’ of the hollow shaft—as well.”114 He suggested processes for identifying alignments between the fragments that survived from individual scrolls that he distinguished as either material joins or distant joins. Material joins are those relationships between fragments that can be “established by complementary borders of fragments,

of Jewish Scripts,” in idem, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 3–43; repr. from The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. G.E. Wright; Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1961), 133–202; Ada Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeogra- phy, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design (London: The British Library, 2002), 47–65, 170–181. 111 Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls.” Also cf. a more recent discussion of material construction by Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a Study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman),” in Grossman, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, 26–47. Mika S. Pajunen, The Land to the Elect and Justice for All: Reading Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381 (JAJSupp 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 28–33 provides an excellent summary of scholarly studies in the reconstruction of fragmentary manuscripts from Qumran, and has employed Stegemann’s method rigorously with very positive results to his own reconstruction of 4Q381 in 91–137. Cf. esp. his discussion on pp. 92–112, which also informs my own reconstruction below. 112 djd 30, 192, n. 18. 113 djd 30, 235; cf. also 97. 114 Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 194. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 73 complementary parts of letters or words appearing on these fragments, and other hard, physical evidence.”115 Included in his discussion of physical evidence, he emphasised the importance of establishing relationships between fragments according to their corresponding shapes along the same horizontal axis.116 Distant joins are those in which “fragments are related to one another by the subject under discussion within a text.”117 These can be established through key words or even generic similarities or literary patterns within in a given text. The following discussion will analyse such physical distinctions and contextual patterns as defined according to Stegemann’s method in an effort to establish a good sense of the appearance and structure of 4Q385a. The process is much like a construction project: in the first part, the analysis of distant joins between fragments and their arrangement is like building a frame, or like piecing together a skeleton from a pile of bones. In the second part, the distant joins between the fragments in their new arrangement help us to attach literary cohesion and structure, like muscle tissue and flesh to the reconstructed skeleton.

2.3.1 Material Joins 2.3.1.1 The Fragment Groups The material remains for 4Q385a range fairly sharply in size and shape from a handful of words (eg. frg. 2) to two columns of preserved text in frg. 18. Because there are a number of fragments that have preserved several lines of text, margins or text from two columns, this manuscript is pivotal for determining the basic layout of the entire composition. All four of the overlapping Apocryphon c manuscripts have preserved text from the same section of the composition in what I have chosen to label the “Second Temple Apocalypse,” or “Apoca- lypse i.”118 The location of this section attested in 4Q385a frgs. 3–5 serves as a guide to situating the remaining pieces from this copy. The remaining fragments are then grouped according to size, shape, and their condition upon arrival at the pam in “wads,” or piles, which in turn have helped to situate them relative to one another as parts of successive columns. Materially speaking, the fragments of 4Q385a can be assigned to four groups, based on their shape: The first contains frgs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, the second contains

115 Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 192. 116 Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 194–197. 117 Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 192. 118 This large section corresponds to Dimant’s “Second Temple Period (future tense)” grouping of fragments in her synopsis, djd 30, 100. 74 chapter 2 only frgs. 8, 9, the third, frgs. 10, 11, and frgs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 comprise the fourth and final grouping. Frgs. 12 and 13 were assigned to this scroll based on the appearance of leather and script, although these do not easily conform to the shape and size of any of the four groupings, and thus, it is not possible to situate them within the composition. Fragments 8 and 9—assigned to the second group—are among the smallest fragments from the text. These pieces were grouped together with frg. 7 by Dimant without evidence, and asserted to have constituted a pile.119 Both frgs. 8 and 9 belong together,120 but little can be said with much confidence about the location of this group relative to the others, and I have thus also removed these from the sequence. The above groups are confirmed by the condition in which the fragments arrived at the pam, as recorded in Strugnell’s notes. In his discussion of the process of identifying the composition, he indicated the arrival of several of the fragments the museum in piles. Once Dimant managed to distinguish those piles belonging to the Apocryphon c from those assigned to Pseudo-Ezekiel,121 these wads in turn helped to isolate the groupings themselves. The first group of fragments, Group i, was found in two piles: the first of these containing frgs. 1a, 3a, and 4, 5, 6 from bottom to top, and the second beside it contained the original frg. 13b (which was joined to 13a and became frg. 1b), frg. 2, and frg. 3c. This pile is still intact in pam 41.643, and then pictured separated into its layers and labelled in pam 41.859. Overlaps in frgs. 3–5 with fragments from 4Q388a and 4Q389, and especially with the very large fragments in 4Q387, help, first, to establish the order of the fragments in the composition which sees frgs. 1, 2 in subsequent columns to the right. This is in accordance with how these fragments were layered in the piles in which they arrived at the museum. Second, using the overlaps with other texts to reconstruct the lacunae, one is able to postulate fairly accurately column widths, and in some cases to confirm a relative distance between them, in which each fragment most likely represents material from neighbouring columns. Margins between the columns have been partially preserved in frgs. 1, possibly 2, and 3c, and completely preserved in frgs. 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18. The margins range between 9mm (frg. 17) and 12mm (frg. 18)—along with an outlier

119 Dimant, djd 30, 142. 120 Fragments 8 and 9 are pictured together as separated layers from a pile, along with 4Q385a frg. a in pam 41.503. 121 Cf. description by Dimant, djd 30, 129–130, and the discussion above in section 2.2.1. Devorah Dimant and Arguments for Multiple Compositions. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 75 from frg. 1b measuring 15mm. Margin widths appear on average to be about 10.25mm.122 Using an approximate margin-width of 11mm, combined with the reconstructed text for frgs. 3, 4, 5 as portions of successive columns, one is then able to situate frg. 1 relative to the right of these in such a way that suggests that this fragment was originally part of the column that immediately preceded frg. 3. Because frg. 2 lay between the original frg. 13b (now part of frg 1) and frg. 3c, this piece must have been situated on the same horizontal axis at a nearly equal distance between these fragments in the text,123 and quite nicely forms part of the left margin of the same column contained in frg. 1 ii 6–8. The relationship between frgs. 1–5 is illustrated in the Figure 2.1. on the following page. The surviving text on frg. 2 also forms a plausible distant join with frg. 1, which is discussed in the following section. From the physical evidence, one then is able to fairly confidently postulate the existence of six successive columns from the two piles that form the first group: i = frg. 1b (olim. 13b) ii = frgs. 1a–b, 2 iii = frgs. 3a–c iv = frg. 4 v = frg. 5 vi = frg. 6

As already noted, due primarily to the fragmentary condition of the second group containing frgs. 8, 9, it is not readily possible to locate them within the sequence from any material joins.

122 Dimant, djd 30, 131 never discusses the measurements for any of the preserved margins, but does suggest an average 1.5cm. gap between the columns. The figure I have provided from the evidence is an approximation, although it must be noted that margins within a single manuscript will frequently vary from one sheet to another throughout. Cf. Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts of the Judean Desert (stdj 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 82. 123 Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 194–197 argued that the distance between fragments would increase or decrease relative to the circumference of the scroll in its final rolled position. The calculation for these distances was determined by the thickness of the leather added to the scroll radius, and multiplied by 2π. Without knowing the thickness of the leather for 4Q385a, and how tightly the scroll was rolled, it is impossible to calculate the precise distance between the fragments, although we can be relatively certain that the increase is quite small. 76 chapter 2

figure 2.1

4Q385a frgs. 1–5 (arranged from images in pams 41.893, 42.505, and 44.194). Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 77

The third group of fragments contains only frgs. 10, 11. Both exhibit a similar shape, and arrived at the museum in the same pile, with frg. 11 atop frg. 10. This pile is pictured in pam 41.692, which is especially useful for determining the horizontal alignment of these fragments, where line frg. 10 ii 1 aligns with frg. 11 i 2. Significantly, both fragments preserve parts of two columns and a complete margin between them. Their material shape resembles the first group in frgs. 1–6, specifically in the appearance and the angle of the top right-descending edge of frgs. 5a, 6 and 10. Frgs. 10, 11 also appear similar to the final group, containing frgs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. In particular, the bottom-right lacuna of frg. 10 and the bottom-right lacunae in frgs. 15 and 17 seem to match, as well as the bottom-left hole in frg. 11 and the left hole in frg. 15. The size and shape of the fragments in this group most closely resembles the final group, and thus, is probably closer in relation to it than to the group containing frgs. 1–6.124 Fragments 10 and 11 are both slightly smaller in size than all the fragments from the final group except frg. 14, and this also suggests their location on the outer layers of the preserved pieces, appearing prior to the sequence formed by frgs. 14–18. As both frgs. 10, 11 preserve parts of two columns and a complete margin between them, it is probable that these fragments preserve material from three successive columns, represented by frg. 10 i (= col. i) 10 ii + 11 i (= col. ii), and frg. 11 ii (= col. iii). This arrangement is further suggested by the relative distance between frgs. 10 and 11, which is established to have been approximately a single column. Frgs. 12, 13 have been excluded from the sequence, owing to the lack of any material and distant joins from which to posit their placement. They certainly belong at some point in the arrangement along with the rest of the fragments of 4Q385a, but their precise situation relative to the other groups remains a mystery. The final group contains frgs. 14–18. Fragments 14–17 were joined and grouped together from various smaller pieces, many of which arrived at the pam together in piles that have helped to establish their order from bottom to top. Frg. 18 was included by Strugnell as part of a successive column following frg. 17 ii, on the basis of a handful of shared physical features, but also because frgs. 16a, 17c, and a piece from the left-edge of frg. 18 i all appeared together as a group in pam 40.963. The joins between these pieces establishes an arrangement of the fragments in succession, and likely as part of successive columns. Frgs. 15, 16, 17, 18 are considerably larger than the rest of the fragments of the whole manuscript, and they appear to show an incremental increase in size

124 Cf. Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 194. 78 chapter 2 relative to their placement in sequence. The larger-than-average size of these fragments suggests that they are physically closer to one another than the fragments in the preceding two groups. All of these fragments also show signs of wear and breaking in corresponding points when placed along the same horizontal axis. In particular, the bottom edge of frg. 14 matches those of frg. 15 and 17a, the shape and size of frg. 16 matches that of frg. 17d, and the left-edge of col. ii 5–6 on the combined frg. 17c–d corresponds to the left edge of frg. 18a at ll. 5–6 of col. i.125 In her arrangement of the fragments, Dimant noted that Strugnell had originally attempted to place frg. 16 in the same column with frg. 15 ii, and adjoining frg. 17 i. She rejected this on the grounds that the join was not supported by any words or letters in sequence, and also apparently because of the location of the gaps between the columns.126 Despite Dimant’s protestations, Strugnell’s placement makes very good material sense, and should be explored in greater depth as part of our attempts to reconstruct these fragments. Part of his difficulty with this group stemmed from his uncertainty about the placement of frg. 16a, which was most plausibly joined to the top-edge of frg. 16b. This join was suggested by the situation of frg. 16a within the same group that included frgs. 17c and frg. 18a i–ii.127 The joins proposed for the six pieces of frg. 17 helped to confirm the placement of the two pieces of frg. 16 in vertical alignment, as well as their situation immediately after frg. 15. With only a handful of letters from three lines preserved at the left-edge of frg. 15 it remains plausible that they could align at some point with frg. 16. Furthermore, the two words preserved at the edge of frg. 17 i may conform to the context in frg. 16 and this renders their situation together as part of the same column also reasonably certain. The distance between ll. 1–2 and 2–3 on frg. 15 ii is 5.4 and 6.7mm, and 6.9 and 5.3mm between frg. 17 i 3–4 and 4–5. The line-height in the intervening fragment 16 for the first four lines is 5.4mm

125 Cf. the discussion in Tigchelaar, “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Frag- mentary Manuscripts,” 41–43, in which the author applies similar techniques to ascertain- ing the placement of 4Q184 frg. 3 relative to frg. 1. 126 Dimant, djd 30, 150. In her words: “[w]hile in frg. 17 the right gap between the columns appears well to the right of the fragment, in frgs. 15 and 16 it is located at the left of the fragments. This means that in spite of the corresponding shapes, the fragments preserved different sections of the columns.” 127 Strugnell’s description is reproduced in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 234. He cites the appearance of this group together in pam 40.963, but also reports that the photograph was taken prior to his arrival in Jerusalem, and that there is no surety about the order of the layers for this pile. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 79

figure 2.2 4Q385a frgs. 15 i–ii + 16, 17 i–ii (arranged from images on pam 44.194). Courtesy the Israel Autority. between ll. 1–2, 6.5mm between ll. 2–3, and 5.3mm between ll. 3–4. The line distances of frgs. 15 ii 1–2 and 16 1–2 is identical; those for frgs. 15 ii 2–3, 16 2–3, and 17 i 3–4 are within 0.4mm of one another, and those in frgs. 16 3–4 and 17 i 4–5 are also identical. These extremely close measurements strongly suggest that all three of these fragments 15 ii, 16 and 17 i form the beginning, middle and end of the same column that joins at 15 ii 2–3, 16 2–3, and 17 i 3–4. It then follows that frgs. 15 i–ii + 16, 17 i–ii form three subsequent columns. The relationship between all three fragments can be observed in Figure 2.2. As such, the fragments belonging to the third group may be construed as surviving remnants from six successive columns, based on their material similarity and situation within the pile when they arrived at the museum: i = frg. 14 ii = frg. 15 i iii = frg. 15 ii + 16, 17 i iv = frg. 17 ii v = frg. 18 i vi = frg. 18 ii

When the three groups of fragments are considered together, a more comprehensive picture of the manuscript 4Q385a emerges, and with it, our map of the contents of the Apocryphon c begins to take shape. From the assessment of material overlaps and their arrangement in wads, one can postulate the presence of fifteen-to-twenty columns, and plausibly reconstruct three sequential groupings of six (frgs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), three (frgs. 10, 11), and six columns of 80 chapter 2 text (frgs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), with an undefined sequence of two columns (frgs. 8, 9). The distance between the groups remains speculative. In particular, the placement of frgs. 8, 9 in the second group is uncertain. However, the distances between the groups is reasonably presumed to be within one or two columns, given that there are some physical resemblances between several of the fragments.128

2.3.1.2 Determining the Sequence of the Fragment Groups The close appearance of the groups containing frgs. 10, 11 and frgs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 suggests that both of these likely belong together, with the second group immediately following the first. These two groups have been combined here to form one large group of fragments, Group ii, containing frgs. 10–18, and consisting of nine columns. Frg. 18 did not arrive at the museum as part of any of the wads containing frgs. 10–11, frgs. 14, 15, 17a, or frgs. 16 b and 17d. Nevertheless, the earliest photographs of frg. 18a i–ii show it grouped with frgs. 17c and 16a (cf. pam 40.963), and Strugnell noted “many lines of cracking and tearing” corresponding between the composite frgs. 17 and 18.129 This is a fair indication that frg. 18 followed frg. 17 in the sequence, and these fragments contained text from neighbouring columns. The column widths for both cols. i and ii on frg. 18 appear larger than for any of the other reconstructed portions, measuring approximately 79 and 89mm respectively, and the margins are also considerably bigger. Dimant suggested that these were the final two columns of the entire composition, but this could also indicate a distinction between sheets within the manuscript.130 While the arrangement of the fragments in the two main groups is fairly well established, there is some reason to doubt the location of frg. 18 i–ii in Dimant’s sequence, which is situated at the opposite end of the text from the first group of fragments 1–6. A series of material similarities between frg. 18 ii and frg. 1b suggests that they might in fact be located close together. The relationship between these fragments is not clear in the published plate, but can be construed from pams 42.505 and 43.496. Moreover, the recent colour image b-298224, published by the iaa and featured in the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, shows with abundant clarity similarities between the two in

128 This conforms to the general principle that guides the placement of all of the fragments from this manuscript as articulated by Michael O. Wise, “4Q245 (4QpsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” dsd 12 (2005): 313–362, 318: “Preserved fragments observably tend to derive from the same general location in any given scroll.” 129 Cited in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 235. 130 Cf. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 82–83. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 81

figure 2.3 Appearance of 4Q385a frgs. 18 i–ii + 1a–b i–ii + 2 (based on images on b-298224) shape, size, and also in the colour and quality of the leather.131 One can see in the enclosed figure based on the new colour photograph, the compatible shape of these fragments, which would in turn suggest that frg. 1—the first fragment in the group comprised of frgs. 1–6—followed immediately after frg. 18 ii—the last fragment in the group containing frgs. 10–18. This most recent image shows a considerable level of deterioration in each fragment, even since they were first photographed in 1955/57. But a comparison of some of the earliest plates—pam 41.637 containing frg. 1b, and pam 41.659 containing frg. 18 ii 3–10—reveal other similarities in patterns of damage that should not be overlooked, as illustrated in Figure 2.4.1. below. First, the larger piece, frg. 18 ii had already suffered damage which had caused it to break into several smaller pieces, and the bottom one of these was cracked at near -90° angles in two places, creating a “zig-zagging” effect from the left-to-right that splits l. 6 horizontally, then cuts through two lines to l. 8, and splits this line to the right column margin. This same pattern appears from the top edge to the right side of frg. 1b. Second, the left edge of the bottom piece of frg. 18 ii also survives in a straight line that similarly ends in a right-angle. Upon close inspection of several of the plates, one can detect a corresponding vertical crack that nearly bisects frg. 1b, appearing just below where the fragment is joined to frg. 1a. The crack is most clearly visible on pam 43.496.132 The horizontal distance across from this crack in frg. 1b to the right edge is 37mm, and the corresponding-shaped piece from

131 http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-298224, consulted 13 Jan- uary, 2013. The physical similarities between frgs. 1b and 18 did not escape the notice of Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 156–157. She includes frg. 1b (originally designated frg. 13) among a group showing similar patterns of damage which included frgs. 17a i–ii. 132 The crack now appears as a complete separation that divides the fragment into two pieces. Cf. the infrared photograph b-295658, http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore -the-archive/image/B-295658, consulted 4 October, 2013. 82 chapter 2

figure 2.4.1 4Q385a: a physical comparison of frgs. 18 ii and 1b i–ii. Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority. frg. 18 ii measures 36mm at the same point. The vertical measure from the top of the horizontal break on this piece to the lowest point is 29mm, and at the same overlapping point on frg. 1b the distance is 30mm. Third, there is a protrusion at the bottom of frg. 1b from the main body of the fragment in precisely the same place as the lowest point of frg. 18 ii. A close inspection of these protrusions on both fragments reveal that they are partially cracked away from the main bodies of each. Finally, when the fragments are superimposed, both frg. 1b and frg. 18 ii exhibit a right-downward-sloping crease in nearly the same corresponding place on each. This crease on frg. 1b measures approximately 38mm from the centre-crack, and descends to the right on a -21.5° angle. On frg. 18 ii, the crease is 34mm, and descends from left-to-right on a -22° angle. While this accumulation of evidence is impressive, it does present a literary problem, as the once palatable flow from apocalyptic history, to eschatological prediction, and concluding in a narrative recounting of Jeremiah’s activities is suddenly disrupted. Moreover, despite the physical parallels that appear between frgs. 18 ii and 1b, it could similarly be argued that the first fragments in Group ii, frgs. 10 and 11, also bear physical resemblances to that last fragments the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 83

figure 2.4.2 4Q385a: a physical comparison of frgs. 5–6 and 10–11. Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority. in Group i, frgs. 4–6. This is most clearly seen in the right-sloping edge that appears in common between all of these fragments, illustrated in Figure 2.4.2. The order of the fragments should then appear either according to the standard arrangement as it is documented in the first column below, or contra the arrangement proposed by Dimant in the second column: table 2.2 Optional sequences of the fragments for the Apocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a)

Dimant’s sequence— Alternative arrangement— Column “sequence a” “sequence b” i frg. 1b i frg. 10 i ii frgs. 1a–b ii + 2 frg. 10 ii + 11 i iii frgs. 3a–c frg. 11 ii iv frg. 4 frg. 14 v frg. 5 frg. 15 i vi frg. 6 frg. 15 ii + 16, 17 i vii frg. 10 i frg. 17 ii viii frg. 10 ii + 11 i frg. 18 i ix frg. 11 ii frg. 18 ii + frg. 1b i x frg. 14 frgs. 1a–b ii + 2 xi frg. 15 i frgs. 3a–c xii frg. 15 ii + 16, 17 i frg. 4 xiii frg. 17 ii frg. 5 xiv frg. 18 i frg. 6 xv frg. 18 ii 84 chapter 2

Both of the suggested arrangements are materially plausible, and there is little from the appearance of the fragments to commend the order of one over the other. Since a decision with regards to the sequence is not definitive, the following detailed presentation of the fragments of 4Q385a will take into consideration both arrangements, and their implications. The advantage in the first sequence (Sequence a) is in the more logical literary flow from historical discourse beginning in the united kingdom (frg. 1 ii + 2), and continuing through the early Second Temple period (frgs. 3–6). The text then culminates in an eschatological prediction of the last days (frgs. 10–17 i) that ends in a hopeful vision of paradise (frg. 17 ii). This is followed by a narrative dénouement, recounting Jeremiah’s activities first, among the outgoing Baby- lonian exiles (frg. 18 i), and then in the Egyptian Jewish community (frg. 18 ii). Despite the very complementary physical relationships observed between where the groups would join at frg. 18 ii and frg. 1b i in the second sequence (Sequence b), the narrative flow is more awkward. The contents forthwith would appear to begin in obscurity and continue into a prophetic discourse that featured various kingdoms (frgs. 10–17 i), and culminating in a previously unknown version of Nahum 3 (frg. 17 ii). The text would then follow with a narrative account of Jeremiah’s exchanges with the exiles (frg. 18 i), and whilst living in the Egyptian Jewish community in Tahpanes (frg. 18 ii + 1 i). This narrative would then transition abruptly into an apocalyptic discourse beginning with the united kingdom (frg. 1 ii + 2), extending into the Second Temple period (frgs. 3–5), and ending in a future prediction of the last days at some point following the Hasmonaean revolt (frg. 6).

2.3.2 Distant Joins Stegemann defined distant joins as those which can be established between separate fragments from their literary contents.133 This basic definition could be more refined through recognising common terms, phrases, or literary patterns that provide a good indication of the nearness of fragments to one another. This method was applied by Dimant to form a proposed outline for the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, and for the ordering and renumbering of the fragments, and occasionally, at the expense of the more rigorous initial work of physical reconstruction. Stegemann cautioned that reconstruction must always proceed only from the physical appearance of the fragments at this for-

133 Cf. Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls.” the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 85 mative stage,134 nevertheless, the resulting text should also literarily work in such a way as to make sense.135 For the most part, I have found Dimant’s arrangement and her explanation quite compelling. In the first place, she identified considerable consistency in the expression of the discourse that dominates all the fragments of the Apoc- ryphon c in the first singular, with the exception of 4Q385a 18 i–ii and 4Q389 1.136 Second, she has grouped all the fragments according to three basic groups: a. Passages with episodes from biblical history which are always related in the past tense (4Q385a 1–3; 4Q387 1; 4Q388a 1[?]; 2–3, 6[?]; 4Q389 2, 4–6, 7[?]). b. Passages concerning non-biblical events of the Second Temple period, expressed in the future tense (4Q385a 4–5; 4Q387 2 ii–iii, 3; 4Q388a 7; 4Q389 8; 4Q390 1–2 i–ii).137 c. Passages probably connected with eschatological events (4Q385a 16–17; 4Q387 4). These too are formulated in the future tense.138

From the contextual arrangement of the fragments according to these features, Dimant arrived at the following synopsis for the whole composition:

The composition probably opened with a narrative scene depicting a gathering in Babylon, twenty-five years after the fall of Jerusalem in 586bce, where a document sent by Jeremiah from Egypt was read. The document recorded the divine revelation addressed to Jeremiah immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. The discourse constitutes the main subject of the composition, and contained a full historical review from Biblical times through the Second Temple period to the eschatological era. The work concluded with a narrative account of Jeremiah’s activities after the fall of Jerusalem, which may have formed part of the document dis- patched to Babylon.139

134 Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 207. 135 Annette Steudel, “Assembling and Reconstructing Manuscripts,” in Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, 1: 516–534 529; cf. also Pajunen, The Land to the Elect, 31–33. 136 Dimant, djd 30, 96. 137 Unlike all of the other copies of the Apocryphon c, 4Q390 does not show any overlaps with any other manuscript. This presents a problem for including this document as part of the Apocryphon c, and this text will be treated separately in Chapter Four to follow. 138 Dimant, djd 30, 96. 139 Dimant, djd 30, 99. 86 chapter 2

We have already seen that Dimant’s synopsis may not always coalesce with the distant joins featured in the previous section, and the task at hand will be to explain the relationships observed between the physical features for the Apocryphon c manuscripts in such a way that they make structural and contextual sense. Portions of Dimant’s synopsis will serve as a basic outline in those places in which the copies of the Apocryphon c overlap, and also in those places which reflect either recollections of the past or predictions for the future. At this stage I will “flesh out” the literary details that appear common to each of the already designated groups of 4Q385a fragments, according to their physical relationships with one another, but in close conversation with the literary shape for the whole composition. The preceding analysis of the material remains of 4Q385a yielded three groups of fragments. The first consists of six columns, and has been designated Group i (frgs. 1b i, 1 ii + 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); another large group, Group ii, was formed from two groups and contains nine columns (frgs. 10 i, 10 ii + 11 i, 11 ii, 14, 15 i, 15 ii + 16, 17 i, 17 ii, 18 i–ii); the final group, Group iii consists of only two small fragments (frgs. 8–9). This group is impossible to accurately place within the sequence. The present challenge is locating the relative distance between the first two groups, and then attempting to form a basic framework of the whole composition consistent with this arrangement. The physical evidence helps to provide a general shape to the whole composition, but several items require more attention for how they conform to these findings. These items will form the substance of this section as follows:

– the alignment of frg. 2 on the bottom-left side of frg. 1 ii at ll. 7–8 – the placement of frg. 3c to the lower-right of frg. 3b at ll. 6–7 – the relationship between frgs. 10 ii and 11 i as parts of the same column or sequential columns. – grouping together frgs. 15 ii, 16 and 17 i as part of the same column – the possible arrangement of frg. 18 ii 8–10 and frg. 1b i as part of the same column

2.3.2.1 The Arrangement of Fragments 1–3 Fragments 1–6 form parts of six consecutive columns, appearing either near the beginning or closer to the end of the composition. Their arrangement was implied by their situation in two wads upon their arrival at the pam, but this has also produced a possible alignment between frgs. 1b ii and 2, and frgs. 3a–b and 3c that requires additional literary confirmation. Frg. 2 was joined near the lower-right corner of frg. 1b based on the match between their shared breaks, and the similar shape of frg. 2 with the right-bottom corner of frg. 1b the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 87 and frg. 3c. These concordant features strongly suggest that frg. 2 is best aligned with frg. 1 i 7–8 to form the right edge of the same column, but does this join , המלש make contextual sense? The clearly identified appearance of the name and I took from his“ , לועודימהחקאו [ תו Solomon,” in frg. 1 ii 5, and the phrase“ hand a burnt offe[rings,” two lines below in l. 7 indicates that this fragment most likely features King Solomon and his construction of the first temple.140 If frg. 2 is located on the same horizontal axis with this line, it would complete the line and form the edge of the same column. The single identifiable verb and he prostrated himself,” would be located at the end of the same“ , וחתשיו line, and would seem to fit well contextually within the same scene, which is presumably a retelling of the dedication of the temple ceremony from 1Kgs ] םימל,Furthermore, the remainder of the line that ends in frg. 2 2 66.141–8:62 ,by space enough for only two or three words לוע [ תו is separated from וחתשיו and is reasonably filled by locutions from the Hebrew Bible containing the A search of these .– םימל visible plural noun followed by the plural noun ending ”offerings for well being“ , םימלשׁ and תולע terms reveals only eight instances of within a range of two words.142 When one expands the range modestly to three words, a locution in 2Chron 7:7 with the pericope here and in 1Kgs 8 reads he offered there burnt offerings and the“ , םיִמָלְשַּׁהיֵבְלֶחתֵאְותוֹלֹעָהםָשׁהָשָׂע־יִכּ fatty portions of offerings for well being.” This reconstruction would precisely fill the lacuna, and would very neatly compliment everything that precedes it in the fragment. The material join made between frg. 3c in alignment with frg. 3b at ll. 7–8 requires similar contextual justification. When piecing together this fragment, Dimant experienced some difficulty locating the small piece, frg. 3c, which contained an overlap with 4Q387 1 5–6. This placement seemed to her to contain an odd variant in the above, very poorly preserved line, which she construed to .in the secret.” As a result, she situated frg. 3c on ll. 8–10 relative to frg“ ,] זרב [ be 3b, and the result was a seemingly intrusive line of poorly preserved, obscure letters which was otherwise unattested in the other copies.143 However, when frg. 3c is raised one line to align with ll. 7–9, the letters that Dimant transcribed The final letter .] יחב /ו[ are actually much more plausibly transcribed as ] זרב [ as may conform to a yôd, but its full height and narrow head most likely suggest

140 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 133. ,and Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 276 , וחבשיו Dimant, djd 30, 135 reads 141 based on the frequency of this word within the Deuteronomistic History and וחכשיו reads scriptural Jeremiah. My reading here is a reflexion of Strugnell. 142 Exod 32:6; Judg 20:26; 21:4; 2Sam 24:25; 1Kgs 3:15; 9:25; 1Chron 16:1; 21:26. 143 Dimant, djd 30, 136. 88 chapter 2 a wāw. The overlapping text in 4Q387 1 4 would also seem to confirm this read- and you sacrificed.” There are potentially another handful of“ , זתו ] וחב [ ing as options for how to reconstruct this word that will receive some attention in the following chapter, but this presents the most plausible reading, and receives some confirmation from another witness in 4Q387 1. The literary arrangement of Group i of the fragments represented by frgs. 1–6 appears as follows:

Historical Discourse:

– First Temple Era—Exile: four columns = frgs. 1a, 1b ii + 2, 3a–c, 4 – Exile—Seleucid Era: two columns = frgs. 4, 5 – Seleucid Era—The Last Days: + two columns = frgs. 5, 6

2.3.2.2 The Alignment between Columns: Frgs. 10 i–ii + 11 i–ii The location of frgs. 10, 11 is complicated by the fact that there is not a single preserved full word from the former, and this is compounded by the additional problem that the precise distance between these two fragments is unknown. However, we know with relative certainty from the appearance of the fragments together on pam 41.692 and material analysis conducted above that they likely were not separated by more than a single column., and were most likely within a single-column’s distance of frg. 14—the first fragment of the large group. Furthermore, the similarity in the shape of the right-to-left upward sloping break that is shared by the large fragments that followed in Group ii (frgs. 15, 17a i–ii, 18 ii, and possibly 1b) and frgs. 10, 11 suggests that these groups were also likely in very close proximity to one another. The situation of frgs. 10 and 11 as part of the same wad in pam 41.692 also helps to determine the horizontal alignment of these fragments at frg. 10 ii 2 and frg. 11 i 1. This produces an arrangement of columns for these two fragments suggested by their material joins is as follows: i = frg. 10 i ii = frg. 10 ii + frg. 11 i iii = frg. 11 ii

The join that is created by aligning frgs. 10 ii and 11 i produces a continuation between the ends-of-lines in 11 i 3–5 and the starts-of-lines in 10 ii 3–5. While there are no complete words to begin the lines in frg. 10 ii, there is enough preserved from frg. 11 ii to suggest some plausible reconstructions for at least 10 ii ,] םלשהכו הכל [ ,and 5. The running text from frg. 11 i 3–10 ii 3 would thus read 3 the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 89

-This last contin .] תא שאךרדה [ and the join between 11 i 5–10 ii 5 would read the“ ,] שאךרדהתא [ר ,uation very plausibly produces a reconstructed reading way whi[ch …” The first word on 10 i 3 is most likely prefixed by an inseparable which would result in only a handful of reconstructions. Reading ,ל preposition for the pr[iests” would also align nicely“ , הכל [ םינ the preposition and the noun with the last word on the preceding line; producing a continuous text, “and when it is completed for the pr[iests.” This reading would also seem to fit well which also appears in 4Q385a 1 , םלשׁ with a possible lexical interest in the verb ii 5, and in the overlapping text 4Q389 8 ii 5 (2×).

2.3.2.3 The Alignment of Fragments 15–17 The material join between frgs. 15 ii, 16 and 17 i is based on the corresponding shape of frgs. 15 and 17a and frgs. 16 and frg. 17d, and their arrival at the pam in piles. Dimant avoided situating frgs. 16 and 17 i together as part of the same column on the basis of her inability to make sensible joins between the final words on the line in 17 i 4–5, and any of the words at the right edge of frg. 16. However, when frg. 16 is located on the same horizontal axis with frg. 17c–d, the relationship between 17 i and the material remains of frg. 16 make fairly good sense, based on their common concern with geography. Perhaps the most Greece” in l. 4“ , ןוי distinguishing feature of frg. 16 is its explicit mention of rivers of” in frg. 17 i would“ , ירהנ Lebanon” in l. 6. The presence of“ , ןונבלה and seem to accord well with the discourse established in frg. 16, which reads much like a polemic against the surrounding nations of Israel, perhaps based on the so-called “Oracles against the Nations” in Jer 46–51 (픊 25:14–31:44). When combined with frg. 16 where 17 i 4 aligns with 16 4, the text in ll. 4–5 is plausibly the rivers of [Cush. Then there …“ , ירהנ [ יהושוכ ] ןכבהיחהה reconstructed to read will b]e wild animals among you.” The reconstruction for the end of l. 5 would most likely as part , שבכנ then read as the conclusion of a phrase with the verb of a subordinate clause that features the “wild animals.” This reconstruction matches the context quite neatly, and also fits precisely on the same horizontal axis with frg. 17. Once the arrangements in the groups containing frgs. 10–11, 14, and 15–17 have been confirmed as part of seven successive columns, these may then be included in the general outline for this part of the composition:

Prophetic Discourse:

– Oracles of judgement(?) = frgs. 10 i–ii + 11 i–ii + 14, 15 i – Pronouncements against Greece and Ethiopia = frgs. 15 ii + 16, 17 i–ii – Hopeful prediction for the future(?) 17 ii 90 chapter 2

2.3.2.4 Reconstruction of a Possible Join between Fragments 18 ii and 1b i There is no way to determine the distance between frg. 6 and frg. 10 according to the standard arrangement of the fragments, which sees Group i (frgs. 1–6) occurring prior to Group ii (frgs. 10–18). However, if one chooses to adopt the reciprocal placement with Group ii preceding Group i, then the placement of frg. 1b i as part of the same column as 18 ii requires additional contextual verification. Dimant set frg. 18 i–ii at the end of the composition, and suggested that it formed a “narrative conclusion” to the lengthy historical apocalypse that preceded it.144 However, if the material join formed by overlapping damage patterns in frgs. 18 ii and 1b i–ii is affirmed, this rather requires that frg. 18 ii immediately precede frg 1b i, most likely forming the beginning and the end of the same column. Their complementary shape suggests an alignment between the two pieces at around ll. 8–10 in frg. 18 ii, and the only completely in 18 ii 10 ועישוי visible letter ʿayin in frg. 1b i 7. The presence of the hifil verb could indicate a continuation from frg. 1b i 7, perhaps in the form of a verbal expression containing the nominal infinitive absolute from the same root. Such an expression appears in Jer 11:12, “They will cry out unto those gods to whom .( םֶהָלוּעיִשׁוֹי־אֹלַעֵשׁוֹהְו ) ”they offer sacrifices, but they will surely not save them The reconstruction of ll. 8–10 to accommodate this pericope fits the lacuna [ וכלתלאו ] פירחא [ס] םיוגהילי :precisely, and would result in the following reading Do not walk] after the other]“ , להרשא [ עשוהוםכיתובאםהירחאוכ ] ישויאל [ וע ] ל[ םכ ] i[d]ols of the nations, [after ]whom [ your fathers ]wal[ked, for sur]ely [they] will not deliver y[ou].” Drawing loosely from Dimant’s major divisions in her contextual synopsis of the text, but factoring into consideration the physical and contextual joins that substantiate the placement of Groups i and ii of the fragments relative to one another, we are confronted by two possible perspectives of the composition. These are outlined accordingly, with the standard sequence that features Group i before Group ii (Sequence a), followed by the arrangement that sees Group ii precede Group i (Sequence b):

Sequence a

Historical Discourse: Cols. ii–iii (4Q385a 1a–b i–ii + 2, 3a–c, 4)

– United kingdom: col. ii = frg. 1 ii + 2 – Divided kingdom to the exile: col. iii = frgs. 3a–c

144 Dimant, djd 30, 165–166. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 91

Second Temple Apocalypse = “Apocalypse i”: Cols. iv–v (4Q385a 4, 5)

– Exile to the Seleucid era: col. iv = frg. 4 – Antiochus to the Hasmonaeans: cols. iv–v = frgs. 4, 5 – Hasmonaeans(?): col. v = frg. 5

Eschatological Discourse: Cols. vi–xiii (4Q385a 6, 10 i–ii +11 i–ii, 14, 15 i–ii + 16, 17 i)

– The last days(?): cols. vi–ix = frgs. 6, 10 i–ii + 11 i–ii – Future promise(?): col. x = frg. 14 – Judgement of the nations: cols. xi–xii (frgs. 15 i–ii + 16, 17 i) – Future promise(?): col. xiii = 17 ii 1–2

Oracle of God’s Judgement (Nahum 3): Col. xiii (frg. 17 ii 3ff.) Narrative Conclusion: Cols xiv–xv (4Q385a 18 i–ii)

– Jeremiah with the Babylonian exiles: col. xiv = frg. 18 i – Jeremiah in Egypt: col. xv = frg. 18 ii

This first possible synopsis follows Dimant’s general outline quite closely, but with some modest clarification in the sparsely preserved eschatological section. Here there are some indications of a mix between future expectations, judgement, and future blessing, but the remains of frgs. 10, 11, and 14 pre- vent much beyond speculation. If this sequence is to be preferred, then it would make the best sense to include 4Q389 frg. 1 from one of the overlapping witnesses as the introduction to the whole composition that featured Jeremiah and his delivery of an apocalyptic prophecy for the future exiles in Babylon. It would conclude with a narrative description of the destruction of Solomon’s temple, the exile, and Jeremiah’s activities in Egypt. This arrangement would be best understood as an independent “Jeremianic” text that perhaps served as a replacement or an added appendix to the final chapters of 픊 Jeremiah, which sought to establish the positive future of the Babylo- nian exiles in sharp contrast to the repudiated Jewish community residing in Egypt.

Sequence b

Prophetic/Eschatological Discourse: Cols. i–vii (4Q385a 10 i–ii + 11 i–ii + 14, 15 i–ii + 16, 17 i–ii) 92 chapter 2

– Oracles of judgement(?): cols. i–iii = frgs. 10 i–ii + 11 i–ii – Future promise(?): col. iv = frg. 14 – Pronouncements against Greece and Ethiopia: cols. v–vi = frgs. 15 i–ii + 16, 17 i – Hopeful prediction for the future(?): col. vii = 17 ii 1–2 – Pronouncements against Egypt and her allies: col. vii = 17 ii 3ff.

Interlude: Cols. viii–ix (4Q385a 18 i–ii + 1b i)

– Jeremiah with the Babylonian exiles: col. viii = frg. 18 i – Jeremiah in Egypt: col. ix = frg. 18 ii + 1b i

Historical Discourse: Cols. x–xi (4Q385a 1b ii + 2, 3a–c)

– United kingdom: col. x = frg. 1 ii + 2 – Divided kingdom to the exile: col. xi = frgs. 3a–c

Second Temple Apocalypse = “Apocalypse i”: Cols. xii–xiii (4Q385a frgs. 4, 5)

– Exile to the Seleucid era: col. xii = frg. 4 – Antiochus to the Hasmonaeans: col. xii–xiii = frgs. 4, 5 – Hasmonaeans(?): col. xiii = frg. 5

Last Days(?): Col. xiv (4Q385a 6)

This alternative synopsis would best be explained as reflecting a text that attempts to rework scriptural Jeremiah in some form of structural alignment with the Septuagint version. The surviving portions preserve a collection of oracles that likely emulated Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations (픊 25:14–31:44; 픐 Jer 46:2–51:64), followed by a narrative recounting of the fate of Jerusalem and the exile (픊/픐 52:4–27 [cf. 픐 Jer 39:4–10]), and Jeremiah’s residence in Egypt (픊 Jer 49–51; 픐 Jer 42–44). If the text was following 픊, this would naturally suggest a transition from the narrative section featuring Jeremiah to a paraenetic discourse that resembled the appendix in 1Baruch.145 This would

145 P.-M. Bogaert, “Qui exerce la royauté dans le livre de Jérémie (et Baruch 1–5)? Du trône de David au trône de Dieu dans sa Ville,” in The Septuagint and Messianism (ed. Michael A. Knibb; betl 195; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), 381–416, 385–390 argues the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 93 provide for a placement of 4Q389 frg. 1, which closely emulates the introduction of 1Baruch, following the narrative description of Jeremiah among two disparate Jewish communities. However, for the Apocryphon c, the appendix would have been an apocalyptic discourse—probably delivered by writing from Jeremiah to the Babylonian exiles (4Q389 1 5–7)—as opposed to an exilic “ritual of penitence” in 1Baruch.146

2.4 Descriptions of the Other Witnesses to the Apocryphon c: 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389

There are three other copies of the Apocryphon c from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been positively identified by overlapping text with the 4Q385a section that contains the “Second Temple Apocalypse,” 4QApocrJer cb (4Q387), 4QApocrJer cc (4Q388a), and 4QApocrJer cd (4Q389). These texts contribute to developing a framework for the whole composition, and they provide crucial material for filling many of the lacuna in the partial edition of 4Q385a. While it is not my intention to present complete editions of all the texts in this volume, it is necessary to briefly survey these additional manuscripts, and to incorporate them into this discussion. Several of the more significant and overlapping fragments will be presented following the partial edition of 4Q385a featured in the next chapter.

2.4.1 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cb (4Q387) Establishing the contents of 4Q387 has been a complicated matter,147 and there remains some uncertainty regarding the assignment of several fragments that may or may not be included as part of this manuscript. Originally, 4Q387

persuasively that 1Baruch was always considered as an appendix to scriptural Jeremiah throughout the Second Temple period. If Sequence b of the Apocryphon c is deemed plausible, then it would also provide some additional support for this observation. 146 This description of 1Baruch is suggested by Michael H. Floyd, “Penitential Prayer in the Second Temple Period from the Perspective of Baruch,” in Seeking the Favor of God, Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (ed. Mark Boda, Daniel Falk and Rodney Werline; ejl; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 51–82, 55–56. For a more detailed discussion of the relationship between the Apocryphon c and 1Baruch, cf. Kipp Davis, “Prophets of Exile: 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah c, Apocryphal Baruch and the Efficacy of the Second Temple,” jsj 44 (2013): 497–529. 147 For a survey of the history of the 4Q387 fragments, cf. Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 293–297, also cf. 301. 94 chapter 2 consisted of five fragments numbered 1–5,148 but Dimant has removed frg. 5 and assigned it a new designation, “4Q387 frg. A.”149 Dimant notes a difference in the distance between the lines, and slight differences in the script, which prompted the exclusion of this piece, but most important for her is the failure of frg. a to align literarily with frgs. 1–4.150 An additional nine fragments were originally included, but then disqualified by Strugnell on material grounds, and assigned their own manuscript designation, 4Q387a.151 There are other fragments that appear on the same plates with 4Q387 that may have also belonged to the same manuscript, most notably, 4Q481d frg. 3 (cf. pam 43.550). This fragment is particularly intriguing, since it appears also to overlap with 4Q385a frgs. 1 ii + 2, and is included in the discussion in the following chapter. Dimant describes the fragments as medium in thickness, and varying in colour between light and dark “reddish-brown.”152 The surface is matte, and has deteriorated badly leaving large portions that have broken or flaked away.153 Seven pieces have been joined to form a large fragment, frg. 2 i–iii, based on resemblances in size and shape, and overlaps from the other witnesses, including 4Q385a frgs. 4 and 5. Frg. 2 preserves a top margin measuring between 11–14mm, and intercolumnar margins between cols. i–ii and ii–iii of 13 and 14mm.154 The distance between lines measures between 5.7 and 7.4mm, and 6.6mm on average. Dimant provides no palaeographical description of 4Q387. She does characterise the script in her discussion of the differences in 4Q387 frg. a as “compact,” and assigns a date of 50–25bce.155 The script is quite clearly Herodian, based on a variety of prominent features, such as the consistency in letter-size, and the ornamentation of several letters.156 It is best characterised as a developed script, likely from around c. 30bce–30ce, and comparable to 1QM.157 However,

148 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 297–298; Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 248–251. 149 Dimant, djd 30, 197. 150 Dimant, djd 30, 197. 151 Dimant, djd 30, 255. 152 Dimant, djd 30, 173. 153 Dimant, djd 30, 173; Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 303. 154 Dimant, djd 30, 173. 155 Dimant, djd 30, 93. 156 Cf. Cross, “The Development of Jewish Scripts,” 32; Yardeni, The Book of Hebrew Script, 174–177. 157 Cf. Yardeni, Book of Hebrew Script, Fig. 186, and Cross, “Development of Jewish Scripts,” Figure 1.2, Line 4. Notice especially the presence and appearance of the keraia on the right the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 95 there are a few features within this hand that suggest placement closer to the latter half of this range. In particular the clear distinction between wāw and yôd throughout, where the latter is inscribed with a larger, triangular head; the appearance of mêm, which is inscribed with an attached serif in a separate stroke; the large, “flattened” ʿayin that shaded atop the oblique stroke. These features all suggest that this manuscript is likely better situated in the first quarter of the first cent ce. Without knowing precisely the date, we can be fairly certain that 4Q387 appears palaeographically to be a later copy of the Apocryphon c than that preserved in 4Q385a. Unlike 4Q385a, the clearly identifiable fragments of 4Q387 are all quite large, but appear to represent only a single section of the text. The largest of the four, frg. 2, contains portions of three columns of text, albeit only two clearly preserved letters at the left edge of the first column have survived. This fragment consists of two main pieces that remain separate, forming cols. i–ii and col. iii respectively. The latter was included as part of frg. 2 because it contains textual overlaps with 4Q388a 7 ii 2–11 || 4Q389 8 ii 10–11, which also overlap at earlier points with frg. 2 col. ii. The presence of a top-margin also indicates that it immediately followed col. ii.158 The location of this margin in col. iii in line with the top-margin of frg. 2 ii is further confirmed by the similar shape and angle of the top-left break, and the rhombus-like appearance shared by this piece and the two pieces that have preserved the left edge of col. ii 1–5. Using the overlapping text from 4Q388a and 4Q389 to connect frgs. 2 ii–iii, we can then reconstruct a column-height of between 17–18 lines for 4Q387. Textual overlaps between 4Q385a frgs. 3a–c and 4Q387 frg. 1, and between 4Q385a 5a–b and 4Q387 frg. 3 indicate that the former is located prior to 4Q387 frg. 2 ii, and the latter be placed after col. iii. Furthermore, given that the distance between the 4Q385a fragments has already been confidently established within a single column of one another, it follows that the 4Q387 fragments are likewise in similar such close proximity to frg. 2 ii, which overlaps with 4Q385a frg. 4. Dimant made no attempts to situate frgs. 1 and 3 relative to frg. 2 beyond their literary location prior to and following the large, centre fragment.159 Fortunately, there are a few delimiting factors in determining the placement of 4Q387 1 and 3 at the outset. First, when frg. 1 is situated immediately subsequent

arm of ʾālep; dālet, which is formed by two separate strokes; the added “tick” to the right end of the crossbar of ḥêt; the larger hook in lāmed; the developed head of final nûn; the straight, angled down-stroke of ʿayin. 158 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 2: 340. 159 Dimant, djd 30, 175. 96 chapter 2 to frg. 2 ii, one will notice that there is a similarity in the angle and length of the break along the top-left edge of frg. 1 and the top left edge of frg. 2 ii. When frg. 1 is situated along the same horizontal axis of frg. 2 between ll. 2–11, this right-ascending break also aligns with the right-ascending break in col. iii. If frg. 1 can possibly be reconstructed to align with the only remaining letters, tāw and yôd (or possibly wāw), from frg. 2 i, then its situation as part of col. i should be considered the most plausible placement for this fragment. This reconstruction will be treated in the following chapter, but on the basis of its material appearance alone, and factoring into consideration the relative distance between the two pieces that form frg. 2 ii and iii, frg. 1 is most likely located along the same horizontal axis with these, and as part of the same column preserved at the right edge of frg. 2. Discerning the location for frg. 3 relative to frg. 2 is similarly aided by the fortuitous preservation of a few shared physical features. Based on the overlap between 4Q387 3 and 4Q385a frg. 5a–b, we know with certainty that frg. 3 must have occurred after frg. 2 ii, which preserved an overlap with 4Q385a frg. 4. It also could not possibly have been located prior to frg. 2 iii, because of the overlap in frg. 2 ii–iii with 4Q389 8 ii 1–10. Frg. 3 is significant for having preserved a bottom margin of the scroll, and thus, it cannot be horizontally aligned with the other fragments, which have preserved the top-portion of the document. Therefore, frg. 3 must be located either directly below frg. 2 iii, forming the base of the same column, or else in the immediately subsequent column. Damage patterns and creases in the leather that run diagonally from the top-left to the bottom-right of frg. 3 provide another clue, as a similar pattern of creases and breaks is clearly evident in the lower-right quadrant of frg. 2 ii.160 When frg. 3 is situated below frg. 2 iii as part of the same column, then these diagonal creases and breaks appear to align along the same angle with those in frg. 2 ii. The creases run from the top-right corner of the largest piece of frg. 2 on an angle down to the bottom-left edge of frg. 3, and are most clearly evident in the from the images of frg. 2 in pam 43.501, and frg. 3 in pam 43.493 (cf. also pam 41.426). In fact, the material consistency of the leather in these two fragments is so similar, that they were once situated together in vertical alignment in an earlier image in pam 41.464 (cf. Figure 2.5.). The location of frg. 1 as part of the same column preserved in frg. 2 i, and frg. 3 as the bottom portion of frg. 2 iii can be tested further for confirmation when the overlaps and reconstructions are graphically juxtaposed against their coun-

160 Cf. Pajunen, The Land to the Elect, 107–108 for a comparative reconstruction using damage patterns. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 97

figure 2.5 4Q387 frgs. 1+2 i–iii + 3 (arranged from images in pam 41.864). Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority. 98 chapter 2 terparts in 4Q385a. We know that 4Q385a frgs 3a–c, 4, and 5a–b are all located along the same horizontal axis, and thus, it would follow that words that appear aligned between these three fragments will exhibit some alignment in 4Q387, if one does not anticipate an extraordinary amount of textual variance between the copies. Isolating three overlapping words along the same horizontal axis in [ה] חבזמ frg. 4 4 || 4Q387 2 ii 6), and) רחא ,(frg. 3a 4 || 4Q387 1 2) ירמאתו ,4Q385a (frg. 5a 4 || 4Q387 3 1), results in a fairly precise diagonal alignment of the same words in the fragments of 4Q387, plus or minus a single line, when frgs. 1–3 are situated to form three consecutive columns. What this indicates is a relatively high level of confidence that supports both the placement of 4Q385a frgs. 3–5 in successive columns, and the location of 4Q387 frgs. 1–3 as part of the same three columns.

2.4.2 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cc (4Q388a) There are eight fragments assigned to 4Q388a, and numbered frgs. 1–7. Dimant has joined two small fragments together to form frg. 3, based upon the overlaps that these create with 4Q385a 3 2–9, and also between frg. 3b and 4Q387 1 3–5. Fragments 1–6 are all very small; each consisting only of a handful of words and between 1–5 lines of text. Fragment 7 is considerably larger; preserving ten lines of text from two columns (albeit, only parts of three letters has survived from two lines of col. i), and remnants of a top margin. This fragment overlaps in several places with 4Q387 2 iii 1–7, 4Q389 8 ii 7–11, and possibly 4Q385a 5 1. Dimant describes the leather as medium thick, “buff or yellowish buff,” with a matte surface that is stained red in places.161 The space between lines measures between 6.8–7.5mm, the preserved portion of the top margin is 14.5mm, and the intercolumnar margin is a minimum of 12mm. Dimant classifies the hand as late Hasmonaean formal, and assigns a date for this text between 50–25bce162 In many respects the script is similar to 4Q385a, especially in the formation of ʾālep, wāw and yôd, ʿayin, medial and final ṣādê, and tāw. However, there are some notable differences: in 4Q388a, the baseline of bêt tends to extend further past the crossbar to the left than in 4Q385a; hê is smaller and the crossbar begins in a thicker stroke; kāp is wider, and a little shorter, and final kāp ends in a left-angled descender; medial mêm is written larger, and final mêm is generally shorter and more square. Much like 4Q385a, the script appears to be transitional between Hasmonaean

161 Dimant, djd 30, 201; cf. Strugnell’s notes cited in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 364. 162 Dimant, djd 30, 202. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 99 semi-cursive and early Herodian formal hands, and these texts are probably close contemporaries. The two overlapping fragments—frg. 3 formed by two pieces, and the large frg. 7 ii—are definitely not separated by more than two columns, and it is quite probable that frg. 7 i preserves text from the same column as frg. 3. The writing block in 4Q388a is considerably larger than in both 4Q385a and 4Q387. The first column can be reconstructed to a length of approximately 10cm, consisting of 42 letter-spaces, based on the reconstruction of l. 5. The second column is longer, measuring around 12.5cm, and consisting of an average of 52 letter- spaces.163 When compared to the narrower columns of 4Q385a and 4Q387— which range between 7–8 cms, it would also not be unexpected to posit higher columns in this text. Based on the distance between the overlapping sections in 4Q387 1+2 i (= 4Q388a 3) and 4Q387 2 iii (= 4Q388a 7 ii), there is an estimated 25–28-lines of text in the lacuna and judging from the wider columns, it is possible that this copy of the Apocryphon c contained longer columns of +30 lines.164

2.4.3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cd (4Q389) 4Q389 consists of nine fragments numbered 1–9. Fragments 3–7 and 9 are very small, containing only a handful of words each, in 2–3 lines of text. Fragments 1 and 2 are several lines in height, and preserve several words in sequence on each line. Fragment 8 is quite large, surviving in two columns—one of which is complete with right and left margins—and consisting of 10 lines of text. Dimant describes the leather as thick and brittle, “dark buff” in colour and with a smooth, matte surface.165 Fragment 8 also preserves a bottom-margin, measuring a minimum of 10mm.166 The space between the lines ranges between 6.5–8mm, and the inter-columnar margin measures 14mm. In addition to the column margin in frg. 8, there is also a left-column edge preserved in frg. 7.

163 Brady,“Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 364 quotes Strugnell, who reconstructed the text to a range between 42–45 letter-spaces, but this number also included all the fragments of 4Q388, 4QPsEzekd. 164 According to Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 82, “There is a positive correlation between the height and width of columns: the higher the column, the wider the lines, and the longer the scroll.” 165 Dimant, djd 30, 219; cf. Strugnell’s notes cited in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 410–411. 166 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 410; Strugnell asserts that the margin is affected by the shrinkage of the whole fragment. 100 chapter 2

Dimant does not discuss the palaeography of 4Q389, except to assert that the text is dated to 50–25bce.167 Strugnell has characterised the script as transitional between late Hasmonaean and early Herodian formal hands, and notes several “idiosyncratic features” among a selection of letters.168 However, he does say that the modifications to letters where they occur are more in keeping with an early Herodian date. It seems best to assign 4Q389 to the same period as both 4Q385a and 4Q388a, but with a good possibility that it is slightly later. From the overlaps in frgs. 6–8, it is fairly certain that these fragments were located within successive columns, as suggested by the relative distances between their overlaps: 4Q387 1 7–8 || frg. 6 1–2 is situated one column subsequent to 4Q387 2 ii 8–12 || frg. 8 ii 1–4. Frg. 7 is especially helpful in locating the horizontal axis for frg. 6 relative to frg. 8, first, because the overlap in frg. 7 2 with 4Q387 1 10 is known to be within two-lines distance subsequent to the overlap between frg. 6 2 and 4Q387 1 8. Second, the left margin of frg. 7 is nearly identical to the margin between cols. i–ii in frg. 8, and this strongly suggests that it is a shared margin.169 Based on these features, the most probable location for frgs. 6, 7, 8 i–ii is as part of two successive columns at the bottom of the parch- ment, as indicated by the bottom margin preserved in frg. 8 ii. Nevertheless, this does not ensure the placement frgs. 6, 7 on the same horizontal axis with frg. 8 i. It seems most plausible, given that one would expect physical remains to be situated close laterally, but we must allow for the possibility that frgs. 6, 7 are located on a horizontal plane above frg. 8. There are two other fragments assigned to 4Q389 that are of considerable literary interest; frgs. 1 and 5. The first of these also preserves a bottom margin, but is considerably relevant, since it is the only other fragment from the entire group apart from 4Q385a frg. 18 that mentions Jeremiah the prophet by name. The text here bears a close resemblance to the introduction of the apocryphal book of Baruch, and Dimant has suggested that it is most probably the introduction of the Apocryphon c.170 The various thematic overlaps between 4Q389 1 and the narrative fragments 18 i–ii in 4Q385a qualify its inclusion in the dis-

167 Dimant, djd 30, 93. 168 Cited in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 410. 169 Dimant, djd 30, 227 says that “[t]he size of the [frg. 7] margin is identical to that of frg. 6, as already suggested by Strugnell.” One must assume that she meant frg. 8, given that this is the only other fragment from 4Q389 that has preserved a margin. Cf. also Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 2: 450, where she says that Strugnell had placed frg. 7 below frg. 8. 170 Dimant, djd 30, 222–223. the apocryphonofjeremiah: a material and synoptic overview 101 cussion in the following chapter. Fragment 5 appears to align with 1Sam 8:6, and also contains mention of the name Samuel, son of Elqanah. This fragment would seem to fit well within the same literary context as 4Q385a 1 ii + 2, and the historical description of the early united monarchy in Israel.

2.5 Conclusion: The Extents and Limits of Reconstruction

The history of scholarship for the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c combined with the above textual assessment of 4Q385a serves in many ways as a useful heuristic device for more rigorously testing the plausibility of Dimant’s sequence. Por- tions of the basic outline proposed by Dimant is supported both physically and contextually, but this study has revealed that there are also a number of clear problems with her synopsis. The meticulous scrutiny of material and distant joins has served to refine Dimant’s hypothetical synopsis in two key places: First, and perhaps most importantly, the material joins observed in 4Q385a and 4Q387 in particular have reinforced the exclusion of 4Q390 from the sequence, and have validated Werman’s, Berner’s and Eshel’s position insofar as this text does not belong to the present edition of the Apocryphon c. However, as I shall demonstrate in Chapter Four, this does not preclude 4Q390 from inclusion among the Jeremianic traditions, nor from maintaining a very close relationship to the Apocryphon c, perhaps as another reworking or edition of the same material. Second, the combination of material and distant joins in 4Q385a has helped to locate more precisely a number of fragments in the sequence relative to one another, and in particular reveals a text that is almost certainly shorter than Dimant imagined. What has emerged from this exercise is a fairly comprehensive view of the Apocryphonc, which forms the basis for a new transcription and interpretation in the following chapter. Nevertheless, despite these positive results, caution is warranted in how these conclusions are weighed. While this study strains to present as complete a picture of the Apocryphon c as far as the physical and literary remains will allow, the text is still exceptionally fragmentary. We do well to remember that “whereas fragments are discrete physical entities, manuscripts are scholarly constructions.”171 The 504 full, partial and reconstructed words in the 4Q385a fragments in the following chapter represent what might amount to at most only 20% of what was originally in the entire composition, based on an average

171 Tigchelaar, “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts,” 26. 102 chapter 2 column size of around 22 lines.172 The following text is conditional, and all things considered, is intended as the most probable layout for how the Apoc- ryphon c may have appeared in its entirety.173 In any number of places, reconstructed words and phrases, line-lengths, the layout and interpretation of the text represent the best educated guesses. What the following partial edition is intended to do is provide the most plausible model for understanding the 4Q385a fragments relative to one another, and as part of a large, apocalyptic composition that featured the prophet Jeremiah, and was itself part of a larger collection of Jeremianic literature that survived from Qumran Cave 4.

172 Estimates for column dimensions are derived from calculating the distances between the overlapping sections of 4Q387 with 4Q385a frgs. 3–5, and then positing the necessary space needed to fill the lacuna. This reconstruction is drawn from the formula, x = yi(zi + 1) + yii(zii + 1) + (zi—ai) + (zii—aii), where, for the text with known dimensions (4Q387), x is the total number of letter-spaces in the lacuna, yi–ii is the number of lines in the lacunae in each column, zi–ii is the average line-length in each column, and ai–ii is the number of letter-spaces in the final extant lines before and after the lacuna. Because the end of every line also represents a word separation, an additional letter-space is added to each line-length in the first part of the formula. Upon arriving at x, this number may then be applied to determine column sizes for the other text with unknown dimensions (4Q385a), using the formula y = x/( z - 1). 173 Tigchelaar, “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts,” 30–31 rightly cautions that manuscript reconstruction is frequently not possible. chapter 3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a): The Reconstructed Text and Translation with Notes, in Conversation with the Other Witnesses (4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389)

3.1 Introduction to the Reconstructed Text

The previous chapter considered options for the assignment of fragments to the 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah ca (4Q385a) as it was defined by Dimant, and suggested two plausible sequences for the whole text, factoring into consideration its numerous and diverse material and distant joins present among all the fragments. The fragments of 4Q385a may be situated together into three groups: Group i, consisting in sequence from frgs. 1–6; Group ii, consisting of frgs. 10–18, and the final small group of two fragments, frgs. 8–9 in Group iii. The lack of many surviving words in context prevents from more accurately determining the placement of Group iii, but Groups i and ii either belong together arranged from frgs. 1–6 and 10–18, or in reverse from frgs. 10–18, followed by frgs. 1–6. The former sequence has generally been held by scholars to be accurate, and this “standard arrangement” will form the basis of the transcription, translation, and notes for 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah ca as it appears below. Each group will be presented separately, and according to their designation from Groups i–iii. The purpose of this chapter is to present a comprehensive transcription of the 4QApocrJer ca, followed by a detailed synopsis, derived from the material and distant joins, in conjunction with the several textual overlaps between this text, and the other textual witnesses to the Apocryphon c, 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389. 4Q390 was precluded from the sequence largely on the basis of the absence of any material overlaps with the other manuscripts, and in line with the description of its contents by Werman, Eshel and Berner. Nevertheless, while this text does not belong in the lacunae of the others, it is still closely related, and will be assessed in greater detail in the following chapter, as an alternative edition or updated version based on the Second Temple Apocalypse (Apocalypse i) in 4Q385a frgs. 3–6 ( || 4Q387 1–3 || 4Q388a 3, 7 || 4Q389 7–8). The fragments from 4Q385a below are presented according to their arrangement within their Groups in sequence, and assigned to hypothetical columns

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278448_005 104 chapter 3 within each grouping. Following this is a presentation of pertinent fragments from the overlapping texts, with translations, notes and comments. This chapter will conclude with a synopsis that attempts to provide a good sense of the whole composition by highlighting some of the major themes and ideas throughout.

3.2 The Reconstructed Text with Translation, Notes and Comments

3.2.1 Group i—Fragments 1–6

Col. i: 4Q385a frg. 1b i 7–8

.7 ○] ע .8 ○] ̇ב̇א

Col. ii: 4Q385a frgs. 1a–b ii 1–8+2 1–3 ( || 4Q481d 3 1–3)

[.1 או ] ̇הלהמי̊ק [ ] ○][.2 וביאתא [ ] ][.3 ̇יסאווביא̊א [ הר ] .4 ̇ע̇ינממובבלםראלוינפורחש̇ב [ ותנועהמלשרשאד ] .5 ̊בהמלשבשיווימיומלשיו [נ]̊ו [ ומעהיהאוואסכלע ] .6 ו̇פכבויביאשפנהנתאו ○][○][ .7 לועודימהחקאו [ שהיבלחתאותו ] וח̇ת̊שיוםי̇מ̊ל .8 ל[ ינפ ] ל[ ] ̊יש ][ ל ][○ אל Col. i 7. [ … ] … 8. [ … ] … father of

Col. ii 1. [ … and I s]et up … [ … ] 2. [ … ] … his enemy[ … ] 3. [ … ] … his enemy, and I remo[ved … ] 4. when he earnestly sought my presence, and his heart did not grow haughty towards me un[til the fulness of his time.] 5. Then his days were fulfilled, and Solomon his s[on] sat [on his throne and I was with him,] 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 105

6. and I delivered the life of his enemies into his hand[ … ] 7. And I took from his hand burnt offe[rings along with the fatty por]tions of offerings for well being, and he prostrated himself 8. be[fore me … ] … [ … ] not

Notes and Comments Col. i The letters at the end of each line are visible on the far .[ … ]○ע [ … ]○ ̇ב̇א Ll. 7–8 right edge of the bottom of 4Q385a frg. 1. Compare the second letter to the ʿayin in on 4Q385a frg. 1 ii 7. Only the top horizontal stroke of the last letter in l. 8 is לוע [ה visible, but there is minute trace visible of ink that immediately precedes it. The tops of both letters on l. 8 are clear especially on the new infrared photograph b-295658 featured by the iaa in the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library.1 Dimant reads for the last line of frg. 1 col. i, but unlike other examples of hê elsewhere on the ]○ ̇ה same fragment the top-horizontal stroke is considerably shorter, and does not exhibit in ii החקאו in col. ii 6 and הנתאו the same characteristic angle down to the right (cf. in 7).

Col. ii but this is clearly incorrect from the new iaa infrared , ̇בל [ Dimant reads . ̇הל [ l. 1 photograph b-295658. Notice that both bottom tips of the parallel downstrokes in the disputed letter are visible at the left edge of the fragment. This letter is also possibly a ḥêt or less probably a nûn.

The new iaa infrared photograph reveals trace of the bottom of the letter . ]○ תא l. 2 .and with sufficient distance to suggest a word separation תא that precedes

-in 4Q387a 5 3, and recon ורחשב Qimron has suggested an overlap with . ינפורחש̇ב l. 3 -he continued ]to earnestly seek my pres]“ ,[ דוע ] ינפורחש̇ב structed the text to read is based on the overlaps between 4Q385a 1 ii and 4Q481d דוע ence.”2 The placement of below. The overlap is correct, however, Qimron is mistaken in his identification of the first word, where the wedge-shaped head of the first visible letter better distinguishes it to“ , רחשׁ On the use of 3.] די [ as a yôd and not a wāw. The correct reading of 4Q481d 3 1 is nidotte 4: 84. The most”, רחשׁ “ ,seek diligently” in the Hebrew Bible, cf. Chitra Chhetri

1 http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295658. Consulted 20 Decem- ber, 2012. 2 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 101. on l. 3 היהא̊ו Cf. the especially clear image of 4Q481d in pam 43.550, and compare with yôd in 3 below. 106 chapter 3 common object is God (cf. Job 8:5; Ps 63:1; 78:34; Isa 26:9 and Hos 5:15; also Prov 1:28–29). The verb’s appearance is particularly significant considering the common occurrence elsewhere in the Apocryphon c (cf. above). Cf. the שׁקב and שׁרד of other seeking verbs collection of all three verbs together in Prov 11:27. and commented , ̇ע[ where I have restored ̊ש[ Dimant read . ̇ע[ ותנועהמלשרשאד ] l. 4 that “the curve of the left tip of the stroke matches šîn rather than ʿayin.”4 In the new photograph b-295658 this is quite clearly incorrect. Compare with other ʿayins from the same fragment in l. 7 below, and with several other šîns in ll. 5 and 6 below. The angle of the pen-stroke matches that of ʿayin and the joint between the long right-downstroke and the smaller left-downstroke is also faintly visible on the new image. My reconstruction follows Qimron, who correctly identified the overlapping text in 4Q481d 3 here (see further below).5 While the placement of the left margin is not entirely certain, Qimron’s reading provides for a highly plausible suggestion, and produces a column width of approximately 78–81mm. This reconstruction aligns nicely on both lines at the left margin, and additionally with the margin of line 9 if the reconstruction for the line below is correct, based on the situation of frg. 2 relative to period of time,” or “season” (cf. 4Q177“ , ̇ותָנ̇וע 1b ii. The final word on the line is vocalised 5–6 13). Perhaps the author was attempting to produce a play-on-words between his and the , הנוע and between , המלשׁ and the proper name םלשׁ frequent use of the verb .(cf. e.g. 4Q389 8 ii 5–6) ןוע occasional appearance of

The reconstruction follows Qimron,6 and . ̊בהמלשבשיו [נ]̊ו [ ומעהיהאוואסכלע ] l. 5 is based on the overlap with 4Q481d 3 3,7 which is probably incorrectly assigned along with frgs. 4 and 5 to 4Q481d: a text with the special feature of preserving letters written in red ink. A palaeographical comparison between frg. 3 and the other fragments of 4Q481d reveals clear differences in scribal hands, especially as they appear in pam 43.550. These fragments actually bear a closer appearance to the script of 4Q387 and 4Q387a. It is further interesting to note that 4Q481d 3 was originally included with other fragments of 4Q387 in pam 41.864. In light of this, and in consideration of the overlapping text with 4Q385a frg. 1 ii, 4Q481d 3 should probably be reassigned to 4Q387, or possibly 4Q387a.

4 Dimant, djd 30, 133. 5 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 101. .cf. e.g , ויבאאסכלעונבהמלשבשיו Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 101. For the expression 6 1Kgs 1:13, 17, 30, 46; 2:12, 19; 3:6; 1Chron 28:5; 29:23. 7 George J. Brooke et al. (eds.), in consultation with James C. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4.xvii: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (djd 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 315–320 (pl xxix). 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 107

ודימהחקאו Qimron reconstructed frg. 1 7 to read . לוע [ שהיבלחתאותו ] וח̇ת̊שיוםימ̊ל l. 7 but he did not correctly place frg. 2.8 Dimant reconstructed the last word , ̇לוע [ החנמוה but cf. images in pams 41.863, 41.893, 43.496, and the new infrared 9, וח̇בשיו on the line photograph featured by the iaa in the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library b-295659,10 in which the left foot of the tāw is fairly clearly visible and distinguished from the base of the right downstroke. The location of 4Q385a frg. 2 laterally with frg. 1 ii 16–18 is affirmed both materially and contextually in the previous chapter. The text in l. 17 appears to recall the dedication of Solomon’s temple in 1Kgs 8:62–66, and especially in v. 1 ( הָלֹעָה ) in 2Chron 7:1–3, which features the consumption of the burnt offering in v. 3. These ( וּוֲחַתְּשִׁיַּו ) and the prostration of the sons of Israel before the glory of God elements provide strong confirmation for the alignment of frg. 2 1–3 with frg. 1 ii 6–8 at the beginning of 1. 8. The remaining space ל[ ינפ and have implied the reconstruction between frg. 1 and 2 is unknown, but the evidence drawn from other compete and reconstructed columns in this text, and based on the overlaps with 4Q481d 3, suggests The combination of yôd and . תולוע an allowable space of only a word or two following final mêm on the right edge of frg. 2 strongly suggests a plural noun that parallels the mention of burnt offerings. The traces there would most closely correspond to a mêm or a bet, and one will also notice that the trace at the very right edge of frg. 2 could very reasonably correspond to a slightly elongated downstroke of lāmed. This presumes that I have translated as “fatty םימלשהיבלחתאו the very reasonable reconstruction portions of offerings for well being.” Furthermore, this reading receives some additional confirmation from 2Chron 7:7, in which the “fat parts of the offerings for well being” appears in the same context.11 ( םיִמָלְשַּׁהיֵבְלֶחתֵאְותוֹלֹעָהםָשׁהָשָׂע־יִכּ )

Col. iii: 4Q385a frg. 3a–c 1–9 ( || 4Q387 frg. 1 1–10 + frg. 2 i 4 || 4Q388a frg. 3a–b 1–7 || 4Q389 frgs. 6–7, 8 i 6–7)

][.1 ̇א̇ד [ ] [.2 התהב ] ̇בםכ̊כל [ ינפלמהגגש ] [.3 מ] םשה̇יא̇ר̊ק [○ ]

8 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 101. ,in Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism וח̇כשיו Cf. also the alternative reconstruction 9 276. Reynolds depends primarily upon the contextual similarity of the Apocryphon c overall with the Deuteronomic themes prevalent in Jeremiah/Dtr. 10 http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295659. Consulted 20 De- cember, 2012. appear exclusively together in a similar םיִבָלֲחַהְוהָלוֹעָה Cf. also 2Chron 35:14 in which 11 ritualised context. 108 chapter 3

[.4 אכ ] קעיליתרמא̊רש [ בו ] ][○○][.5 תב̇ז̇ע [○ ] .6 ̇חתו̇יתירבידעו̇מ [ ימשתאולל ] .7 וחבזתוישדקמ [ תוםיריעשל ] ̇ו̇ח̇בז ][ .8 ̇שת̊א [○○][ ו] לכהורפת ○○ [.9 באו ] הנומאשק ][ א̇ל̊ו

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [ … while ]you[ wandered abo]ut in [error before me … ] 3. [ … c]alled by the name … [ 4. [just a]s I spoke to Jac[ob … ] 5. [ … ]abandoned(?)[ … ] 6. festivals of my covenant, and you profan[ed my name … ] 7. my sanctuary, and you sacrificed[ to goat demons, and you ]sacrificed[ … ] 8. [ … and] you violated everything[ … ] 9. [ … and I sou]ght after faithfulness[ ]but not

Notes and Comments The reading follows Dimant.12 . ] ̇א̇ד [ l. 1

The reading is based on the overlapping text in 4Q388a . התהב ] ̇בםכ̊כל [ ינפלמהגגש l. 2 3 2. The first word may or may not align to the right margin, and it may have been preceded by a very small word, such as an inseparable preposition with a pronominal suffix. following ,ק] םשהיאי̇ר ○[ Dimant reads 13. ם̇שהיא̇ר̇ק Qimron reads . מ] םשה̇יא̇ר̊ק ○[ l. 3 Wacholder and Abegg,14 but offers no further notes about her reconstruction, which dif- Most problematic 16 ] םשהוא̊ר̊ק.[Brady reads 15.ק] םשהיא̇ו̊ר [ fers from Strugnell’s reading are the first and second letters. The second letter seems most obviously to resemble yôd as transcribed by Wacholder and Abegg and Dimant, but the left edge of the top-stroke does not end in a point. It appears to continue upwards, and is more characteristic of a rêš. Even more problematic is the trace of the first letter which Strugnell, Wacholder and Abegg, and Dimant all read as a rêš. Only the downstroke of the letter remains, and it appears to descend past the baseline. It could be construed as a long rêš, but it would

12 Dimant, djd 30, 136. 13 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 96. 14 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 244. 15 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 208. 16 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 207. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 109 then also appear awkwardly close to the following letter. The extant trace matches perfectly with qôp and this would also anticipate a slightly smaller rêš in the second letter in frg. 1 6 above). The suspected literary context appears to have affected םר .cf. e.g) previous attempts to correctly transcribe this word, and it needs be conceded that the materially best option supplied by Brady does not work very well grammatically. The ,Listen to me“ , אוּה־יִנֲאיִאָרֹקְמלֵאָרְשִׂיְובֹקֲעַייַלֵאעַמְשׁ ,reading here is based on Isa 48:12 Jacob! Israel, whom I have called!”

][ וא [ ורמאת Dimant construed the extant bits of the full line to read . תב̇ז̇ע ○[ l. 5 There is not 18.] בזעירמ [ and aligned her text with 4Q387 1 2, which preserves 17,] ̊נתבזע [ו which , ורמאתו enough space in the lacuna preceding the extant word to reconstruct is furthermore likely incorrect in light of the traces for the overlap supplied by 4Q387 frg. 1 (cf. especially pam 42.810). Dimant’s restoration of a nûn for the final letter is also in םינהכה ,in 18 i 2 ינפלמ ;in l. 6 שפנהנתאו ,in frg. 1, in l. 4 ינפ problematic. Cf. nûns in in l. 4, where the letter appears sloping on ןנוקמ in 2 ii 1, and סנפחתב ;in l. 6 איבנה ,l. 5 a leftward angle, and with a curvature in the downstroke. In contrast, the trace of the downstroke here is very straight, more like a hê or a final mêm. While the overlap with 4Q387 is probable, we cannot be much more confident in the restoration of the line here.

Frg. 3a was located in a pile containing frgs. 1a, 3a–6, and its relative distance . ידעו̇מ l. 6 from frg. 2 is fixed at the same distance between frg. 1a and the lower-bottom-left edge of frg. 1b, since frg. 2 arrived at the pam atop this portion of frg. 1b which preserves the first column. This requires that the left edge of frg. 3a–b is either located very close to the beginning of the column, or that it preserves the right-column edge, as I have restored it here. Dimant opted to situate this fragment in the middle of the column,19 but this is clearly not possible in light of this physical evidence.

Dimant reconstructs this word based on a probable overlap with 4Q387 1 . ̇חתו [ לל ו l. 6 She supplies the connecting text between this word and the first visible 20. ̇ללחתו [ו] ת̊א ,3 and you profaned my“ , ישדקמואמטתוישדקתאוימשתאוללחתו ,word on the following line

17 Dimant, djd 30, 136. but this is almost , אתו ] בזעורמ [ וניהלאונת Dimant, djd 30, 175 restores 4Q387 1 2 to read 18 certainly incorrect; cf. also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 96. The last letter on the first word is probably not a wāw. The large, triangular head more clearly distinguishes it as a yôd, which is what was originally read by Strugnell, and followed by Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 307. 19 Dimant, djd 30, 136. 20 Dimant, djd 30, 136, 175. 110 chapter 3 name and my consecrated things and you defiled my temple.”21 Qimron reconstructs The overlapping 22. ̇ת̊או̇ללחתו [ תאואמטתויתותבש ] ישדק̇מ the overlapping text to read text in 4Q387 1 3 has been reconstructed with the help of situating this line in horizontal here וללחתו alignment and 3c, and without any overlaps from other copies between on the following line, we cannot be very precise about how much text to ישדקמ and expect in the lacuna.23 Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to anticipate a reading close to Dimant’s. If the reconstruction in l. 5 below and the short column-width are accurate, the overlapping text from 4Q387 1+2 i 3 could fit, but would appear to be a little short for this already small column. An alternative probable restoration for ll. 4–5 could read Textual variation appears in a few places between the . חתו [ תאואמטתוימשתאולל ] ישדקמ Apocryphon c witnesses, and another disputed reading here would be unsurprising. is reconstructed from the overlaps in 4Q387 1 4 and םיריעשל . וחבזתו [ םיריעשל l. 7 4Q388a 3 6.24 Cf. also 4Q243 13 2–4 || 4Q244 12 2–4: “and they were sacri]ficing their children to] the demons of error, and God became angry at them and sa[id] to give them into the hand of Neb[uchadnezzar king of Ba]bylon, and to make their land desolate of them.”25 While the Pseudo-Daniel text is written in Aramaic, the parallel is so similar as to impose a connexion with the Apocryphon c’s description of the exile here. See further discussion in Chapter Five, section 5.3.2. Pseudo-Daniel a (4Q243–4Q244).

.Dimant had inserted an additional line between the break in 4Q385a frg . תו ] ̇ו̇ח̇בז [ l. 7 3b–c, but the shape of the right lower edge of frg. 3b and the left edge of frg. 3c appear to coalesce on the same horizontal axis in l. 7. Bêt is clearly visible, and the final letter

.consecrated things” is a little unusual“ , ישדקתאו Dimant’s suggestion and translation of 21 the latter functions as שׁוֹדָק or שֶׁדֹק appears with םֵשׁ In most instances where the noun cf. Lev 20:3; 22:2, 32; Ezek) יִשְׁדָקםֵשׁ־תֶא .an adjective or in construct with the former, e.g 20:39; 36:20–22; 39:7, 25; 43:7–8; Amos 2:7; Ps 33:21; 103:1; 105:3; 106:47; 145:21; 1Chron 16:10, appears on its own שֶׁדֹק Ezek 44:8 is the only place in the Hebrew Bible in which .(29:16 ;35 to describe the sacred objects of the temple. 22 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 96. 23 For a comparable appearance of the same clusters of words and expressions, cf. also the and do not ,( יתרותוינבובזעי־םא ) conditions in Psa 89:31–32: “If his sons abandon my Torah יתקח־םא ) if they defile my statutes ;( ןוכליאליטפשׁמבו ) walk according to my judgements .( ורמשׁיאליתוצמו ) ”and do not keep my commands ,( וללחי at the end of 4Q385a 3 7, and ל ] םיריעש ת ]ו ] Dimant, djd 30, 136 erroneously transcribed 24 then repeated this error in her citation of overlaps on pp. 175, 205, but this word does not appear on this fragment. 25 John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, “4Q234–244: The Combined Text,” Qumran Cave 4. xvii. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. J.C. VanderKam et al.; djd 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 133–151, 147. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 111 thought by Dimant to be a zayin is better construed as either wāw or yôd. A comparison on the same line here reveals וחבזתו in l. 3 and in תבזע ○ to other zayins on the fragment in that this letter is vertically inscribed, and with the head pointing to the right, which contrasts sharply with the head of the letter here that faces left. The extant middle letter shows traces of parallel downstrokes, especially on the image in PAM41.893, and is almost certainly not a rêš as Dimant has suggested. The placement of frg. 3c here is most likely in line with the horizontal axis of frg. 3b 7–8, and not ll. 8–9 as Dimant has argued. is to be expected, and it is חבז Given the context, something stemming from the root ,in accordance with Dimant’s suggestion. However םכיחבזתא tempting to reconstruct the final extant letter is probably not a yôd, which appears universally throughout this text with a fairly large, triangular head. More plausibly, this could be a repetition of .as as I have reconstructed here in alignment with 4Q387 1 4 וחבזתו the same verb with the חבזמ Another attractive option would be to read this as the plural form of their altars.” This reading produces an“ , םהיתוחבזמ ,second plural pronominal suffix approximate, short column width of 68 mm, and is also not unproblematic apart from its failure to overlap with 4Q387, since we would rather expect to see the defective form . םהיתחבזמ

The šîn is very clearly visible in 4Q385a 3 8, and is followed by . ̇שת̊א [ ]○○[ l. 8 Since the fragment is .]○א○[ traces of two or three letters, which Dimant has transcribed probably located close to the preserved margin in frg. 2, this is probably the beginning of above, or less וחבזתו the line, and represents either the direct object of the second verb likely another verb that possibly disappeared in the lacuna that follows. If the former, a suggestion is not forthcoming from the context. based on the overlapping , דיבלכהורפת̊ו [ המר Dimant reconstructed . ו] לכהורפת ○○ l. 8 text in 4Q387 1 5 and 4Q388a 3 7.26 These overlapping fragments are too damaged at this . המרדיב ,place in the text to provide any confidence in the reading of the final two words can still be seen in pam 41.637, but this is far from דיב Dimant claims that the full word certain.27 The image in question preserves frg. 3 still laying atop frg. 2, and it is very difficult to discern from this picture what belongs to each layer at this place where the top piece is cracked. The first letter may only be represented by a tiny speck of ink, and the shape of the third letter is formed by a singular motion that is difficult to construe

26 Dimant, djd 30, 136; cf. also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 96. 27 Dimant appears to be following Strugnell’s notes here, who is essentially quoted in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 149 saying the same thing. However, Brady has further noted that it is difficult to determine if Strugnell’s frg. 14 on which he offers this comment is the same frg. 14 that appears in the preliminary concordance. 112 chapter 3 with dālet. The reconstruction follows from the context and language of the preceding [אז תרצה הארץ את שבתתיה כ]ל ימי[ :lines. Cf. Lev 26:33–44 which is quoted in 4Q249 1 2 .Also cf. 4Q390 1 9 .[השמה ואתם בארץ איביכם

Col. iv: 4Q385a frg. 4 1–9 ( || 4Q387 frg. 2 ii 1–12 || 4Q388a frg. 7 ii 1–3 || 4Q389 frg 8 ii 1–10)

1. [יבלי שנים ו] ̊ה̊ת̇ה[לכתם בשגעון ובעורון ותמהן] 2. [הלבב ומתם] הדו̇ר [ההוא אקרע את הממלכה] 3. [מיד ]המחזקים א̇ו̊ת[ה והקימות̇י ע̊ליה אחרים] 4. [מעם ]א̊חר ומשל ה[זדון בכול ממלכות הארץ] 5. [ ] ̊ל̊ל̊כת ̊י[שרא]ל ̇תא[בד בימים ההמה יקום מלך והוא] 6. [גד]פן וע[שה תעבות וקרעתי את ממלכתו ] 7. ההוא למלכים ופ̇נ̊י [מסתרים מישראל והממלכה] 8. תשוב לגוים ר̇ב̊י̇ם[ ובני ישראל זעקים מפני] 9. [על כבד בא]רצות ש[בים ואין משיע להם]

1. [jubilees of years. And you will w]and[er about in madness and in blindness and bewilderment] 2. [of heart. Then from the time of the completion of that ]generation[ I will tear the kingdom] 3. [from the hand ]of those who grasp hold of i[t, and I will set up over it others] 4. [from ]another [people]. And the [Zāḏôn ]will have dominion[ over all the kingdoms of the earth,] 5. [ … ] … of Israel will be de[stroyed. In those days a king will arise, and he] 6. [will be a blasp]hemer. He will co[mmit abominations and I will tear his kingdom to shreds … ] 7. [ … ] that for other kings. And my face[ will be hidden from Israel, and the kingdom] 8. will turn to many nations. [Then the sons of Israel will cry out because] 9. [of the heavy burden in the la]nds of [their ]ca[ptivity, but there will be no one to redeem them … ]

Notes and Comments The reconstruction is based on the overlapping text in 4Q387 2 ii 4.28 . ו] ̊ה̊ת̇ה[לכתם l. 1 but the sharp image in pam 43.509 clearly shows that 29,] ̊ה̊ר ̊ה[ Strugnell originally read

28 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 139; Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 97. 29 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 202. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 113 the surface of the fragment has been damaged on the line, so as to leave the impression that a word space exists where the foot of the tāw protrudes to the left. because of the“ , ןוועב In her translation, Cana Werman suggested that . [ םתמו ] l. 2 sin,” better fits the physical remains of the overlapping text in 4Q387 2 ii 5 as well as the context,30 but what appears in any of the plates does not support her assertion. The shape of the first letter much more closely conforms to mêm than to bêt, and there is nothing in the remains from which to posit the presence of an ʿayin.

The overlapping text in 4Q387 2 ii 6 preserves an orthographic variant . ̊ת̇וא [ה l. 3 . התא reading but there is a surplus of 31, ץראהלכב Dimant reconstructed . [ תוכלממלוכב ץראה ] l. 4 space to accommodate this reading both here on this fragment and in the overlapping in 4Q385a ה[ ןודז text in 4Q387 2 ii 7. There is approximately 24 letter-spaces between -in the following line, which is substantially more than the ten letter ̊ת̊כ̊ל̊ל [ and 5 4 spaces that appear in the overlap with 4Q387. The reconstruction reproduces the plene -which is in keeping with other parts of 4Q385a where long forms occasion , לוכ form לכ ץראה ally appear in place of defective forms in 4Q387 and 4Q389. The expression is frequently attested throughout Dtr. and in the Hebrew prophets; in Jeremiah תוכלממ cf. e.g. Jer 15:4; 24:9; 29:18; 34:17. and Strugnell only noted the trace of a single , מו ] תכ̊ל̊מ Dimant reads . [ ] ̊ת̊כ̊ל̊ל l. 5 letter, which he read as a tāw.32 Minute trace of what can only be a lāmed appears at the right edge above the line in pams 42.505 and 43.509, and the space between this letter and the high ascender of lāmed in Dimant’s transcription suggests that these two letters occur one directly after the other (compare this with the space between the in 4Q385a 4 7.) Dimant attempted to match the trace to the preceding םילכמל lāmeds in mêm in the overlap with 4Q387,33 but one is hard pressed to imagine how it is that the mêm would appear here on the same horizontal axis as the top of the following lāmed. and an unknown הָכָלְמַמ There is some consistency in the variance between the noun word containing simultaneously occurring lāmeds in this composition, as evinced by appears in alignment with [ ] לל [ בושת ] םיוג̊ל the same alternative in 4Q387 2 ii 10, where 34. םיוגלבושתהכלממהו ,4Q389 8 ii 2

30 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 234. 31 Dimant, djd 30, 138. 32 Dimant, djd 30, 139; Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 203. 33 Dimant, djd 30, 139. 34 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 179, 228. 114 chapter 3

אוהוךלמהיהיהמההםימיב Dimant restored . [ דגאוהוךלמםוקיהמההםימיב ] ןפ Ll. 5–6 המההםימיב [ י] ̇ה[ הי based on the overlapping, reconstructed text in 4Q387 2 ii 8 [ דג ] ןפ in those days there will be a king, and he will be a blasphemer.”35“ , הוךלמ ] ןפדגא̇ו There does not appear to be enough room to support her reading, and she seems to acknowledge this in her claim that her reconstruction for 4Q385a is “slightly different from that of the of 4Q387 2 ii 8–9.”36 However, her transcription does not support her comments, and essentially matches the reconstruction in 4Q387. Strugnell and and this reading 37,[ דגאוהוךלמםוקיהמההםימיב ] ןפ Wacholder and Abegg reconstructed is retained by Qimron.38 At minimum, this reading makes better literary sense, but it might also provide a better fit for the space in the lacuna. If so, it would make for a longer-than-average line here in l. 5.39

The situation of frg. 4a in the same wad with frgs. 1a, 3a–6 determines its . אוהה l. 7 distance from frg. 3c, which arrived at the pam atop a pile containing frgs. 1b and 2. It most likely preserves the right column edge as I have reconstructed above, and this produces an average column width of about 75mm.

,There is an alternative reading in the overlapping text, 4Q387 2 ii 9 . םיכלמל l. 7 see below). This either represents a scribal error, although it is difficult to) לכמל [י]ם determine in which direction the change occurs. Otherwise, it is possibly an intended alteration which shifted the subject (likely connected to the object of the preceding .from “kings” to “destroyers,” or vice versa ( ותכלממתאיתערקו ,clause

Col. v: 4Q385a frg. 5a–b 1–9 ( || 4Q387 frgs. 2 iii 6–7+3 1–6 || 4Q388a frg. 7 ii 7–10)

[.1 דובעלםילשורי ] ̇םיהלא [ תובעתכתושעלוםירחא ] [.2 ומקוםיוגה ] ̇םינהכןינ̇מ [ וכלמירשאהשולש ] ○][.3 םירחא̇ה [ שדקו ] [.4 וםישדקה ] חבזמ̇ה [ ] [.5 פונםיקדצמהו ]ל[ ברחבםי ]

המההםימיב [ י] ̊ק[ םו Dimant, djd 30, 179, 181; Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 97 reads 35 . הוךלמ ] ןפדגא̇ו 36 Dimant, djd 30, 139. 37 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 243; also Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 203. 38 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 97. 39 This was also noted by Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 206. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 115

[.6 חב ] ̊אה̊פ̊נ [ח ] [.7 השולשםינהכ ] ̊ד̇בוכלהתיאלרשא [ םהיתובאיכר ] [.8 שייהלאםשלע ] דרוהווארקילא̇ר [ םהימיב ] [.9 ירביעישירמןואג ] ̊ת [ עו ] ̇ורכני̇ד̊ב [ לארשיערקתי ]

1. [ … of Jerusalem,] to serve[ other] gods, and to commit the same abominations] 2. [as did the gentiles. Then ]an order of priests[ will rise up, three who will rule … ] 3. [ … ]other[ … and the holy ] 4. [of holies and ]the altar[ … ] 5. [those who declare themselves righteous will fa]l[l by the sword … ] 6. [ … ]is polluted [ … ] 7. [three priests ]who will not behave after the m[anner of their forefathers;] 8. [by the name of the God of Is]rael shall they be called.[ And in their days] 9. [the pride of those who violate the cove]n[ant ]will be brought down[ along with those who s]erve foreign gods. An[d Israel will be torn apart … ]

Notes and Comments The reconstruction is based on overlaps with 4Q387 2 iii 6–7 and 3 . [ דובעל ] ̇םיהלא [ l. 1 1–6, and 4Q388a 7 ii 7–10. 4Q387 2 iii 4–5 preserves a longer text that is absent in 4Q388a 7 ii 6. It is not possible to be certain whether 4Q385a followed the shorter reading, or preserved what appears to be an interpolation. However, the narrow widths of this and the preceding column suggests a shorter text here. Dimant incorrectly suggested that frg. 5a did not align with 4Q387 2 iii, and this led her to place it along with the more unambiguously overlapping frg. 5b and 4Q387 3 in a subsequent column. In so doing, she failed to account for what would be a missing layer between 4Q385a 4 and 5a, which were subsequent layers in the wad containing frgs. 1a–6. The overlap is confirmed by the arrangement of text in , םיהלא ,between frg. 5a 1 and 4Q387 2 iii 6 the lacuna that appears in the three witnesses, 4Q385a 5a, 4Q387 2 iii + 3, and 4Q388a 7 ii.

The reading is supplied by the overlaps . [ ומקו ] ̇םינהכןינ̇מ [ וכלמירשאהשולש ] l. 2 between the three witnesses, which were unaccounted for by Dimant, and by Strug- nell.40 Qimron noted the alignment between 4Q387 2 iii 7 and 4Q388a 7 ii 7, but failed to account for 4Q385a 5 2 which he situated with 4Q387 3 at an undetermined distance from 4Q387 2 iii, 4Q388a 7 ii and 4Q389 8 ii. His reconstruction is approximately cor- [I will raise up ]three[ priests]“ 41,[ םינהכםיקא ] כלמירשאהשלש [ קדצבאלוו ] rect, reading

40 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 231–232. 41 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 98. 116 chapter 3 means “number,” “count,” or ןינמ who will rul[e, but not with righteousness.]” The word “ballot,”42 but none of these seem to communicate the sense of its use in this context. The reconstructed text from the overlaps appears to intend this as a signifier of a dif- 4Q387 2 iii) םילשוריינהכ ferent kind of priests—a group within the larger group of the 6).

Dimant reads the second visible letter as an ʾālep,43 and Strugnell . ]○ םירחא̇ה [ l. 3 but there is clearly trace of a preceding ,] םירחא [ and Wacholder and Abegg both read letter or two in all the photographs.44 It is difficult to know whether the letter is an ʾālep or a hê, but the crossbar—which Dimant construes to be the left-downstroke—would be too ornate when compared to other ʾāleps in this hand. Compare especially pams 41.859 and 42.505 with 43.509; the letter is most likely a hê.

-The reconstruction is supplied by 4Q388a 7 ii 9. The align . [ שדקו וםישדקה ] חבזמ̇ה [ l. 4 ment of the three witnesses suggests that the text from 4Q388a appeared immediately .here and in 4Q387 3 1 חבזמה before

Much like the reading from the preceding line, the . [ פונםיקדצמהו ]ל[ ברחבםי ] l. 5 .in 4Q387 3 2 נ] םילפ ,reconstruction is supplied by 4Q388a 7 ii 9, and the overlapping text The alignment of the fragment to the right margin is difficult, and it is equally possible that there was a small word here between the two participles, but the reconstruction of ll. 4 and 5 seems probable.

The reading is supplied by the overlapping text in 4Q387 3 3. The hê . חב ] ̊אה̊פ̊נ [ח l. 6 is clearly visible in pam 43.509, and only small ink traces before and following this letter .and the ʾālep that follows in 4Q387 הפנח can be matched to

I have situated the lower piece of frg. 5 . [ השולשםינהכ ] ̊ד̇בוכלהתיאלרשא [ יכר ] l. 7 near the middle of the column, unlike Dimant, who believes that it should be located directly beneath frg. 5a.45 The alignment of frg. 5b is especially problematic: Dimant’s and her , רשא location leaves an awkward space at the beginning of this line before placement of the right margin in ll. 8–9 is not well aligned. While my alignment makes better sense of the margins, its position here nevertheless seems odd, as we could expect it to match better the damage patterns of the preceding fragments. This would

42 Jastrow, 801: 1. 43 Dimant, djd 30, 140. . םיהלא ] םירחא [ Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 243, but cf. the reconstruction 44 45 Dimant, djd 30, 140. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 117 otherwise anticipate its location either directly below frg. 5a—as suggested by Dimant and Strugnell.46

Wacholder and Abegg read , ̇דב [ יכרםינהכה Dimant reconstructed . ̊ד̇ב [ םכיתובאיכר ] l. 7 The overlapping text in 47.[ םינשארתירבךרדב ] and Brady suggested , ̊ד̊ב [ םינשארלאךר ] ]in the ways of [the ]former“ , הםינהכה̇י̇כרדב ] םינשא̊ר 4Q387 3 4–5 has been reconstructed priests],” but there is not enough available space for the same reading in 4Q385a 5 7–8. There is no indication what the alternate text might have read, but the context suggests that it is close to the above reconstruction. This represents one of several variant readings between the copies of the Apocryphon c, and further indicates possible instances of ideological or theological redaction. In this instance, the alteration of the text may have been intended to either implicate the first temple priesthood, or in the other direction to reflect broader culpability. It is uncertain whether the third witness, 4Q388a, preserves the shorter or longer text here.

Col. vi: 4Q385a frg. 6

].1 מ̇ו̇ם [○ ].2 םהיניעבוא [○ ].3 ̇לו̊כו̇ם̇י̊מש̊מ [ ].4 ̇םול̇ש̊ו [

1. [ … ] [ … ] 2. [ … ] with their eyes [ … ] 3. [ … ]from the skies and all[ … ] 4. [ … ]and well-being[ … ]

Notes and Comments The line 48.] מו̊ש ○[ The above reading reflects Dimant, while Brady read . ] מ̇ו̇ם ○[ l. 1 is visible in all the plates, cf. especially pam 43.509.

46 Cf. Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 231–232. While Strugnell’s arrangement of the fragments is in similar vertical alignment to Dimant’s, he has situated them closer to the left margin. 47 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 196. 48 Dimant, djd 30, 141; Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 198. 118 chapter 3 and Wacholder and , ואריו Dimant reconstructed the first word as . ] םהיניעבוא ○[ l. 2 Dimant’s restoration is based on biblical locutions in Ezra 49. ואמטיו Abegg suggested 3:12 and 2Chron 29:8. Brady notes that Strugnell translated “wonderful in their eyes,” even though the reconstruction did not appear in his transcription (cf. Ps 118:23; Zech 6:8).50

The reading agrees with Strugnell, where Wacholder and Abegg . ] ̇לו̊כו̇ם̇י̊מש̊מ [ l. 3 -Brady, who had access to Strugnell’s later, im 51. ̊ת̊נ̊כ̊ש̊מ transcribed the first word as ] לעמוםי̊מש̊מDimant transcribed the line to read 52.] מ̊ו̊ם̊י̊מש̊מ [ proved readings, reads -and asserts that her reading is confirmed by pam 41.643.53 This photograph is dif , ו̇ח[ ficult because it preserves the intact wad containing frgs. 1a–6 with frg. 6 on the top, before the group was separated into their individual layers. What Dimant has clearly done is to confuse the layers in this photograph to supply a longer reading. The ḥêt and the wāw that she believes are at the end of the line actually belong to the visible over- in frg. 3 3—which sat three layers below—and the wāw from םשה bar of final mêm from in frg. 4 3—which was sitting two layers below frg. 6 in the wad. She and Brady ̊ת̇וא [ה have also misconstrued the kāp for a mêm because of the way that the fragment has flaked apart after the separation of the layers. The baseline of the kāp has shifted to the right, and can still be seen below the first wāw in the later plates, but the earliest photograph of the wad, pam 41.643 shows the letter still clearly intact.

I believe the reading follows Strugnell, although this is uncertain because . ] ̇םול̇ש̊ו [ l. 4 Brady’s transcription does not align with her notes and comments.54 Wacholder and in frg. 4 4—which formed ר̊חא misconstruing traces of rêš from ,] ̇םול̇ש̊בר [ Abegg read the third layer—for a rêš here on frg. 6.55 The letter they believed to be a bêt conforms much better to a wāw, and without the word-space. Dimant has again made the same The hê that 56.]○○ הםילשורי [ mistake that she committed in her reading of l. 3, and read she has assigned to the left edge of the fragment actually belongs to the left edge of frg. 4 are most םילשורי in the third layer, and the two, unreadable letters that she sets before 4 .the same place ר̊חא likely ʾālep and ḥêt from

49 Dimant, djd 30, 141; Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 3: 242. 50 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 199. 51 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 3: 242; Strugnell’s reading is confirmed by Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 199. 52 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 198. 53 Dimant, djd 30, 142. 54 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 198–199. 55 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 3: 242. 56 Dimant, djd 30, 141–142. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 119 table 3.1 List of variants and orthography for fragment group i, cols. iii–v57

Col. iii

*4Q388a corr > 4Q388a בשג[גה] || ̇ב[שגגה] l. 2

Col. iv

*4Q387corr || > 4Q387 המחזיקים l. 3 4Q387 אתה || אות[ה] l. 3 4Q387 ?< || [ממלכות] l. 4 4Q387 וממלכת || ]ללכת l. 5 4Q387 [ י]ה[יה מלך] || [יקום מלך] l. 6 4Q387 למכלים || למלכים l. 7 4Q387 [ ] לל[ תשוב]|| 4Q389 [והממלכה] תשוב ll. 7–8

Col. v

4Q387 בדרכי [הכהנים ה]ראשנים || בד[רכי אבותיהם] l. 7 4Q387 נאכר || נכר l. 9

3.2.2 Group ii—Fragments 10–18

Cols. i–iii: 4Q385a frgs. 10 i–ii 1–6+11 i–ii 1–6

Col iii Col. ii Col i

1 ̇יגעו בית[ בבית 2 ̊ו̇ר○[ ] ומעשיה̇ם[ 3 בא[ ]וכהשלם ו̇עלי נשע[נו 4 ]○ הם לכה[נים שני] ̇ם שבעים יחלקו ל̇בל̊ת̊י[ 5 ] ̊אל ̊ל̇ר̇י̇ש̊ית [] ̇ל[ ] ̊את הדרך ל̊כ̊ן[ 6 ]ל̇ו○[ ]ם א̊ש[ר ]○[ ] ○[ 7 ] ̇ם ○[ ]

57 Cf. section 3.3.2. “Apocalypse i”: 4Q385a 3–5; 4Q387 1–3, 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 8 ii below. 120 chapter 3

Col. i Col. ii Col. iii

1. they will join house[ to house …] 2. […] and their deeds [ … ] 3. in [ … ] and when it is and on me (they/he/you) rely completed 4. [ … ] them / their for the pr[iests … ] seventy[ not to [ … ] year]s will be divided 5. [ … ] at the [ … ] the way Therefore, [ … ] first/beginning 6. [ … ] whic[h … ] […] 7. [ … ] them [ … ]

Notes and Comments Col. i and suggests that the trace of the second letter best ,○ ̇ת̊ש̇י̊א Dimant reads . ת̊י̇ש̇י̇ר̊ל l. 5 fits ʾālep. The recent infrared photograph b-295651 rather quite clearly reveals the top “hook” of a rêš, and the bottom-tip of the descender of lāmed that precedes it. The ”,at the first/beginning“ תישׁארל best suggestion for this word is to read it as a form of which preserves the first vowel letter, but in which the ʾālep is quiescent (cf. 4Q252 4 4; 4Q256 20 1; 4Q511 63–64 ii 3; 63 iii 2). The adjective appears prefixed with the inseparable .elsewhere only in Neh 12:44 ל preposition

The new infrared image b-295651, published by 58.] ̊ך̇ול ○○̇י Dimant reads . ] ̇ול ○[ ]ם l. 6 the iaa and featured in the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, reveals that her reading of final kāp is likely not correct. There may be traces of two letters following the wāw/yôd, but it is impossible to ascertain their identity. The new photograph also shows the final letter in the first column here to be a final mêm, and not a yôd that Dimant sees (cf. also pam 41.893). Note especially the horizontal baseline, and compare with final mêm in l. 11 above, and possibly in the following line.

Col. ii but the trace of a downstroke at the right edge of the ,]○ר○[ Dimant reads . ̇ר̊ו ○[ l. 2 fragment is the first letter on the line, and there is only room here for either a wāw or a yôd.

58 Dimant, djd 30, 144. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 121 but the new infrared image b-295651 shows the letter , ̊בב [ Dimant reads . אב [ l. 3 at the edge of the fragment to be ʾālep.59 At high magnification, trace of the angular downstroke can be seen connecting to the base of the right-arm. Compare with the ʾālep in l. 13 below.

Frgs. 10 and 11 arrived at the pam together as part of a pile with . ] םלשהכו הכל [ םינ Ll. 3–4 frg. 11 atop frg. 10, which is clearly seen in pam 41.692.60 Dimant noted that Strugnell suggested that this pile was “tucked below” frg. 18, but rejects this suggestion on literary grounds, and maintains their placement before the group that contained frg. 14–18.61 The situation of the fragments on the pile indicates their horizontal alignment here, at the end of the line in frg. 11 i 3 is immediately followed by the םלשהכו where the word first line in frg. 10 ii 3. The letters at the beginning of col. ii (frg. 10 ii 2) only conform to ”,for the pr[iests“ , הכל [ םינ a handful of reconstructions. The most prominent of these is also happens to fit contextually within the rest of the Apocryphon c.

Trace of the first letter of l. 4 in frg. 11 i is visible on pams 41.863 . ינש ] ̇ם וקלחיםיעבש l. 4 and 42.505, as well as in the new infrared images b-295648 and b-295649, featured by the iaa in the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library.62 Dimant suggests that the reading in line with the reconstruction offered by Wacholder and , ינש ] וקלחיםיעבש̊ם is possibly Abegg.63 What Dimant has construed as the upper tip of a lāmed in the following line is much more likely the left tip of the bottom stroke of a final mêm, especially given the right-to-left direction of this stroke, which is not at all characteristic of a lāmed.64 Both specks clearly resemble the ends of the top and bottom bars of other final mêms in 4Q385a. Cf. examples in the immediately following word, and in l. 3 above. The locution “seventy years” is otherwise unattested elsewhere in the Apocryphon c, but is prevalent in two places in the associated text, 4Q390 1 2 and 2 i 6. The frequent mention here and in 4Q390 also resonates with the possible mention of seventy years of oppression in one

59 http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295651. Consulted 8 Janu- ary, 2013. 60 Frg. 10 i–ii is unaccounted for in Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, as well as in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions.” Her discussion of frg. 11 i–ii makes no mention of its position atop frg. 10 i–ii in pam 41.692, and cites no notes from Strugnell with regards to its condition upon arrival at the pam. 61 Dimant, djd 30, 144. 62 http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295648, and http://www .deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295649. Both consulted 13 January, 2013. 63 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 240. 64 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 145–146. 122 chapter 3 of the Pseudo-Daniel compositions,65 as well as the Jeremianic tradition in Jer 25:11–12; 29:10, and in the citation of these traditions in Dan 9:2f.

,Trace of the lāmed are especially visible on the in infrared image, b-295651 . [ ] ̇ל[ Ll. 5 directly beneath the hê in the previous line (Cf. also pam 43.509). There may also be some traces of the preceding letters, but this remains uncertain.

Col. iii -for the first word, noting a contextual correspon יל̇בו Dimant read . עשניל̇עו [ ונ l. 3 dence between her reconstructed phrase “we/they did not lean on (= trust) God” here in the following line.66 The newly produced infrared יתלבל and the appearance of photographs of frg. 11 b-295648 and b-295649, clearly negate her reading.67 Especially in the preceding column, and םיעבש compare to other ʿayins on the same fragment in .in the line above ̇םהישעמו

Not included in the sequence of 4Q385a are a number of unidentified fragments, frgs. a–k,68 which were determined not to belong to this manuscript, and most notably 4Q385a frgs. 12 and 13. The reason for their omission is the impossibility of isolating their placement within the synopsis. While both of these have preserved a fair amount of material, they do not conform closely enough to form any material or distant joins with any of the other groupings of fragments for 4Q385a. These two fragments in particular likely belong to 4Q385a, nevertheless, there is simply not enough information available to isolate their probable location in the sequence.

Col. iv 6–7: frg. 14 1–2

[.6 ] ̊ש̊ב̊דובלח [.7 ○] ̇י̇ב

6. [ … ]milk and honey 7. [ … ] …

65 4Q243 16 1; cf. Collins and Flint, “4Q234–244,” 150–151, also section 5.3.2. Pseudo-Daniel a (4Q243–4Q244) in Chapter Five below. 66 Dimant, djd 30, 146. 67 http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295648 and http://www .deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295649. Consulted 19 December, 2012. 68 Dimant, djd 30, 167–171. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 123

Fragment 14 most likely belongs to its own column between frg. 11 ii and frg. 15 i. It was the bottom-layer in a pile of three fragments including frg. 15b and the lower half of frg. 17a ii. These are pictured together, labelled, and with the latter two still in the wad in pam 41.642, and then separated into their layers in pam 43.509. The very small frg. 14 had most likely broken off from another piece, as it was set in the pile upside-down. If we assume similar distances between the fragments that had been found together in wads, then one might expect frg. 14 situated below frg. 11, most likely forming the end of a lower line in col. i. When the fragment is turned the right-side up and set below frg. 11 i, we do in fact see a potential matching break, and another possible alignment between the abrasion at the top and the right-most protrusion on frg. 11 i, or as the lower portion of frg. 11 i. However, this would in turn require shifting frg. 11 ii to the beginning of the same column that ends in frg. 15 i, and this placement produces a syntactically unsustainable connection between then end of frg. 15 i 3 and frg. 11 ii 4. Another possibility is that Frg. 14 belonged to the same column as one of either frg. 11 ii or frg. 15 i, but the intervening space would suggest otherwise. In light of all the available evidence, I have opted for interpreting frg. 14 as the only surviving piece from an intervening column between frgs. 11 ii and 15 i.

Notes and Comments and suggested that portions of the bêt are ,] ש̇ב̊דובלח Dimant read . ] ̊ש̊ב̊דובלח l. 6 visible on a magnified printout of pam 43.509.69 There are only tiny ink-specks visible on all the plates of the šîn, with a baseline possibly belonging to bêt in pam 43.509. Trace of a possible downstroke belonging to dālet is also visible on this plate.

Col. v = 4Q385a 15 i 1–6

.1 ]ו .2 ילא ] ובישקהאל̇רשאם̇ה .3 ] ףועוץעהלעיול̊ת .4 ] וריתותלאתמ̇א̊ו ][○].5 ל ][ הרמא̊ו ][ ̊ת .6 ] ם̇ש̊פנןושל va[cat 7.

69 Dimant, djd 30, 149. 124 chapter 3

1. […] 2. [ … to ]those who have not listened 3. [ … ]hung upon a tree, and the birds 4. [ … ]do not leave truth behind 5. [ … ] … [ ]and I said[ … ] 6. [ … ]tongue of their throat

Notes and Comments םָתוֹבְשְׁחַמיִרְפּהֶזַּהםָעָה־לֶאהָעָראיִבֵמיִכֹנָאהֵנִּהץֶרָאָהיִעְמִשׁ ,Cf. Jer 6:19 . ובישקהאל̇רשא l. 2 Hear, O earth! I am going to bring disaster on this“ , הָּב־וּסֲאְמֹיַויִתָרוֹתְווּביִשְׁקִהאֹליַרָבְדּ־לַעיִכּ people, the fruit of their schemes, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my teaching, they have rejected it.”

70. ףועו [ םימשה ,Dimant reconstructed the beginning of l. 4 to follow from this . ףועו l. 3 and the birds [of“ , ורשבתאלכאוי Strugnell suggested a longer reading by including heaven will eat his flesh” (cf. Gen 40:19; Ps 79:2). and completes the clause in ,]○ וריתותלאתמ̊ה Qimron reads . ] וריתותלאתמ̇א̊ו l. 4 do not let [the corpse ]remain.”71 The second letter“ , ותלבנתא the following line with cannot be a hê, since it lacks the universally distinct crossbar that extends to the left, and the perpendicular downstroke, which here is inscribed on a left-descending angle. as the object of the imperative.72 תמ̇א Brady construes and suggests that there is visible traces of ,̊ הרמא̊ו [ א]ת Dimant reads . ]̊ הרמא̊ו ][ ת l. 5 the foot of a tāw.73 These are most prominently visible on pam 44.194.74 She suggests that the reading would feature direct speech which begins with the object. Other . תת or perhaps the imperative , תב plausible suggestions could include

Col. vi = 4Q385a frgs. 15 ii 1–3+16a–b 1–7+17a i 3–7

.2 ̊ם̇ירזמ ○○][ ̊ר̇ת̇י [ ] .3 תא ○][ ̇עירדעלםער [ ]

70 Dimant, djd 30, 150. 71 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 101. 72 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 138. 73 Dimant, djd 30, 150–151. 74 Cf. also Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 138. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 125

.4 ̊תאו ][ בסיוערזום̊י ○ וומע ][ ם ][ ][.5 ̇ן̊וויתא̇יתשרי [ ] ירהנת̇א [.6 יהושוכ ] הןכבהיחהה [○○ ] שבכ̇נ ][.7 ש̇יוןונבלהור [○ ] [.8 די ] ̊רמאלהוהילןוש̊ר [ ○] ן ][.9 ובוקע̊י [○ ] [ 10.][○○][○]

2. those who scatter[ … (th]ose?) who remain[ … ] 3. … [ … ]people to the flocks of [ … ] 4. and … [ … ] … and seed. And he will turn[ ]his people[ … ] 5. [ … ] I will disinherit Greece[ … ] [ … ]the rivers of 6. [Cush. Then there will b]e wild animals among you … [ … ]will be subdued. 7. [ …] and Lebanon will … [ … ] 8. [ … ]they [will seek] after yhwh saying:[ … ] 9. [ … ]Jacob and [ … ]

The material overlaps that frg. 15 and 16 creates with frg. 17a and 17c–d indicates that frg. 16 is located very close to the beginning of the line, and this limits the amount of space available for reconstruction here. The close proximity of frg. 17a and 17c also requires that frg. 16a is only around a centimetre’s distance from frg. 15, and this would in turn set frg. 15 ii as the beginning of the same column as frg. 16a i.

Notes and Comments but offers no suggestion for what the word might , ̊תרזמ [ Dimant reads . ̊ם̇ירזמ [ l. 2 mean.75 The difficulty of this reading has likely prompted Wacholder and Abegg to but both kāp 77, ̇תר̇ו̇כ [ Qimron supplies a baffling solution by reading 76. רזמ [ח transcribe and wāw are not possible options. The trace on the broken piece at the left edge of the fragment admittedly best resembles a tāw, but it strains the imagination to understand what this word could be. I have construed it as parts of two letters: a yôd on either side of the vertical break that touches the right-vertical stroke of another letter which is best interpreted as a final mêm (cf. the only occurrence of the piel masc. pl. participle from

75 Dimant, djd 30, 151. Strugnell seems to have offered the same reading, cf. Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 138. 76 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 234. 77 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 102. 126 chapter 3 in Job 37:9).78 Despite the obscurity of this form, the reading makes good sense in הרז the same context with what follows in the fragment.

The first letter has 80.] ער̇הם̊ע and Qimron reads 79,] ערזום̊ע Dimant reads . ] ערזום̊י l. 4 preserved a distinct head only characteristic of wāw or yôd, and in the latter reading the hê is not possible.

The location of frg. 16a is controversial. Strugnell struggled with . ] ̇ן̊וויתא̇יתשרי [ l. 5 its placement, and conceded its situation here with frg. 16b because it is grouped with תאותשרי [ frgs. 17 and 18 i–ii in the earliest photograph, pam 40.963.81 Dimant read arguing that the join between the two pieces that bisects the line is awkward ;] ןוי because the top piece has shrunk. The top parts of the first wāw, the ʾālep and tāw match precisely when frg. 16a is increased in size by 20%, but there is still too much ,Furthermore . ןוי space left between the two words on frg. 16b to match the traces to what Dimant reads as the bottom-tip of yôd on frg. 16b, and matches to the fully visible letter on frg. 16a must be rejected, since there is no abrasion of the letter on the latter to which the former may be joined. If the join is accurate, then the reading At this point, little . ןָוָי is awkward, but might be explained as an odd, long form of more can be said about the join and this reading other than that it is probable, but not unproblematic.

Dimant does not connect frgs. 16 and 17 i, and reads . ירהנת̇א [ יהושוכ ] היחהה [ Ll. 5–6 While yôd may be a possible match for the trace at the right edge of the .[ תחלשו ] היחה̊י frg. 16, it is not a very good one when compared to other yôds on the fragment where the left-sloping part of the head is consistently inscribed at a 45° angle. A match with the crossbar of hê is preferable. My reading attempts to make sense of the probable join between frg. 17 i 3 and 16 5, suggested by the complimentary shapes and necessary distances between frgs. 15, 16, and 17. The available space suggests only one word or possible two small ones could fit the lacuna at the beginning of l. 4 here. The recon- is based on biblical locutions in , שוכ struction, which includes the short, proper noun in the plural construct is in רָהָנ Isa 18:1 and Zeph 3:10.82 The only other occurrence of

in an exilic context cf. also 1Kgs 14:15; Jer 31:10; 51:2; Ezek 5:10; 6:5 הרז For other uses of 78 (Niph); 12:15; 20:23; 22:15; 29:12; 30:23, 26; 36:19; Ps 44:12; 106:27. 79 Dimant, djd 30, 152. 80 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 102. 81 Cited in full in Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 234. from the same שוכ Cf. also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 89, who reconstructed 82 scriptural text, but did not connect this fragment to frg. 16. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 127 rivers flowing with milk and honey.” In the surrounding“ , הָאְמֶחְושַׁבְדּיֵלֲחַניֵרֲהַנ :Job 20:17 context featuring judgement of other nations, Ethiopia would seem to be a very natural choice for the lacuna that fits the allotted space provided for here by reconstructions in the following lines. Cf. also the mention of Ethiopia in the following column, in 4Q385a 17 ii 14–15, which appears to read like a poetic recounting of this portion of the historical narrative. at the end of the line, but there is no trace of the שבכ̇ת Dimant reads . ] שבכ̇נ l. 6 crossbar in tāw as we would expect extending above the left downstroke (cf. tāws in in frg. 15 i 4). The reconstruction at the beginning וריתות and תמ̇א in l. 4 above, and in תא of l. 5 is Dimant’s, and is based on a “covenantal curse” from Lev 26:22 (cf. Ezek 5:17; 14:21).83

Only the tip of a downstroke is visible on the left-edge of the . ש̇יוןונבלהו ○[ l. 7 fragment, immediately following the śîn/šîn. The yôd is almost certain, but the top part of the head has been abraded.

Only a small trace of the letter before the śîn is visible on the right-edge . די ] ןוש̊ר l. 8 of the fragment, but rêš is nevertheless probable because of the shape and the angle of .in l. 5 above יתשרי the remnants of the stroke. Compare with rêš in l. 10 ]○○[ ]○[ . Traces of letters are visible at the bottom of the fragment in pams 41.503, and 43.503.

Col. vii = 4Q385a 17a–e ii

[.1 ] א̇ו̇ו̇נ̇יב̇ה ][ [.2 ○○][○○○] םהייחימי ][○○.3 ̊גימ̊י ̊ב םייחה̇ן̇ג va[ca]t .4 הןומאךקלחןכיה [ כנ ] יראיבהנ̇ו [ם ] .5 ̇ר̇הלביבסםימ [ השא ] ̇תמחםימוםי [ך ] .6 ̊ב̇עמשוכ [○][ ו] ̇חורבלץקןיא .7 ̊שבךלתהלוגבאיהוךדעסבבול [ יב ] .8 יהיללע̊ו [ שטר ]̊ו ][ ̊שאר̇ב [ כרד ] לעוםי [.9 ודיהידבכנ ] לכולרו̇ג [ לודג ] ̊קזבה̇י [ םי ]

83 Dimant, djd 30, 152, 154. 128 chapter 3

1. [ … ]they understand, and [ ] 2. [ … ] … [ … ] … days of their lives 3. [ … ] in the garden of life. v[ac]at 4. Your portion is established, Amon, who [is herself establis]hed by the Nil[e ] 5. waters surround her; [her ]d[ominion] is the sea; water is[ your] wa[ll ] 6. Cush, Egyp[t is your might, but] there is no end to [your] flight. 7. Libya is your help, even she will go into exile, into cap[tivity] 8. and her children will [be dashed to pieces] at the head[ of the roa]ds. And over 9. [her dignitaries they will cast] lots and all of her[ luminar]ies will be in fetters.

Notes and Comments84 The contents of frg. 17 ii contain two basic parts. First, lines 1–3 appear to form the conclusion of the prediction for the last days. Second, following a vacat that extends the full remainder of the line is a recitation from Nah 3:8–10. The column appears to be especially narrow, but this is also in keeping with a characteristic penchant for narrow columns already seen in frgs. 3 and 5. The situation of this poetic piece of prophecy at the conclusion of the prophetic discourse in frgs. 10–16 is particularly interesting. Furthermore, if the traditional sequence that sets frgs. 1–6 before this group is accurate, then the presence of this oracle at the conclusion of a long, apocalyptic narrative is all the more intriguing. This text joins at least the so-called “Narrative and Poetic Composition” (2Q22, 4Q371, 4Q372, 4Q373, 4Q373a) as one in which a long apocalyptic history is conjoined to poetical text—in the present case, a prophetic oracle of judgement; in the former, a penitential prayer.85 No less interesting is the fact that the text preserves a previously unknown alternative version of the Nahum oracle. Dimant has provided a detailed accounting of this fragment’s handling of Nah 3:8–10,86 which will form the point of departure of discussion for the text-critical apparatus below. and translates the word “cleft,” based on appearances ,] רתבה Dimant reads . ] ̇ו̇נ̇יב̇ה l. 1 in Gen 15:10; Jer 34:19; Cant 2:17.87 This reading is problematic, since the word appears only in construct, without the definite article, and in only four places in the Hebrew

84 I am indebted to Prof. Eibert Tigchelaar and my colleague Årstein Justnes for their assistance with several readings on this fragment. 85 Cf. Daniel 7 in which the penitential prayer in 9:4–19 introduces the apocalyptic vision in vv. 24–27. 86 Dimant, djd 30, 155–159; also idem, “A Quotation from Nahum 3:8–10 in the Fragment 4Q385 6 from Qumran,” in The Bible in Light of Its Interpreters: Sara Kamin Memorial Volume (ed. S. Japhet; Magnes: Jerusalem, 1995), 31–37 (Hebrew). 87 Dimant, djd 30, 156. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 129

Bible. My reading follows Qimron,88 and is suggested here as a possible alternative because of the difficulty with Dimant’s proposal.

.for the first word is not probable יפע 89. םייחה̇ץ̇עי̇פ̊ע̊ב Dimant read . ̊גימ̊י ̊ב םייחה̇ן̇ג l. 3 Strugnell’s reading, which I have followed here, is much more likely than Dimant’s.90 The second word is very puzzling, likely resulting from a correction of the first letter. Dimant suggested reading an ʿayin written over-top of a bêt.91 This is possible, but shape of the final ṣādê is awkward. When compared to the clear example in l. 14 below, it appears as though the scribe intended to write another word that perhaps ended with This reading might also help to explain ?( ןנע a final nûn (did the scribe mistakenly read the preceding ʿayin, if it was written over another letter, but the solution presented here Dimant claims 92. ןגבימי seems more plausible. Strugnell seems to have originally read and suggested that the kāp was a correction of , ןגכימי that Strugnell originally read bêt.93 In this instance, it is difficult to see how the narrow baseline would match other examples of kāp. More probably, the original letter was a gîmel, which was then ablated with a vertical stroke, and replaced with a bêt. The situation of the correction slightly . ןג over-top the error suggests that it was made after the scribe had completed writing

-픐 ἑτοίμασαι μερίδα ἅρμοσαι χορ אנמיבטיתה (4QpNah III 8 ינמ ) ןומא || ןומאךקלחןכוה l. 4 where is your“ , ןכיה δήν ἑτοίμασαι ἑτοίμασαι μερίδα Αμων 픊 . Dimant reads the first word as portion?,” which appears with some frequency in rabbinic literature.94 However, she (which she (incorrectly , ןכוה strangely seems to suggest that this word is derived from A better option is to follow Strugnell’s reading 95”. ןוכ identifies as “a form of the hifil verb here, which construes the second letter as a slightly shortened wāw with a larger head. The text appears to follow the spirit of 픊, minus the strange doublet at the beginning of v. 8.

Because 97.] הנ̊י and Strugnell read 96,ה[ש] הנ̇כ 픐 픊 . Dimant reads הבשיה || ה[ כנ ] הנ̇ו l. 4 the fragment was pieced together by Strugnell from various pieces the placement of

88 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 89. 89 Dimant, djd 30, 155. 90 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 233. 91 Dimant, djd 30, 156. ,but cf. Brady ,○○ םייחהןגבימי Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition 3: 240 reproduce 92 . לכ [י] םייחהןגבימ Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 223, who indicates that his reading was“ 93 Dimant, djd 30, 156. 94 Dimant, djd 30, 157. 95 Dimant, djd 30, 157. 96 Dimant, djd 30, 157. 97 Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition, 3: 240. 130 chapter 3 words in the lacunae is subject to how well these pieces align. This is complicated by the fact that damage and shrinking has interfered with various joins, and this in turn has affected the allowable space for several readings. In the present instance, Dimant has misconstrued the ink trace preceding the clear nun for the small head of the kāp, but on close inspection this is not possible since it is in the form of a short downstroke, which is much more characteristic of yôd or wāw in this manuscript. The reading here . הנוכנ ,is most likely a hollow-root participle, which I have construed as a nifil feminine Dimant has proposed that the text may have been influenced by the description of You who has settled upon the great waters.”98 Her“ , םִיַמ־לַעְתְּנַכֹשׁ ,Babylon in Jer 51:13 reading is attractive for how it aligns with the alternative versions, and the passive form ,would similarly provide a complimentary reading, “your portion is established ןיכ of Amon, who is herself established by the Nile.”99 but this is not possible from the trace of , ךל 픐 4QpNah III 10 픊 . Dimant read ̇הל l. 5 the final letter. Cf. esp. pam 44.194 where there is clear evidence of a second, parallel downstroke that makes the reading of hê virtually certain.

4QpNah III 10 (픗픖) . Dimant restored הליחרשא 픐 ליח־רשא || (픊 (ἡ ἀρχὴ ̇ר[ השא] l. 5 The shape of the trace is difficult to 100. ךלי̇ח the word to basically follow 픐, reading construe with the crossbar of a ḥêt, and much better approximates the top of a rêš with the keraia atop the letter on the left corner. The reading is in fairly close parallel to 픊.

픐 םימ || 4QpNah III 10 픊 םימו l. 5

4QpNah III 10 . The tāw is quite clear at the ח[ו] היתומ || 픐 (Mur88 17:16) 픊 ̇תמח [ך] l. 5 on the same line. It was likely םימוםי top-left edge of the same piece that has preserved missed by Dimant because it has faded, and also because of the awkward join of this piece to the one above it.

픊 pr. καὶ . Dimant ( ̇המצוע ) 픐 4QpNah III 11 םירצמוהמצעשוכ || ̊ב̇עמשוכ [ ]○[ l. 6 but offered no further comment on her strange construal of ṣādê , ̇ירצמשוכ [ המצעם ] read her]“ , ̊ו̇עמ [ הנ for what is almost certainly an ʿayin.101 Strugnell more plausibly restored ]stren[gth,” but the trace following the poorly preserved ʿayin forms an improbable

98 Dimant, djd 30, 157. 99 Cf. similar uses of the masculine singular participle in Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1; 1Chron 17:24; and from the Qumran scrolls cf. 1QS 8:5. 100 Dimant, djd 30, 158; cf. also Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 217. 101 Dimant, djd 30, 155. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 131 match to a wāw. In an unpublished paper Eibert Tigchelaar has recently proposed suggesting that this makes a better equivalence with the 픊 reading ἡ , ̊ו̇עמ [ הז reading ἰσχὺς αὐτῆς.102 Both Tigchelaar’s and Strugnell’s suggestions are more plausible than Dimant’s, but they both suffer for making a poor match with the traces of the last letter or two at the left edge of the fragment. There is trace of the tip of the descending stroke .in the following line איהו of a probable final letter just above

The Septuagint text . חורבל [ המירצמ ? 픐 τῆς φυγῆς 픊 . Strugnell read טופ || ̇חורבל l. 6 that produced a typographical חרב could be construed as having derived from the root or possibly the first and last letters in the , טלפ error in 픐, in which the scribe misread Dimant reads . טופ as a pê and a ṭêt, and then penned סונ orthographically full form in line with the appearance of this word in Nah 3:13, and has translated the חירבל [ ךי] clause “there is no end to [your] bars.”103 This reading makes little sense. Another cf. Isa 27:1; Job) ַחִרָבּ possibility may be to translate Dimant’s reading as the adjective 26:13), “your fugitives.” However, the shape of the penultimate letter on the line is almost certainly a wāw; notice the characteristically smaller head, in contrast to the several examples of yôd.

(픐 픊 (καὶ Λίβυες םיבולו || בול l. 7

픐 ἐγένοντο βοηθοὶ αὐτῆς 픊 . In her discussion of the semantic ךתרזעבויה || 픗 ךדעסב l. 7 Dimant notes that the Aramaic equivalent noun דעס and רזע correlation between is fairly common, and is actually reflected in Tg. J. Nah 3:9, which renders the end הדעס . ְךֵתָרְזֶעְבּוּיָהםיִבוּלְו of the verse with

4QpNah IV הלוגבאיהםג 픐 הלגלאיה־םג || (픊 (καὶ αὐτὴ εἰς μετοικεσίαν הלוגבאיהו l. 7 1 . It is impossible to determine the precise Hebrew reflected in the 픊 translation καὶ with a slightly higher frequency than γε, which םַגּ since this word is used in place of furthermore is absent altogether from 픐 xii.

(ה[ הכל ) 픐 4QpNah IV 1 הכלה || (픊 (πορεύσεται ךלת l. 7

,픐 . See note in l. 7 היללעםג (4QpNah IV 2 הילוליע ) || (픊 (καὶ τὰ νήπια αὐτῆς היללעו l. 8 3˚ above.

102 Eibert Tigchelaar, “Unities and Disunities in Jeremianic Texts,” (Paper presented at Yale University, 8 October, 2013), 5–6. My thanks to Prof. Tigchelaar for providing me with an advance copy of his essay. 103 Dimant, djd 30, 156. 132 chapter 3

픐 4QpNah IV 2 픊 ad. αὐτῆς. Dimant suggested בראשׁ כל־חוצות || ̇ברא̊ש[ דרכ]ים l. 8 based on biblical locutions such as Isa 2:2 and Ps 72:16.104 ̇ברא̊ש[ הר]ים reconstructing which is also a possible , ̇ב̇ר̇א̊ש[ שוק]̇ים My reading follows Brady.105 Qimron reads alternative (cf. Cant 3:2).106

픐 δεθήσονται 픊 רתקו .pr || בזק[ים l. 9

Col. viii = 4Q385a frg. 18 i a–b 1–11

vac[at ] .1 2. [ ]̊ירמיה הנביא מלפני יהוה 3. [ויעלו ה]שבאים אשר נשבו מארץ ירושלים ויבאו 4. [רבלתה] ̊א[ל] מלך בבל[] ̇בהכות נבוזרדן רב הטבחים 5. [בעם אל] ̇הים ויקח ̇את כלי בית אלהים את הכהנים 6. [ ]○ ̇בני ישראל ויביאם בבל וילך ירמיה הנביא 7. [עמהם עד] הנהר ויצום את אשר יעשו בארץ שביא[ם] 8. [וישמעו ]בקול ירמיה לדברים אשר צוהו אלהים 9. [לעשותם ו]̇ישמרו את ברית אלהי אבותיהם באר̇ץ 10 . [שביאם וישבו] ̊מאשר עשו הם ומלכיהם כהניהם 11 . [ושריהם ]○○[ ]○ [ ] ̊חלל[ו ש] ̊ם אלהים ל[טמא]

1. vacat 2. [ … ]Jeremiah the prophet from yhwh’s presence. 3. [and the ]captives who were led captive [went up] from the land of Jerusalem, and they came 4. [to Riblah, to ]the king of Babylon[, ]when Nebuzaradan, the overseer of the bodyguard had slaughtered 5. [the people of G]od. And he took the furnishings from the house of God with the priests, 6. [ … ] the sons of Israel, and brought them to Babylon. And Jeremiah the prophet walked 7. [with them as far as ]the river, and he instructed them concerning what they ought to do in the land of[ their ]captivity. 8. [And they listened] to the voice of Jeremiah, to the words that God had instructed to him

104 Dimant, djd 30, 158. 105 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 217 and comments on p. 226. 106 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 89. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 133

9. [for them to do. So ]they kept the covenant of the God of their fathers in the land of 10. [their captivity. They turned ]from what they, their kings, priests, 11. [and their princes ]had done[ ] … [ … ]profane[d the na]me of God, to[ sin]

Notes and Comments l. 1 vac[at . The presence of the blank line at the top of the fragment suggests that the group of fragments including frg. 18 was horizontally situated closer to the middle or the bottom of the text. Scribal characteristics from the Qumran corpus suggest that this fragment contained no less than four lines of text preceding the vacat.107 The break probably represents a division between the “Oracle of God’s Judgement” from Nahum 3, and the narrative section of the composition, featuring Jeremiah with the Babylonian exiles, and then with the Egyptian Jews in Tahpanes. based [ הםעךליו ] םיאבש Dimant reconstructed the lacuna to read . [ הולעיו ] םיאבש l. 3 on her expectation of 8–9 letter spaces to the right-column edge.108 Based on the actually ה] םיאבש more sure reconstructions in the lines that follow, the lacuna before measures only about 1cm; enough room for only the verb to begin the sentence. In accordance with the narration of this episode in 2Kgs 25:6; Jer 39:5; 52:9, I have chosen .which perfectly fills the space , ולעיו to reconstruct

109.[ לאהלברל ] לבבךלמ Dimant reconstructs the text to read . [ התלבר ] ̊א[ל ] לבבךלמ [ l. 4 However, the alteration of the text is unnecessary, and the above reading actually better fills the lacuna to the right margin.110 Tiny trace especially visible on pam 43.509 belongs which I have chosen to match , ךלמ ,to a letter preceding the first visible word on frg. 18b to the top-left shoulder of the ʾālep.

,at the right edge of the fragment ] םי̊עDimant has reconstructed . [ לאםעב ] םי̇ה l. 5 and notes that “the slight slant and thickness of the tip suggests the upper left stroke

107 Cf. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 145–149; In Tov’s inventory of examples for those scrolls containing empty lines as section dividers, all appear between ll. 7–23 with the lone exception of 11QtgJob iii 2, which is highly fragmentary, and does not likely preserve the top margin of the manuscript (147). An illustration of 4QPsg frg. 1 on illustration 17a shows a vacat in l. 5, but this text is classified by Tov as a “small writing block,” containing only eight lines per column (cf. pp. 84–86). 108 Dimant, djd 30, 159, 160. 109 Dimant, djd 30, 159. 110 Cf. also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 95. 134 chapter 3 of ʿayin rather than rêš or šîn (as suggested in the preliminary edition).”111 In the image on pam 41.503 there is very clearly a downward stroke that attaches to the tip, that has since flaked off and is no longer visible. Thus, this cannot be any of the proposed letters, and is almost certainly a hê, as suggested by Brady.112 This reading is also confirmed by the new infrared photograph b-295655 published by the iaa in the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library.113 I have chosen to follow Qimron’s reading here, which seems to make the best sense of the small space available between the right margin and the fragment.114

It may be significant that neither Zedekiah nor his sons are mentioned; a possible indication that he was viewed more positively in the Apocryphon c, owing to his association with the second deportation to Babylonian in 2Kgs 25:7 and the rather positive portrayal of this group here. This reading perhaps accords with the sympathetic portrayal of Zedekiah in a similar text from the Qumran scrolls in 4Q470 frg. 1.115 The more positive perspective appears in harmony with attempts in a number of Second Temple Jewish texts to rehabilitate Zedekiah’s reputation; i.e. 픐 Jer 38:9 in contrast to the reading in 픊 Jer 45:9;116 also Josephus Ant. 10:120; b. ʿArak. 17a; b. Sanh. 103a; b. Šabb. 149b.117

The trace of the first letter visible on the edge of the fragment . ]○ לארשיינ̇ב l. 6 ,However 118.[ םירהה ] לארשיינ̇ב̊ו has been identified by Dimant as a wāw, and she reads and should not be read as , ינב the letter appears too far removed to be prefixed to the conjunction. The most sensible reconstruction from a literary perspective would but this is also problematic, since it does not produce a very ,[ או ] לארשיינ̇ב̊ת be clean alignment with the hypothetical right margin. The available space suggests the presence of a single word likely in construct with what follows on the same line. One the priests and the elders of the sons of“ ,[ נקזו ] לארשיינ̇ב̊י such possibility may be

111 Dimant, djd 30, 160. 112 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions from Qumran,” 1: 158; Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary resulting in the somewhat odd phrase, “when Nebuzaradan , שוריתא ] םי̊ל Edition 3: 236 read … had slaughtered Jerusalem.” 113 http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295655. Consulted 8 Jan- uary, 2013. 114 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 95. 115 Cf. discussion in Chapter Five below in section 5.2.4. 4QText Mentioning Zedekiah (4Q470). 116 Cf. Emanuel Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 296–298. 117 Cf. Erik Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation of King Zedekiah,” dsd 1 (1994): 210–228, 215–217. 118 Dimant, djd 30, 159; Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 95. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 135

Israel.” However, this would seem a little odd without the direct object marker, since it introduces the other two objects. I have chosen to leave the space unfilled, but tentatively suggest that the conjunction and the direct object marker remains the best option for the beginning of the line. also Midr. Teh. 137 §2; some texts ; תרפרהנלעיגהשןויכ Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26 . רהנה l. 7 otherwise suggest that Jeremiah attended to the exiles and spent time with them in the land of Babylon (cf. 4Bar. 3:15; 4:6; 5:19; 7:27–29; 2Bar. 10:1–5; 33:2; also Tg. Est. ii).119 The presence of a river at this point in the retelling of Jeremiah’s activities is significant, given the presence of the river setting in Babylon at the beginning of the text in 4Q389 1 6, and also in line with the similar setting featuring Moses’s first address in Deut 1:1–3 “beyond the Jordan” (cf. also Deut 3:23–27). This setting functions as part of a broader programme to bring Jeremiah into closer alignment with Moses in his distinction as national leader and lawgiver.120

According to Doering, the delivery of commands or . םוציו … איבשץראב [ם] l. 7 instructions by the prophet Jeremiah is a central feature of the entire composition with broad-ranging implications for its appropriation: when the cultic and territorial principles for the Jewish community are suspended, this prescriptive reminder fills the vacuum and provides orientation for the future of the exiles.121 Dimant has drawn attention to the close parallel between this clause and the motif in 2Macc 2:1–4: καὶ ὡς ἐνετείλατο τοῖς μεταγενομένοις ὁ προφήτης δοὺς αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον ἵνα μὴ ἐπιλάθωνται τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ κυρίου (v. 2), “then upon his delivery of the law to the deportees, the prophet (Jeremiah) commanded them not to forget the commands of the Lord.”122 and 123,[ תושעל ] ורמש̇ו Dimant reconstructed the lacuna with .[ םתושעל ו] ורמש̇י l. 9 This discrepancy and the space that Dimant has 124.[ רשאתושעל ] ורמשי Qimron reads included at the beginning of the line show the awkwardness of the lacuna size. My reconstruction makes better sense of the available space, but with the inclusion of the wāw consecutive prefixed to the verb, the text that follows must be read as narrated,

119 Dimant, djd 30, 161–162. 120 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 59–60, 61 called Jeremiah’s didactic distinction in this section “Toraparänese,” which may be defined as a poignant summary of the guidelines for future conduct in the exile. 121 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 61. 122 Dimant, djd 30, 107–108, and most recently idem, “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah,”dsd 20 (2013): 452–471, 457–458. 123 Dimant, djd 30, 159. 124 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 95. 136 chapter 3 completed actions. In contrast to how these lines have traditionally been read, this is not an account of the specifics in the instructions delivered by Jeremiah to the outgoing exiles, but a confirmation of their positive response to them: it is the outworking of their .(l. 8 , הימרילוקבועמשיו ) obedience to his voice in“ , ̇ץראב [ ושעאלולבב ] ושערשא̊כ Dimant reads . ̇ץראב [ ובשיוםאיבש ] ושערשא̊מ Ll. 9–10 the land of [Babylon and they shall not do] as they had done.”125 There are several problems with this reading. First, the trace at the right edge of the fragment cannot belong because it is too far removed from the relative particle כ to an inseparable preposition Even if the very small visible trace belongs to the join between the short, crossbar . רשא and the downstroke of a kāp, there is still a full word-space separating this letter (which is very narrow in this hand) from the rest of the word. The trace much more probably belongs either to the preceding word, or to a wider prefix, such as the inseparable form Second, there are problems with assuming Dimant’s reconstruction based on 126. ןמ of the available space in the lacuna. Qimron has correctly recognised the preferable occur- appears in l. 7 םאיבשץראב at the beginning of the line, since the term םאיבש rence of above, and also appears to be of some significance to the composition as a whole.127 Qimron’s reading is unsustainable because it is too long, and Dimant knows this, which to compensate. In לבב is why she has resorted to a shorter, unattested construct by using light of the preceding line, which sets the whole context for the last lines of the fragment into a narrative report of the exiles’ actions, we should expect another wāw consecutive verbal clause here. I have chosen to reconstruct the lacuna as a reversal of Jer 32:32: “I will remove (Jerusalem) from my sight: because of all the evil of the people of Israel ,they—( יִנֵסִעְכַהְלוּשָׂערֶשֲׁא ) and the people of Judah that they did to provoke me to anger םֶהיֵנֲהֹכּםֶהיֵרָשׂםֶהיֵכְלַמהָמֵּה ) their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets They have turned their backs to me, not their faces; though I have taught … ( םֶהיֵאיִבְנוּ -cf. l. 8 above) and accept correc , םיִעְמֹשׁםָניֵאְו ) them persistently, they would not listen is consistent syntactically, and in light בושׁ with הנפ tion.” The replacement of the verb of the broader context of the whole composition (cf. 4Q388a 7 ii 1 || 4Q389 8 ii 7), which has attached some significance to appearance of this verb.

125 Dimant, djd 30, 159, 160; cf. also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 95, who reconstructs . לבב an the beginning of the line in place of םאיבש in l. 3 above, and between ץראמ Cf. especially the space between the mêm and the ʾālep in 126 .here in l. 10 םהיכלמו mêm and the lāmed in in l. 3 םאיבשה Cf. the same construct chain in one other place in the Apocryphon c (also 127 4Q385a 4 9 || 4Q387 2 ii 11; 4Q389 8) םאיבשתוצראב ,above), where it appears in plural form ii 3), as well as the same phrase in 4Q390 1 5; cf. C.J. Patrick Davis, “Torah Performance and History in the Golah: Rewritten Bible or ‘Re-presentational’ Authority in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” in Flint, Duhaime, and Baek, eds., Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls, 467–495, 475–479. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 137

Trace of the ḥêt and a preceding letter is visible in pams 41.503 . ] לל̊ח [ו ש] םיהלא̊ם l. 11 and 41.851. The expectation here is that this line is a description of the past sinful behaviour of the group in the previous line. Given the consistent contrast between geo- :here םילשוריץראב graphical situation and conduct, one would expect something like “They rejected ]what they, their kings, priests, [and their princes ]had done[ in the land of Jerusalem” (cf. l. 3 above). However, there is not quite enough space in the lacuna, and we would also expect to see traces of the high lāmed were this the case. Perhaps in the former age when they profaned the“ , םיהלאםשםללחבתונשארב the text read in 4Q385a 3 3 (= 4Q387 ,מ] םשה̇יא̇ר̊ק name of God.” On the object of the verb, cf. also -in 4Q385a 5 7–8 (= 4Q387 3 5). The correct rep וארקילארשייהלאםשלע i 1), and 2 resentation of the “name of God” appears to be a featured element throughout the Apocryphon c.

Col. ix 4Q385a frgs. 18 ii 1–10

.1 אסנפחתב [ םירצמץראברש ] .2 שורדולורמאיו [ לאלונדעב ] ם̊י̊ה [ עמשאלו ] .3 ̇ימריםהל [ לה ] הלאלםהלשורדית̊ל̊ב [ םדעבאשנאלוםי ] .4 ̊קןנוקמהימרייהיוהלפתוהנר [ תוני ] [.5 ע] םילשוריל vac]at לאהוהירבדיהיו ] .6 צמץראברשאסנפחתץראבהימרי [ לארבדרמאלםיר ] .7 ̊וםימינבוהדוהיינבלאולארשיינב [ םהילארמאתהכ ] .8 ̇משיתוצמתאויתוקחתאושרדםויםוי [ וכלתלאוור ] .9 פירחא [ס] ̊ל̊הרשאםיוגהילי [ עשוהוםכיתובאםהירחאוכ ] .10 ̊ישויאל [ וע ] ̇ל[ םכ ○] אל [○ ]

1. in Tahpanes, w[hich is in the land of Egypt … ] 2. And they said to him: “Seek[ now on our account before G]od[” … But] Jeremi[ah would not listen] 3. to them. He refused[ to ]seek Go[d ]on their behalf[, and he would not raise on their account] 4. petition and supplication. Rather, Jeremiah performed d[irges … ] 5. [ov]er Jerusalem. vacat [And the word of yhwh came to] 6. Jeremiah in the land of Tahpanes which is in the land of Eg[ypt, saying: “Speak to 7. the sons of Israel and to the sons of Judah, and Benjamin. T[hus shall you say unto them:] 8. ‘Daily seek my statutes, and ke[ep ]my ordinances.[ Do not walk 9. after the i[d]ols of the nations, [after ]whom [ your fathers ]wal[ked, for surely] 10. [they] will not deliver y[ou … ] not [ … ]’” … 138 chapter 3

Notes and Comments The reading here reflects Dimant.128 . א[ םירצמץראברש l. 1 in alignment , שורד [ לאלונדעבאנ ] ם̊י̊ה [ Dimant reconstructs . שורד [ לאלונדעב ] ם̊י̊ה [ l. 2 but Dimant’s ,] ̊ו̊נ [ with Jer 21:2.129 Strugnell originally read the fairly certain final mêm as reading here is superior.130 The damage suffered by the pieces comprising frg. 18 ii and the resulting shrinkage create an element of uncertainty about the precise available space for this line. While Dimant’s reading is plausible, it may prove to be too long for the space in the lacuna, and it may be preferable to read in accordance with Jer 42:2.131

Themes related to supplication, petition, or prayer in . שורד …[ ל] שורדית̊ל̊ב Ll. 2–3 the form of “seeking God” are prominent throughout the Apocryphon c (cf. 4Q385a 16a–b 7; 18 ii 2–3, 8; 4Q387 1 6; 2 ii 2; 4Q389 2 1). This appears to be a point throughout the narrative upon which the conduct of the community of Israel and God’s positive or negative response functions as a standard for interpreting the nation’s past. In the context of the present fragment, the request made by the Jewish sojourners in Tahpanes for Jeremiah to “seek God” is perceived as highly negative, and instead produces a lament on the part of the prophet in the following l. 12.

The reading is based on Jer 7:16 and 11:14. Dimant reconstructs . [ םדעבאשנאלו ] l. 3 The 132. םהלשורדיתלבל following from the infinitive construct clause ,[ םדעבתאשו ] probable reconstructions in ll. 5–8 below suggest that her reading here is likely too which we , הנר short, especially considering the continuation in l. 4 with a short word would expect to have filled out the available space of l. 3.

Doering suggests that this mention of Jeremiah’s lament provides . ̊קןנוקמ [ תוני l. 4 perhaps the earliest written testimony to the commonly held tradition that Jeremiah mourned for Jerusalem.133 Cf. other references to this tradition in 2Bar. 5:5–7; 9:1–2;

128 Dimant, djd 30, 163; cf. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 95. 129 Dimant, djd 30, 163, 165; cf. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 95. 130 Cf. Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 154. 131 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 175 does not supply a reconstruction, but seems to agree about situating the context here more in line with Jeremiah 42. 132 Dimant, djd 30, 163, 164. 133 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 64; also cf. C.J. Patrick Davis, “Jeremiah, Masculinity, and his Portrayal as the ‘Lamenting Prophet’,” in Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond (ed. Ovidia Creangă; bmw 33; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 189–210, esp. 190–194. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 139

4Bar. 2:10; 3:14; also particularly the superscription of 픊 Lamentations (cf. b.Moʿed Qaṭ. 26a; b.B. Bat. 15a; Lam. Rab. Prologue; 픖 Lam 1:1).

There is some darkened spots following the final mêm . [ע] םילשוריל l. 5 vac]at that Brady seems to have misconstrued for ink.134 There are several section breaks in 4Q385a, but this would be the only one that would correspond to a closed paragraph in the Masoretic system.135 The beginning of the following line requires that the new paragraph began on l. 5 here.

Dimant has noted that the combinations of the tribes . לארשיינב … םימינבו l. 7 of Judah and Benjamin appears in 2Chron 11:1, 3; 34:9; Ezr 1:5; 4:1, also 1QM 1:2 and 4Q372 1 14 with the addition of Levi.136 The distinction between the three groups at this point in the sequence may affirm an apparent idealisation of the “sons of Israel” over and against the rest of the Jewish people.137 In a recent article, Dimant has further suggested that the construction indicates a post-exilic view of Israel that consisted only of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin.138 See also 4Q387a 5,139 which, while fragmentary, preserves three lines of evidence for connecting the unacceptable method of divine inquiry with the “sons of Judah and of Benjamin” (cf. 4Q385a 18 ii appears in this fragment, in connection with ןימינב The only other occurrence of .(7 cf. also ורחשב ) ”cf. 4Q387 2 ii 2–3) and “earnest seeking וילעמ ) ”his [their?] trespasses“ 4Q385a 1 ii 4).

Dimant did not transcribe the conjunctive wāw, but did suggest . ̊ו[ םהילארמאתהכ ] l. 7 its appearance here.140

134 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 152, cf. also 154. 135 Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 145. 136 Dimant, djd 30, 165. 137 Lester Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (lsts 47; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 168–171 has provided a helpful discussion of the appearance of the terms “Israel(ite)” and “Judah(ite)” in the Persian period. The identification with Israel plausibly functioned as a romantic idealisation of the great united kingdom of the past; Grabbe notes that by the early Hellenistic period “Judahite” has become the essential ethnic descriptive term applied to all the Semitic groups in the diaspora; cf. idem, A History, Volume 2: The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175bce) (lsts 68; London: T & T Clark, 2008), 153–155. 138 Dimant, “From the Book of Jeremiah,” 459. 139 See the more detailed discussion of the implied audience for the Apocryphon in section 5.1.2. Dual Audiences: From Egypt to Babylon in The Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390. Also cf. Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 472–479. 140 Dimant, djd 30, 163. 140 chapter 3

Dimant reconstructed the end . ̊ל̊ה [ עשוהוםכיתובאםהירחאוכ ] ̊ישויאל [ וע ] ̇ל[ םכ Ll. 9–10 based on common biblical locutions in ̊ל̊ה [ יכםכיתובאםהירחארשאוכ ] of l. 9 to read וּכְלָהְו ,e.g. Deut 6:14 and Jer 11:10.141 The above reconstruction is reworked from Jer 11:12 תֵעְבּםֶהָלוּעיִשׁוֹי־אֹלַעֵשׁוֹהְוםֶהָלםיִרְטַּקְמםֵהרֶשֲׁאםיִהֹלֱאָה־לֶאוּקֲעָזְוםִַלָשׁוּרְייֵבְשֹׁיְוהָדוּהְייֵרָע the cities of Judah will go and Jerusalem will turn, and they will cry out unto“ , םָתָעָר those gods to whom they offer sacrifices. But they will surely not save them in their time of trouble.” This verse is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible in which the verb . ועישויאל appears in the same context with the hifil verbal appositional clause ךלה Unsurprisingly, the text in the Apocryphon c has de-emphasised the specific cultic infraction, and has rendered this into what could be construed more analogously as If the fragment group containing . םיוגהיליספ a form of cultural treason, symbolised by frg. 18 appeared posterior to the group containing frgs. 1–6, then this reading would receive some additional confirmation where the final two letters visible in frg. 1 i 8 could . ̊ל̊ה [ והוםכיתובאםהירחאוכ ] ע̊ש comfortably align with frg. 18 ii 9 here, producing a reading The ʿayin in frg. 1 i 8 is certain, and a trace of ink belonging to a possible šîn is also visible.

3.2.3 Group iii—Fragments 8 and 9

Col. i = 4Q385a frg. 8 1–3

.1 ○] ןו̊ת [○][○○ .2 ] תעדלובב̇ל [ .3 ][○] ל[

1. [ … ] … [ ] … [ … ] 2. [ … ]his heart to know[ … ] 3. [ … ] … [ … ] … [ … ]

The location of frgs. 8 and 9 within the manuscript remains purely conjectural. We know nothing beyond the fact that they appeared together within a sequence, likely in neighbouring columns with frg. 9 following frg. 8. In the earliest photograph, pam 41.503, they are pictured together as separated layers from a pile, along with 4Q385a frg. a. Strugnell later determined that frg. a did not belong to the same manuscript, as it clearly reflects a different scribal

141 Dimant, djd 30, 165. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 141 hand.142 The two legible words in 4Q385a frg. 8 recall a prominent theme of scriptural Deuteronomy, and there seems to be some recollection of the patri- archal period in frg. 9. Contextually, these fragments could reasonably appear at any point within the sequence.

Notes and Comments -The condition of knowing with one’s heart, or connecting “knowl . ] תעדלובב̇ל [ l. 2 edge” to the heart as a form of covenant obedience is quite prominent throughout scriptural Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. Cf. e.g. Deut 4:39; 8:2, 5; 18:21; Josh 13:14; 1Kgs 2:44; 8:38–39.

Col. ii = frg. 9 1–3

.1 ○] ̊אםישר [ .2 א] ̇לוםכיבאםהר̇ב [ .3 י] ̇י̊וש̇ר [

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [ … A]braham your father, and to[ … ] 3. [ … th]ey(?) inherited … [ … ]

Notes and Comments but there does not ,] ̇יש̇ר̊י [ Dimant has reconstructed the line to read . י] ̇י̊וש̇ר [ l. 3 appear to be any trace of the first yôd from any of the plates. The rêš seems fairly certain in pam 42.505, and there is also in this plate some trace of a small letter following the šîn, which most likely falls at the end of the word. In the context of a second-person ”.and you inherited“ , ושׁריתו plural address, it is quite possibly

3.3 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389: Textual Witnesses to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c

3.3.1 An Introduction to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c? 4Q389 1 has generally been agreed by scholars to have formed the introduction to the Apocryphon c, but its placement is complicated by a combination of material and literary factors. First, its preservation of a bottom margin would

142 Dimant, djd 30, 167. 142 chapter 3 situate this fragment in horizontal alignment with 4Q389 frg. 8 i–ii, which possibly also has preserved a bottom margin, and belongs to the Second Temple Apocalypse in the sequence.143 If there is indeed a horizontal alignment here, then it might suggest a close physical relationship between the two fragments. Literarily, it holds some similarities with frg. 18 ii, providing a third “scene” to the narrative section that recounts Jeremiah’s paraenetic activities: first, on the way to Babylon (4Q385a frg. 18 i, Jer 39), second, amid the Egyptian diaspora (frg. 18 ii, Jer 42–43), and third via written correspondence from Egypt to the Babylonian exiles (4Q389 frg. 1, Bar 1). If the arrangement of Group ii precedes Group i in 4Q385a, then the situation of 4Q389 1 as part of the same sequence likely following 4Q385a 18 ii. Such an arrangement is suggested from the structure of 픊 Jeremiah, where Jeremiah’s forced sojourn with the Jewish community in Tahpanes appears at the conclusion of the book, and is then followed by Bar 1, which is very closely related to 4Q389 frg. 1.144 However, if the scholarly consensus holds, which locates 4Q385a Group ii after Group i, then it is best to consider 4Q389 1 here at the beginning of the composition. Regardless of where one chooses to situate this fragment in the overall sequence, it provides important information for understanding the Apocryphon c, and especially the purpose and function of the protagonist, Jeremiah the prophet.

4Q389 frg. 1 1–7

[.1 ]ץ [○○ ] [.2 ] ̊יץראבה [ םילשור ]

143 Dimant, djd 30, 229. On the Second Temple Apocalypse, see the reconstruction of the overlapping Apocryphon c mss in following section, 3.3.2. Second Temple Apocalypse: 4Q385a 3–5; 4Q387 1–3, 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 8 ii. 144 Cf. Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the lxx of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976), esp. 111–133; also P.-M. Bogaert, “Qui exerce la royauté dans le livre de Jérémie,” esp. 385–390. This observation proceeds from Tov’s premise that the second-half of Jeremiah and the first part of Baruch were translated together from the Hebrew, and from Bogaert’s observation that the latter was always subsumed in the contents of the former in Second Temple times. Cf. also Dimant, “From the Book of Jeremiah,” 464–468, however, her interpretation of this passage is potentially different from my own, since the physical evidence possibly suggests a much closer structural relationship between the Apocryphon c and 픊 Jeremiah. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 143

[.3 ] כלעושקבו [ל ] [.4 ו] ̊צמץראבראשנהל̊כ [ םיר ] [.5 י] רצמץראמהיקלחןבהימר [ םי ] [.6 ולש ] םירבדה̇ו̇אר̇קלארשיתולגלהנשששוםיש [ ינפלהלאה ] .7 כ[ יינבל ] דדמעמברוסרהנלעלארש [ ] bottom margin

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [ … ] … in the land of J[erusalem … ] 2. [ … ]and they petitioned on behalf of a[ll … ] 4. [ … and] anyone who remained in the land of Eg[ypt … ] 5. [ … Je]remiah son of Hilqiah from the land of Egy[pt … ] 6. [thi]rty-sixth year of the exile of Israel, they read[ these ]words[ before] 7. al[l the sons of I]srael on the banks of the River Sur in the presence of … [ … ]

Notes and Comments in the lacuna,145 but cf. 4Q385a 18 הדוהי Dimant has reconstructed . ̊יץראב [ םילשור l. 2 from the land of Jerusalem.” The only place in the entire composition“ , םילשוריץראמ ,i 2 where “Judah” appears is in 4Q385a 18 ii 7, where it is used to distinguish the “sons of Judah and Benjamin” from the “sons of Israel.” More in keeping with the portrayal of “the land” throughout the text, the reading here is restricted only to the holy city.

Cf. comments in 4Q385a 18 ii 2–3 above. The appearance of another . ] כלעושקבו [ל l. 3 “seeking” verb here suggests a context in which the Babylonian exilic community is engaged in hortatory prayer, prior to the public reading of what is presumably a document or letter received from the prophet Jeremiah. This echoes another thematic connexion to several other places in which “seeking God” becomes a matter of high interest. is based on the ̇ו̇אר̇ק Dimant’s transcription which significantly includes . ̇ו̇אר̇ק l. 6 infrared photograph pam 42.509. She says that while the reading of qôp is problematic, “the extant horizontal curving upper stroke, and the shape of the lower section of a vertical stroke are those of kāp.”146 In her estimation, the rêš is certain, and the bottoms of the descenders for ʾālep and wāw are clearly discernible. Doering claims that a new infrared photograph (Mus.Inv. 349; Jerusalem, 1 July 2003) prepared by the iaa has

145 Dimant, djd 30, 220. 146 Dimant, djd 30, 221; the context of her discussion would suggest that she means qôp here, and not kāp. 144 chapter 3 verified her reading.147 Without access to the iaa Plate it remains difficult to confirm, nevertheless, Doering’s assessment is quite convincing. Brady has not ventured to suggest a replacement reading, and stated that Strugnell has left open the possibility According to his notes, he found the original reading . וארה to other readings such as most compelling in that a public presentation of a letter from Jeremiah was more contextually plausible than the receiving of a vision (Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 2: 442).

The parallel pericope in Bar 1:1–5 reads ἐν ὠσὶν Ιεχονιου υἱοῦ Ιωακιμ . דדמעמב[ l. 7 βασιλέως Ιουδα καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν ἐρχομένων πρὸς τὴν βίβλον, “in the presence of Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim King of Judah, and in the presence of all the people who had come to Babylon.” The identification of the dālet at the left of the line is virtually certain, and this complicates the reading somewhat. There is considerable doubt that the missing word is a proper name, as none would plausibly fit the present context. The in the presence of those who“ , םישׁרוד most appealing possibility may be the participle were seeking.”

3.3.2 Second Temple Apocalypse: 4Q385a 3–5; 4Q387 1–3, 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 8 ii This group of four overlapping fragments, 4Q387 2 ii–iii + 3 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 8 ii, helps to fill out a near-full two columns of text that are attested in 4Q385a frgs. 4–5. Including the overlapping witnesses from 4Q385a frg. 3 and 4Q387 frg. 1+2 i, this section of the Apocryphon c recounts the history of the early Second Temple period, and presents a number of interesting structural and literary overlaps with 4Q390, which I have designated “Apocalypse ii.” These two texts will be compared in greater depth in the following chapter. The following transcription presents the overlapping witnesses in their sequential arrangement, as a means to provide an accurate structural and literary perspective of this section of the text. This sequence is represented by the consecutive line-numbers on the left-side of the page.

147 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 66; idem, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism: Epistolary Communication with the Golah as Medium for Dealing with the Present,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations. (ed. K. De Troyer and A. Lange, K.M. Goertz and S. Bond, assts.; SBLSymS 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 44–72, 66. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 145

4Q388a frg. 3 ( || 4Q385a frg. 3 1–9)

1. [ ]○ת ה[] 2. [ ]בהתהלככם בשג[גה מל̇פ[ני] 1§ 3. [ כא]שר אמרתי ליע̇ק[וב] 2 4. [ ]את חקותי[ ] 3 5. [ מועדי ברי] ̇תי ותחלל[ו את שמי מקדשי] 4 6. [ותזבחו ל] ̇שעירים ו[תזבחו ] 5 7. [ותפרו הכ] ̇ל ̊ב̊י̇ד ○○[ ] 6

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [ … ]while you wandered about in err[or] befo[re me 3. [ … jus]t as I spoke to Jac[ob] 4. [ … ] my statutes [ … ] 5. [the festivals of] my [covena]nt, and you profan[ed my name … my sanctuary,] 6. [and you sacrificed to ]goat demons, and[ you sacrificed … ] 7. [and you violated everyt]hing in hand … [ … ]

Notes and Comments This line overlaps with 4Q385a 3 2, but appears to have preserved a scribal . בשג[גה l. 2 was missed and the inserted supralinearly, quite likely by the same בשגגה error in which scribe.

The vertical alignment of the two pieces . ]את חקותי[… מועדי ברי] ̇תי ותחלל[ו Ll. 3–4 that constitute frg. 3 are suggested by their overlaps with the other witnesses, 4Q385a frg. 3 and 4Q387 frg. 1. This fragment is best understood as appearing immediately prior to 4Q388a frg. 7 ii in horizontal alignment, and part of the same column preserved in 4Q388a 7 i.

4Q387 frgs. 1+2 i 2–11 ( || 4Q385a frg. 3 3–9)

1. [ ] ̊רת○[ ]ם ̇כ[ ] ?2§ 2. [ ]מרי עזב[ ] ?3 3. [ מועדי בריתי] ותחל̇ל[ו] ̊את[ שמי ואת בי] ̇תי 4 4. [ואת מקדשי ותזבח]̇ו לשעירים ות[זבחו ] 5 5. [ ]ר ̇ותפרו ה̊כל ̊ב[י] ̇ד [ ] 6 6. [ ואב]קש אמ̇ו̇נה [ו] ̇ל̇א מצאת̊י[ ] 7 7. [ואתנה את] ̇כם ביד אי[ב]כם ואשמ̊ה[]א̇ת [ארצכם] 8 8. [והארץ] ̊ר̊צתה את ש[ב] ̇ת̇ו[תי]ה בהשמה[ נמקתם] 9 146 chapter 3

[.9 כיתנועב ] צראבם [ תו ] ̊יביא [כ] ̊ם ][ תנשדע 10][ [.10 א] םכתמד̊א̇ל [ פל ] דוק [○ 11]

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [ … ]abandon(?)[ … ] 3. [ … the festivals of my covenant,] and you prof[an]e[d my name, and ]my[ hou]se, 4. [and my sanctuary, and ]you[ sacrificed] to goat demons, and you[ sacrificed … ] 5. [ … ] … and you violated everything in [ha]nd … [ … ] 6. [ … and I s]ought after faithfulness[ but] I did not find[ … ] 7. [so I delivered] you into the hand of your en[em]y and I devastated[ your land] 8. [and the land ]observed its s[abb]ath[s] amid its desolation[ … you wasted away] 9. [in yo]ur[ sins] in the land[s of yo]ur enemies[ ]until the year of[ … ] 10. [ … t]o your country [ … for a vis]itation … [ … ]

Notes and Comments 148. אתו ] בזעורמ [ ונת and reconstructed the text ] בזעורמ [ Dimant read . ] בזעירמ [ l. 2 There is a fairly consistent difference between wāw and yôd throughout 4Q387: the former is almost always long and narrow, and the latter is formed with a large, triangular head. The presence of the large head on this letter makes the reading here virtually certain.

The only letters extant on the first column of 4Q387 frg. 2 are tāw and . יבתאו ] י̇ת l. 3 yôd, although the left-foot of the first letter is shorter than other tāws in the manuscript, and it may otherwise be a ḥêt. The shape of the left edge of frg. 1 matches the angle of the edge of frg. 2 on the top half between ll. 1–4. Furthermore, the added alignment of ll. 2–4 that appears in both fragments when the angle of the left edge is aligned suggests that frg. 1 belongs in the same column with frg. 2 i. Dimant located the extant text of frg. 2 i in l. 4, but owing to the new alignment with frg. 2, the text is best appended to l. 3 of frg. 1. Another possibility is to align frg. 1 1 with frg. 2 i–ii 1, in an attempt to more closely align the top edge of each fragment. However, this would in turn result in a variant reading of ללחתו [ו ] תא [ ימש the overlap in 4Q385a frg. 3 4, since there is a surplus of space following to the left margin.

The reconstruction is based on the overlapping text and the spatial . תו [ וחבז l. 4 arrangement of 4Q385a frg. 3b–c. It is highly probable that the line here ended with the same word in the lacuna at the end of 4Q385a 3 4.

148 Dimant, djd 30, 175; cf. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 96. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 147 in the lacuna following this phrase,149 but רמה Dimant reconstructed . ה̊כל ̊ב[י] ̇ד [ l. 5 there appears to be a possible vacat after the dālet (cf. pam 43.493). The word-spacing in 4Q387 is consistently large, and Dimant’s reconstruction following the popular Qum- .remains quite possible ,ביד רמה ,ranic expression l. 7 The restoration of the line follows Dimant, but for the exception of the distant placement of the right margin, which she suggested based on an unlikely long reconstruction of the join between ll. 2–4 above. The situation of the fragment here receives some contextual support from the suggested continuation in l. 8 below, and from the acceptable reconstructed alignment of ll. 8–9 to the right margin. If correct, this reading would suggest a width of ±71mm, which is more in keeping with the estimated widths from the following two columns.

The reconstruction follows from the context and . [נמקתם בעונתיכ]ם בארצ[ות Ll. 9–10 ְוָאְכָלה ֶאְתֶכם ֶאֶרץ ,language of the preceding lines, and is reworked from Lev 26:38–39 The land of“ , ֹאְיֵביֶכם ְוַהִנְּשָׁאִרים ָבֶּכם ִיַמּקּוּ ַבֲּעוָֹנם ְבַּאְרצֹת ֹאְיֵביֶכם ְוַאף ַבֲּעוֹֹנת ֲאבָֹתם ִאָתּם ִיָמּקּוּ your enemies will consume you, and those of you who remain will be languishing in their sins in the lands of your enemies, and they will surely languish on account of the sins of their fathers”; cf. also, 4Q390 1 9. For the second plural form of the verb and you will languish in“ ,וְּנַמקֶֹּתם ַבֲּעוֹֹנֵתיֶכם וְּנַהְמֶתּם ִאישׁ ֶאל־ָאִחיו ,cf. Ezek 24:23 ,מקק your sins, and will groan to one another.” There is not enough space in the lacuna to reconstruct precisely according to Lev 26:39. It remains possible that the column block was wider than presented here, but this creates problems for the reconstruction of ll. 7–8.

4Q387 frg. 2 ii 1–11 ( || 4Q385a frg. 4 1–9)

1. [ ]יע[ן ]○[ ] ̇כם[]ות̇חז̇קו לעבדני בכל לבבכם 12§ 2. וב̊כ[ל נפשכם ובק]ש[ו ] ̊פ[נ]̊י בצר להם ול̊א אדרש להם 13 3. בעבור מע̊לם [ א] ̊ש̊ר מעל[ו ] ̊ב[י ] עד שלמות עשרה 14 4. יבלי שנים ו̊ה̊ת̊ה[ל]כתם ̊ב̊ש[געון ] ובעורון ותמהן 15 5. הלבב ומת̇ם הדו̇ר[]ההוא א[קרע ] ̇את הממלכה מיד המח 16 זיקים 6. אתה ̊ו[ה]קימות̇י ̊עליה אחרים מעם אחר ומשל 17 7. [הז]דון ב̊כ̇ל[ הא]רץ וממלכת ישראל תאבד בימים 18 8. ההמה [ י] ̇ה[יה מלך וה]̇וא גדפן ועשה תעבות וקרעתי 19 9. [את ]ממל̊כ[תו ]הוא למכלים ופני מסתרים מישר 20 אל

149 Dimant, djd 30, 175. 148 chapter 3

][.10 לל [ לבושת ] םיקעזלארשי̇י̊נ̇בוםיברםיוג 21 [.11 ינפמ [○] ו] ̊א[ ישמןי ] םהל̊ע 22 [.12 ]ל ][ 23

1. [ ]beca[use ] … [ ]your / you[ ]and you must be resolved to serve me with all your heart 2. and with al[l your soul. And they will se]e[k ]my fa[ce] in their distress, but I will not respond to them 3. on account of their treachery by [wh]ich [they ]betrayed[ me, ]until the completion of ten 4. jubilees of years. And you will wan[d]er about in m[adness ]and in blindness and bewilderment 5. of heart. Then from the time of the completion of that[ ]generation I will[tear ]the kingdom from the hand of those who grasp hold 6. of it, and I will [s]et up over it others from another people. And the [Zā]ḏôn will have dominion 7. over all[ of the l]and, and the kingdom of Israel will be destroyed. In those days 8. [he ]wi[ll be a king, and h]e will be a blasphemer. He will commit abominations and I will tear 9. [his ]kingd[om ]to shreds. [ … ]that for the destroyers. And my face will be hidden from Israel, 10. [ … will turn to ]many nations. Then the sons of Israel will cry out 11. [ … and ]th[ere will be no one to rede]em them 12. [ … ]

Notes and Comments is equally plausible רדו ]ש[ו This is Dimant’s reconstruction, but . קבו ]ש[ו] ̊פ[נ]̊י l. 2 in שׁקב and may actually form a better literary fit here. Cf. instances of the verbal root 4Q387 1 6 and 4Q389 1 3; cf. also 4Q390 2 ii 8.

”,because of the sin“ , ןוועב In her translation, Cana Werman suggested that . ̇םתמו l. 5 better fits the physical remains as well as the context,150 but what appears in any of the plates does not support her assertion. The shape of the first letter much more closely conforms to mêm than to bêt, and there is nothing in the remains from which to posit the presence of an ʿayin.

150 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 234. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 149 in 4Q385a 4 ה[ ןודז There is approximately 24 letter-spaces between . אה ] תכלממוץר l. 7 in the following line, which is substantially more than the ten letter-spaces ת̇כ̇ל̊ל [ and 5 that appear here. Cf. discussion of 4Q385a frg. 4 1–9 above. There is some consistency -and an unknown word containing simultane הָכָלְמַמ in the variance between the noun ously occurring lāmeds in this composition, as evinced by the same alternative in l. 10 below.

י] ̊ק[ םו The reading follows Dimant, who also cautions that . [ י] ̇ה[ הוךלמהי ] ןפדגא̇ו l. 8 is also a possibility.151 Qimron has followed Dimant’s alternative suggestion, but cf. pam 42.858. The letter in question appears on a small, detached piece that has been connected to the larger fragment. There is trace of a thick horizontal stroke that does in the same line). There is also a very small trace to יתערקו .not conform to qôp (cf. e.g the right of a higher join that closely resembles the tip of a downstroke, characteristic .(immediately before this letter המהה .of other hês on the fragment (cf. e.g

There is another clear alternative reading here, where the parallel text . םילכמל l. 9 Dimant posits that metathesis occured in the 4Q385a . םיכלמל in 4Q385a frg. 4 7 reads witness, and seems to prefer the reading here, which she translated “and that king (will be) to the destroyers.”152 She has suggested an interesting possibility, that the word וּהֻאָצְמוּלֹכֱאֶלהָיָהְוםֶהֵמיַנָפיִתְּרַתְּסִהְוםיִתְּבַזֲעַו ,in Deut 31:17 לכאמ was intended as a pun on I will abandon them, and hide my face ferom them. And they will be“ , תוֹרָצְותוֹבַּרתוֹעָר ךלמהו consumed, and many evils and troubles will find them.”153 Dimant reconstructs to fill the lacuna on the line,154 but this is doubtful given the available [ה] לכמלאוה [י]ם and translate the clause ,ה] לכמלאיה [י]ם space. García Martínez and Tigchelaar read beginning in l. 8 with “(a)nd I will split that [ … ] kingdom apart [ … ] to those who destroy.”155 Qimron has taken note of the shortage of space for Dimant’s reconstruction, 156.[ הםגו ] לכמלאוה [י]ם and offered as a better reading

There . ̇הכלממהו ,Compare with the overlapping text in 4Q389 8 ii 2 . [ ] לל [ l. 10 is only enough space from the left edge of the column to reconstruct two or three preceding letters (cf. l. 7 above). The double lāmeds are clearly visible to the naked eye, on the small piece that has been joined to the bottom ̊כלממ [ ות appearing directly below

̊ההמהה [ זאו ,Dimant, djd 30, 179–180; Cf. Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Concordance 151 . םוקי ] ןפדגא̇ו̊ה 152 Dimant, djd 30, 181; cf. also Wise, Abegg, and Cook. 153 Dimant, djd 30, 184. 154 Dimant, djd 30, 179. 155 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition 2: 776–777. 156 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 97. 150 chapter 3 of the larger fragment 2 in pam 43.501. The reading was confirmed by Brady in her dissertation,157 and commented on by Dimant, who also notes that there is “difficulty” in restoring the same word in 4Q385a 4 8.158 However, Dimant’s transcription for at the beginning of the line, whereas the entire fragment is והממלכה 4Q385a located appearing as the first word directly before it. Qimron ישראל more spatially aligned with my“ 159,[בג] ̇ל̇ל[ו והממלכה תשוב ל]גוים רבים reconstructed the beginning of the line to read face will be hidden from Israel [be]ca[use of it, and the kingdom will turn to ]many nations.” The reading is innovative, but unfortunately cannot be accommodated in the available space.

4Q389 frg 8 ii 1–10

§20 [ ]○○[ ]○○[ ] .1 2. [מישרא]ל והממלכה תשוב לגוי̊ם[]רבים ו̇ב̊נ̇י ישראל 21 3. [זעקים מפ]ני על כבד בארצות שבים ואין משיע להם 22 4. יען ביען חקתי מאסו ותרתי געלה נפשם על כן הסתרתי 23 5. פני מ[הם עד ]אשר ישלימו עונם .vac וזה להם האות בשלם 24 6. עונם[ כי ]עזבתי את הארץ ברום לבבם ממני ולא ידעו[ כ]̇י 25 7. [ ]○[ ו] ̊שבו ועשו רעה ̊ר[ב] ̊ה מ̇ן ̇ה[רעה] ̇הר[א]ש̊ונ̇ה 26 8. [ ] ̊עם אב̊ר̊ה̊ם[ ועם י] ̊צ̊חק ̇ועם 27 9. [יעקוב י]קום מלך לגוים גדפן [ועש]ה רעות ו[בימו] 28 10 . [ את ישרא]ל ̇מ̊ע̊ם[ ] 29

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [from Isra]el, and the kingdom will turn to many nations[. ]Then the sons of Israel 3. [will cry out ]because of the heavy burden in the lands of their captivity, but there will be no one to redeem them, 4. because they rejected my statutes, and their soul despised my Torah. Because of this, I have hidden 5. my face from[ them until] the time when their iniquity will be made complete. vacat And this will be for them the sign of the fulfilment 6. of their iniquity:[ that ]I have abandoned the land because of the haughtiness of their heart against me, but they do not recognise [th]at 7. [ … So ]they will return and perform m[o]re wickedness than the [wickedn]ess of the form[er ]

157 Brady, “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran,” 2: 336. 158 Dimant, djd 30, 184. 159 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 97. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 151

8. [ … ] with Abraham, [and with] Isaac, and with 9. [ Jacob … ]a king before the nations[ will ]arise, a blasphemer, [and he wil]l commit acts of wickedness. And [in his day] 10. [ … Israe]l from being a people [ … ]

Notes and Comments in 4Q389 8 ii 1, Dimant ̊מ̇תא [ ותכלמ In her comments on the reconstruction . םיבר l. 2 notes that a “thin, vertical stroke” is noticeable above the rêš,160 which is clearly visible in all the plates. She suggests that this is possibly a kāp, but the distance from what would be the right descender of this letter to the line below it is far too short to be part of the text from the preceding line. Rather, the length of the stroke and its proximity to l. 2 indicates almost conclusively that this is a lāmed, and most likely the awkward .is to be read in 4Q389 8 ii 2 םיב̇ר̇ל̇םיוגל construction

This is an unusual form of emphatic repetition of the causal conjunction . ןעיבןעי l. 4 that appears only here in the Qumran scrolls, and in the Hebrew Bible in Lev 26:43; Ezek 13:10; 36:3. There are repeated connexions made by the prophecy in Apocalypse i to the passage in Lev 26:43 as an interpretive matrix applied to the emptiness of the land (cf. 4Q387 1 7–8; 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6 || 4Q387 2 iii 3–6). This is clearly an echo of the same prediction, and not with the Ezekiel pericopae. See further discussion in Chapter Five, section 5.1.3.1. The Presence of yhwh and the Condition of the Land below.

,A variation of the construction appears in 1QMysteries (1Q27) 1 i 5 . תואהםהלהזו l. 5 “but they did not know what would come upon them, and their soul did they not rescue ( תואהםכלהז̊ו ) by means of the secret of the way things are. And this will be a sign for you that this is to be: when the offspring of injustice are delivered up, and the wicked man reveals himself before the righteous, just as [da]rkness is revealed before the light.” cf. in 4QOtot (4Q319) 4 17; 5 5, 13; 6 8, 17, in which the Sabbath serves הזמתותאהטמשב also as a mark in the calculation for determining the conjunctions between solar and lunar calendars. The element appears in one other place in the Apocryphon c, later at 4Q387 2 iii 5. In both instances, the abandonment of the land is a matter of emphasis, and it may be significant that the phrase is not represented in the overlap with 4Q388a 7 ii 6. If one considers the phrase as an addition, the reconstructions that eliminate these clauses as interpolations are remarkably seamless. It would seem that the escalation of wickedness projected in this text may have been an important indicator for one of its authors/editors of the culmination of the “ten jubilees of years” mentioned in §§14–15. above, although this remains speculative.

160 Dimant, djd 30, 229. 152 chapter 3 and shifts the structure of the clause 161,[ רשארחא ] Qimron reconstructed . [ יכ ] l. 6 to begin in the preceding line: “When their iniquity is fulfilled[ after which] I have abandoned the land.” This reading is not likely, since the available space is too small to accommodate it. l. 7 ]○[ ] . Dimant reconstructed the text here to align with the overlap in 4Q388a 7 ii 1, but there is only a minute trace of the second letter on the line that could match anything. Reconstructing the lacuna on the lower lines of this fragment are extremely difficult due to the warping and shrinkage, but there possibly may be too much space in 4Q388a 7 ii 1.162 םיתסאמ to fill in with only the aligning text

The mêm is fairly clear, but the traces that follow could match . ארשי ] ̊ם̊ע̇מל[ l. 10 another handful of letters. They are reconstructed according to the overlaps with which may fit the , ריבעא 4Q388a 7 ii 4. Dimant filled out the preceding lacuna with space to the right margin, but this is not certain.

4Q388a frg. 7 ii 1–10 ( || 4Q385a frg. 5 6–9)

.1 ̊אמ [ס] ̇שוםי̇ת [ רהערושעווב ] ̊מ̇ה̊ב [ תאורפהוהנושארההערהן 26§] .2 ̊כרשאתירבה [ עיתר ] ̊קחציםעום̇ה̊רבאם [ םימיבבוקעיםעו 27] .3 ךלמםוקיהמהה [ וגל ] ̊מ̇יבותוערהשעוןפדג̊ם̇י [ו 28] .4 ̇םירצמתכלממתארובשאומיבםעמלארשיתא [ 29] .5 ברחלותתנורובשאלארשיתאוםירצמתא [ ץראהתאיתומשהו 30/31] .6 ̊םדאהתאיתקחרו [ו] ̇הבץראהתאיתבז̇ע [ םילשוריינהכובשוהמש 31/32] .7 ̇חאםיהלאדובעל [ ושעלוםיר ] ̊ת̇וב̊ע̇ות̇כ̊ת [ םינהכןינמומקוםיוגה 32/33] .8 וכלמירשאהשולש [ 33/34] [.9 ו] ישדקהשד̇ק [ חבזמהום 36] ][.10 ̇יקדצמהור [ ברחבםילפנהם 37]

1. I have re[jec]ted them. So they will r[eturn and perform] m[o]re [wickedness] than[ the wickedness of the former era. And they will breach] 2. the covenant that [I had] estab[lished wi]th Abraham, and with Isaac, [and with Jacob. In ]those[ days] 3. a king [bef]ore the nations will arise, a blasphemer, and he will commit acts of wickedness. And in [his ] day [ … ]

161 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 98. 162 Cf. also Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 98. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 153

4. Israel from being a people. In his day I will break the kingdom of Egypt [ … ] 5. [ … Egyp]t. Then Israel I will break, and I will deliver unto the sword [and will make the land desolate.] 6. I will remove man far away, [and ]I will abandon the land in [its ]desola[tion. and ]the priests of Jerusalem will turn ] 7. to serve oth[er ]gods, [and to com]mit the same abominations as did the[ gentiles. Then an order of priests will rise up,] 8. three who will rule [ … ] 9. [and] the Holy of Holie[s and the altar … ] 10. [ … ]those who declare themselves righteo[us will fall by the sword … ]

Notes and Comments The text here overlaps with 4Q389 8 ii 9, and Dimant reconstructed the . ̊מ̇יבו [ו l. 3 but this does not fill out the available space which also has , ריבעא end of the line with room for at least one or two additional words. There is possibly an alternative text here to what may have appeared in the overlap in 4Q389 8 ii 9–10

Dimant believes that the shortened text here from the . [ו] ̇הבץראהתאיתבז̇ע [ המש l. 6 overlap in 4Q387 2 iii 4–5 was a result of parablepsis. She has reconstructed in 4Q388a and I will lay waste the land,” based on the identical expression“ , ץראהתאיתמשהו ii 5 7 in 4Q387 2 iii 3, but without any material remains to conclude otherwise, it is possible ended the clause and the line in 4Q388a 7. This would also correspond to ברחל that the propensity apparent in 4Q385a and 4Q387 for emphasising the emptiness of the land at the hand of God. The text without the insertion flows quite naturally, and there is sufficient reason to posit that this is not simple parablepsis as asserted by Dimant. I have rej[ec]ted“ , ̊אמ [ס] םית ,Furthermore, the appearance of another possible variant 4Q389 8 ii 7 || 4Q387) ובשו them,” in 4Q388a 7 ii 1 immediately prior to the overlapping 2 iii 6[?]) magnifies the possibility that 4Q388a may have preserved an alternative—or perhaps even an earlier—“edition” of this text.

The reading is based on . ̊ת̇וב̊ע̇ות̇כ [ םינהכןינמומקוםיוגה ] וכלמירשאהשולש [ Ll. 7–8 overlaps with 4Q385a 5 1 and 4Q387 2 iii 7. Cf. note on 4Q387 2 iii 7 below.

The space available to the right edge of the fragment .[ו] ישדקהשד̇ק [ חבזמהום l. 9 requires the reconstruction of the conjunction wāw. The reconstruction following is based on alignments with 4Q385a 5 4 and 4Q387 3 1, and the calculation ישדקה [ם of space in the lacuna of each witness. Most probably, the context here suggests a description of the defilement of the second temple that occurred in the Seleucid period. 154 chapter 3

The reading is suggested by factoring in alignments with . והמצדק̇י[ם הנפלים בחרב l. 10 the other witnesses, 4Q385a 5 5 and 4Q387 3 2, and calculations of space between the lacuna in all three of them.

Col. vi = 4Q387 frgs. 2 iii 1–7+3 1–9 ( || 4Q385a frg. 5 1–9)

top margin

אש̊בר 1. [ את ישרא]ל מעם ̇ב̊י[מ]̊ו את ממלכת [ ] מצרים29§ 2. [ את מצרי] ̇ם ואת ישראל אשבר ו̇נ[ ] תתו30 3. [לחרב והש]מותי א[ת הא] ̊רץ ורחקתי את הא̊ד̊ם 31 4. [ועזבתי] את ̇ה̇ארץ ביד מל[א] ̇כי המשטמות והסתרתי 32:1 5. [פני מיש] ̇ראל וזה להם האות ביום עזבי את הא̇ר̊ץ 32:2 6. [בהשמה ושב]̊ו כהני ירושלים לעבוד אלהים אחרי̊ם 32:3 7. [ולעשות כתע]בות ̊ה[גוים וקמו מנין כהנים ש]ל[ ] ושה33 8. [אשר ימלכו ] 34 35 [ ] .9 10 . [ וקדש הקדשים ו]המ̊ז[בח ] 36 11 . [ והמצדקים הנ]פלים ב̊ח[רב ] 37 12 . [ ב ]חנפה אח○[ ] 38 13 . [ ]̊ים כה̊נים שלושה אשר לא ית̇ה̇ל̇כ̊ו בדר̊כ̊י 39 14 . [הכהנים ה] ̊ראשנים על שם אלהי ישראל יקראו 40 15 . [והורד ב]̇ימיהם גאון מרישיעי ̊ב̇ר̊י[ת] ועבדי נאכר 41 16 . ̇ו̇יתקרע ישראל בדור ההוא להלחם ̊א[י]ש ברעה̇ו 42 17 . על התורה ̇ועל הב̊רית ̇ו̇של̊חתי רעב ̊ב[אר] ̊ץ ולא 43 18 . ל̇ל[ח]ם וצמא ̇ול[א ]ל̊מ̇י̇ם [כי ]אם ל[שמוע את ] דברי44 bottom margin

1. [ … Israe]l from being a people. In his d[a]y I will break the kingdom [of Egypt] 2. [ … Egyp]t. Then Israel I will break, and I will de[liver] 3. [ unto the sword and will] make th[e l]and[ de]solate. I will remove man far away, 4. [and I will abandon] the land in the hand of the Ang[el]s of Maśṭēmôṯ, and will hide 5. [my face from Is]rael. So this is a sign for them on that day: I will abandon the land 6. [in its desolation and ]the priests of Jerusalem[ will turn] to serve other gods, 7. [and to commit the same abomina]tions as did the[ gentiles. Then an order of priests will rise up, th]r[ee] 8. [who will rule … ] 9. [ … ] 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 155

10. [ … and the holy of holies and the ]alt[ar … ] 11. [ … those who declare themselves righteous will f]all by the swo[rd … ] 12. [ … ] … is polluted … [ … ] 13. [ … ] … three priests who will not behave in the manner of 14. [the] former[ priests; ]by the name of the God of Israel shall they be called. 15. [And in ]their day the pride of those who have broken the covena[nt ]will [be brought down] along with those who serve foreign gods. 16. And Israel will be torn apart in that generation; each m[a]n coming to blows with his friend 17. on account of the Torah and the covenant. So I shall then send hunger throughout[ the lan]d, but not 18. for br[ea]d, and thirst, but n[ot ]for water[, but r]ather for[ hearing of my word.]

Notes and Comments and I will“ , יתעשוהו ] םירצמתא Werman reconstructs the text to read . ] םירצמתא l. 2 save] Egypt.”163

The appearance of the sobriquet within the Apocryphon c . למ [א] תומטשמהי̇כ l. 4 occurs only in 4Q387 2 iii 4. It is absent from the parallel text in 4Q388a 6, and is not extant in the other two witnesses. The “angels of Maśṭēmôṯ” also appear twice in 4Q390 1 11 and 2 i 7, and this quite possibly suggests that it was part of an interpolation in only 4Q387.164

Dimant believes that the missing text from 4Q388a 7 ii 6 is a result . תואהםהלהזו l. 5 [ יתבזעו ]of parablepsis, which she presumes to have occurred between the expressions ,l. 5). It seems to be a reasonable suggestion) ץראהתאיבזע 4Q387 2 iii 4) and) ץראהתא however, the intervening material from 4Q387 reveals a distinct element, very similar to the appearance of a parallel clause in 4Q389 8 ii 5–6. Just as in this instance, the 4Q387 2 iii 5) that God has abandoned the ; תואהםהלהזו ) ”addition is offered as “a sign .( הבץראהתאיבזעםויב [ המש ) land

The wāw at the right edge of the fragment is visible in . בשו ] םילשוריינהכ̊ו l. 6 pam 43.501. Dimant’s reconstruction reproduced here makes good sense contextually,

163 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 235. appears with some frequency in the , המטשמה ,The singular form with the definite article 164 Qumran scrolls. Cf. cd 16:5; 4Q225 2 i 9; 2 ii 6–7, 13–14; 4Q270 6 ii 18; 4Q271 4 ii 6; 4Q387 2 iii 4; 4Q390 1 11; 2 i 7; 4Q525 19 4; 11Q11 2 4. Cf. Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 290–292. 156 chapter 3 in the Apocryphon c; cf. 4Q387 2 ii 10; 4Q389 בוש and is in line with other occurrences of 8 ii 7 above, and reconstructed in 4Q385a 18 i 10.

|| The reading is based on overlaps with 4Q385a 5 1 . [ שםינהכןינמומקו ]ל[ השו ] l. 7 4Q388a 7 ii 2. The top part of the lāmed is visible on the bottom-edge of the fragment, and the reconstruction and alignment with both witnesses perfectly fills the lacuna. The reconstruction of the verb in the third-person plural reflects the common historical theme already supplied by l. 3 above, and which overlaps with 4Q389 8 ii 9. The subject of the verb here most likely refers to a corrupt priesthood, which scholars have aligned with the last priests of the Seleucid period.165 This is most likely correct, and presents a literary contrast to the establishment by God of the meritorious priests in 4Q385a is ךלמ and 4Q387 3 4–8. The description of priests as “rulers” using the verb ,9–7 5 unprecedented in both biblical and Qumranic Hebrew.166 The “three who will rule” in ll. 7–8 and the “three priests” in l. 14 are best considered as different and likely antithetical groups.167 There is a discrepancy of space between the reconstruction here and its alignment with the other witnesses, 4Q385a 5 3–4 and 4Q388a 7 ii 10 which suggests additional text in the lacuna between 4Q387 frgs. 2 iii 7 and 3 1. Based on the reconstructed length of 18 lines for the preceding column, produced from the overlaps in 4Q389 8 ii 3–9 and 4Q388a 7 ii 1–4, we should expect this column to measure 18 lines. This requires two lines in the space between 4Q387 frgs. 2 iii and 3, and would in turn create an additional line of text for which there is no account from the overlapping witnesses.

.Cf. notes on 4Q385a frg. 5 5 and 4Q388a 7 ii 10 above . נהםיקדצמהו ] ̊חבםילפ [ בר l. 11

-The overlapping text in 4Q385a 5 7 has been recon . ̊י̊כרדב [ הםינהכה ] םינשא̊ר l. 13–14 because of a shortage of space in the lacuna which prevents ̊ד̇ב [ םכיתובאיכר ] structed alignment with 4Q387 3 4–5 here. There are a number of textual variants present between the individual witnesses, and several of these appear to have been programmatic. The reading here in 4Q387 that singles out the “former priests” from the much more general grouping of “ancestors” would also be in keeping with an apparent shift towards implicating the temple establishment that is considerably more pronounced in the recounting of the same history that appears in 4Q390.

165 Cf. Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 239. 166 Cf. on the relationship between the priesthood and government section 4.2.3.2. The Priest- hood, Religion, and Power in the following chapter. 167 Cf. the discussion in the following chapter, section 4.2.3. Ideology, Religion, and History in 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 157

3.4 A Proposed Synopsis of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c

Dimant’s synopsis of the Apocryphon c has largely carried the day in subsequent discussions, and the text is generally treated as a coherent, unified composition. More recently, Tigchelaar has challenged this appraisal with the very plausible idea that the Apocryphon c is more precisely a collection of “Jeremi- aca”: “Rather than a neat discourse in a narrative framework, we have a collection of Jeremian materials. Its textual unity may not be literary, but thematic, and in its second-degree relationship to other literature.”168 This notion probably better fits with the arrangement of Group i following Group ii, but in either instance, and regardless of whether there is a narrative framework to be had in the Apocryphon c, the connexions made with Jeremiah require explanation, and that explanation will very likely work itself out in the form of an interconnected narrative discourse. There may be no guarantee that the text was composed as such, but even just by the arrangement of material, readers were encouraged to read this text as if it were. In what follows, I shall suggest an interpretive model for reading the Apocryphon c narratologically. The composition can be divided into six sections between the two main groups of fragments in 4Q385a, Group i (frgs. 1–6) and Group ii (frgs. 10–18). 1) 4Q389 frg. 1 is situated immediately prior to Group i, and is treated as the introduction to the apocalyptic discourse that follows. Group i then comprises 2) an historical review of Israel’s past to the destruction of Solomon’s temple; 3) an apocalyptic retelling of the post-exilic period until the Hasmonaean era; 4a) an unspecific eschatological prediction. Group ii begins with 4b) prophetic oracles that seem to culminate with a promise of eternal blessing; 5) a prophetic oracle based on Nahum 3 that summarises the eschatological judgement of the nations; it concludes with 6) a narrative summary of Jeremiah’s activities following the destruction of Jerusalem, first featuring the prophet with the exiles on the way to Babylon, and then in residence with the Jewish community in Egypt.

3.4.1 Introduction (4Q389 frg. 1) Dimant described the Apocryphon c as an “historical apocalypse.”169 It presents itself as a programmatic retelling of Israel’s history founded upon ideological and religious principles in a stark, spiritual dichotomy between the forces of good and evil, and reflecting a cosmologically dualistic worldview. The setting

168 Tigchelaar, “Unities and Disunities in Jeremianic Texts,” 8. 169 Dimant, djd 30, 99–100. Also Henze, “Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses,” 29–31. 158 chapter 3 in the first act of the Apocryphon c is on the shores of “the river Sur” in Baby- lon (4Q389 1 7), where the Jewish exiles have gathered for communal prayer (l. 3), and to read or recite the contents of a document,170 presumably written by the prophet Jeremiah and received from Egypt (ll. 4–7). The locations are particularly significant, and these geographical designations align with recurring themes or attitudes throughout the text: “Egypt” maintains an almost entirely negative connotation (cf. e.g. 4Q385a 18 ii 1–5; §§29–30, 4Q387 2 iii 1–2 || 4Q388a 7 ii 4–5), while Babylon appears to be more positively perceived (e.g. 4Q385a 18 i 6–10). In the smattering of what is preserved in 4Q389 1, the Jewish community in Babylon is the recipient of Jeremiah’s teachings, and by extension the caretakers of “orthodoxy.” They are the rightful heirs of the covenant that prioritises correct Torah observance in line with what is prescribed most likely in the book of Deuteronomy. By way of contrast, “Egypt” represents those who are spiritually disenfranchised: removed from the protection of the covenant, and from God’s presence for their assimilation to the cultural and religious customs of the gentiles.171 In 4Q389 frg. 1, the re-presentation of this sort of “covenant renewal” event on the shores of a river, provides for a positive appraisal of the recipients,172 congregated in the right place at the right time—an echo of the first covenant renewal event that took place by the Jordan River introduced in Deuteronomy 1–3.

3.4.2 Historical Discourse The discourse likely begins at some point near the beginning of the united kingdom of Israel, but fragments from other witnesses to the Apocryphon c that were not covered in the above appraisal suggest that the discourse may extend as far back as the wilderness narratives from Numbers and Deuteronomy.173

170 The importance of the relationship between public “reading” and “recitation” should not may posit a more performative or even liturgical וארק be minimised: the collective act of function for Jeremiah’s instructions, or by extension for scripture. Cf. George J. Brooke, “Pesher and Midrash in Qumran Literature: Issues for Lexicography,” RevQ 24/93 (June 2009): 79–95, 92–95. Also Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 476–477. 171 This sort of propagandistic portrayal is similar to what Martha Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2Maccabees,” pt 19/1 (1998): 19–40, 36, has observed taking place in 2Maccabees. She argues that the entire text stands as critique of Hellenistic culture and the presence of the gymnasium in Jerusalem. Interestingly enough, the appearance to the prophet Jeremiah to Judas Maccabaeus in a dream in 15:6–19 “distinguished by his grey hair and dignity” (v. 13) helps to reinforce the distinction between noble religious conduct and the misplaced Hellenistic glorification of youth. 172 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 31–36. 173 Cf. e.g. 4Q389 2, and 5, in which mention is made of “Qadesh Barnea” in the former, and 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 159

The united kingdom under the leadership of King David is then characterised as a “golden age” in which the king “earnestly sought” yhwh’s favour (4Q385a 1 ii 4), served in humble submission before God, and was subsequently rewarded with victory over his enemies (ll. 2–3). This description of David and his reign forms a literary allusion with the later “fulfilment” by the land of its “iniquity,” by .cf. frg) םלשׁ period” in conjunction with the verb“ , הָנוֹע way of the odd usage of 11 i 3; 4Q389 8 ii 5). The reflexion on the more heady days of the united kingdom concludes with the reign of Solomon (l. 5–6), and features his dedication of the first temple in 4Q385a 1 ii 7 and 2 2. The narrative likely continues to describe the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah relative to the central focus upon Solomon’s temple, in reflexion of the Deuteronomistic history in 1–2Kings. Without knowing what was featured in this retelling from the time of Solomon to the exile itself, the historical discourse concludes from the point of view of its speaker, Jeremiah, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the ensuing dispersion and exile from the land. The people on the eve of the exile are censured for their failure to uphold the covenant,174 and instead are found “walking in madness in my presence” (4Q385a 3 2 || 4Q388a 3 2). In response to their infidelity (4Q385a 3 5–8 || 4Q387 1 2–5+2 i 3 || 4Q388a 3 4–7), God in reciprocal fashion is pictured doing as the people were expected to do in fulfilling their covenant commitment to him: “so I searched for faith, but was unable to find it” (4Q385a 3 9 || 4Q387 1 6). This presents a crucial turning point in the narrative in which the people no longer seek yhwh’s favour, and he in turn is left dissatisfied when he himself pursues this quality in his people. The historical discourse ends in exile: the consequence for the failure of the subsequent generations to maintain the covenant

the prophet Samuel is named in the latter. 4Q389 2 possibly recounts the installation of King Saul from 1Sam 8:6, but also preserves an interesting piece of evidence that affirms the Apocryphon c’s concordance with the book of Jeremiah and with the Deuteronomistic school, and the “Shiloh traditions” emulated therein (cf. Jer 7:12–14; 26:4–6). The leadership triad that is formed between the three significant prophetic figures Moses, Samuel, and Jeremiah from the beginning to the end of the composition accords with the alliance that appears between these three figures in parts of scriptural Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5–6; 15:1). In effect, Samuel carries forward the prophetic leadership mantle that was first borne by Moses, and is finally embodied in Jeremiah. In the Apocryphon c, Samuel confers the kingship upon Saul in 4Q389 5 2; Cf. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah1–20 (ab 21a; New York:Double- day, 1999), 107–108; also William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 (ed. Paul D. Hanson; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 16–17; also Lundbom, “Rhetorical Structures in Jeremiah 1,”zaw 103 (1991): 193–210. 174 The mention of “that which I spoke to Jacob” in 4Q385a 4 || 4Q387 1 1; 4Q388a 3 3 suggests that the Abrahamic covenant is in mind here. 160 chapter 3 and to pursue yhwh’s favour is for them to be found languishing “in the lands of your enemies” (cf. 4Q387 1 9). Where the obedient David and his son Solomon once enjoyed victory over their foes, Israel is now subjugated and enslaved by the very nations that yhwh had so long ago delivered into their hands.

3.4.3 Second Temple Apocalypse Apocalypse i begins in the overlaps between 4Q385a frg. 3, 4Q387 frg. 1+2 i, and 4Q388a frg. 3, but the main body of discourse is marked by the shift from past-tense verbal constructions to future forms in 4Q385a frg. 4 (§13, 4Q387 frg. 2 ii || 4Q389 frg. 8 ii).175 The specific events described therein are difficult to pinpoint, but the mention of the disappearance of Israel’s kingdom in frg. 4 2–5 (§§16–18, 4Q387 2 ii 5–7) would indicate that the exilic or the post-exilic period is in view. It is likely that the specific description of the siege of Jerusalem and its destruction have disappeared into the lacuna between 4Q385a frgs. 3–4, along the rule of Nebuchadnezzar ii. Dimant suggested that Nebuchadnezzar was probably the subject of 4Q385a 4 4–6 (§§17–19, 4Q387 2 ii 6–9),176 but this assertion is fairly effectively challenged by Reynolds, who argues that frg. 4 2–4 recounts the Persian defeat of Babylon in 539bce.177 The next ruler in ll. 4–7 who is called ha-Zāḏôn, “the insolence,” is most likely one of the Persian rulers that followed,178 and a possible parallel between this figure and his reputation for pride indicated by this designation may have been transferred from the self-confession of Nebuchadnezzar ii in Dan 4:34 (Cf. the similar profession of Nabonidas in 4Q242 4 2). This personification of “arrogance” appears in Jeremiah’s long oracle against Babylon in Jer 50:31–32:

My quarrel is with you, “Arrogance!” Lord Yahweh Sabaoth declares, your day has come, the time for me to punish you. “Arrogance” will stumble, he

175 The designation “Second Temple Apocalypse” or “Apocalypse i” for this part of the composition is assigned largely for convenience, for the recognition of the apocalyptic worldview that resonates in this block of the text. In actuality, this is not an “apocalypse” according to any commonly held definition, cf. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction toJewishApocalypticism (2nd revd. edn.; brs; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 2–9; also DiTommaso, “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography,” 501–502. I am inclined to consider the Apocryphon c as an “apocalyptic” composition, in that it expresses an apocalyptic worldview (Cf. DiTommaso, “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography,” 498–499), but more generically is a form of historiography. 176 Dimant, djd 30, p. 183. 177 Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 295–296. 178 Reynolds suggests that Darius i is the most likely candidate for the identity of this figure. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 161

will fall,179 no one will lift him up: I shall set fire to his towns and it will devour all around it.180 njb

The characterisation of such a king would also certainly fit the tale from Daniel 6—as well as the Greek addition Bel and the Dragon—of the Persian Darius i and his penchant for flattery.One should note the negative connotation applied to this figure who is renounced for his arrogance, in contrast to the reputation attached to David in the historical discourse, who “did not become haughty before me” (4Q385a 1 ii 4). The beginning of the exilic period is signalled by another turning point in the narrative, in which God no longer “seeks” after his people because of the “treachery by which they betrayed me” (§§13–14, 4Q387 2 ii 2–3). This is in turn prompted by the exceptionally late about-face in which the people attempt to “seek after” yhwh’s presence as a last resort in l. 2, only to be rebuffed by God and left “wandering about in madness and blindness and bewilderment of heart” (§§15–16, 4Q385a 4 1–2 || 4Q387 2 ii 4–5) for a period of “ten Jubilees of years” (§§14–15, 4Q385a 4 1 || 4Q387 2 ii 3–4). Israel will be destroyed (§18, 4Q385a 4 5 || 4Q387 2 ii 7), and this Persian ruler will prove to be a Gadĕpān, “a blasphemer” who will commit abominations (§19, 4Q385a 4 6 || 4Q387 2 ii 8), and will summarily have his kingdom “torn to shreds” (§§19–20, 4Q387 2 ii 8–9). The condition of this period is summarised by what follows in the overlapping witnesses, 4Q387 2 ii and 4Q389 8 ii, in familiar Deuteronomic language: God continues to “hide his presence from Israel” (§20, 4Q387 2 ii 9, cf. Deut 31:17–18), and they remain languishing in the “lands of their exile” (§22, 4Q385a 4 9 || 4Q389 8 ii 3; cf. Deut 29:27), on account of their cultic infidelity: “they rejected my statutes, and their soul despised my Torah” (§23, 4Q389 8 ii 4; cf. Lev 26:43; 11QTa 59:2, 6). The present generation continues to founder; wandering about in madness, blindness and bewilderment of heart, and is virtually

179 The masculine gender in the verb and the pronouns is democratised in the New Jerusalem Bible translation; they have been corrected here. לָשָׁמַּה Also cf. Dan 11:36 containing a similar description of Antiochus iv. Also Isa 14:3–4 and 180 this parody about the king of Babylon.” Especially v. 4 in 1QIsaa which“ , לֶבָבְּךֶלֶמ־לַעהֶזַּה contains an alternative reading to 픐: “How did the tyrant end? How did his arrogance end?” (njb). The correction has been translated in Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter ( הבהרמ ) W. Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999), 291: “How (his) assault has ceased!” The root of the noun is commonly translated with “pride” or “arrogance,” and is otherwise unattested in Hebrew; Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 480 n. 39. 162 chapter 3 removed from the presence of God. The progression from the meritorious time of David and Solomon’s construction of the temple until now has seen their earnest seeking degenerate into apathy, which prompted God’s response to seek the faithfulness of the present generation in return. Now, in the finality of their darkest hour, after God has abandoned his own attempts to repair the broken relationship have they returned to pursue God, only to be spurned and rejected for their covenant failures. There is a break in the narrative signalled by a sense division in 4Q389 8 ii 5,181 introduced by an interpretive gloss that may have been a later development, which assigns the period of God’s abandonment of the land specifically to the excessive pride that contrasts the present age with the former kingdom (l. 6). The people compound their failures with a more explicit charge of covenant violation in §§26–27, 4Q388a 7 ii 1–2 and 4Q389 8 ii 7–9. After this, the period defined in §§14–15 4Q387 2 ii 3–4 as “ten jubilees of years” moves from a description of the exilic condition to mark the reign of a second noteworthy gentile ruler: another “blasphemer” who will “rise up … over the gentiles, and he will commit acts of wickedness” (§28, 4Q388a 7 ii 3 || 4Q389 8 ii 9). This figure is different from the first Gadĕpān and is likely identified with Antiochus iv Epiphanes. His rule will culminate with the elimination of the sovereign identity of Israel, and with the defeat of Egypt, which probably coincides with Anti- ochus’s brief victory over Egypt in the Sixth Syrian War (c. 169bce).182 This part of the narrative continues to dominate with haunting depictions of the desolation of the land that accompanies the exile, which at this point must be construed as more spiritual and symbolic than actual (§§30–32, 4Q387 2 iii 2–5 || 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6).183 Another interpretive gloss appears to have been inserted

181 Cf. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 143–145. 182 If this is the correct historical reference, then it may also be reflected in Werman’s suggested reading, “in his days I shall break the kingdom of Egypt,[ and I will save] Egypt, and I shall break Israel and deliver it up to the sword,” Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 235. Alternatively, the “breaking” of Egypt and Israel together may refer to the Fifth Syrian War (c. 202–199bce) and the consolidation of the Syro-Phoenician region under Seleucid control during the reign of Antiochus iii; cf. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism, Volume 2, 319–326. 183 It is highly significant that at no point in the Apocryphon c is there any mention of the return to the land, of the construction of the second temple or the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. Throughout the entire composition, the condition of the people appears to be in continuous exile, outside of the “land of Jerusalem” (cf. 4Q385a 18 i 3) even well into the post-exilic age. They are universally depicted “in the land(s) of their captivity” in concordance with God’s “abandonment of the land” and his hidden presence. The element of exile in the Apocryphon c will feature more prominently into discussion juxtaposed 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 163 in §§32:1–3, 4Q387 2 iii 3–5 that is absent in the parallel text in 4Q388a, in which the “Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ” are said to control the land in yhwh’s absence; a sign that God’s presence remains indefinitely withdrawn.184 “The priests of Jerusalem” are singled out in §§37–38, 4Q387 2 iii 6–7 || 4Q388a 7 ii 6–7 and censured for their cultic infidelity: they have “turned … to serve other gods, and to commit the same abominations as did the gentiles.” In light of the preponderance throughout the Apocryphon c for seeking God’s presence as an evaluative indicator of the people’s success or failure in keeping the covenant, the deliberate “turning” of the priests here strikes one as especially antithetical behaviour.185 From this point, the rest of the material remains of each of the manuscripts begins to deteriorate, but the Second Temple Apocalypse presumably concludes at some point in the Hasmonaean period. 4Q385a 5 2 (§§33–34, 4Q387 2 iii 7–8 || 4Q388a 7 ii 8) mentions the emergence of a new “order of priests,” and singles out “three who will rule.” This description most plausibly denotes the final high priests in the Seleucid occupation, Jason (175–172bce), Menelaus (172–162bce), and Alcimus (162–160/59bce).186 The apocalyptic discourse in the Apocryphon c is fiercely anti-Hellenistic throughout, and it would make

with 4Q390 in the following chapter. For a good synopsis of exile as a theme in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cf. Abegg, “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls”; also Hindy Najman, “Toward a Study of the Uses and Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism,” in Flint, Duhaime, and Baek, eds., Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls, 447–466. 184 Cf. the discussion of the variant readings in 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6 and 4Q387 2 iii 3–6 above. While Dimant’s notion that the minus in 4Q388a frg. 7 is the result of parablepsis remains a possibility, her assertion has been rejected in no small part because of the somewhat awkward presence of the “Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ” in the sequence. Nowhere else in the narrative do they appear, and it is somewhat difficult to reconcile them into the historical synopsis at this point, which reads much more smoothly in their absence from the text. The interpolation of this element can be explained as part of developing sense of cosmological dualism that sought to undermine naturalistic cause and effect in favour of spiritual forces, and was possibly contemporaneous with similar ideas in 4Q390. in Hos 2:9; 3:5; 5:15; 7:10; also 2Chron בושׁ and שׁקב Cf. e.g. the juxtaposition of the verbs 185 ( והושרד ) and cd 6:7: “because God had called them all princes, for they sought him ,7:14 ”.by a single mouth ( הבשוהאלו ) and their honour was not denied 186 Dimant, djd 30, 211, also idem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 33–34, esp. n. 67 had originally suggested that these figures corresponded to the first Hasmon- aeans, Jonathan (152–142bce), Simon (142–134bce), and John Hyrcanus (134–104bce). For an extensive discussion of the history of the high priesthood in the Hellenistic period cf. James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 197–312. 164 chapter 3 logical sense to vilify these three philhellenes for their attempts to consolidate political and religious power in the high priestly office, and to describe it as part of a corrupt “order.”187 In what follows, these figures form a contrast with the “three priests, who will not wander about in the ways of the former priests, by the name of the God of Israel they will be called” (§§39–40, 4Q385a 5 7–8 || 4Q387 3 4–5). Most likely, these are the priests who sparked the Hasmon- aean revolution: Mattathius, Judas Maccabaeus, and Jonathan, who would later become the high priest.188 The period of their influence is then characterised by a major reversal of fortunes, in which “the pride of those who have broken the covenant, and the slaves of foreign gods will be brought down” (ll. 8–9). Israel will experience internal strife over issues pertaining to “the Torah and the covenant” (§§42–43, 4Q387 3 7–8), to which God will respond by instilling a “hunger” and a “thirst” throughout the land for what one can only presume are those same covenant stipulations that have featured prominently throughout the entire composition: correct Torah observance in line with what is prescribed in the book of Deuteronomy. It is difficult to ascertain how positively the Hasmonaeans were perceived by the author of the Apocryphon c, owing to the scant preservation of the text beyond their introduction in 4Q385a frg. 5 and 4Q387 frg. 3. Nevertheless, the appraisal of this period would seem to be more favourable, especially considering the consistent high regard afforded to the proper fulfilment of the precepts of the covenant, and its satisfaction in the correct observation of the Torah throughout. The “pride” that characterised the former generation as a consequence for their failure to pursue God’s presence has been overturned by the emergence of an elect group of priests and the heightened concern for Torah and covenant that accompanied them. Here ends the body of the Second Temple Apocalypse on a cautiously optimistic note. What follows appears to have contained some sort of eschatological prediction in 4Q385a 6.

187 The consolidation of power between the office of the high-priesthood and the king in the Hasmonaean period became a contentious issue, and was possibly the impetus behind the list of priests and kings that appears in 4Q245; Cf. Wise, “4Q245 (4QpsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus.” 188 I had suggested this in Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 480, n. 44 to apply to the “three who will rule” in 4Q388a 7 ii 8 simultaneously with the “three priests” in 4Q387 3 4 as contemporaneous with one another. cf. Wise, “4Q245 (4QpsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” 352–359; VanderKam, From Joseph to Caiaphas, 240–244. Josephus mentions that Judas Maccabaeus served as the high priest in Ant. 12:413, 426. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 165

3.4.4a Eschatological Prediction Due to the paucity of remains for the several columns of text that follow the Second Temple Apocalypse, it is difficult to determine at what point the apocalyptic hope culminates in the historical sequence. The only certainty is that the end of the age was envisioned by the author of the Apocryphon c at some point after the beginning of the Hasmonaean period. 4Q385a frg. 6 possibly indicates that the inauguration of last days may have followed the description of the Has- monaeans fairly closely, perhaps within the space of a single column.189 The column that was immediately subsequent to that containing frg. 5 may have , םיניעב before ריו ] וא featured a heavenly descent. In l. 2 Dimant reconstructed and suggested that the earthly participants appear to be witness to the event where something emerges “from the heavens” (l. 3).190 If correct, the description is reminiscent of the Aramaic vision of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, in which the “holy watcher” descends from heaven in vv. 10 and 20. Perhaps in keeping with the more prominent themes throughout the Apocryphon c, the descent is more akin to the arrival of the “son of man” in Dan 7:13–14:

As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the ancient one and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.

Unfortunately, it remains wholly speculative what followed at the end of Group i of the fragments of 4Q385a. And with not much additional material surviving from the other witnesses, the contents of what followed remains a mystery.191 If Group ii appeared subsequent to Group i, then the eschatological description must have consisted of several columns of text, and culminated with a description of future blessing in “the garden of life” (frg. 17 ii 3). If however

189 Cf. the discussion in the previous chapter of material joins for 4Q385a in section 2.3.1. Material Joins. 190 Dimant, djd 30, 141–142. 191 However, cf. 4Q387 frg. 4 which most likely followed frg. 3. This fragment contains a description of what appears to be a final battle, or a divine, punitive intervention at the behest of the cries of the idealised “sons of Israel” before God (l. 3), in the form of “torrential rain, hailstones, and fire and brimstone” (l. 4). This follows on the heels of an incident involving the “kings of the north” in the preceding line, which, interestingly, calls to mind the climactic battle in Daniel’s final apocalyptic vision in Dan 11:40–41. 166 chapter 3

Group ii actually preceded Group i, then the smattering of prophetic oracles that dominate these fragments up to the description of paradise must have been unconnected the to Apocalypse i in frgs. 3–5. In either case, the contents of Group ii appear to begin in a series of prophetic oracles of judgement that featured foreign nations.

3.4.4b Prophetic Oracles The first identifiable element in the poorly preserved early fragments of Group ii appears in 4Q385a 10 ii + 11 i 3–4, in which there is an apparent, familiar requirement to be “fulfilled” by a group of priests, followed by mention of a division of seventy years at the end of l. 4. If Group ii follows Group i, then this compartmentalisation of time conforms to the significant computation of 490 years from 4Q387 2 ii 3–4 in some point of the historical schemata, and most likely occurs at some point either as part of the tenth jubilee or immediately after it.192 The next element appears in the following column, in frg. 11 ii 1, where there is a possible allusion to Isa 5:8, “Ah, you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left to live alone193 in the midst of the land!” The biblical locution suggests that this may have served as a polemic against the accumulation of excessive wealth, perhaps that was to accompany the end of the age. At some point following this is mention of “milk and honey”; perhaps as a reflexion of hope that recalled the positive descriptions of the land of conquest and promise especially prominent in Numbers and Deuteronomy.194 It’s occurrence here in the synopsis appears to inaugurate the period of judgement that ensues in the following columns, punctuated by the Persian-style execution195 for those “who would have not listened” (frg. 15 i 2–3) to what quite likely are the conditions of the covenant implied elsewhere in the Apocryphon c.

192 Cf. Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen, esp. 403–411; also Werman, “Epochs and End- ; םלשהכו ) ”Time,” 249–253. Notice especially the indication that there is a “completion 4Q385a 11 i 3) associated with the seventy years in this fragment (cf. 4Q387 2 ii 3). A possible comparative computation may appear in 4Q390, which structures the 490 years in 7 jubilees + 70 years + 7 years + 70 years; also Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen, 427– ,Dimant, djd 30) ] ̇שהתותבש [ םינ Cf. also 4Q388a 4 2, which Dimant reconstructs to read .428 206). This fragment may belong at some point in the eschatological discourse. 193 1QIsaa alternatively reads, “and you place yourselves alone,” Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 278. 194 Cf. Num 13:27; 14:8; 16:13–14; Deut 6:3; 11:9; 26:9,15; 27:3; 31:20. ;for a form of crucifixion or public humiliation in Est 5:14; 6:4 7:9, 10; 8:7 הלת Cf. the use of 195 9:13, 25. Also cf. Deut 21:23–25 which specifically prescribes a similar sort of punishment for any capital offence. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 167

The next column in Group ii contains a decree of judgement for the nations surrounding Israel, that is likely inspired by the extensive “Oracles against the Nations” from Jer 46–51 (픊 Jer 26–31). While none of the nations that appear in the Apocryphon c conform to those from Jeremiah’s list, the attachment of this composition to Jeremiah suggests that this was the impetus behind the account here. This is especially so given its placement near the narrative description of Jeremiah’s escapades in Egypt in frg. 18 ii, similar to its appearance in 픊 Jeremiah. However, the clustering of the nations in this fashion does appear somewhat reminiscent of the latter portion of Daniel’s final vision in Dan 11:41– 45, which, significantly, also informs earlier parts of the prophetic discourse, as illustrated above:

He shall come into the beautiful land, and tens of thousands shall fall victim, but Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites shall escape from his power. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the riches of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train. But reports from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to bring ruin and complete destruction to many. He shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with no one to help him.

Especially when it is considered in tandem with the oracle that follows in the next column, the mention of Ethiopia in 4Q385a 16+17 i 3–4, the dispossession of Greece in l. 4 and the apparent contrition and appointment of “Lebanon” as an heir of God’s kingdom,196 all recall structural elements that appear related to the narration of Antiochus iv’s conquest of the south in Daniel 11. What is perhaps most telling of the decree of judgement here is what follows near the end of the preserved text in l. 7, where the group partaking in God’s inheritance are said to “seek after yhwh.” This may be the same cosmic inheritance that is alluded to in the following column, which makes mention of the “garden of life” in frg. 17 ii 3. If Group ii follows Group i, then such an image would provide a fitting conclusion for the entire apocalyptic discourse, that is predominantly consumed by the importance of the need to pursue God’s presence, and the

196 The positive mention of Lebanon in this passage of judgement may suggest that an idealised, Deuteronomistic view of the promised land is in view; cf. Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4; 1Kgs 9:19. 168 chapter 3 dire consequences that befall all who fail to do so. If Group ii is found before Group i, then it is possible that the open paragraph appearing in frg. 17 ii 3 merely separates one oracle from the next in a series that repeated this practice of sense divisions.

3.4.5 Prophetic Oracle of Judgement: A Previously Unattested Version of Nahum 3:8–10 4Q385a 17 ii 4–9 reproduces Nah 3:8–10, and appears as a final oracle of judgement, that may either summarise the preceding account of God’s meting out of justice for the nations, or it was merely the last in a series. Alex P. Jassen argues for this as an example of “revelatory exegesis” by which the prophet Jeremiah “read and recontextualized” a “scriptural prophecy.” Jassen draws attention to Jeremiah’s “reading and interpreting” of scripture here as an indicator for the “scribalized” development in his own persona.197 However, the attention paid to the scribal element may actually detract from the larger significance of this section of the text. What seems especially interesting is the relationship between the cited oracle from Nahum 3 within its immediate context, but this observation is enhanced by the realisation that there is nothing whatsoever to distinguish the pericope as anything but a scriptural version of Nahum. What we really should be asking here is what does Nahum 3 have to do with the prediction of judgement in the preceding column? Is this merely a reiteration of the prophecy just directed to the surrounding nations? If so, then why has this part of the text been distinguished from the rest by way of a sense division? It is further tempting to suggest that in keeping with the rest of the Apocryphon c, this is rather an instance in which a biblical locution provides the language, imagery and structure for this specific point in the eschatological discourse. If this is the case, then it seems perplexing that this single section is the only place in the remains of the entire text that directly employs an already existing oracle. What I believe to be more likely is that the oracle from Nahum 3 serves a more performative—dare I suggest, a “liturgical” function: the book of Ba- ruch—which contains similar elements to those extant in the introduction of the Apocryphonc—opens with the recitation of a penitential prayer in Bar 1:15– 3:8; the apocalyptic vision in Daniel 9 is introduced by a lengthy penitential prayer in Dan 9:4–19. From among the Qumran scrolls the fragmentary 4QNar- rative and Poetic composition preserves elements of an apocalyptic historical discourse (4Q371 1 1–13; 4Q372 1 1–16), as well as a penitential prayer (4Q371 2 2;

197 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 227–230. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 169

4Q372 1 16–31; frgs. 2–3). While there is no certain indication that a penitential prayer was offered at the beginning of the Apocryphon c,198 there is mention of another liturgical performance in 4Q385a 18 ii 3–4, where Jeremiah is depicted in the throes of lament (see below). Is the oracle from Nahum 3 included with the intention of performance? I surmise that its presence at the conclusion of a collection of prophetic—perhaps eschatological—oracles serves as a public declaration of judgement in anticipation of the fate to be endured by Israel’s enemies in the last days. What remains of this piece features Amon, who is censured for its alliances with Egypt, Ethiopia and Libya (frg. 17 ii 4–15; cf. Nah 3:8–9). Libya itself is sentenced to exile and captivity (l. 7; Nah 3:10); its children will be “dashed into pieces” and the rulers and dignitaries will be imprisoned (ll. 8–9; Nah 3:10). One might assume that the contents of the oracle reflect the prior description of global judgement, and it is thus quite possible that the oracle contained complimentary utterances against the northern kingdoms as well, patterned after those issued for Nineveh and Assyria in Nah 3:12–19.

3.4.6 Post-destruction Narrative Summary When one undertakes to complete a careful reading of all of the fragments assigned to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, it is difficult not to conclude that the work was likely an elaborate composite; pieced together from various and sundry more independent traditions,199 and subsumed under the considerable prophetic authority of the illustrious Jeremiah. It is quite plausible that the narrative account surviving in 4Q385a frg. 18 i–ii was a later addition to a “rolling corpus” that itself derived its shape in similar fashion to the massive scriptural book bearing Jeremiah’s name.200 Following the lengthy prophetic section,

198 The mention of some action taken on behalf of the Egyptian Jewish residents by members of the Babylonian community in 4Q389 1 3–4 may correspond to the offering of prayers and benevolent collection recorded in Bar 1:5–7, but the text is too fragmentary to be certain. 199 Cf. e.g. possible secondary elements in 4Q389 8 ii 5–6 and in 4Q387 2 iii 3–5, along with .in 4Q385a 4 5 and 4Q387 2 ii 10 הכלממ the unknown synonymous alternatives in place of Furthermore, one must be open to the possibility that the two narrative portions here in 4Q385a frg. 18 i–ii and in 4Q389 1 were alternative parallels that sought to emphasise different elements of Jeremiah’s purpose and function relative to the prophetic and apocalyptic discourses. 200 The term applied to the book of Jeremiah was popularised by William McKane in his commentary, Jeremiah i (icc; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), l–lxxxviii. While this theory behind the development and compilation of the book is not without its problems (cf. e.g. 170 chapter 3 with its predictions of judgement directed towards the surrounding nations, is a narrative summation that featured the “life and times” of the prophet Jeremiah, or, at least those parts that were deemed significant by its author.201 Because the author was ultimately concerned with the issues of covenant maintenance, orthodoxy, and correct Torah observance all combined to form the critical components to the successful pursuit of God’s presence, only the events beginning with Jerusalem’s final destruction were afforded considerable weight in his encapsulation of Jeremiah’s legacy. Jeremiah is here presented as the final prophet of the biblical age, and his distinction as the rightful national leader for a globally dispersed Jewish nation in the post-destruction period is solidified, further anchoring the predominant themes throughout the rest of the composition. In the first column, Jeremiah is initially pictured in the very presence of God, “before yhwh” (4Q385a 18 i 1), and then is found “walking” with the outgoing exiles on their way to Babylon in ll. 4–5. In keeping with the symbolic force of the use of these images elsewhere in the text, his accompaniment of this captive Jewish community on their way to Babylon provides a sense of confirmation: these are the people with whom the future of the covenant may be trusted. Jeremiah continues only as far as “the river” (l. 7), where he proceeds to re-enact the delivery of the Torah as it originally had occurred on the shores of the Jordan River, prior to the Israelites entry into the promised land according to the book of Deuteronomy. The confirmation of the outgoing exiles is enforced by the recurrence of wāw-consecutive verbs that indicate the completed actions applied to this group: “they were obedient … they kept … they rejected …” (ll. 8–10).

criticism in Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 65, that McKane’s model ignores the important fact that Jeremiah presents itself as predominantly a “written” composition, and not a loose collection of orally preserved speeches), the notion of a product of “accident, arbitrariness and fortuitous twists and turns” more aptly encapsulates the spirit of the whole end product. Cf. also Tigchelaar, “Unities and Disunities in Jeremianic Texts,” 8. 201 Henze, “Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses,” 37–38 argues that the situation of 4Q385a frg. 18 at the end of the composition does not coalesce with the rest of Dimant’s synopsis, given that the events retold here actually pre-date the setting offered in the beginning of the Apocryphon c in 4Q389 frg. 1. This supposition of the order that sees frg. 18 precede the apocalyptic discourse would better coincide with the suggested arrangement of Group ii before Group i of the fragments. Another explanation for the standard order is that the apparent confusion is a symptom of the compositional process that was likely accomplished over the course of the production of several editions. 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 171

The river holds a special place of significance in validating the content of these instructions, both here and in the introduction to the Apocryphon c in 4Q389 frg. 1, where the descendants from this same community were pictured receiving instructions from Jeremiah on the shores of another river identified as “Sur.” The covenant is theirs, and the spiritual future of the Jewish people is guaranteed by their survival in Babylon. If Group ii followed Group i in the sequence, this description would serve as a fitting reflexion back on to the introduction in 4Q389 frg. 1. However, if Group i followed Group ii, this positive affirmation of the outgoing exiles would then establish their place as the rightful recipients of the apocalyptic vision that was introduced in 4Q389 frg. 1, and which was contained in 4Q385a frgs. 1–6. In the following column, Jeremiah is found in his residence with the derelict, Egyptian Jewish community that had emigrated to Tahpanes in Jer 43 (픊 50):4– 7. Here, he is approached by the leaders and asked to “seek God on our behalf” (4Q385a 18 ii 2),202 but in sharp contrast to the scriptural account upon which this pericope is based, Jeremiah refuses, and instead takes up a dirge over Jerusalem (ll. 3–4). Jeremiah also delivers covenant instructions unto this group, just as he did for the outgoing exiles, only his exhortation begins more curiously with the instruction from God to “seek daily my statutes, and keep my ordinances” (l. 8). There is no confirmation of the positive response of this group as there is for the outgoing exiles in the previous column. He follows this with a warning to refrain from “walking after the idols of the nations.” So much of the Apocryphon c has been formulated upon the importance of “seeking God”—something that the Tahpanes Jews had attempted to do, and were rebuffed for it—and yet, here this group is rather commanded to seek the covenant principles instead. The implication is that God is absent from Egypt. Where there seems to be a glimmer of hope within the Babylonian community, the Egyptian Jews appear abandoned to this grim reality: That God will remain hidden; that their captivity is without an end, and their only hope resides in the pursuit of the Torah, with no guarantee that this will culminate in their restoration.

and the Tetragrammaton throughout the Apocryphon c may םיהלא The exchange between 202 be significant, in particular when comparing the final two columns of the work in 4Q385a 18 i–ii. It is interesting that Jeremiah is found explicitly in the presence of yhwh in the former, while in the latter, the Egyptian Jewish community implores Jeremiah to seek “God”: an action that appears based on his response to be untoward and inappropriate. Compare also with 4Q385a 16 7, in the latter portion of the eschatological discourse, in which the partakers of God’s inheritance are said to “seek yhwh.” 172 chapter 3

3.5 Conclusion: The Apocryphon of Jeremiah c As a Jeremianic Composition

In her description of the Apocryphon c manuscripts, Werman takes note of the following features which are pertinent to providing a framework for the entire composition. First, she describes its contents consisting of three narrative levels which she identifies according to three speakers: the first is an anonymous narrator who tells the story of Jeremiah’s life after the exile, his accompaniment of the outgoing Judaeans on their way to Babylon, and his time spent in Egypt. The second speaker is presumably Jeremiah, who warns and teaches both the Babylonian and the Egyptian settlers against idolatry. The third speaker is God, who delivers an historical review followed by a prophecy concerning the specific sins of the past generations and what to expect in the years to come after the exile.203 Second, Werman takes note of the perspective the Apocryphon c holds of the exile from the land, in which God is pictured “hiding his face” while allowing the subjugation of Israel to foreign rule.204 Third, during this time in which God withholds his favour, the people are recurrently depicted wilfully engaging in sin and idol worship, which Werman connects to a very poor view of the Hellenistic period up to the rule and the decrees of Anti- ochus iv.205 The Apocryphon c is explicitly connected to the prophet Jeremiah via the narrative portions, and one is able to discern a level of correspondence between the account of Jeremiah among the Egyptian Jews in 4Q385a 18 ii in particular and the apocalyptic discourse. In the estimation of both Dimant and Doering, the importance of Jeremiah’s appearance in this text cannot be understated. Doering has portrayed the prophet Jeremiah as a teacher and leader par excellence for the period of the Jewish dispersion, analogous to Moses’ presentation as a national leader and icon in the post-Sinaitic narratives.206 He contends effectively that Jeremiah is configured as a “new Moses” who instructs the Baby- lonian Golah and the Egyptian Diaspora in matters of Toraparänese (good Jew- ish conduct in exile).207 According to Dimant,

203 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 231–232. 204 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 237–239. 205 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 242. 206 Cf. Dimant, “From the Book of Jeremiah,” 460–461. 207 The analogous connection between the figures of Jeremiah and Moses has long been recognised and commented upon; cf. Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristen- tum, 79–83; Dimant, “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 25ff.; George J. Brooke, “Parabiblical 4qapocryphon of jeremiah ca (4q385a) 173

The prophet thus inaugurated a new era in which worship by practicing Torah commandments replaced the Temple ritual. Both the transmission of commandments and the warning against idolatry are linked to the cessation of the Temple ritual. Jeremiah emerges from the Apocryphon as a national religious leader and teacher, whose moral and intellectual stature invest him with the authority necessary to lead his people at their crucial hour and to lay the foundations for Jewish life in exile. He thus stands in analogy to Moses, an analogy found in other contemporary works.208

As indicated in the synopsis above, the Apocryphon c’s apocalyptic recounting of Israel’s history according to her covenantal responsibilities, and her ultimate failure to “seek” and to “walk” in the presence of God was substantiated on either end by the pillars of Jeremiah’s prodigious reputation: the prototypical Jewish leader in the new age of spiritual “exile” in the Hellenistic world. The ideal exilic man. While Jeremiah is never mentioned in 4Q390, Dimant found a convergence of terminology and expressions with other parts in the narrative portions of the Apocryphon c that prompted her to include this manuscript as a copy of the same composition. In her words, upon recognising the existence of verbal and thematic links between 4Q390 and the account of Jeremiah in accompanying the outgoing exiles in 4Q385a 18 i, “the identification of the addressee with Jeremiah imposed itself.”209 A variety of intricate relationships between the first column of 4Q385a 18 and 4Q390 are discernible, especially when juxtaposed against the contents of 4Q385a 18 ii and the apocalyptic discourse elsewhere in the Apocryphonc. When considered together and in contradistinction to one another based on the different responses that Jeremiah exhibits towards the Egyptian diaspora and the Babylonian captives, the classification of 4Q390 as “Jeremianic”—and closely related to the rest of the Apocryphon c—emerges

Prophetic Narratives,” 282; Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 384: “For the Qumran community who passed down these texts, both Moses’ prophetic status and Jeremiah’s Mosaic status seem to have been of particular interest”; Dimant, djd 30, 105; Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 61; also in n. 55 he suggests that this motif is already apparent in the Deuteronomist’s handling of Jeremiah’s prophetic call in Jer 1.7b, 9b; cf. Gunther Wanke, Jeremia, Teilband 1 (zbk / at 20/1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1995), 20f. 208 Dimant, djd 30, 105. 209 Dimant, djd 30, 3; cf. 4Q385a 18 i 7–8; ii 8; 4Q390 1 6; 2 i 4–5, p. 162. 174 chapter 3 more clearly. These features will be explored in greater depth in the following chapter, relative to the Apocryphon c in an effort to develop a more diachronic and synchronic perspective of how the two texts were intricately connected, and interdependent. chapter 4 4Q390 and the Second Temple Apocalypse Redux

When Cana Werman assessed the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c juxtaposed with 4Q390, she argued for retaining Devorah Dimant’s original title for the latter text, Pseudo-Moses, primarily on the basis that Jeremiah is never mentioned by name, and also because of the manner of direct address by which God speaks to the recipient, characteristic of other forms of Mosaic discourse.1 This is not so for the Apocryphon c, in which the presentation of Jeremiah as a founder and source for new revelation fairly clearly characterises this text as a participant in Jeremianic discourse. Dimant identified 4Q390 as an additional copy of the Apocryphon c based on the extremely close literary and thematic parallels between these texts, and in the absence of any explicit mention of Jeremiah.2 One would assume from Dimant’s confidence that the links between 4Q390 and the Apocryphon c reveal a continuity in the same Jeremianic traditions that appear more explicitly in the latter, but does 4Q390 qualify in a similar sense as a text tied to the same founder, Jeremiah the prophet, even in his absence? In this chapter I shall seek to answer this question affirmatively through undertaking a thorough analysis of 4Q390 in two parts. In the first part, Dimant’s assertion that 4Q390 is another copy of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c will be scrutinised in the course of the following three investigations: her claim will be subjected first, to a re-consideration of the material reconstruction of the text; second, to a brief survey of the handling of verbal future expressions in 4Q390; and third, a comparative study of the ideological and theological emphases present in 4Q390 and in the Apocryphon c drawn from the synopsis in the preceding chapter. The results of this examination will serve to demonstrate the greater probability that 4Q390 is actually a different composition, distinct from the Apocryphon c, and not another copy of the same text. In the second section, the text and translation of 4Q390 will be juxtaposed and examined in parallel with the “Second Temple Apocalypse” (Apocalypse i), which is reconstructed from the overlaps between the witnesses to the Apoc- ryphon c.3 The situation of these fragments concurrently will serve to illustrate

1 Werman, “Epochs, and End-Time,” 229, n. 3. 2 Dimant, djd 30, esp. 3, 93. 3 Cf. from the previous chapter, the reconstructions of 4Q385a frgs. 3–5, and the overlaps with 4Q387 1–3, 4Q388a 3, 7 ii, 4Q389 8 ii.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278448_006 176 chapter 4 the close structural and literary relationships that bind these two compositions together, and will bolster the assertion that while 4Q390 is unequivocally not a copy of the Apocryphon c, it nevertheless is clearly a closely related composition that is perhaps best characterised as a redux of the Second Temple Apocalypse (Apocalypse i). For the purposes of this study, 4Q390 is comparatively designated relative to Apocalypse i as “Apocalypse ii.” This chapter will lay the groundwork for the following chapter, in which the character and persona of Jeremiah will be explored as part of a broader Jeremi- anic tradition that is extant in various manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, as a critical part of this process, it is necessary before embarking upon the detailed investigation of 4Q390 to enter into consideration the very brief contents of the other highly fragmentary Jeremiah compositions from Qumran, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah a (4Q383), the Apocryphon of Jeremiah b? (4Q384), and 4Q387a: a selection of small fragments that appear related to the Apocryphon c, but contain no overlaps with any of the primary witnesses. The inclusion of these texts will help to provide a context of compositional plurality for the Jeremianic traditions, into which 4Q390 most naturally fits.

4.1 More Apocrypha of Jeremiah: The Apocryphon of Jeremiah a–b? (4Q383, 4Q384), and 4Q387a in Perspective

4.1.1 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah a (4Q383) In addition to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390, two other texts from Qumran have received the designation Apocryphon of Jeremiah.4 The Apoc- ryphon of Jeremiah a (4Q383) was published by Dimant in the same volume with Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c.5 Dimant describes the six, small fragments of 4Q383 as “clearly linked to the prophet since some of them mention his name explicitly and appear to deal with episodes connected with his career.”6 Dimant was hesitant to include 4Q383 as another copy of the Apocryphon c, owing to its distinction in which Jeremiah is the subject of a first-person address; a feature that never occurs anywhere in the larger

4 Cf. also 6Q12, which Dimant, djd 30, 94, suggested may constitute another copy of the Apocryphon, owing to the similarity in words and apparent common theme. However, given that the elements in this small fragment are quite commonplace, she is rightly hesitant to adopt this as another copy of the same work, or even as part of the same Jeremianic tradition. Cf. Baillet, djd 3, 126. 5 Dimant, djd 30, 117–127. 6 Dimant, djd 30, 117. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 177

Apocryphon c.7 Because of its poor condition, it is not possible to determine the nature of this composition, nor much of its content. However, the following observations from the text suffice to show that this text is rightly included as part of a Jeremianic tradition: first, Jeremiah is mentioned explicitly in two and I, Jeremiah, bitterly we[ep”), and“ , באוכבהימריינאו [ הכ ) places, in frgs. 1 2 .(”they[ did not list]en to the words of Jeremi[ah“ משאלו ] ימריירבדלוע [ה) in 2 2 Second, the pericope in frg. 2 suggests that a public gathering is in view, and featuring an exhortation by Jeremiah, just as in 4Q389 1, 4Q385a 18 i 7–11, and 18 ii 5–10. Third, the first line of frg. 1 presents Jeremiah in mourning, similar to his depiction in parts of the book of Jeremiah, such as in Jer 13:15–17, and in the Apocryphon c, in 4Q385a 18 ii 4–5. There are several other interesting locutions in the text, such as the mention Its .( ̇שונאולץראב [ תב ,of exile or abandonment in “an unin[habited ]land[” (1 3 appearance here in the context of the weeping Jeremiah from l. 2 is particularly intriguing, in that it seems to be part of an entreaty or prediction of a reply, “he perhaps from God. This would coalesce with the prominent ,( הנעי ) ”,will answer theme from the Apocryphon c of “seeking” the favour of God (cf. e.g. 4Q385a 1 ii 4; 4Q387 2 ii 2; 4Q389 2 1), and his response in the blessing with or removal of his presence (e.g. 4Q387 2 ii 9; 4Q389 2 7). In another fragment there is mention of a l. 3). Both ,ה] יבוהלהטמ [ל) ”4Q383 5 2) as well as a “staff to lead , לובג ) ”boundary“ of these would be in keeping with the features in the Apocryphon c of the exile and the desolation of the land (cf. e.g. 4Q387 2 iii 3–4), as well as the concern for national leadership that appears in particular within the narratives about Jeremiah in 4Q385a frg. 18. While the remains of 4Q383 are too fragmentary from which to draw many far reaching conclusions, they do show a level of thematic consistency with the Apocryphon c, and further promote themselves as possible members of a similar Jeremianic tradition.

4.1.2 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah b? (4Q384) 4Q384 was published by Mark S. Smith five years prior to Dimant’s volume, in Qumran Cave 4 xiv: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (djd 19).8 The manuscript consists of 27 fragments, four of which have preserved text from separate columns (frgs. 11, 12, 18, and 19), albeit, in such a poor state, that none of these fragments contains a single complete word. 4Q384 was assigned the designation Apocryphon of Jeremiah b? on the basis of a smattering of locutions with Jeremianic tradi- frg. 7 2; cf. 4Q385a ,] נפחתל̊א [ס) ”tions, most notably, the mention of “Tahpanes

7 Dimant, djd 30, 117, 119. 8 Broshi et al., djd 19, 137–152. 178 chapter 4

.frg , םיבשהלא ) ”ii 1, 6; Jer 43:7; 44:1), but also the appearance of “the captives 18 20 3; cf. §22, 4Q385a 4 9 || 4Q389 8 ii 3; cf. 4Q385a 18 i 7; also 4Q390 1 5; Jer 30:10; 46:27), who are almost certainly either the Babylonian exiles or the Egyp- tian Jewish community. Perhaps most intriguing in 4Q384 is the construction -in frg. 9 1, which Smith has restored to read “book of the divi מ] ̊תעהתוקלח [ םי sions of times.” This appears similar to the title for the book of Jubilees as it , םהיחועובשבוםהילבוילםיתעהתוקלחמרפס ) appears in the Damascus Document cd 16:3–4; 4Q270 6 ii 17; 4Q271 4 ii 5).9 An affinity with Jubilees is not at all surprising, especially given the preponderance throughout the Apocryphon c for the jubilees inspired chronology that functions as a lens for interpreting the Second Temple history (cf. 4Q387 2 ii 3–4). Moreover, this composition may also provide a thematic link with 4Q390—which is also very closely related to the Damascus Document and Jubilees—as a part of the same Jeremianic tradition. The unfortunately poor condition in which both the Apocrypha of Jeremiah a–b have survived prevents one from forming many concrete conclusions. Moreover, there is still room for healthy debate about the status of these manuscripts, and whether they may be considered as additional witnesses to the Apocryphon c. Without venturing into these debates, the contribution of these fragments to this study is twofold: first, both texts appear to provide evidence for a wider Jeremianic tradition extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls, possibly in multiple compositions, including the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. Second, the clear concern for the conditions and effects of exile, for empire and leadership, and the allusion to a similar chronological schema in 4Q384 as in the Apoc- ryphon c and 4Q390 suggests that these texts fit well within this same tradition. Further, it is possible to posit from these texts that these matters were points of emphasis within the surviving stream of Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The supplementary Apocrypha help to illuminate the backdrop against which 4Q390 ought to be considered as a distinct Jeremianic composition, not necessarily identical to but closely associated with the Apocryphon c.

9 But cf. Devorah Dimant, “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: The So-Called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation of Jubilees in cd 16:3–4,” in Studiesin the HebrewBible,Qumranand the Sep- tuagint presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam; VTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 230–249. Dimant challenges the dependence of the Damas- cus Document on Jubilees according to a strangely narrow definition, but given the wording of the quotation and the clear relationships between the two compositions, it is reasonably appropriate to characterise Jubilees as a source for cd. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 179

4.1.3 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cf (4Q387a) 4Q387a was originally assigned to 4Q387 1–4, owing to some similarities in the script. However, the difference in their physical appearance as well as the shape of the fragments led Dimant to group them together on their own apart from 4Q387.10 She maintains that the nine fragments comprising this group originate from a separate copy of the same composition, and she considers them part of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, despite the absence of any overlapping text.11 This is a problem at the outset that is present from Dimant’s handling of these fragments. First, there is no good reason to believe that even if they are all surviving from the same manuscript they constitute another copy of the Apocryphon c.12 Qimron has recently suggested in his new edition that frg. 5 forms an overlap with 4Q385a 1 ii 4, but with only a single word from which to construe an alignment, we must reject his suggestion as far too conjectural.13 Second, there is also much uncertainty about the ascription of this text to the Jeremianic tradition, since there is no mention of Jeremiah, no citations from or allusions to the text of scriptural Jeremiah or other Jeremianic texts, and nothing that presents itself as exclusively Jeremianic. In the absence of any evidence, we must conclude that 4Q387a does not unambiguously qualify as a witness to the Qumran Jeremianic tradition. Nevertheless, there are a handful of intriguing literary features in the surviving scraps that deserve some mention: and this quite possibly relates to , בוש Frg. 1 1 has preserved three letters themes of sin, exile, and return that are common in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, ”the river“ , רהנה and in the Apocryphon c as well as in 4Q390. In frg. 6 2 the word is extant at the right edge of the margin. This may reflect some relationship to the narrative introduction and conclusion in the Apocryphon c, which features the Babylonian exilic community reading the words of Jeremiah on the banks of the River Sur (4Q389 1 7), and recalls their receptivity to his instruction on the banks of “the river” as they depart from Judah into Babylon (4Q385a 18 i 7). In frg. 4, the context appears to contain first-person direct speech most likely attributed yhwh, just as in the historical discourses in the Apocryphon c, as and I gave it to them,” which“ ,] םהלהננתא̊ו[ well as in 4Q390. 4Q387a 4 2 reads

10 Dimant, djd 30, 255, comments on Strugnell’s scepticism regarding the assignment of these fragments to 4Q387, and further notes that he seems to have separated them, judging from their appearance together apart from 4Q387 in pam 44.187. 11 Dimant, djd 30, 255. 12 Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 101. is extant only in these ורחשב ,It does bear mentioning that the construction in question 13 two manuscripts from the Qumran scrolls, and is unattested in the Hebrew Bible. 180 chapter 4 could refer to the inheritance of the land that seems to be featured in 4Q389 4. walking“ , ̇ל̊התה̇ל [ך In the following line is an appearance of the Hiphil infinitive from their enemies,” directly below in l. 4. These are“ , םהיביאמ around,” as well as all familiar terms appearing in the Apocryphon c: the first is key to describing the condition of the people’s commitment to yhwh (see e.g. 4Q387 2 ii 4; 4Q389 2 7; see also 4Q390 1 3, 12), and the success or failure in their communal dwelling is the tangible measure of this condition ךלהתה with God that is signalled by (see e.g. 4Q385a 1 ii 2; 4Q387 1 7, 9). In frg. 5 there is a triad of significant terms, each preserved on successive Benjamin,” followed in l. 3 by the“ , ןימינב lines. In l. 1, there is mention of in his earnest pursuit,” which recalls David’s“ , רחש appearance of the verb approach to yhwh in 4Q385a 1 ii 4. More generally, this fragment would seem to adhere to the prominent theme of “seeking” God that consistently recurs throughout the Apocryphon c, but possibly in a polemical appraisal of the tribe of Benjamin, who is elsewhere distinguished from the idealised Israel in 4Q385a 18 ii 7.14 These terms and their apparent context provide some reason to assert that 4Q387a is related to the Apocryphon c by way of thematic and literary appeal. However, there is simply not enough evidence to forward this claim with much force. Unlike 4Q383 and 4Q384, 4Q387a stands as a collection of fragments that display some lexical and perhaps literary or thematic overlap with the Apocryphon c, but it contributes very little to this study of Jeremianic traditions from these distinctions alone.

4.2 4Q390: Differentiation from the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, and the Evidence for Reworking

4.2.1 Material Rationale for Separation According to Berner, the stylistic and literary similarities that Dimant featured in common between 4Q390 and the Apocryphon c are necessary, but insuffi- cient criteria for asserting that the former is a fifth copy of the latter.15 This opinion is echoed by Eshel; in both of his treatments of 4Q390 he posits that the absence of any overlaps between 4Q390 and any of the other four Apoc- which Dimant, djd 30, 258 cautiously translates “from him.” It is , ו̇ילעמ In 4Q387 5 2 appears 14 as “his rebellions,” in keeping with the distinction ןימינב tempting in the same context with of Benjamin from idealised Israel in 4Q385a 18 ii 7. However, the plural form of this noun is absent from both the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting that Dimant’s translation is almost certainly correct. 15 Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen, 398. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 181 ryphon c manuscripts indicates most likely that 4Q390 is an “independent work.”16 Dimant has countered this claim by asserting that the elimination of 4Q390 exclusively on materialistic grounds “is to go beyond reasonable deduction.”17 She maintains that “4Q390 exemplifies a case in which, in the absence of physical overlapping between the manuscripts, literary resemblance can and should serve as criterion for associating them.”18 This contention finds some material support in Dimant’s supposition made in the editio princeps that the absence of patterns in appearance and shape in the two large fragments from 4Q390 suggests that they are not successive, but rather separated from one another by “at least three or four” intervening columns of text,19 which she believes would account for the missing overlaps.20 Her protestations notwithstanding, the want for any textual overlaps between 4Q390 and the Apocryphon c manuscripts does indeed present a significant obstacle to her position, and the merits of her arrangement of the fragments requires further testing. While she does clearly identify the rationale in her argument, she does not provide much detail as to the precise nature of the inconsistencies that have prompted her assertion that this must be the case. Is there enough evidence from her construal of the shape and the patterns of wear in the fragments to conclude that they must not have been successive? In an effort to address Dimant’s contention, I have attempted my own arrangement of the fragments of 4Q390, included in the attached Figure 4.1. on the following page. The first thing one will notice from the image is that the lines in frg. 2 are not straight, and that the “rolling effect” has caused the beginning and end of each line on the two large pieces to slope upwards towards either end. This in turn will likely affect both the placement of this fragment on the horizontal axis relative to frg. 1, and will also affect the angle of that placement, as frg. 1 has not experienced the same effect. In the attached figure, frg. 2 has been situated at the immediate left edge of frg. 1, and on a +13˚ angle that reflects this phenomenon. Furthermore, this arrangement receives additional confirmation in the alignment of the vertical cracks and creases at the

16 Eshel, “4Q390,” 104, n. 6; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 24, n. 30. 17 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36. 18 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36–37. 19 Dimant, djd 30, 249. 20 This counts as the best evidence for the Dimant’s impression of 4Q390, and she criticises Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen, und Jubiläen, 398–399, and Henze, “Two ‘Historical’ Apoca- lypses,” 38 for situating frg. 1 and 2 in direct succession. However, Dimant’s claim that a full three or four columns of intervening material must fill the lacuna seems to follow from her supposition that this gap must be filled by the content in 4Q387 frgs. 1–3. 182 chapter 4

figure 4.1

A proposed arrangement for the fragments of 4Q390 based on pam 43.506. Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 183 left edge of frg. 1 and in frg. 2.21 The situation of the fragments as such produces a distance from the highest points “c” and “e” on frg. 2, and the high-point “a1,” that appears to be in relatively close accordance with Steudel’s assertion that “frg. 1 must be placed on the right side of frg. 2 at a distance of corresponding points of about 9.5cm.”22 Based on the average margin size extant between col. i and ii in frg. 2, this fragment has been positioned to allow for an 11–17mm margin between frg. 1 7 and 2 i 5. However, the size of this margin is likely to increase in the event that frg. 1 and frg. 2 form the left and right edges of successive sheets. Nevertheless, this location does account for the shape and angle of the break between the fragments at their nearest point in 1 5–8 and 2 i 3–6, and this serves at the outset as a plausible arrangement for these pieces relative to one another. Several points have been designated on the image with letters a2–j, that correspond to the “peaks” and “valleys” on the top and bottom, produced by the manner in which the scroll deteriorated in its rolled state. One will notice that distances between the points at each valley and peak decrease from left- to-right on frg. 2. The measurement for each is roughly 65mm between f–e, 56.5mm between e–d, 53mm between d–c, and 41mm between c–b2. The distances between the high point a on frg. 1 and the initial two low points b1 and b2 on frg. 2 measures 42 and 56mm respectively. Most interesting in this exercise is a convergence between some of these figures: the distances between points a2– b2, b1–c, c–d and d–e are all within 3mm of one another. In its situation to the immediate right of frg. 2 and on this horizontal axis, one can see a correspondence between the size and shape of quadrant i on frg. 1, and quadrants ii and iii on frg. 2. All three are very close to the same size, with similar dimensions, and all three very plausibly conform to Stegemann’s designation as “patterned shapes.”23 Furthermore, all three quadrants are situated on a precise -13˚ angle relative to one another, which is a reciprocation of the placement of frg. 2 in the first step of this exercise.24 These observed relationships would seem to nullify

21 Cf. Wise, “4Q245 and the High Priesthood,” 318–323 for a good comparative example of analysing damage patterns for the relative placement of fragments in a scroll. ,in the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16/2 (1993): 225–246, 240 םימיהתירחא “ ,Annette Steudel 22 n. 76. 23 Stegemann, “Methods for Reconstruction,” 194. The similarity between the three quadrants is also clearly evident on the old pam 41.367 that was produced before the two pieces of frg. 1 were joined. 24 According to Stegemann’s method for situating fragments according to the calculation for the circumference of the scroll, the diameter of 4Q390 for frgs. 1 and 2 may be inversely estimated based on the distances between the high point a2 on frg. 1 and c on frg. 184 chapter 4 the force of Dimant’s insistence on “different sizes of damage patterns” as characteristic of these fragments. Of course, one would not expect the measurements in the breaks to match exactly in such a fragmentary manuscript. In accordance with Stegemann’s observations regarding the distance between corresponding gaps in the fragments that increase or decrease depending upon the direction in which a scroll was last rolled,25 it analogously suggests that the dimensions of the shapes themselves will similarly either increase or decrease in like fashion. Such is the case with the two large fragments of 4Q390; although, owing to its fragmentary nature, the precision with which one might detect such patterns is limited. As Steudel has rightly cautioned, “[n]ature has its own rules, and every fragment has its own history after the scroll has fallen apart.”26 Nevertheless, this conservative injunction must be balanced against the actual results of the process: “In the final analysis, however, the most decisive evaluation of a material reconstruction is whether the text actually works.”27 Cana Werman, Christoph Berner, and Hanan Eshel have each independently produced a synopsis of the successive arrangement of the fragments of 4Q390 that actually works. Eshel, for one, concluded with regards to the arrangement of these fragments that frg. 2 appears to be a continuation of frg. 1, and as a result, designated the surviving text in frg. 1 and 2 i as “col. i” and “col. ii” in his transcription.28 While the proposed arrangement of the fragments in close succession is in no way assured, this exercise has at minimum served to demonstrate that such a placement is indeed sustainable.29 Dimant’s situation of these fragments at a distance of 3–4 columns from one another appears according to these results to have been motivated entirely by her opinion that 4Q390 is another copy of the

2 to be 29.33mm, and 32.26mm between c–e on frg. 2. This would suggest about a single millimetre’s difference in revolutions for this scroll (cf. Stegemann, “Methods for Reconstruction,” 195). 25 Stegemann, “Methods for Reconstruction,” 194–195. 26 Steudel, “Assembling and Reconstructing Manuscripts,” 532. 27 Steudel, “Assembling and Reconstructing Manuscripts,” 529; cf. also Pajunen, The Land to the Elect, 32–33. 28 Eshel, “4Q390,” 104, n. 6. 29 Cf. also Michael A. Knibb, “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C.J. Labuschagne; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 164–177, 173–174. Knibb points out that on its own the context of frg. 2 ii is historically ambiguous, and perhaps actually describes events in the pre-exilic period, similar to the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 185

Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, necessitating its arrangement within the historical discourse in the Apocryphon c at points in which the fragments seem best to fit. If the content in 4Q390 can be shown to be distinct from the Apocryphon c, and if it can be demonstrated to work well independently as a separate composition, then Dimant’s reconstruction should be rejected in favour of situating frg. 1 and frg. 2 in immediate succession. Dimant’s insistence on including 4Q390 as a copy of the Apocryphon c must also be weighed against the evidence gleaned from the entire collection of those Qumran scrolls that survive in multiple copies. Is her level of confidence in the identity of 4Q390 indeed beyond dispute? The answer to this question can perhaps emerge from a consideration of how scholars have identified overlaps between copies from the entire collection of Qumran scrolls. Data that is culled from groups of pre-existing compositions has proven to be instructive for editors in their assignment of individual scrolls to certain works.30 Over- laps between texts provide an unassailable level of surety that dwarfs any other such common denominators in its significance. The necessity of this factor is most clearly evident in the handling of the pesharim from Qumran: Take for example the case of the six Isaiah pesharim (3Q4, 4Q161–4Q165), which have preserved material from Isa 1:1, 5:5–6:9, 8:7–32:6, 10:22–11:5, 14:19–32:7, and 54:12, but without any preserved textual overlaps. From this group of texts that exhibit

30 Inventories of “biblical” scrolls are found in E. Tov and E. Ulrich, “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert,” in Tov, ed., djd 39, 165–201; cf. also E. Tov, with S.J. Pfann, “List of Texts from the Judean Desert,” in Tov, ed., djd 39, 27–114. The biblical scrolls appear in English translation in Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The presence of Nehemiah at Qumran is argued on account of the presence of 4QEzra, which plausibly followed the rabbinical conception that these were part of the same composition. Also Torleif Elgvin has suggested that ms 5426 from The Schøyen Collection, which preserves in part Neh 3:14–15, was possibly also found at Qumran; Elgvin, et al., eds., Gleanings from the Caves, but cf. the challenge from Émile Puech, “Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Totem Meer, Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten [Review],” RevQ 25/97 (2011): 155–156. For lists and classifications of so-called “non-biblical” scrolls cf. Cf. Devorah Dimant, “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume Two: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; psjco; Waco, Tex.: Baylor, 2006), 447–467; James C. VanderKam, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” in Charlesworth, ed., The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2: 469–491; Peter W. Flint, “‘Apocrypha,’ Other Previously Known Writings.” From Flint’s inventory, only the Epistle of Jeremiah (7Q2) and the apocryphal Psalms 151 a–b, 154, and 155 from 11Q5 survived at Qumran in only individual copies (pp. 34–52). Dimant, 450–452 also includes a single copy of Text about Naphtali (4Q215). 186 chapter 4 a very clear thematic and generic similarity, there is only one referential overlap between 4QpIsaa (4Q161) 2–4 2–10 (= Isa 10:22–27) and 4QpIsac (4Q163) 4–7 ii 19–21 (= Isa 10:23–24), which indicates definitively that these two scrolls are not copies of the same composition. Factoring into consideration the other four, in which pericopae from parts of scriptural Isaiah different from one another have survived, there is some sanction—according to Dimant’s criterion of “literary resemblance”—for assigning these to the same composition. After all, the content of these four manuscripts all appear within the lacunae of one another, and all exhibit a high level of thematic and literary resemblance, and yet scholars have tended to resist this temptation primarily for the absence of textual overlaps between these texts.31 Similarly, classifications that could potentially fit Dimant’s criterion have been avoided for the so-called “pseudo- Jubilees” texts, 4Q225–4Q227, 4Q482, and 4Q483, and for the several Reworked Pentateuch texts (4Q158, 4Q364, 4Q365, 4Q366, 4Q367), among others. In short, the model supplied in the handling of previously known writings from Qumran demonstrates the substantial weight of textual overlapping for the assignment of scrolls, and in no way does this practice of cautionary minimalism “go beyond reasonable deduction.”32 Among the so-called “non-biblical” scrolls, an independent survey of the collection reveals 144 individual manuscripts that overlap with at least one other text within a total of 35 previously unknown compositions.33 An additional

31 Cf. most recently Flint, “The Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah,” esp. 402–403, in which the evidence for various versions forming the base-text of each pesher is discussed, and potentially serves as a criterion for separating the individual copies. 32 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36. 33 The number is reduced from 146 because of the joining of 4Q432+4Q471b and 4Q505+ 4Q509. These texts include d (4Q266, 4Q267, 4Q268, 4Q269, 4Q270, 4Q271, 4Q272, 4Q273, 5Q12, 6Q15); the Book of Giants (1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q530, 4Q531, 4Q532, 4Q533, 6Q8); Instruction (1Q26, 4Q415, 4Q416, 4Q417, 4Q418, 4Q418a, 4Q423); Mysteries (1Q27, 4Q299, 4Q300); s (1Q28, 4Q255, 4Q256, 4Q257, 4Q258, 4Q259, 4Q260, 4Q261, 4Q262, 4Q263, 4Q264, 5Q11, 11Q29); the Apocryphon of Moses (1Q29, 4Q376, 4Q408); New Jerusalem (2Q24, 4Q554, 4Q555, 5Q15, 11Q18); m (1Q33, 4Q491, 4Q492, 4Q494, 4Q495, 4Q496); Festival Prayers (1Q34, 1Q34bis, 4Q508, 4Q509+4Q505); h (1Q35, 4Q427, 4Q428, 4Q429, 4Q430, 4Q431, 4Q432, + 4Q471b); Ordinances (4Q159, 4Q513); Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243, 4Q244); Tohorot b (4Q276, 4Q277); Sefer Milhamah (4Q285, 11Q14); 4QBerakhot (4Q286, 4Q287, 4Q288); Narrative and Poetic Composition (2Q22, 4Q371, 4Q372, 4Q373); Mishmarot b / c (4Q321, 4Q321a); Mishmarot a / f / g (4Q324i, 4Q328, 4Q329); Prayer of Enosh (4Q369, 4Q499 [designated 4QpapHymns/Prayers]); Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385, 4Q386, 4Q388); Apocryphon of Jeremiah c (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389); mmt (4Q394, 4Q395, 4Q396, 4Q397, 4Q398, 4Q399); ShirotOlathaShabbat (4Q400, 4Q401, 4Q402, 4Q403, 4Q404, 4Q405, 4Q406, 11Q17); 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 187

12 manuscripts appear as probable candidates to be comprised as part of this group, including 4Q390, on the basis of similarities in content, language, style, and other distinguishing features. Some of these texts are more clearly assumed as such on the basis of exceptional defining characteristics, such as the exclusive appearance of the phrase “Song of the Sacrifice of the Sabbath” in 4Q406 1 4, or the peculiar feature of trees to symbolise “the four kingdoms” in 4Q552, 4Q553, and 4Q553a.34 However, for the vast majority of these non-overlapping texts, a healthy level of scepticism endures, and scholars are understandably hesitant to adopt individual manuscripts as parts of existing compositions in the absence of textual overlaps.35 Of course, in many of these instances, one must be open to the probability that not all individual copies of fragmentary compositions will overlap. Nevertheless, there is considerable warrant to

Ways of Righteousness (4Q264a, 4Q420, 4Q421); Sapiential Work b (4Q419, 4Q466); Barki Nafshi (4Q434, 4Q435, 4Q436, 4Q437, 4Q438); Lament + Narrative i (4Q439, 4Q469 cf. Tigchelaar, “More Identifications,” pp. 61–63; also Tigchelaar, “Annotated List,” p. 313.); Nar- rative c (4Q462, 4Q467 [designated 4QText Mentioning Light of Jacob]); Self Glorification Hymn (4Q471b, 4Q491c); Paroles des Luminaries (4Q504, 4Q506); Songs of the Sage (4Q510, 4Q511); Birth of Noah (4Q534, 4Q535, 4Q536); Visions of Amram (4Q543, 4Q544, 4Q545, 4Q546, 4Q547); Four Kingdoms (4Q552, 4Q553); t (11Q19, 11Q20, 11Q21, 4Q524). This inventory was compiled from Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “Annotated Lists of Overlaps and Parallels in the Non-biblical Texts from Qumran and Masada,” in E. Tov, ed., djd 39, 285–322, esp. 295– 318, in conjunction with data from the Accordance Qumran Non-Biblical Manuscripts module v. 3.1 © Martin G. Abegg, Jr., 1999–2009; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition; Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Transla- tion; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Revised and Expanded (sdssrl; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008). 34 Emile Puech, Qumran Cave 4.xxvii: Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550–575, 580–582 (djd 37; Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), 57–58. 35 Cf. e.g. Lawrence H. Schiffman, “4QMysteries (4Q299–301),” in Qumran Cave 4, xv: Sapien- tial Texts, Part 1, (ed. T. Elgvin, et al.; djd 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 33–123, 114, where he argues for the exclusion of 4Q301 from 4QInstruction; Ian c. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (stdj 72; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 218 questions the appropriateness of the designation “4QOrdinances c” for 4Q514; Wise, “4Q245 and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” 316 on the exclusion of 4Q245 from the other Pseudo-Daniel texts; James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (ecdss 6; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 86, on the uncertainty of the assignment of 4Q407 to the Shirot ʿOlat haShabbat texts; Robert R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547) (New York: Peter Lang, 2010) 35–42, argues convincingly for 4Q546 and 4Q547 as separate compositions, distinct from the Visions of Amram; Jonathan G. Campbell, Exegetical Texts (cqs; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 67, on the improbability that 4Q180 and 4Q181 are part of the same work. 188 chapter 4 remain open to alternative possibilities that make better sense of all the available data. While Dimant has made a reasonable case for the identification of 4Q390 with the rest of the Apocryphon c manuscripts, her confidence in its assignment is excessive, especially given the more plausible objections raised by Werman,36 Berner,37 Eshel,38 and others.39 As the subsequent discussion will demonstrate, there are valid reasons for maintaining the association between 4Q390 and the Apocryphon c, but association is not to be confused with the sort of direct identification that Dimant assumes. 4Q390 may remain closely related to the content and structure of the Apocryphon c; it may be part of a wider collection of Jeremianic texts that included 4Q383, 4Q384, and perhaps others; and it is still to be regarded distinct from these other texts as a separate composition altogether.

4.2.2 Variation in Verbal Constructions in 4Q390 A second feature that distinguishes 4Q390 from the Apocryphon c appears in the high frequency of conjunctive imperfect verbs for expressions of the future. While there are only three instances in the entire Apocryphon c,40 there is an overwhelmingly greater frequency of this phenomenon in 4Q390, where it appears in 12 clear examples out of 19 possibilities.41 This discrepancy represents a difference of more than 5:1 in the use of the conjunctive imperfect in 4Q390 in place of the more common perfect wāw-consecutive in the Apocry- phon c for expressions of the future.42 Such an inordinately high level of distribution when compared to the Apocryphon c enforces the impression that 4Q390 is likely not another copy of the same text. frg. 2 i 9) in , וקושעיוולוזגי ) The appearance of the long o “pausal” imperfects 4Q390 bears some mention, especially when compared to the Apocryphon c where there are none. It should be noted that there is frequently considerable orthographic and morphological variation between copies of Qumran compositions, and this item alone does not necessarily serve as compelling evidence

36 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time.” 37 Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen. 38 Eshel, “4Q390.” 39 Cf. e.g. also Lawrence T. Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch 91–108 (cejl; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 55–56. .7 3 ערקתיו ,4Q387 2 ii 1 וקזחתו ;4Q385a 16 3 בסיו 40 41 These are only instances which are extant; cf. additionally three probable reconstructions .(frg. 2 i 5 ,[ חלשאו ] ;frg. 2 i 3 ,̊ו[ת] יה ;frg. 1 1 , או ] בוש ) 42 From the extant material, 3 / 27 future expressions as conjunctive imperfects in the Apocryphon c accounts for 11%, whereas it appears in 57% of futures in 4Q390. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 189 for separating 4Q390.43 Nevertheless, this usage of the long o imperfects in 4Q390 is considered by some to be a distinct feature of “Qumranic” Hebrew,44 and thus, there is some sanction for including this text as a product of something like the “Qumran scribal practice.”45 In his inventory of strong verbs in the Qumran scrolls, Martin G. Abegg shows that in the case of Qal second masculine plurals, “all eleven extant forms are plene,” and 81% of all Qal third masculine plural verbs are also in pausal form.46 According to Abegg, “[t]he fact that 83% of all other inflections normally exhibiting the theme vowel (i.e., not the second feminine singular) are plene argues that these so-called pausal forms of the second masculine and third masculine plural are regular for qh.”47 The presence of the pausal forms exclusively in 4Q390 indicates a correspon-

43 Cf. “Appendix9: Orthographic and Morphological Features of Texts Written in the Qumran Scribal Practice” in Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 337–343. Note the discrepancies that appear in columns 5 and 6 of the table, which track occurrences of second and third persons plural suffixes with nouns and inseparable prepositions respectively. In particular when assessing the differences within d (cd, 4Q266–4Q273) the Hodayot (1QHa–b, 4Q427– 4Q429, 4Q432), and the Temple Scroll (11QTa–b, 4Q524), one will notice a wide ranging mixture of occurrences in either direction; enough so to suggest that orthographic variance was commonplace within single works that are extant in multiple copies. Similarly for the gravitation between regular and long o imperfects, there seems to be no discernible pattern of consistency when comparing individual copies of compositions that are multi- ply attested. 44 Martin G. Abegg Jr., “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flint and VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, 1: 325–358, 339; cf. also idem, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead sea Scrolls: More than (Initially) Meets the Eye,” in Grossman, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, 48–68, 61–62. On the grammar in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cf. also Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (hss 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Tov, Textual Criticism, Third Edition, 101–102; Scribal Practices and Approaches, 266–270, and “Appendix 9,” 337–343. However, the use of the term “Qumranic Hebrew” is somewhat misleading, as noted by Tov, Textual Criticism (2nd edn.), 108: “In many ways, this was a Palestinian scribal system, but it would be equally, if not more, misleading, to call these texts Palestinian, since the use of such terminology would imply that there are no other Palestinian texts. The name Qumran practice merely indicates that as a scribal system it is known mainly from a number of Qumran scrolls, without implying that this practice was not used elsewhere in ancient Israel.” Cf. also Abegg, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 48–68. 45 The features of “Qumran scribal practice” are outlined in their greatest detail in Tov, Textual Criticism, Third Edition, 100–105, and Scribal Practices and Approaches, 261–273, cf. also “Appendix 1: Characteristic Features of the Qumran Scribal Practice,” 277–288. 46 Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 339. 47 Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 339. 190 chapter 4 dence with Abegg’s observation of this feature as a potentially characteristic of Qumranic Hebrew, and indicates for this text a possible different scribal provenance than from the Apocryphon c manuscripts. Dimant believes that the peculiar use of so many conjunctive imperfect verbs for future expressions in some of the Qumran scrolls suggested that there is a “gradual disappearance of inverted forms in Qumran Hebrew.”48 However, this point requires some qualification, in that the vast majority of non-inverted forms in the Qumran scrolls appear with the qatal form of the perfect at the expense of the wayyiqtol form more common in biblical Hebrew.49 Neverthe- less, with regards to 4Q390, the high frequency of conjunctive imperfects in 4Q390 may then indicate that this is a later composition than the other Apoc- ryphon c manuscripts, in which there are only a handful of these non-inverted forms. There is some disagreement with regards to whether or not 4Q390 is classified as a “sectarian” text, and included with the other clear compositions of the Yaḥad Essene group that collected the scrolls at Qumran, such as the Damascus Document, the Serek ha Yaḥad the Hodayot, the Milḥāmāh, the several copies of the Pesharim, and the Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah.50 However, this same level of uncertainty does not extend to any other of the Apocryphon c manuscripts, and this also raises some doubt for Dimant’s hypothesis that 4Q390 is another copy of the same text. Berner and Werman have both suggested that 4Q390 is sectarian on the basis of the similarity between this scroll and those clearly Qumranic texts in their shared polemic against the lunar calendar, the accusations of corruption in the priesthood, and their repulsion for the practice of intermarriage.51 Despite these ideological similarities, Dimant, Eshel, and Henze have all argued against this premise because of the want for any dis-

48 Dimant, djd 30, 104. 49 Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 337–338. In Abegg’s inventory, the wǝyiqṭol form accounts for 8% of all expressions of future action, compared to 7% in bh, but there is conversely 5% fewer wǝqaṭal forms in qh than in bh. 50 Cf. Devorah Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M.E. Stone. crint 2/ii. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 483–550; idem, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Content and Significance,” and idem, “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character,” in Schiffman, Tov, and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery, 170–176. 51 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 246–247, Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen, 425. Werman draws comparisons between 4Q390 and cd 4:20–5:11, 1QpHab 8:8–13, and 4QMMT 3 5–7. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 191 tinctly sectarian terminology that is prevalent in virtually all of those texts commonly classified as Qumranic.52 Nevertheless, the theological affinities that persist between 4Q390 and the sectarian literature should not be overlooked. Even though she has cautiously designated 4Q390—along with the other Apoc- ryphon c manuscripts—as non-sectarian, Dimant states that the “Apocryphon of Jeremiah c cannot be identified simply as a sectarian document, nor, for that matter, as non-sectarian. It presents a type of intermediate category related, but not identical, to the sectarian literature.”53 Dimant believes that the Apoc- ryphon c, including 4Q390, and along with other texts found in the Qumran such as Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll, belongs to a category of literature that pre-dated the settlement of the Qumran site, and is representative of a proto- sectarian group of texts that formed the foundation for many later distinctive ideas and doctrines associated with the Yaḥad.54 If one were to more accurately represent all the Qumran texts on a spectrum ranging in various points between “sectarian” on the one end and “non- sectarian” at the other, it is likely that while the Apocryphon c manuscripts would find their place at the latter end, 4Q390 would be judged to be at least closer to the former. This does not necessarily require that 4Q390 is later than the Apocryphon c, although this does seem to be a probable conclusion to make, based on some of its scribal and grammatical features. What this rather does indicate is, at minimum, a distinction between these texts that reflects a plurality of communities that came to be considered part of a larger movement.55 Similarities and differences between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390

52 Dimant, djd 30, 112, also “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 38–39; Eshel, “4Q390,” 102, also The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 22; Henze, “Two ‘Histori- cal’ Apocalypses,” 32. 53 Dimant, djd 30, 112, cf. also 241, 244. It seems that the lion’s share of those features that she determined to be sectarian in nature stemmed from 4Q390. In her discussion, “The Apocryphon and Qumran Texts” on pp. 110–112, half of the references that she includes to show parallels with Qumranic ideas come from 4Q390. 54 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 110, 116, also idem, “New Light from Qumran,” 445–446. Dimant discusses this “intermediate category” elsewhere in idem, “Between Sectarian and non Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,” in Chazon, Dimant, and Clements, eds., Reworking the Bible, 105–134. Cf. also Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 22, n. 25, who notes that Dimant’s view of all the non-sectarian scrolls from Qumran is “[i]n keeping with her view that no further writings reached the sect after its establishment; she is therefore inclined to date all the works included in the non-sectarian scrolls to the second century bce” 55 As so argued by Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 51–66, and in Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 65–69. Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 230–231, n. 5, seems to 192 chapter 4 compare and contrast to show a sort of “radial-dialogic” that Alison Schofield applied to the observed variances in the copies of the Serek ha-Yaḥad:56 A model whereby “great traditions” would be universally disseminated across a movement, but supplemented by “little traditions” that distinguish individual community expressions.57 This observation is bolstered by the aforementioned scribal and grammatical peculiarities in 4Q390, as well as by some of its more distinctive features of terminology and theology, which will be discussed in greater detail in the following section. To summarise, the above discussion of various scribal and grammatical features of 4Q390 point to the following two conclusions: first, 4Q390 bears attributes that possibly indicate a different provenance than the other Apoc- ryphon c manuscripts. Second, the minor grammatical peculiarities in 4Q390 suggest that it may have been composed later than the Apocryphon c. The accumulation of evidence lends some supplemental weight to the physical features surveyed above that eliminate 4Q390 as another copy of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c.

4.2.3 Ideology, Religion, and History in 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c Werman noted three specific ideological features in 4Q390 that she said distinguished it from the other Apocryphon c manuscripts, but at the same time qualified 4Q390 as a sectarian text. In the first place, Werman surmised that there were differences in the nature of the accusations raised in each of the compositions: the Apocryphon c was primarily concerned with the sins and effects of “idolatry,” whereas 4Q390 raised various accusations: covenant infidelity (frg. 1 8; 2 i 5–6), forgetting the festivals (1 8; 2 i 10), robbery and usury (2 i 8–9), cultural exogamy (2 i 10), and desecration of the temple (2 i 9–10, ii 10– 11).58 According to Werman, the similarities between these charges and those commonly levelled throughout the Qumran corpora also qualifies 4Q390 as a

argue for a similar makeup of the Qumran sectarians as those “groups whose existence is implied by the sectarian scrolls,” while simultaneously makes “no claim for a link between Khirbet Qumran and these groups.” 56 Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 47–51. 57 Schofield’s is one of the more impressive sociological models applied to the nature of Qumran “sectarianism,” and is based on sociologist Robert Redfield, The Little Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), and his study of village interaction and development in rural Mexico. 58 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 246–247. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 193 sectarian text.59 These individual criteria point to a broader perspectival plane in which the authors of the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 seemingly harboured divergent opinions about such things as presence or the efficacy of the temple, the purpose of priesthood, and the interpretation of the seminal Jewish experience, that is, the nature and extent of the exile. When factored together, the impression is that these subtle differences point to variances in ideology and religion extant in the Apocryphon c and in 4Q390, and these would further indicate that the latter was not another copy of the former, but rather a separate composition altogether, produced within a marginally separated community, and for an alternative purpose.

4.2.3.1 The Second Temple How does each text describe and understand the temple, and what does this indicate about their own cultic ideals? There was likely high regard and fond memories of Solomon’s temple in the Apocryphon c: in 4Q385a 1 ii 7+2 1, the temple dedication service that was elsewhere recorded in 1Kgs 8:62–66, and 2Chron 7:1–3 is favourably recalled: “And I took from his hand a burnt offe[ring ] … and they prostrated themselves be[fore me].” The entire account of the united kingdom, which appears to be comparatively short, has disappeared in the lacuna between frgs. 1 ii + 2–3, but the destruction of the first temple and its aftermath is featured in two other places, in 4Q385a frg. 3 (4Q387 frg. 1 || 4Q388a frg. 3), and in 4Q385a 18 i. In the overlaps of the Second Temple Apocalypse between 4Q385a 3 6–7, 4Q387 1 3–4, and 4Q388a 3 5–6 (§§4–5), the first temple is said to have suffered וללחתו … םכיחבזתאוחבזתוישדקמ ) defilement through the practice of idolatry 4Q385a 18 i 7 records that the original temple vessels themselves were .( םיריעשל removed by the Babylonians in the process of its destruction: “And he took תיבילכתאחקיו ) ”the furnishings from the house of God, along with the priests The appearance of the temple vessels in Israel’s historical 60.( םינהכהתאםיהלא

59 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 246. In addition, pp. 248–249, also argued that 4Q390 finds affinity with the sectarian literature in its abhorrence of the priests collectively in the Second Temple period—essentially blaming them for the peoples’ abandonment of the correct calendar and correct halakha. Also, she notes that 4Q390 and other Qumran works which use the 490-year scheme for calculating the culmination of history see the end of this epoch well into the future. 60 Cf. also the admonition by Jeremiah following this in 4Q385a 18 i 11, “and they profaned the On the significance of the temple vessels for the function .( םיהלאםשוללחיו ) ”name of God of the cult, cf. Paul R. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 166–181. Also Philip R. Davies, 194 chapter 4 recollection is significant, in that they consistently symbolise continuity with an idealised impression of the divine order implicit in the temple service. According to Paul Ackroyd:

The theme of making such vessels, or the emphasis on their provision, or on their purification (cf. 2Chron 29:18) and guarding (cf. 1Chron 9:28f.), equally provide points at which we may detect the concern with the continuing in proper form of the religious observances which are seen as necessary to the well-being of the community.61

The temple vessels also appear to have maintained a special symbolic importance in the scriptural book of Jeremiah, which presumes their presence to coincide with the religious and social well being of the nation (cf. e.g. Jer 27:16– 22). How consequential then, is the removal of these symbols of divine conveyance, by a foreign power no less? This action in 4Q385a 18 i 7 coincides with the dissolution of the religious efficacy of the temple,62 which was elsewhere positively alluded to in Solomon’s dedication in 4Q385a 1 ii 7+2 1, and counter- balanced by the fact that at no point in the Apocryphon c manuscripts is there any comparative affirmation of the second temple service. This is reinforced by the conspicuous absence of any mention of the construction of the second temple where one would expect it in the overlaps between 4Q387 2 ii–iii and 4Q389 8 ii. The second temple is mentioned explicitly in only two places in Apocalypse i §36, and both of these are contextually ambiguous. It is tempting to assert 4Q388a 7 ii 9) and , םישדקהשדק ) ”that the appearance of “the holy of holies 4Q385a 5 3 || 4Q387 3 1) form part of a negative appraisal , חבזמה ) ”the altar“ of temple activities in the pre-Hasmonaean period, in light of their fairly close appearance with indictments for “committing the same abominations as the Gentiles” (§33, 4Q387 2 iii 7 || 4Q388a 7 ii 7), “serving other gods” (§32:3, 4Q387 2 iii 6 || 4Q388a 7 ii 7), and for some form of cultic or cultural “pollution” (§38, 4Q387 3 12).63 However, the gaps in the text nullify the certainty with

The Origins of Biblical Israel, 95, remarks that the return of the temple vessels was “an important symbolic gesture, not only of authorisation and continuity but of the transfer of the royal into the ecclesiastical.” 61 Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels,” 171. 62 Cf. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels,” 174. ,appears in eleven places in the Hebrew Bible (Num 35:33; Isa 24:5; Jer 3:1–2 ףנח The verb 63 9; 23:11; Mic 4:11; Ps 106:38; Dan 11:32), and five other places in the Qumran literature. In the majority of instances, it functions with reference to the defilement of the promised land, 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 195 which one might make such a claim. This scepticism notwithstanding, the somewhat peculiar absence of any favourable mention of the second temple in the Apocryphon c contrasts with the otherwise more positive portrayal of Solomon’s temple in the same text. There is curiously no mention of the second temple in the description of the rule of Antiochus iv in 4Q388a 7 ii 3–5 (§§28–29, 4Q387 2 iii 1–2 || 4Q389 8 ii 9–10). Given the prominence of the desecration of the temple in 167bce in the Jewish imagination, it seems especially odd for this watershed moment from history to have been ignored at the expense of the rather mundane summation of Antiochus’s rule, in which he is anticipated only to “commit 4Q388a 7 ii 3 || 4Q389 8 ii 9). The explicit , תוערהשעו ;acts of wickedness” (§28 references to the second temple in §36 noted above may describe the event in question, but this occurs not as part of the account of Antiochus’s rule which precedes it, but rather is assigned to the charge of an unsanctioned 4Q385a 5 2), from which three ,[ ומקו ] םינהכןינמ ;priestly administration (§33 4Q388a 7 ii 8). As I suggested in the , וכלמירשאהשלש ;will rule (§§33–34 previous chapter, this reference most plausibly identifies the last triad of high priests from the Seleucid period, Jason (175–172bce), Menelaus (172–162bce), and Alcimus (162–160/59bce).64 The fact that these figures are distinguished as another “order” of priests the Apocryphon c may indicate that for the author of this text the quality of their priestly credentials were in serious doubt. The Hellenistic priests before the intersacerdotium were notorious in Jewish literature for their attempts to curry political power through fraudulent priestly credentials (e.g. 1Macc 7:1–9, 23–25; 2Macc 4:8–10, 18–19, 24–25; 5:21–23; 13:3–8). These were activities that were generally viewed as forms of cultural treachery, which appear to have been similarly so reflected in the Apocryphon c (§§31–33, 4Q387 2 iii 6–7 || 4Q388a 7 ii 6–7). The equivocation towards the second temple is echoed in the description of the first Hasmonaeans in §§39–41 (4Q385a 5 7–9 || 4Q387 3 13–17). Here, the Hasmonaean priests are lauded for their godly conduct and reversal of the religious failings of previous generations, and they are extolled for putting an end to “the pride of those who have broken the covenant,” along with “those who serve foreign gods.” Their actions would inaugurate a time of national reflexion

which would better fit the context of its appearance here in conjunction with the theme of the “desolation of the land” elsewhere in the Apocryphon c (cf. 4Q388a 7 ii 3 || 4Q387 2 iii 3; 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6 || 4Q387 2 iii 4–5). 64 Cf. the discussion in the previous chapter, section 3.4.3. Second Temple Apocalypse, also VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 197–239. 196 chapter 4 and return to the “Torah and the covenant” (§43, 4Q387 3 8),65 but nowhere does the text ever suggest that God’s approval in this period was contingent upon any sort of re-purification or restoration of temple activity.66 What this seems to indicate is a largely ambivalent attitude toward the presence of the second temple, which may be confirmed by the apparent cessation of the temple services as signalled by the removal of the temple vessels in 4Q385a 18 i 7. A reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that the temple institution was believed to have ended with the irreversible pollution and ensuing destruction of Solomon’s temple, and that the second temple itself was at best superfluous and at worst illegitimate. Comparatively speaking, the depiction of the second temple in 4Q390 does not align with the evidence culled from the Apocryphonc above. Unfortunately, there is no text preserved from 4Q390 that mentions Solomon’s temple from which we might make additional comparisons, but there is no certainty that the pre-exilic period was even featured in this text. On the other hand, the appearance of the second temple in 4Q390 is quite prominent, especially in contrast to the Apocryphon c, and its presentation contains subtle but important differences. The second temple in 4Q390 is first mentioned in frg. 1 6, where the generation of returnees from the Babylonian exile are commended for returning ,As noted above .( שדקמהתאתונבל ) ”to Israel in order “to rebuild the sanctuary the description of the construction of the second temple appears as significant, especially when juxtaposed with the Apocryphon c where no such description used here is the most frequently occurring referent שדקמ is extant. The term for the temple in 4Q390, appearing also in frg. 2 i 2 and 9. Interestingly, this is the same term that was applied exclusively to Solomon’s temple in the Apoc- ryphon c, in 4Q385a 3 7. Unlike the Apocryphon c, the first appearance of the second temple in 4Q390 is positive, in that it is directly connected to the reversal of religious failings of previous and subsequent generations that is marked by a cultural enlightenment sparked by a renewed commitment to God’s words and his commands in frg. 1 6. Compare this with the aforementioned religious about-face that appears in the Apocryphon c, in which the first generation of

65 Cf. also the charge issued against the first generations of the post-exilic era who would find no relief in captivity “because they rejected my statutes and their soul despised the .(4Q389 8 ii 4 , םשפנהלעגיתרתווסאמיתקחןעיבןעי ) ”Torah 66 In keeping with the failure of the Apocryphon c to recall Antiochus iv’s temple violations, it follows that the purification and re-dedication of the second temple recounted in 1Macc 4:36–59, and by Josephus, Ant. 12:316–326 was also suitably ignored in this text. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 197

Hasmonaean priests introduce a meritorious period marked by the return to the Torah and the covenant in §§42–44, but without even so much as a mention of the second temple. The second of the three explicit references to the temple in 4Q390 is somewhat ambiguous, as it occurs at the beginning of a new column of text in frg. 2 i 2, and forms the conclusion of a literary unit. The text was reconstructed by Dimant to read “my ]house[ and my altar and th]e Holy of Ho[lies,”67 but it is then followed by a sizeable gap which obscures the context of the phrase. The brevity and contextual ambivalence of this instance precludes it from any real contribution to the perception of the second temple in 4Q390. The final mention of the temple in 4Q390 is part of a catalogue of offences that characterises the behaviour of the people during a later seventy-year period after the seven jubilees in frg. 1 7–8, in which they are charged with “violating” the oath and the covenant (2 i 6): “they will defile my sanctuary, my Sabbaths they profane, my festivals they forget, and with sons of foreigners they defile their seed.” These charges are reminiscent both, of the general description of the generation appearing “in the seventh jubilee after the destruction of the land” from frg. 1 7–8, who “will forget statute, season, Sabbath and covenant,” and of the final generation in the First Temple period from the Apoc- ryphon c: “(You forgot) the festivals of my covenant,68 and you profaned my name and my house, and you defiled my sanctuary, and you sacrificed to goat demons … and you violated everything” (§§4–6, 4Q385a 3 6–9 || 4Q387 1 3–4 || 4Q388a 3 4–6). It is significant that this charge in the Apocryphon c is applied only to Solomon’s temple, and it results in what seems to be its final destruction. In 4Q390, the parallel description is rather applied to the second temple, and suggests by implication the validity of the temple institution until this point in the historical narrative, which would in turn mark the beginning of the final 70- year period in the 490-year apocalyptic scheme.69 Furthermore, the extent of

67 Dimant, djd 30, 246, has translated the last term in accordance with its lone scriptural appearance in Lev 16:33, where it clearly is meant to indicate the inner sanctum of the Tabernacle. However, in its only other appearance in the Qumran scrolls in 11QTa 46:10, refers to the temple itself, and in its fragmentary occurrence here in 4Q390 is שדקהשדקמ probably best translated “holy sanctuary.” 68 Dimant’s reconstruction is far too large to fit with the traces and overlaps in 4Q385a frg. 3 is a reasonable suggestion as , וחכשתו ,and 4Q387 1, but the word supplied in the brackets . יתירבידעומ the verb attached to 69 I concur with Eshel, “4Q390,” 109–110 that the desecration of the second temple as a charge specifically against the Hasmonaeans, who officiated the temple service according to the lunar calendar, as opposed to the solar calendar that was in place prior to the occupation of 198 chapter 4 the literary correspondence between the two pericopae, in conjunction with a number of other comparable elements between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390, which will be presented in the transcription below, indicates a possible dependence of one on the other. The destruction narrative of Solomon’s temple in the Apocryphon c quite conceivably served as a basis upon which the description of the eschatological end of the second temple was constructed in 4Q390. From this analysis one can conclude first, the presence and the efficacy of the second temple, and second its continued institutional legitimacy until the last days. If the destruction of Solomon’s temple as it was re-told in the Apoc- ryphon c informed the prediction of the future of the second temple in 4Q390, it would then follow that its eventual and expected disenfranchisement and possible destruction would signal the inauguration of the last days: An event that 4Q390 anticipates, but clearly has not yet occurred. Accordingly, 4Q390 seems to unambiguously acknowledge the efficacy of the second temple services in the present, which stands in sharp contrast to the temple’s presentation in the Apocryphon c as an obsolete institution.

4.2.3.2 The Priesthood, Religion, and Power How does each text present the priesthood, and what does this suggest with regards to their understanding of priestly function and viability? There is an important difference between 4Q390 and the Apocryphon c in their descriptions of the priesthood: in the former, there appears to be an awareness of in ( ןורהאינב ) ”internal priestly castes with the mention of the “sons of Aaron .in 2 i 10 ( םינהכ ) ”frg. 1 2–3, along with the more general designation “priests There are also priestly divisions in the surviving text of the Apocryphon c, but ”priest“ , ןהכ none that overlap with how they are presented in 4Q390. The word appears six times in the Apocryphon c without overlap between the individual manuscripts, but always in the plural. The text speaks generally of “priests” in 4Q385a 10 ii 3, 18 i 5, and 10. In one instance there is a distinction ( םינהכ ) ,4Q387 2 iii 6) in §32:3 , םילשוריינהכ ) ”made between the “priests of Jerusalem 4Q385a 5 2) in the following line, §33. In §40 , םינהכןינמ ) ”and an “order of priests there is mention made of another group of priests, “called by the name of God” 4Q385a 5 7–9 || 4Q387 3 4–6). These terms all , םינהכ … וארקילארשייהלאםשלע )

Antiochus iv. He sees the section in 4Q390 2 i 6–10 congruent with Dan 7:25, and with the installation of Jonathan as high priest (cf. also extensive passages from Pesher Habakkuk; Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 40–48, also 4QpHosa 2:14–17). In its setting here in 4Q390, the incident seems to have occurred only very recently, and is anticipated to have inaugurated the “last days,” which were likely viewed to be close at hand. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 199 seem to have functioned together qualitatively to distinguish first, the priests who officiated in Solomon’s temple; second the corrupt second temple priests, and the Oniad “priest kings”; and third, the reforming Hasmonaean priests, who were not attached to the temple. The best way to discuss the distinction of priests in the Apocryphon c is to do so chronologically, and to begin with the presentation of the priests who served in Solomon’s temple. This group is clearly mentioned twice in one pericope, in the post destruction narrative that survives in 4Q385a 18 i 5 and 10. The first mention in l. 5 is with reference to those who were taken into captivity by the Babylonians, along with the temple vessels. The priests who appear in l. 10 are the corrupt priests from the latter generations of the first temple, who along with “their kings” and possibly “their princes” were charged with “profan(ing) -ll. 10–11). When consid , םהינהכםהיכלמו … םיהלאםשוללחיו ) ”the name of God ered in conjunction with the Apocryphon c’s presentation of Solomon’s temple, it would logically follow that the desecration of the temple at the hands of its former priests led to the cessation of their temple function that is analogously signalled by their deportation to Babylon with the temple vessels. There is a chronological silence that follows this, and no mention of priests until much later in the apocalyptic history, where, the priests of the Second Temple period appear to be distinguished into two groups, the “priests of Jerusalem” and a disparate “order of priests.” These two groups are then differentiated from a more evidently positive portrayal of a final group, who is “called by the name of God.” While there is a distinction between three groups, the priests of the Sec- ond Temple period fall into two basic categories in the Apocryphon c; the first negative, and the second positive. First, those in §32 who are designated the “priests of Jerusalem,” are corrupt, and remembered for their service to “other -in accordance with the “abominations of the Gen ( םירחאםיהלאדובעל ) ”gods 4Q387 2 iii 6–7 || 4Q388a 7 ii 7). Their egregious , םיוגהתובעתכתושעלו ;tiles” (§33 behaviour culminates in the actions of a smaller group of three priests, who are 4Q385a 5 2). I have understood this “order of , םינהכןינמומקו ) depicted as rulers priests” to apply to the last three Oniad priests, Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus. They are remembered here for their attempt to combine political rule from the throne of David with the temple administration. This alignment between the offices of the high priest and the king was something that was elsewhere frowned upon within the Qumran literature, as illustrated most prominently by the sectarian expectation in the eschatological age for two messiahs instead of just one.70 Another text found at Qumran, 4Q245, preserves portions of an

70 1QS 9:11; 4Q175 1–20; cf. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd edn.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 79–109. 200 chapter 4 intriguing list of high priests and kings that also seems to have functioned similarly as a polemic against the fusion of the offices in the Hasmonaean period.71 For the author of the Apocryphon c, this same act—but situated much earlier in time—appears to have been the last straw in an on-going opposition to the second temple priesthood. However, unlike their first temple counterparts who were specifically censured for acts of sacral impropriety (§§4–6; 4Q385a 3 6–7 || 4Q387 1 3–4 || 4Q388a 3 5–6), this generation of priests is never explicitly depicted officiating the temple sacrifices. The second, more positively portrayed group of priests in §§40–42 are distinguished for having been “called by the name of God.” They are championed as religious reformers who will bring down “the pride of those who have bro- ןואגםהימיבדרוהו ) ”ken the covenant … along with those who serve foreign gods 4Q385a 5 8–9 || 4Q387 3 15). We can more clearly see , רכאנידבעותירביעישירמ the distinction of this group from the others in the added qualification that they יכרדבוכלהתיאל [ םינהכה ;behaved differently than the former priests (§§39–40 4Q387 3 13–14);72 that is, the corrupt “priests of Jerusalem” and the ,ה] םינשאר ruling, disparate “order of priests” above. Furthermore, the parallel infractions from §42 also likely reflect back on the specific failures of each from the two groups: The “pride of those who have broken the covenant” recalls the order of three priests, who had the temerity to assume political power. “Those who serve foreign gods” are the Jerusalem priesthood who “turned to serve other gods and to commit the same abominations as did the gentiles” -The results of this achieve .(… בשו ] םירחאםיהלאדובעלו [ ושעלו ] התובעתכת [ םיוג ) ment will then be manifest in renewed national interest in the Torah and the covenant in 4Q387 3 17, but much like their contemporaries above, these good priests are similarly never actually depicted as connected to the second temple. The second temple priests in the Apocryphon c appear on the basis of these observations to have functioned ideally not as temple officials who oversaw

71 According to the editors, the purpose of this text rested in the separation of the list into groups of priests and kings in an effort to polemicise against the conjoining of the two offices that occurred in the second cent. bce, Collins and Flint, “245. 4Qpseudo-Danielc ar,” 153–164, 157–158. Wise, “4Q245 (4QpsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood,” considers this to have occurred in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus: “The lists work together to direct scrutiny to the man who represents convergence and illegitimacy … When the lists end, when the legitimacy of those who serve God ends, the End is to arrive, the elect to arise, the kingdom to come” (p. 347). 72 Note the variant text that appears in the overlap, 4Q385a 5 8–9, which I have reconstructed . דב [ םכיתובאיכר ] to read 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 201 the temple service, but rather as guardians of the covenant and teachers of the Torah.73 Those from the first group who “served other gods,” and those who violated the covenant by their misplaced pretensions to rule may be construed antithetical to this ideal as Hellenic extremists: they were presented in this text as promoters of cultural compromise that jeopardised the religious and social distinction of what it meant to be Jewish in the nascent Antiochene crisis at the beginning of the second quarter of the second cent. bce. In the absence of performing sacrifices and commemorating the festivals—which seem to have ended with the desecration and destruction of Solomon’s temple—it is natural to expect that the office of the priest in the Apocryphon c shifted with the cessation of the temple institution. Priests are presently responsible for the preservation of the covenant and the promotion of Jewish culture through the instruction of the Torah and its correct interpretation in the post-temple age. In 4Q390, the aforementioned priestly distinction, the “sons of Aaron” in frg. 1 2, from the general priesthood in 2 i 10 denotes a system of priestly castes, but it more importantly implies that the temple services were on-going after the Babylonian exile. The use of the term is prominent in both biblical and Second Temple literature as a designation for officiating priests (e.g. Lev 1:5–8; 2:1–16; 4:1–5:13, 14–26; 8:1–36; Neh 12:47; 1Chron 23:28; 2Chron 13:9–10; 4Macc. 7:11–12; 3 En. 2:3),74 and its employment in 4Q390 suggests that the officiating priests were present in at least the first 70 year period after the destruction of Jerusalem (frg. 1 2).75 Balasz Tamási has argued that the negative appraisal the “sons of Aaron,” in 4Q390 indicates that this text—along , ןורהאינב of the

73 An analogous perspective to the view may have been offered by Jesus, in his criticisms of the Herodian temple establishment. According to Karen J. Wenell, Jesus and the Land: Sacred and Social Space in Second Temple Judaism (lnts 334; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 44–60, Jesus denounced the temple regime of his own time and promoted an alternative form of national—and subsequently religious—leadership that emerged from among the “common people” in Galilee. There was no vision for replacing the existing priesthood; rather, the entire institution was dismissed as corrupt and irredeemable. “The temple, for Jesus and his followers, represented a system whose values were in contrast to the real-life situation of those who worked the land in the country (cf. Matt 20:1–16; Mark 12:1–9; Matt 18:23–25). They were fixed on a new world, but one that also overlapped with the present world. Therefore, a vision which does not focus on the temple and which instead provides a broader view of the land with unknown Galileans at the head of the tribes is seen as a more appropriate kind of ‘world’ for them to live in when justified in the eschaton” (p. 58). 74 Cf. John P. Spencer, “Aaron (Person),” abd 1:1–6. 75 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 244, is probably correct in noting that the period described later in frg. 1 11–12 is also a time that was subject to the rule of the sons of Aaron. 202 chapter 4 with portions of the Damascus Document, the Aramaic Levi Document and the Testament of Levi—was part of an on-going “Levite tradition” that was hostile to the ruling Aaronide priesthood in the second cent. bce.76 While the unusual portrayal of the sons of Aaron in this text indeed deserves significant note, it likely does not reflect the same priestly disputes that were preserved in the Hebrew Bible texts between the Aaronides and the Levites.77 More probably, the mention of the sons of Aaron in 4Q390 is a more general criticism of an unidentified priestly group that was at odds with the priestly community behind this text. Another observation to be made from the appearance of the sons of Aaron in 4Q390 is in the description in the following line: “And the sons of Aaron ”but they will not walk in my ways ,( המהבןורהאינבולשמו ) will rule over them (1 3). The period in question coincides with the Babylonian exile, and yet this is characterised exclusively as a time when the Aaronic priesthood exercises political authority.78 This is similar to the negative portrayal of the Oniads’ attempt to fuse royal and cultic power in Apocalypse i §§32–33 noted above (4Q388a 7 ii 3–4 || 4Q387 2 iii 1–2 || 4Q389 8 ii 9–10), but the key difference here is in the nature of the dispute regarding their offences. The order of priest kings from Apocalypse i §33 were censured specifically for their “pride”

76 Balász Tamási, “Prophesized History of the Postexilic Period and Polemics against Priests in 4Q390 from Qumran: Levite Authorship behind the Fragments,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. Karoly Daniel Dobos and Miklos Koszeghy; hbm 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 310–328. His argument would also appear to align with White Crawford’s suggestion that the exegetical practice of rewriting scripture was characteristic of the Levitical group, White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 146–149. However, Eshel, Dead Sea and the Hasmonean State, 24–26 does not consider this designation significant beyond a general recognition of priestly rule during the Second Temple period; cf. also Todd R. Hanneken, “The Status and Interpreta- tion of Jubilees in 4Q390,” in Mason et al., eds., A Teacher for All Generations, 1: 407–428 423–424; Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 248–249. In a personal communication from 25 February, 2012, Tamási has indicated that he has since abandoned his argument for 4Q390 as a polemic against the Aaronides, most prominently, in the absence of any sort of evidence for a counter group from this text. While the Levitical classification of this text may be in error, it still serves to draw attention to a more ambiguous priestly dispute in the second cent. bce that most certainly does inform 4Q390. 77 Cf. Hanneken, “The Status and Interpretation of Jubilees,” 424. 78 Dimant, djd 30, 239, also calls this “faithful to historical reality” (p. 243); also Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 244 where she says that the seventy-year rule of the sons of Aaron is compared to an earlier time of priestly rule, as indicated by the word “again,” which both .cf. Dimant djd 30, 237, 238 ; או ] בוש[ she and Dimant translated from 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 203 in §§42–44, which appears directly connected to their unsanctioned rule. The specific failures of the sons of Aaron in 4Q390 are alluded to by way of comparison to lists of infractions elsewhere in the text, where in frg. 1 8 there is a censure for forgetting “statute, season, Sabbath and covenant.” In frg. 2 i 9–10 there as an indictment for defil(ing) the sanctuary, profaning the Sabbath and again forgetting the f[esti]vals. Unlike the second temple priests in the Apocryphon c, whose infractions appear to be directly related to their presumptuous aspiration to political power, 4Q390 seems resigned to this, and is otherwise much more critical about the priesthood’s cultic infractions. This acceptance of priests as rulers in 4Q390 appears at the expense of all other national potentates, which is quite in keeping with the whole of the text, and somewhat different than the Apocryphon c. Generally speaking, 4Q390 is not at all interested in foreign affairs, and presents everything from an exclusively internal Judaistic perspective. The designation of priests as ruling figures in Judah, especially in a time of foreign occupation, fits well within this man- date. Significantly, it also marks an ideological break from the Apocryphon c, where the last of the Oniad priests are remembered unfavourably for just this: for their “pride” that was outwardly reflected in their audacious attempt to govern.

4.2.3.3 The Exile and Its Long-Term Consequences How does each text interpret the Babylonian exile? Was it actual or representative of something else, or both? Was it temporary or permanent, and how did this impression inform other elements of Jewish culture and religion? The exile was clearly significant in the construction of both the Apocryphon c and 4Q390, as it serves to begin the 490-year calculations of last days in each text. Dimant correctly notes that the precise starting point is not obviously clear 4Q390 1 7–8), which , ץראהןברחל ) ”from either text; the “devastation of the land ילביהרשע ;corresponds to the beginning of the “ten jubilees of years” (§§14–15 -4Q387 2 ii 3–4) could be calculated from either the installation of Neb , םינש uchadnezzar ii in 605/4bce, the exile of Jehoiachin in 597bce, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple in 586bce.79 In light of the preceding discussion, it seems most likely that for the Apocryphon c at least, the destruction of Solomon’s temple and the termination of the temple services loomed large in the imagination. In a text which goes to great lengths to enforce the change that occurred between the First Temple and Second Temple periods

79 Dimant, djd 30, 115. 204 chapter 4 that so greatly affected religious practice, the destruction of the temple would feature so significantly that it is difficult to imagine any other starting point for the 490-year calculation.80 Similarly for 4Q390 1 7–8, the most natural interpretation of the “destruction of the land” would coincide with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 586bce, and the ensuing second exile. This would receive some confirmation from the positive mention of the temple reconstruction in the same fragment. Both the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 assume the same starting point for their 490-year epochal calculations of history in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile, but each text appears to presuppose differing perceptions as to whether the exile was temporary or permanent, or “local” or “global.” By implication, these differences produced varying interpretations of the purpose and meaning behind the exile event, and its effect on Jewish history, culture and religion. The exile event is mentioned explicitly in the Apocryphon c in three places. in 4Q389 1 6 serves as a temporal marker ( לארשיתולגל ) ”The “exile of Israel for the setting of the text in Babylon, and significantly, at the beginning of the second-half of the seventy-years prophesied by Jeremiah in Jer 25:11 and , םיבש ) ”In two other places the exilic condition is called “their captivity .29:10 §22; 4Q385a 4 9 || 4Q389 8 ii 3; 4Q385a 18 i 7), but with an important difference between them. Both instances form part of a construct chain. The first reference describes the condition of Israel under the rule of an enigmatic Per- sian king—called “the Zāḏôn”—who deposed the Babylonian empire under Nabonidas and Belshazzar,81 and characterises this as a time when the nation will “turn to many nations”: “Then the sons of Israel will cry out continuously ,( םיבשתוצראבדבכלע ) because of the heavy burden in the lands of their captivity but there will remain no relief for them” (§§21–22, 4Q385a 4 8–9 || 4Q389 8 ii 2–3). The second reference appears as part of the narrative conclusion to the entire text, and describes Jeremiah’s final moments with the exiles on the way to Babylon: “And Jeremiah the prophet walked with them as far as the river, and he instructed them concerning what they ought to do in the land of their 4Q385a 18 i 6–7). It may at a glance appear , םאיבשץראבושעירשא ) ”captivity insignificant, but the difference between the plural and the singular construct noun, “lands” and “land” in each instance denotes change in the condition of this captivity from one point to another in the text. When considered within the

,( לארשיתולגלהנשששוםישולש ) ”Cf. also 4Q389 1 6, “thirty-sixth year of the exile of Israel 80 which assumes the larger exile event of 586bce as a starting point for the entire composition. 81 Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 296–297. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 205 presumed setting for the Apocryphon c, the difference becomes more under- standable. The latter occurs chronologically prior to the former, if the Apoc- ryphonc indeed is to be construed as a delivery performed by Jeremiah that also contains a narrative description of Jeremiah’s activities at its conclusion. Tem- porally speaking, the exile begins in the land of Babylon, and then is predicted by Jeremiah to extend to incorporate the whole world. True to historical reality, the effects of the dispersion that began with the forced exile of Jerusalem’s elites to Babylon resulted in the much broader dissemination of the Jewish people throughout the Mediterranean Basin. In effect, the Apocryphon c understands the exile as global, and more importantly, it seems to presume that it is on-going: Israel remains in a permanent state of captivity; permanent at least until the last days that are anticipated by the Apocryphon c at some point in the near future.82 This assertion may be that is prefixed to each ב affirmed by taking note of the inseparable preposition instance of the phrase, “in the land(s) of their captivity.” Furthermore, this sense of permanent exile is in keeping with the prominent concern throughout the Apocryphon c for the effect that the people’s sins have had on the presence of God specifically in the land: “I will make the land desolate. I will remove man far away, and I will abandon the land in its desolation” (§§31–32, 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6; also 4Q387 2 iii 3–5; cf. §§25–26, 4Q389 8 ii 4–6). Moreover, careful consideration is given to the significance of the temporal location for Jeremiah’s delivery of the Apocryphon c “in the thirty-sixth year of the exile of Israel” in 4Q389 1 6: That is, at the precise beginning of the second half of Jeremiah’s 70 years. For the author of the Apocryphon c there is by innuendo a sense of expectation: the readers of this text would tend to identify with the implied audience, and presume in keeping with the rest of the text that they are in the midst of an on-going exile. -appears in 4Q390, but with an impor םאיבשץרא The same construct chain tant difference. In the lone bright spot in the Second Temple history, frg. 1 5–7 predicts that there will be a meritorious period that begins with the reconstruction of the temple: “Those who go up first from the land of their captivity Unto these :( שדקמהתאתונבלםיבשץראמהנושירםילועה ) to build the sanctuary shall I speak, and I will send unto them commandments, and they will perceive everything that they and their fathers had abandoned.” Unlike the identical phrase from the Apocryphon c that is translated “in the land(s) of their captivity,” the same clause occurs in 4Q390 prefixed with the inseparable preposi-

82 Cf. discussion in Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 472–479; also Abegg, “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” 206 chapter 4 as part of a prediction of the return from exile that loosely coincided , ןמ tion with Jeremiah’s seventy year prophecy: the favoured generation would “go up from the land of their captivity.” This marks an important difference from the Apocryphon c’s presentation of the exile as a permanent condition. In 4Q390, the Babylonian exile appears to have ended in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy after the seventy years of priestly rule in frg. 1 2–3. Furthermore, the exile as it is presented in 4Q390 is also limited to only the land of Baby- I have argued above that . ץרא lon, as indicated by the singular construct noun the Apocryphon c construed the exile as expansive; extending from the forced migration of Israel’s elites to Babylon to the global dispersion of the Jews in the “lands of their captivity.” Contrary to this, the extant remains of 4Q390 hold that the exile was both physically limited to the land of Babylon, and temporally limited in accordance with Jeremiah’s original prophecy of seventy years in Jer 25:11 and 29:10. Beyond these differences in length and scope, the exile event took on different meanings in each text, but these differences also help to uncover the interdependence between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390. As already noted, the Apocryphonc appears to be largely concerned with cultural and religious purity through the observance of the Torah and the affirmation of the covenant amid a global climate of Hellenistic dominance. The Apocryphon c exudes an international perspective, and is addressed to meet the pressing needs of diaspo- radic Judaism that perseveres outside of Judah, and well beyond the reach of the second temple in Jerusalem. The charges of idolatry (§32, 4Q387 2 iii 6 || 4Q388a 7 ii 7) that are synonymous with the “abominations of the Gen- tiles” (§33, 4Q387 2 iii 7 || 4Q388a 7 ii 7; cf. 4Q387 2 ii 8) would amount in this context to matters that threaten to corrupt the Jewish way of life in the Graeco-Roman world. The exile then, is a metaphor for this condition: it was universal, pervasive, and emblematic of the cultural isolation that Jewish communities experienced as resident aliens scattered across the Mediterranean Basin. In 4Q390, the exile is actual and temporary, but it also took on a much more positive, symbolic essence. In frg. 1 5–7 those who “go up” from exile and rebuild the temple are remembered favourably. They are alluded to later in the text as those “fugitives” who are consecrated by God “so that they may not be completely destroyed by my wrath, when my face is hidden” (ll. 10–11). The picture is one of eventual hope and renewal that takes place on account of those who directly endured the exile experience. This experience is construed as an atoning event, symbolic of a sort of purification that led to a covenant renewal, so symbolised by the rebuilding of the temple. This lone generation of returnees from Babylon are the only ones from 4Q390 who are 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 207 singled out for their efforts of spiritual restoration. “This same group was symbolically identified with cultic purification and covenant renewal: in a metaphoric sense a sort of ‘going up’ and ‘temple-building’ takes place among those whom are the first to return to the full expression of Jewish religious practice.”83 In summary, the significant religious and ideological differences between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 are manifest in the same three elements: first, where the temple service is understood to have ended with the destruction of Solomon’s temple, and the second temple is portrayed as ineffectual and illegitimate in the Apocryphon c, 4Q390 recognises the on-going temple institution and even celebrates the construction of the second temple. Second, the Apocryphon c infers that the office of the priesthood has changed with the termination of the temple service to function ideally for the preservation of the covenant and the instruction of the Torah, while in 4Q390 priests still offici- ate in the temple, but also wield political power that is not sanctioned in the Apocryphon c. Third, the exile is presented in the Apocryphon c as a permanent, global event that has become a metaphor for the Jewish dispersion that took place after the destruction of Jerusalem, while in 4Q390, the exile is geographically and temporally limited, and comes to symbolise atonement and covenant renewal. These differences are not inconsequential, and they produce the strong impression that 4Q390 cannot be considered just another copy of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. Nevertheless, the differences in their perceptions of the temple and the exile in particular do indicate that while 4Q390 is distinct from the Apocryphon c, the two compositions are very closely related. In the first place, 4Q390 exhibits a level of dependency on—or at minimum, an awareness of the Apocryphon c’s description of the destruction of Solomon’s temple in its own prediction of the last days, which are marked by the desecration of the second temple. Second, the specific designation in each text for the exile as the “land(s) of their captivity” is unique within the Qumran literature, and only occurs in three places in the Hebrew Bible.84 This terminological distinction along with other ”the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ“ , תומטשמהיכאלמ such exclusive expressions such as (§32:1, 4Q387 2 iii 4; 4Q390 1 11; 2 i 7), the charge of complete invalidation of 4Q387 1 5 || 4Q385a 3 9; cf. 4Q390 1 ,6§ , לכהורפתו / לוכהורפיו ) religious practice (ו) םהמינפיתרתסה (ה) or the recurring first common singular Hifil conjugation ,(8 “I have hidden my presence” (4Q389 8 ii 4–5; 4Q390 1 9), strongly suggest a

83 Davis, “Torah-Performance and History,” 478. 84 Jer 30:10; 46:27; 2Chron 6:37–38. 208 chapter 4 complementary relationship which will be explored in greater detail in the subsequent transcription of 4Q390,85 presented in parallel with the Second Temple Apocalypse from the Apocryphon c below.

4.3 4Q390 and the Second Temple Apocalypse: Text and Translation in Structural Parallel with 4QApocrJer ca–d

Having now established grounds for distinguishing 4Q390 from the Apocry- phonc as a separate composition, the second part of this chapter will proceed to compare these two texts parallel to one another, in an effort to show their common association. 4Q390 frgs. 1–2 are herein presented along with a translation, juxtaposed with their parallels from the Second Temple Apocalypse, or “Apoc- alypse i,” in the Apocryphon c, and accompanied by explanatory comments throughout. The argument put forward throughout this section, and developed in greater detail in the conclusion is that 4Q390 is a composition that echoes Apocalypse i, but only in as much of its historical correspondence, and its emu- lation of structure. It is to be considered an entirely different work, and not as a “reworked” or “rewritten” copy; it is rather better described as an historical, ideological pastiche. An appropriate way to construe this relationship is to consider Apocalypse i as an implicit framework or an inspiring outline for 4Q390. From this line of reasoning the latter is designated in the following transcription as “Apocalypse ii,” in an effort to underscore its close conformity to the former. The parallels between Apocalypse ii and Apocalypse i are further empha- sized in the isolation of the following three types of compositional influence: first, and most prominently, lexical overlaps between the two, called “contact words,” that appear in parallel succession in each section are so indicated by double underlines. A qualification here is that the common use of words— which are often commonly used words—is not intended to show a conscious scribal overlap. Rather, and especially in their occurrence that seem to closely follow a common structure, these words merely help to illustrate the implicit awareness of the Apocryphon c in the construction of 4Q390. Second, places in the text that show a literary parallel in terms of the use of synonyms, but are not direct locutions have been designated “literary allusions,” and are indicated by single underlines. Third, there are acquaintances between each text that are

85 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36 argues on the basis of this terminological distinction for 4Q390 as a fifth copy of the Apocryphon c. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 209 considerably less obvious, as they contain no contact words nor any literary allusions. Places in which the two texts appear to alight upon common themes or ideals, but through the use of different phrases are identified as “sense allusions,” and are so indicated by overbars throughout. These later elements are perhaps most significant for seeing the structural allusions at work, through which Apocalypse ii deviated from the framework in Apocalypse i. Finally, two sections in Apocalypse i have been identified as possible secondary elements in 4Q389 8 ii 4–6, and in 4Q387 2 iii 4–5, and are indicated in bold typeface. Each of these small pericopae are extant in only one textual witness, and both appear slightly more closely related to the content in Apocalypse ii, and are therefore significant to the discussion of the development of Apocalypse ii relative to Apocalypse i.

Key to the Parallel Texts: “Apocalypse i” = Apocryphon of Jeremiah c “Apocalypse ii” = 4Q390 frgs. 1–2 ii86

Contact words: double underline Literary allusions: single underline Sense allusions: overbar Secondary elements (?): boldface

“Apocalypse i”—§§15–21

15§ והתה[ל]כתם בש[געון ] ובעורון ותמהן 16 הלבב ומתם הדור[]ההוא א[קרע] את הממלכה מיד המחזיקים 17 אתה ו[ה]קימותי עליה אחרים מעם אחר ומשל 18 [הז]דון בכל [הא]רץ וממלכת ישראל תאבד בימים 19 ההמה [י]ה[יה מלך וה]וא גדפן ועשה תעבות וקרעתי 20 [את ]ממלכ[תו והמלך] ההוא למכלים ופני מסתרים מישראל 21 והממלכה תשוב לגוים רבים

86 4Q390 frgs. 3–8 are miniscule, preserving only a few lines and words on each, and are thus impossible to locate with any confidence in sequence with frgs. 1 and 2. Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 251–253. 210 chapter 4

4Q390 Frg. 1 “Apocalypse ii”

[○○][○][ 1.] [.2 ו] פמ [ ינ או ] בוש [ םיתתנו ] רהאינבדיב [ ןו ] םיעבש הנש ][ .3 אלו̇המהבןורהאינבולשמו וכלהתי [ רדב ] רשאך̇ו̊צמיכונארשאיכ .4 םהבדיעת םגושעיו םה תא ערה ושערשאלככיניעב לארשי .5 ימיב ותכלממ םינושירה

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [and ]from bef[ore me, and I will] turn[ and deliver them ]into the hand of the sons of Aar[on for] seventy years … 3. And the sons of Aaron will rule over them but they will not conduct themselves[ in] my[ way]s which I am prescribing for you, that 4. you may warn them. But they will also do what is evil in my eyes, like everything that Israel did 5. in the days of their former kingdom.

Comments to turn,” appears in two or possibly three places in the Apocryphon c“ , בוש The verb (4Q385a 4 8 || 4Q389 8 ii 2; 4Q388a 7 ii 1 || 4Q389 8 ii 7; 4Q387 2 iii 6 [reconstructed]), and two places in 4Q390, here, and in l. 11 below. Its occurrences in the Apocryphon c indicate a reversal in the national condition of Israel (cf. §21) that in turn results in a cultic about-face, in which the people abandon God and his covenant principles (cf. §26, §32:3). In 4Q390, a similar response takes place: God “turns” from Israel, and this culminates in a series of cultic infractions (cf. 4Q390 1 11 below). The historical parallel in the Apocryphon c narrates the rule of the Zāḏôn, who is labelled a “blasphemer”: a foreign ruler whose presence reinforces the reality of the absence of God’s favour. In total, the structural and literary echoes in Apocalypse ii appear to reconstruct the 490-year epoch from the time of the Babylonian destruction, in order to expand upon the period of corrupt priestly rule just before the temporal marker in 4Q388a in 4Q390 1 9; see below). This is the אוההרודהםותמו .4Q387 2 iii 1; cf ומיבו ) ii 4 7 time of the exile, in which Israel has been “turned over” to corrupt (and/or foreign) rulers, who do not conduct themselves according to the covenant stipulations, but have in turn “performed” counter-acts of cultic insolence. The epochal designations for each of the periods assigned to the exile are specifically: “ten jubilees of years” in Apocalypse i (4Q387 2 ii 3–4) and “seventy years” in Apocalypse ii (4Q390 1 2).87

87 Werman, “Epochs and End Time,” 243 reconstructs “into the hand of the sons of Aar[on as the first] seventy years.” 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 211

Both figures identified as blasphemers in 4Q388a 7 ii 3, and in 4Q385a 4 6 || 4Q387 2 ii 8 are overlooked in the 4Q390 cycle, and Apocalypse ii is entirely concerned only with internal developments, centred on the temple and the priesthood. The polemical stance towards the “sons of Aaron” in 4Q390 is unique within the entire collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which 29 other occurrences of this sobriquet are either neutral or positive in their appraisal of this elite priestly group.88 Its appearance here reflects a negative appraisal of the priestly rule in Israel that coincided with the tangible exile in Babylon. In both texts, the historical situation is loosely parallel, and a literary 4Q390) בוש ,awareness may be detectible in the appearance of the four common verbs 4Q390) ךלהתה ,(4Q390 1 3; 4Q385a 4 4 || 4Q387 2 ii 6) לשמ ,(4Q385a 4 8 || 4Q389 8 ii 2 ;2 1 4Q390 1 4; 4Q385a 4 6 || 4Q387 2 ii 8).89 The) השע 4Q385a 4 1 || 4Q387 2 ii 4), and ;3 1 setting in Apocalypse ii corresponds to the end of the kingdom during the reign of the Zāḏôn in Apocalypse i, which serves to compare present and future generations of wickedness. There is reference made in both Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii to the “kingdom of Israel” (4Q387 2 ii 7 || 4Q385a 4 5; 4Q390 1 4–5). In the former, it marks the end of Israel’s independence and the utter destruction of the land following the Babylonian conquest. In the latter, it functions comparatively to emphasise the gravity of the sins of the first generation of priestly rulers. Both references should be seen as synonymous, ”in the days of … /in their days“ , םימיב ,especially with the temporal indication for each (4Q390 1 5; 4Q387 2 ii 7). In both, the days in question are those of the last generation of the first temple. This serves as a benchmark for wickedness in Apocalypse ii, while in Apocalypse i this is the generation that sees the kingdom “destroyed utterly.” There is a final point of interest between the two texts concerning the old kingdom. One which follow the ,(24§ , תובעת ) will notice that the “abominations” in Apocalypse i kingdom’s demise at the hands of its new foreign ruler are expressed differently in

88 1QS 5:21 (= 4Q258 2 1); 9:7 (= 4Q258 7 7); 1QSa 1:23; 2:13; 1QM 7:10; 17:2; 1Q22 1 i 3; 4Q249c 1 5; 4Q249f 1–3 2; 4Q249g 3–7 13; 4Q270 2 ii 6; 4Q272 1 ii 2; 4Q279 5 4; 4Q286 17b 1; 4Q396 1–2 iv 8, 11; 4Q397 6–13 14; 4Q421 1a i 4; 4Q493 1 1; 4Q513 10 ii 8; 5Q20 1 2; 11QTa 22:5; 34:13; 44:5; 11Q20 5 25. However, cf. the several instances in the d “laws” in 4Q266 5 ii 5 (= 4Q267 5 iii 8), 8, 12; 6 i 13, in which the prescriptions for those priests who were “captured by the 4Q266 5 ii 5) especially may correspond to the historical portrayal , םיאוגל̊הבשי ) ”Gentiles ,here in 4Q390. On the honorific title “sons of Aaron” in the Dead Sea Scrolls ןרהאינב of the cf. Gary A. Anderson, “Aaron,”Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L.H. Schiffman and J.C. VanderKam; e-reference edition; Oxford University Press 2000, 2008). 89 As noted in the introduction to the 4Q390 transcription above, this is not to say that the author of the text was “rewriting” Apocalypse i, but rather that the contents of Apoc- alypse i were at minimum familiar to him, and the appearance of identical words— especially in literary and structural order—between them helps to illustrate this. 212 chapter 4

4Q390 1 ,הם את הרע בעיני) ”Apocalypse ii: “they will also do what is evil in my eyes 4). The point in the narrative is parallel in each, taking place during the Babylonian occupation, although in Apocalypse ii, and in keeping with its internal preponderance at the expense of foreign affairs, the offence is first, much more explicit, presented as a tangible affront to God’s interest. Second, it is assigned to the Jewish leadership and its people, to the exclusion of any foreign ruler or power (cf. also 4Q387 2 ii 6–8; 4Q390 1 12).

“Apocalypse i”—§§21–28

21§ ובני ישראל 22 זעקים[ מפ]ני על כבד בארצות שבים ואין משיע להם 23 יען ביען חקתי מאסו ותרתי געלה נפשם על כן הסתרתי 24 פני מ[הם עד ]אשר ישלימו עונם .vac וזה להם האות בשלם 25 עונם[ כי ]עזבתי את הארץ ברום לבבם ממני ולא ידעו[ כ]י 26 מא[ס]תים ו]שבו ועשו רעה ר[ב]ה מן הרעה מן הר[א]שונה [והפדו את] 27 הברית אשר כ[רתי] עם אברהם אברהם ועם יצחק ועם [יעקוב בימים] 28 ההמה יקום מלך לגוים גדפן

4Q390 Frg. 1 “Apocalypse ii”

5. מלבד העולים רישונה מארץ שבים לבנות 6. את המקדש ואדברה בהמה ואשלחה אליהם מצוה ויבינו בכול אשר 7. עזבו הם ואבותיהם

5. Except for those who go up first from the land of their captivity to build 6. the sanctuary: unto them shall I speak, and I will send unto them commandments, and they will understand everything that 7. they and their fathers had abandoned.

Comments Hanan Eshel has argued persuasively for historical correspondences in the imagery between the first seven extant lines of 4Q390 and the post-return generation from Baby- lon ca. late fifth-mid fourth cent. bce.90 The fragment itself begins amid the Babylonian excursion and describes this time as a period of religious rule under the governance of the “sons of Aaron,” who are noted for their acts of covenant treason (4Q390 1 2–3, see above). The following generation begins at the conclusion of the seventy-year exile (l. 2)

90 Eshel, “4Q390,” 102–110. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 213 and inaugurates a meritorious period, in which the first returnees “will understand all (ll. 6–7 , םהיתובאוםהובזערשאלוכבוניביו ) ”that they and their fathers had abandoned The relationships between Apocalypse i and ii are especially discernible at this point in ןעיבןעי in both texts: first, there is a structural parallel in the offering of conjunctions -in 4Q389 8 ii 4. Second, temporal markers in each text both indi דבלמ 4Q390 1 5 and cate a transition: “in the day (of the blasphemer)” in Apocalypse i (4Q387 2 iii 1), and “from the completion of that generation” in Apocalypse ii (4Q390 1 7). Third, the tem- , תוערהשעו ) poral markers are each preceded by a description of increasing wickedness הבר ) 4Q390 1 4) compared to the previous generation , ערהתאםהםגושעיו ;4Q389 8 ii 7 4Q390 1 5). Fourth, each , םג … םינושירהותכלממימיב ;4Q389 8 ii 7 , הנושארהןמהערהןמ of the temporal markers that follow indicate an epochal turning point also reflected in ךלמםוקי ) ”an “upward” movement: in Apocalypse i the second blasphemer will “rise up 4Q389 8 ii 9), and in Apocalypse ii the first returnees from exile are those who , ןפדגםיוגל is intriguing when הלע 4Q390 1 5). The use of the verb , םיבשץראמהנושירםילועה ) ”go up“ factoring into consideration the sectarian ideal that the community’s survival through their correct Torah observance would legitimately “atone” for the land of Israel, in place of what were now considered invalid sacrifices and rituals performed in the Jerusalem temple (Cf. 1QS 8:1–10; also 9:3–5).91 ”from the land of their captivity“ , םיבשץראמ The juxtaposition of the parallel phrases || in the lands of their captivity” in 4Q387 2 ii 11“ םיבשתוצראב in 4Q390 1 5 alongside 4Q389 8 ii 2 combines to form an important connection between Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii, but also serves to enforce a crucial theological difference between the two. First, this same construct chain occurs in two places in the Apocryphon c, in the parallel above, and in the post-destruction narrative summary in 4Q385a 18 i 7. This second appearance aligns with the occurrence in 4Q390, in which the construct noun , םיבשתוצרא in the land of their captivity,” instead of plural, the“ , םיבשץראב ,is singular “the lands (pl.) of their captivity” as it appears in Apocalypse i (4Q389 8 ii 3 || 4Q387 2 ii 11 || 4Q385a 4 9).92 The phrase itself is exclusive to the Apocryphon c and to 4Q390 in the Qumran literature,93 and this strongly serves to indicate a relationship between the two compositions, especially in light of the structural parallels, other common features, and particularly considering the theological significance of this phrase for each work. Second, the function of this phrase is noteworthy in how it is used to represent the exile, either as a permanent and global condition, or as geographically isolated and temporary. It is significant that in Apocalypse i, the construct is plural, and features

91 Cf. Stephen Hultgren, From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community (stdj 66; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 308–315; Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 168–170, 172. in the land[s] of [yo]ur enemies[ ]until the“ , צראב [ תו ] ̊יביא [כ] ̇ם ][ תנשדע [ Cf. also 4Q387 1 9 92 year of[ …” 93 Cf. occurrences in the Hebrew Bible in Jer 30:10; 46:27; 2Chron 6:37–38 (2 ×). 214 chapter 4 the sons of Israel still languishing in a protracted and expansive captivity that included non-specific foreign “nations.” It is a perspective that seems to resonate throughout the entire Apocryphon c, as the post-destruction narrative summary in 4Q385a frg. 18 indicates in the absence of any resolution. In 4Q390, the term is used to describe the first returnees from the exile, who are positively appraised for having returned from captivity in the land (singular) of their capture, which must be Babylon. It is a reversal of the conclusion in the Apocryphon c, that saw the exiled nation languishing in captivity in 4Q385a 18 i 7. This group is twice lauded. First, for their construction of the second temple and the reinstatement of the temple service, and second, for their receptivity to God’s word, and their penitent response. The difference in this text from Apocalypse i is in the subtle representation of the exile as a one-time event that occurred only in Babylon, and not extending to include the surrounding nations of the world. The exile is expected not only to come to a muted conclusion within the limited time-frame of seventy years (4Q390 1 2), it would also end on a hopeful note with the replacement of Solomon’s temple. Even amid future cultic failures well after the conclusion of captivity, there is the promise made of a “remnant” in l. 10. This contrasts sharply with predictions of the elimination of Israel’s sovereignty in 4Q385a 4 5 || 4Q387 2 ii 7, and the eradication of their cultural distinction in 4Q387 2 iii 1 || 4Q388a 7 ii 3–4 || 4Q389 8 ii 10. The generation of returnees is contrasted with the former generation of their “forefathers” (4Q390 1 7), who serve as a measure by which this group will come to grasp their own failures. The impression is that they have taken responsibility for the grievous sins of the past, and their return to build the “sanctuary” signifies a return to those same religious principles that the earlier group had abandoned. There is a sense parallel created here with Apocalypse i, in which the people of Israel who are still suffering in the lands of their captivity will actually come to compound the sins of the past: “they will return and perform more wickedness than the wickedness of the former era” (4Q388a 7 ii 1 || 4Q389 8 ii 7).94 Note also how the commendable behaviour of the return generation that coincides with their restoration is marked specifically by their receptivity -4Q390 1 6). The appear , הוצמםהילאהחלשאוהמהבהרבדאו ) to God’s commandments and “my ( יתקח ) ”forms another sense parallel with “my statutes הוצמ ance of the word -in 4Q389 8 ii 4. In contradistinction with the group of returnees in Apoc ( יתרתו ) ”Torah alypse ii who were penitent, this same generation in Apocalypse i is admonished for their rebellion. This divergence in the appraisal of the inaugural second temple generations between Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii reinforces the theological perspective that each text maintains of the exile: In Apocalypse i, it is perpetual, in which the condition of the people progressively deteriorates even beyond the transgressions of

”.in the days of the former kingdom“ , םינושירהותכלממימיב ,Cf. also 4Q390 1 5 and above 94 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 215 past generations. But in Apocalypse ii, the exile is projected to end with a hopeful resolution—if only temporarily, when those returning from Babylon would rebuild the temple, reinstate the temple services, and would reverse the effect of the sins of their forebears.

“Apocalypse i”—§§28–33

28 ועשה רעות ובימ[ו ] 29 את ישראל מעם בימו אשבור את ממלכת מצרים[] 30 [ ]את מצרי̇ם ואת ישראל אשבר ונתתו 31 לחרב[ והש]מותי א[ת] ה[א]רץ ורחקתי את האדם 32:1 [ו]עזבתי את הארץ ביד מלאכי המשטמות והסתרתי 32:2 פני[מיש]ראל וזה להם האות ביום עזבי את הארץ 32:3 בה[שמה ושב]ו כהני ירושלים לעבוד אלהים אחרים 33 [ולעשו]ת כתעבות ה[גוים

4Q390 Frg. 1 “Apocalypse ii”

7. ומתום הדור ̇ההוא ביובל השביעי 8. לחרבן הארץ ישכחו חוק ומועד וש̇בת וברית ויפרו הכול ויעשו 9. הרע בעיני והסתרתי פני מהמה ונתתים ביד איביהם והסגר̊ת[ים ] מהם 10 . לחרב והשארתי ̇פליטים למע[ן ]אשר לא ̊י[כ]ל[ו] בחמתי[ ו] ̊ב ̇הסתר ̊פ[ני] 11 . מהם

11 . ומשלו בהמה מל̇אכי המ̇ש[ט]מות ו̊מ[אסתים ו]ישו̇ב[ו ] 12 . ̊ו̊יעשו [את] ה̊ר̊ע ̊בעי̇נ[י] ויתהלכו בש̊ר[ירות לבם ] 13 . [ ̇ר][ ]̇ו○[ ]

7. Then from the completion of that generation in the seventh jubilee 8. after the devastation of the land they will forget statute, season, Sabbath and covenant. And they will invalidate everything, and will do 9. what is evil in my eyes. So I will hide my face from them, and I will deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and[ w]ill surrender[ them] 10. to the sword. But I will let survive from them fugitives, so[ t]hat [they m]ay not be[ compl]etely [destr]oyed by my wrath[. And] when my fa[ce] is hidden 11. from them, then the Angels of Maś[ṭē]môṯ will rule over them, but[ I will] re[ject them. And they] will return 12. to do [that which] is evil in[ my] eyes, and will walk about in the stubb[ornness of their heart] 13. [ … ] … [ … ] 216 chapter 4

Comments In the first clause of this part of Apocalypse ii is a temporal shift; time is figured from 4Q390 1 7–8) to a point that , ץראהןברחליעיבשהלבויב ) the devastation of the land םיוגלךלמ …) appears to be much earlier than the reign of a foreign king in Apocalypse i 4Q388a 7 ii 3; 4Q389 8 ii 9, see discussion above). This is in keeping with the , ומיבו general emphasis of Apocalypse ii, which tends to completely ignore external affairs in favour of a temple history. It would further explain the specification of offences in l. 8 to include the neglect of “statutes, festivals, Sabbath and covenant,” as opposed to the more general “breaking” of the whole nation at the hands of God in 4Q388a 7 ii 5 || 4Q387 2 iii 2. Nevertheless, the structural and literary echoes from Apocalypse i in Apocalypse ii continue to be reinforced by the charge of wicked conduct in 4Q388a 7 Another sense allusion .( ערהושעיו ) and in 4Q390 1 8–9 ,( תוערהשעו ) ii 3 || 4Q389 8 ii 9 appears here in the specification in 4Q390 1 8–9 that “they will invalidate everything” ,This is in keeping with the stronger focus in Apocalypse ii on cultic purity .( לוכהורפיו ) and contrasts with Apocalypse i and its much more broadly cultural focus. According to Eshel, in 4Q390 this is a description of the reign of Antiochus iv; a time in which the Jerusalem priests “ceased to run the temple according to the correct calendar.”95 4Q390 1 9; cf. l. 10) which was , ינפיתרתסהו ) The oft mentioned removal of God’s favour introduced in Apocalypse i (4Q387 2 iii 4) is elaborated upon in an effort to connect this דיבםיתתנו ) ”more directly to the nation’s deliverance “into the hands of their enemies 4Q390 1 9; cf. 4Q388a 7 ii 5 || 4Q387 2 iii 2). The historical pastiche of expressions , םהיביא in Apocalypse ii is underscored in Apocalypse i by the appearance in each of the verb 4Q387 2 iii 3 || 4Q388a 7 ii 5). At this) ברחל ”,alongside the mention of “the sword ןתנ aligns with ( םיטילפםהמיתראשהו ) point, the preservation of a remnant in 4Q390 1 10 those who return from exile in Babylon (see l. 5 above).96 This group is singled out as the lone bright spot in a dark rehearsal of history. The shift from one pericope to the other is also seen in the subtle change in the focus of the removal of God’s presence: in Apocalypse i, God promises to “destroy the land, and remove [himself] far from the country” (4Q387 2 iii 3 || 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6), whereas in Apocalypse ii, God’s abandonment is alluded to more so in terms of his relationship to the people themselves, in his promise to restrain himself from destroying them completely in his wrath in 4Q390 1 10. the “Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ” are introduced in both Apocalypse i , תומטשמהיכאלמ The and Apocalypse ii in the same period of history (4Q387 2 iii 4; 4Q390 1 11). The unique || 4Q387 2 iii 6) בושׁ and השׂע expression occurs in connection to the pairing of verbs 4Q388a 7 ii 7; 4Q390 1 11–12), and coincides with the removal of God’s presence that ;4Q387 2 iii 4–5 , ינפיתרתסהו ) results from the people’s cultic or cultural indiscretions

95 Eshel, “4Q390,” 105–106; cf. Dan 7:25, which Eshel believes is indicative of Antiochus iv’s alteration of the calendar that was used in the temple. .cf. also cd 2:5–7, 11–12, also Ezra 9:14–15 םיטילפ On 96 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 217

4Q390 1 9). The sobriquet more significantly may serve to show an additional editorial layer at some point between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390. It only occurs in one of the witnesses in 4Q387 2 iii 4, and also appears in a point of the text which is clearly omitted from another witness in 4Q388a 7 ii 6. Alternatively, the use of the term in only 4Q387 and in 4Q390 could suggest that these individual manuscripts are contemporaneous, and both dependant upon an older version of the Apocryphon c, predominantly extant in 4Q385a and 4Q388a.97 These figures receive greater attention in Apocalypse ii than in the possible interpolation in 4Q387, but it seems that their identity may have shifted from political leaders in Apocalypse i to take on a stronger “spiritual” dimension. Another shift which becomes particularly pronounced here is in the characterisation of , םירחאםיהלאדובעלםילשוריינהכובשו ) the sins of the priesthood stemming from idolatry תובעתכ ) ”4Q387 2 iii 6 || 4Q388a 7 ii 6), and resulting in the “abominations of the Gentiles , יניעבערהתאושעיוובושיו ) 4Q388a 7 ii 7), to less specific forms of wickedness , םיוגה 4Q390 1 11–12; cf. Deut 29:18; Jer 3:17; 24:9). This sense allusion is identical to that which appears above in 4Q390 1 4 and 4Q387 2 ii 8 (cf. Comments above). The appearance of the two instances in parallel together within the historical sequences serves to bolster the notion that there is an obvious structural relationship between Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii. It further suggests that 4Q390 was possibly—even deliberately—altered in accordance with a divergent theological programme: the more global emphasis upon Israel’s conformity to the ways and customs of the Gentiles is replaced by a narrower concern for offending God in the performance of the cult. The specific identification of officiating priests on the one hand in Apocalypse ii, and the localised group of priests in Jerusalem as well as the disparate “order of priests” in Apocalypse i on the other, may also reflect the divergent opinions with regards to the legitimacy and function of the priesthood in each text, that was discussed in the previous section. The “priests in Jerusalem” may be considered invalid in Apocalypse i, as these are the only priests to be identified with the illegitimate second temple; whereas, the presence of the “sons of Aaron” in Apocalypse ii along with the “festivals and Sabbaths” suggests an on-going concern for the purity of the second temple. The terminology applied to the priestly groups that are different in Apocalypse i and

97 Cf. section 2.4.1. 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah cb (4Q387) in the preceding chapter. While all the Apocryphon c copies are Herodian, there are a handful of palaeographical features in 4Q387 that could indicate that this manuscript is later than both 4Q385a and 4Q388a. Dimant, djd 30, 237 dates 4Q390 to between 30–20bce. Because the script of this scroll is a hybrid between cursive and formal Herodian, it is difficult to see whether it is later or earlier than 4Q387. In any event, it is fair to suggest both palaeographically, and based on the evolutionary similarities between the two that both were penned later than the other Apocryphon c copies. It should also be noted that the elements connected to the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ in Apocalypse i show a subtle distinction in their emphasis upon the emptiness of the land that is not necessarily consistent throughout the entire Apocryphon c. 218 chapter 4

Apocalypse ii may also indicate a possible correspondence with a developing class dispute within the temple priesthood, or at least resonates with some on-going internal tensions in the priesthood, and perhaps aligned with the emergence of the Yaḥad.

“Apocalypse i”—§§33–40

33 וקמו] מנין כהנים שלשה 34 אשר ימלכ[ו ] [ ] 35 36 [ ו]קדש הקדשי[ם ו]המזבח[] 37 [ ]והמצדקים הנפלים בח[רב ] 38 [ ]ב חנפה אח○[ ] 39 [ ]ים כהנים שלושה אשר לא יתהלכו בדרכי 40 [הכהנים ה]ראשנים על שם אלהי ישראל יקראו

4Q390 Frg. 2 i “Apocalypse ii”

[ ]○[ ]○○[ ] .1 2. [וא] ̊ת[]בי̊ת[י ומזבחי וא]ת מקדש הק̊ד[ש ] 3. נעשה כן○[ ]○כי אלה יבואו עליהם[ ]̇ן ̊ו[ת]הי 4. ממשלת בליעל בהם להסגירם לחרב שבו̊ע שני̇ם[ ו] ̊ב̊יובל ההוא יהיו 5. מפרים את כול חקותי ואת כל מצותי אשר אצוה ̊א[ותם ואשלחה בי] ̇ד עבדי הנביאים 6. וי[ח]ל[ו]להריב אלה באלה שנים שבעים מיום הפר ה[אלה וה]ברית אשר יפרו ונתתים 7. [ביד מל] ̇אכי המשטמות ומשלו בהם ולא ידעו ולא יבינו כי קצפתי עליהם במועלם 8. [אשר עז]בוני ויעשו הרע בעיני

1. [ … ] … [ … ] 2. [and my] house[, my altar, and t[he] holy sanctua[ry … ] 3. it was so done … [ ] … for these will come upon them[ … ] … and 4. the rule of Belial [wi]ll be over them so as to surrender them the sword for a week of years, [ … then] in that jubilee, they will 5. defile all my precepts and all my commands that I will command t[hem, and I will send by the ha]nd of my servants the prophets. 6. Then[ they] will[ be]gin to contend one group with another seventy years from the day of the violation of the[ oath and the] covenant which they defiled. And I will deliver them 7. [into the hand of the Ang]els of Maśṭēmôṯ, and they will rule over them. But they will not know nor will they perceive that I was enraged on their account, because of their treachery 8. [by which] they[ aba]ndoned me; so shall they do what is evil in my eyes. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 219

Comments The relationship between Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii is most evident at this point in their historical sequences in the remains of 4Q387 3 1–5 and 4Q390 2 i 2–5. Dimant has argued that 4Q390 frgs. 1–2 are not part of successive columns, given the dissimilarity in their shape,98 but according to Steudel, the distance between the “corresponding points” of the two fragments should be about 9.5cm., which would set in 4Q390 2 i שדקהשדקמ and יתיב frg. 2 within a single column’s distance of frg. 1.99 in the gap, and this accords with the appearance יחבזמו were used to reconstruct 2 (4Q385a 5 5 || 4Q387 3 2 ,ב/ ברחל ) ”in 4Q385a 5 4 || 4Q387 3 1. The “sword חבזמה of that appears in both texts also serves as a point of contact. In 4Q390 2 i 4, the “rule of Belial” distinguishes a period of corrupt governance similar to the “three priests who will rule” from the “order of priests” in Apocalypse i (§§33–34). In Chapter Three I argued for the identity of the three rulers to coincide with the last three corrupt priests before the Hasmonaean revolt, Jason (175–172bce), Menelaus (172–162bce), and ולשמו ) Alcimus (162–160/59bce).100 The distinction of rulers in 4Q390 between priests and the chief of the (11 1 , ולשמו … תומטשמהיכאלמ ) quasi-divine beings ,(3 1 , ןורהאינב i 4) marks a clear and consistent shift in thinking 2 , לעילבתלשממ ) demons, Belial from one text to the other. Namely, a replacement of foreign occupation, and corrupt government with the dominion of numinous forces. This stems from a “spiritualisation” that appears to distinguish 4Q390. Furthermore, this feature also conforms to other tendencies within Apocalypse ii, in which virtually all forms of foreign occupation or reflexion are ignored: by “spiritualising” political power, it is indirectly absorbed into the cult. Unlike Apocalypse i which is directly critical of tangible, earthly authorities, Apocalypse ii relegates periods of bureaucratic corruption to the control of spiritual forces that are beyond human ascendancy. Both Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii make frequent comparisons between one generation and their forefathers, and many of these parallel one another throughout both texts. In 4Q385a 5 7–8 || 4Q387 3 4–5 such a comparison appears between the ,( וארקילארשייהלאםשלע ) ”three priests who are “called by the name of the God of Israel The relationship between current .( םינשארהםינהכה ) ”and a group of “former priests and past priesthoods is pronounced in positive terms, by which “they will not walk It was argued 101.( םינשארהםינהכהיכרדבוכלהתיאל ) ”in the ways of the former priests in the previous chapter that this group of priests was most likely the first Hasmonaean reformers, Mattathius, Judas Maccabaeus, and Jonathan—who would later become the

98 Dimant, djd 30, 249. .esp. n. 76. Cf. also the discussion the previous section 4.2.1 ,240 ”, םימיהתירחא “ ,Steudel 99 Material Rationale for Separation above. 100 Cf. section 3.4.3. Second Temple Apocalypse. 101 Cf. 4Q385a 3 2 || 4Q388a 3 2. 220 chapter 4 high priest.102 There is a rather more subtle parallel comparison made in Apocalypse ii at this same point in the historical sequence: following the introduction of the rule of the second group of Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ is a description of their administration, in that I was enraged ( וניביאלוועדיאלו ) which “they will not know nor will they perceive on their account, because of their treachery by which they abandoned me; so shall .(4Q390 2 i 7–8 , יניעבערהושעיוינובזערשאםלעומב ) ”they do what is evil in my eyes Two things of significance to note here: first, the appearance of the negative particle on its own invites comparison with what precedes it in the text. Second, the comparison to understand“ , ןיב to know,” and“ , עדי itself is made on the basis of recurring verbs 103( יניעבערהושעיו ) or perceive,” as well as the performance of “evil” in God’s sight of God that appears previously in 4Q390 ( ינובזע ) ”alongside the issue of “abandonment 1 7.104 The description of this generation here is clearly meant to contrast with the positive appraisal of the first returnees in frg. 1 6–7, who would “perceive everything ובזערשאלוכבוניביו ) ”that they and they had abandoned; both they and their forefathers In line with Eshel’s thinking about 4Q390, I understand this second group .( םהיתובאוםה of the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ to coincide with the emergence of the first Hasmonaean reformers.105 Perhaps the most remarkable evidence for the inter-dependency between Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii is the observation that both texts retell precisely the same period in the second temple history, but furthermore, isolating the same periods in that history for comment. Both texts conclude with a prediction of the last days that is to culminate at some point after the beginning of the Hasmonaean period. In the Apocryphon c, this period of religious reform is viewed as positive, while in 4Q390, this same period is marked as yet another time of cultic failure. It seeks to emphasise the Hasmonaeans’ “avarice” (2 i 9–10 and Comments below),106 as well as their failure to replace the lunar calendar that was introduced by the occupation of Antiochus iv.107

102 Cf. section 3.4.3. Second TempleApocalypse; VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 251–270; also Wise, “4Q245 and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” esp. 352–359. 103 Cf. 4Q390 1 4, 8–9, 12. is used to describe only the activity of the בזע It may be of interest to note that the verb 104 people throughout Apocalypse ii, whereas abandonment by God is consistently expressed .(in frg. 1 9–10 ינפיתרתסהו .in the “hiding” of his face (e.g 105 Eshel, “4Q390,” 107–108; also, idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 26. 106 Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 26. 107 Eshel, “4Q390,” 108–110. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 221

“Apocalypse i”—§§41–43

41 והורד בימיהם גאון מרישיעי ברית ועבדי נאכר 42 ויתקרע ישראל בדור ההוא להלחם א[י]ש ברעהו 43 על התורה ועל הברית

4Q390 Frg. 2 i “Apocalypse ii”

8. ובאשר לא חפצתי בחרו להתגבר להון ולבצע 9. [ולחמס ואי] ̊ש אש̊ר ל̊ר[ע]הו יגזולו ויעשוקו אי̇ש את רעהו את מקדשי יטמאו 10 . [את שבתותי יחללו] את [מו]עדי ̊י̊ש[כח]̊ו ובבני [נכר ]̊י̊ח̇ל̇ל[ו ] ̊את זר[ע]ם כוהניהםיחמסו 11 . [ ]יה○[ ] ̊הם ואת 12 . [ ] ̇בניהם

8. And that in which I take no delight they chose to indulge themselves, illicit gain 9. [and violence; each m]an robbing that which belongs to his friend, and everyone oppressing one another. They will defile my sanctuary, 10. [my Sabbaths they profane], my f[esti]vals they for[get], and with sons of[ foreigners they] defile their see[d. ] Their priests will commit violence 11. [ … ] … [ … ] them, and the 12. [ … ]their sons

Comments There is, immediately following the general summary of the administration of the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ, a more detailed description of the specific failures in their rule, which may be compartmentalised into two groupings of sins. First, there is a report of failures in the social order, and in human relationships: the leaders of the people will “chose to indulge themselves (by) illicit gain and violence; each m]an robbing that which belongs to his friend, and everyone oppressing one another” (4Q390 2 i 8–9). The second collection of sins may be grouped together as acts of cultic infidelity: “they will defile my sanctuary, my Sabbaths they profane, my festivals they forget, and with sons of foreigners they defile their seed.” (ll. 9–10). The last complete line in this fragment breaks off after the mention of priests, who “will commit violence” (l. 10). These two groupings form a parallel with Apocalypse i immediately subsequent to the description of the rise of the three godly priests; those who would “bring down in their days the pride of those who have broken the covenant, along with those who serve foreign gods” (4Q387 3 6). Following this account of the leaders’ activities is a report of the condition of the people in general: “Then Israel will be torn apart in that generation, each man coming to blows with his friend over the Torah and the covenant” (ll. 7–8). 222 chapter 4

The pericope in Apocalypse ii seems to expand on the same theme, albeit the two groupings reflect a different organisation than in Apocalypse i. The first grouping in 4Q390 2 i 8–9 reflects the same period of tension within Israel in 4Q387 3 7–8: mention והערלרשאשיאו …) ”is made in each of conflict between “(every) man and his friend in 4Q387 3 7).108 But where this presents a והערבשיא .4Q390 2 i 9; cf , והערתאשיא hopeful turn in the narrative in Apocalypse i—where the conflict amounts to a quarrel over interpretations of the “Torah and the covenant”—in Apocalypse ii the dispute is considerably more hostile, characterised by violence, thievery and oppression. In the description that follows of cultic infidelity appears another literary allusion: the .in 4Q387 3 6 רכאנ the “foreigner,” reconstructed in 4Q390 2 i 10, and , רכנ mention of Where this word occurs in Apocalypse i, it is used to characterise “those who broke i 4Q387 , רכאנידבעו ) ”as “those who serve foreign gods ( תירביעישירמ ) ”the covenant 3 6), and forms part of a description of the cultic reforms which will see the defeat of these infidels. In Apocalypse ii, the association with foreigners is similarly part of a description of cultic failures, in which those who have breached the covenant 4Q390 2 , םערזתאוללחירכנינבבו ) ”will “defile their seed with the sons of foreigners i 10). There is a synonymous sense in both Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii of the characteristic activities in each of these pericopae as either cultic, or limited to the temple establishment on the one hand, and more inclusive of the broader population of Israel on the other. Each grouping may in turn be distinguished by the occurrence as part of a description of רכנ together, or הער and שיא of phrases containing key words cultic infidelity. In accordance with Eshel, I consider this second group of the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ coincide with the rise of first Hasmonaeans.109 If this is the case, then this charge of “avarice” in particular would appear to closely resemble Qumranic complaints of the conflict between the Teacher of Righteousness and the so-called “Wicked Priest,” (cf. 1QpHab 8–10; 4QpPsa 2:16–20). The relationship between 4Q390 and the history and formation of the Qumran sect (or sects) will be explored in greater detail in the following chapter.

“Apocalypse i”—§§43–44

43 בעריתחלשו ב[ רא ] אלוץ 44 לל [ח] לואמצום [א ] םימל [ יכ ] לםא [ ירבדתאעומש ]

. םיעבשםינשהלאבהלאבירהלולחיו ,Cf. also 4Q390 2 i 6 above 108 109 Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 26. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 223

4Q390 Frg. 2 ii “Apocalypse ii”

.3 ̊ב[ .4 הילעמ [ .5 ̊רבדבו [ .6 ̇ושונחנא [ .7 ועדי ̊חלשאו [ה .8 קבלםיחמרבו [ש .9 ברקב אלעץראה [○ [.10 א] הבוחבזיוםתזו̊ח [ [.11 חי ] ̇והבולל [א] ̊ב̊זמ̊ת [ח

3. … [ … ] 4. from upon it[ … ] 5. and by the word[ … ] 6. “we …” [ … ] 7. they will know, and I will send[ … ] 8. and with spears to pursu[e after … ] 9. in the midst of the land, upon … [ … ] 10. their[ po]ssessions, and they will offer sacrifices … [ … ] 11. they[ will pr]ofane it and [th]e alta[r … ]

Comments Unlike what appears in Apocalypse i, 4Q390 presents no positive resolution, and this pervasive pessimistic tone with regard to the state of Israel becomes a distinguishing feature. The underlying relationship with Apocalypse i is still detectable in the first- in l. 9 ץראה in 4Q390 2 ii 7 (cf. 4Q387 3 8), along with חלש person occurrence of the verb (cf. 4Q387 3 8). Similar to the “hunger” from 4Q387 3 8 there is a “seeking” in 4Q390 2 ii 8, but in this instance—and unlike in any of the several places in the Apocryphon c where seeking is symbolically significant—the action is literal. It does not occur in the context of worship or religious devotion, but rather is part of an actual man-hunt “with The military pursuit in this part of Apocalypse ii is perhaps .( שקבלםיחמרבו ) ”spears reminiscent of the description from the previous column of the “robbery” and “oppression” that characterises the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ more generally. However, the context here is more likely aligned with the “priests who commit violence” (frg. 2 i 10), as it is followed by evidence of more cult violations in ll. 10–11. If the composition of Apoca- lypse ii is situated in a later point in history than Apocalypse i, then this would in turn suggest that the same period of earnest appetite for reform from 4Q387 3 4–9 is eventually not viewed positively. Given that the historical sequence in the Apocryphon c might continue past the beginning of the Hasmonaean kingdom, it may also be that the vilifi- 224 chapter 4 cation of the Hasmonaean dynasty has already occurred, and has been intensified only a short time later in a reconfiguration of a related historical narrative that appeared in Apocalypse ii. A curious grammatical feature in 4Q390 2 ii is the shift in verb forms from the first column where virtually all the verbs indicate the events are to take place ( החלשאו ; וחבזיו ) and inverted futures ( ועדי ) in the future. In col. ii the regular perfect suggest that the dialogue recounts past events, but the appearance of so many inverted futures is consistent with the frequency of these forms throughout 4Q390.110 Dimant posits that these “long imperfects” match those from frg. 1 6, and that the context sets the dialogue rather as a continued prediction of the future.111 She would seem to be correct, especially considering that these forms follow the first column, which is definitely part of a prophetic account.

The above careful reading of what I have designated “Apocalypse ii” in 4Q390 in parallel with the Second Temple Apocalypse—or “Apocalypse i”—in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c demonstrates a rich and intricate interdependency between the two texts on a number of specific points. Both Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii clearly are dealing with the same period of events, and both share in common some characteristics in their calculation of the Sec- ond Temple age. Most notably, both begin the 490-year epoch in the Baby- lonian destruction of Jerusalem; both are highly critical of the Hellenizing Ptolemaic and Seleucid era priests and the decrees of Antiochus, and both presumably reflect upon the rise of the Hasmonaeans. However, where Apoc- alypse i is more global in scope, and highly critical of Hellenism in general, Apocalypse ii is narrower, more introspective, and with a shifted polemic that lambastes the Hasmonaean priests and alludes to the calendrical disputes that followed the revolt of 167bce. The comparison between them is fascinating, as it unveils two perspectives of the same era, and yet emerging from different points in history and outlook. But where the close study between these works is most revealing is in comparing them sequentially to one another. When scrutinised on a literary level, Apocalypse ii bears a striking resemblance to Apocalypse i, to the extent that it is not unreasonable to assume some level of dependency.112 There are nine points of contact in particular between

110 Cf. the earlier discussion in this chapter, 4.2.2. Variation in Verbal Constructions in 4Q390. 111 Dimant, djd 30, 250. 112 Berner, Jahre,JahrwochenundJubiläen, 400–402 recognises in 4Q390 an element of dependency on the other Apocryphon manuscripts and situates the latter ahead of the former: “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah c rückt damit den Beginn des wahrscheinlichen Entste- hungszeitraums beider Texte (165–100 v.Chr.), wogegen 4Q390 eher an seinem Ende ent- standen sein wird” (p. 402); cf. also pp. 425–428. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 225

Apocalypse i in the Apocryphon c and Apocalypse ii in 4Q390 that align as follows:113

1. By the temporal markers “in the day [of the blasphemer]” in Apocalypse i (4Q387 2 iii 1), and “from the completion of that generation” in Apocalypse ii (4Q390 1 7).114 2. The temporal markers in each is preceded by a description of increasing (4Q390 1 4 , ערהתאםהםגושעיו ;4Q389 8 ii 7 , הברהערושעו ) wickedness ימיב ;4Q389 8 ii 7 , הנשארההערהןמ ) compared to the previous generation .(4Q390 1 5 , םינושירהותכלממ 3. Each temporal marker indicates an epochal turning point also reflected in םוקי ) ”an upward movement: in Apocalypse i the blasphemer will “rise up 4Q389 8 ii 9), and in Apocalypse ii the first returnees from , ןפדגםיוגלךלמ 4Q390 1 5).115 , הנושירםילועהדבלמ ) ”exile are those who “go up 4. There follows a description of God’s abandonment when he “hides his face” 4Q390 1 9), and delivers , המהמינפיתרתסהו ;4Q387 2 iii 5 , לארשימינפיתרתסהו ) םיתרגסהוםהיביאדיבםיתתנו ;4Q388a 7 ii 5 , ברחלותתנו ) ”the people “to the sword 4Q390 1 9–10). Apocalypse ii supplements this with a list of cultic , ברחל offences in ll. 8–9 but also with a promise of a “remnant” in l. 10. 5. Both then contain a description of the rule of the “Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ” , תומטשמהיכאלמהמהבולשמו ;4Q387 2 iii 3–4 , יתבזעו … תומטשמהיכאלמדיב ) 4Q390 1 11).

113 This list is reproduced from Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 482–483. 114 Cf. 4Q387 2 ii 5. The decision to use the same temporal marker in 1 9 as what appeared earlier in Apocalypse i was perhaps a deliberate replacement of the reference to the 4Q387 2 ii 1; 4Q388 7 ii 3) that better accorded with the prior division of) ומיב Gentile ruler jubilee periods. in 4Q390 in may have been significantly tied to the הלע The author’s employment of 115 sectarian ideal that the community’s survival through their correct Torah observance would legitimately “atone” for the land of Israel in place of what were now considered invalid sacrifices and rituals performed in the Jerusalem temple (Cf. 1QS 8:1–10). 1QS 9:3–5 reads: “When, united by all these precepts, such men as these come to be a community they shall establish eternal truth guided by the instruction ,( לארשיבהלאתויהב ) in Israel of His holy spirit. They shall atone for the guilt of transgression and the rebellion of sin ןוצרלו ) becoming an acceptable sacrifice for the land ,( תאטחלעמועשפתמשאלערפכל ) the fat of sacrificial portions and ,( תולועלרשבל ) through the flesh of burnt offerings ( ץראל prayer, becoming—as it were—justice itself, a sweet savor of righteousness and blameless a pleasing free-will offering”; trans. by Michael Wise in ,( ךרדםימתוקדצחוחינכ ) behavior Wise, Abegg and Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 139. 226 chapter 4

-4Q390 1 11) and a perfor , ובושיו ;4Q387 2 iii 6 , ובשו ) ”Next follows a “turning .6 mance of wickedness. In Apocalypse i it is the priests of Jerusalem who are 4Q387 2 iii 6+4Q388a 7 ii , תובעותכתושעלו ) ”said to “commit abominations 7), and in Apocalypse ii an unspecified group of people are predicted to “do .(4Q390 1 11–12 , יניעבערהתאושעיו ) ”evil in [God’s] eyes 7. This is immediately followed in each by a fragmentary mention of cult objects or sacred spaces; Apocalypse i contains a reference to “the holy of 4Q387 3 1). Apocalypse ii speaks , םישדקהשדקו ִחבזמהו ) ”holies and the altar .(4Q390 2 i 2 , יתיב , שדקהשדקמתאו ) ”of the “house” and the “holy sanctuary 8. Each contains a fragmentary reference to “those who fall by the sword” 4Q390 2 i 4). From this point the , ברחלםריגסהל ;4Q387 3 2 , ברחבםילפונה ) Apocalypses reflect a shift in their sympathies, nevertheless, there are still remnants of the historical pastiche. Apocalypse i contains a favourable description of the next generation who will oversee a spiritual renewal among the people characterised by “hunger and thirst” for the Torah and the covenant (4Q387 3 4–9). However, in Apocalypse ii the next generation is accused of violating God’s “laws and commands,” and of not heeding the prophets.116 9. Finally, this period is described in both texts as one of internal struggle in 4Q387 3 , והערבשיאםחלהל ) ”which every man will “contend with his friend 4Q390 , הלאבהלאבירהלולחיו ) ”or they will “quarrel amongst themselves ,(8–7 2 i 6).

In addition, a comparison between the religious presuppositions that seem to inform the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 reveals the following: first, that while their conception of the legitimacy of the second temple differs, the author of 4Q390 appears to have used the description of the pollution and the destruction of Solomon’s temple in §§7–16 of Apocalypse i to inform his own prediction of the last days in 4Q390 2 i 9–10, and 2 ii. Second, despite the different conceptions of the length and scope of the exile in each text, the exclusive use

תאויתוקחלוכתאםירפמויהיאוההלבויבו ,The historical indictment here in 4Q390 2 i 4–5 116 appears to be a direct violation of the instruction delivered in םתואהוצארשאיתוצמלכ Dimant, djd 30, 3, recounted in . ורמשיתוצמתאויתוקחתאושרדםויםוי ,4Q385a 18 ii 8 idem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 19, n. 5, depends largely upon this relationship for her argument that 4Q390 is a fifth copy of the Apocryphon c, and not a distinct work. Even in the absence of evidence for her position argued above, this commonality serves to bolster the position that 4Q390 is best understood as having developed from—or contemporaneous with—the rest of the Apocryphon c manuscripts. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 227 to designate the event within the Qumran literature strongly צרא ( תו ) םאיבש of indicates a complementary relationship between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390. -in the Apoc תובעתהשע Third, the replacement of forms of the expression .in 4Q390 (frg יניעבערהתאהשע ryphon c (§24; §§37–38) with variations of 1 4, 12) in at least two places demonstrated above reinforces the relationship between the two compositions, and further indicates that it was possibly deliberate.

4.4 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c: Echoes of Jeremianic Discourse

The accumulation of the evidence reveals a tension between these clear similarities that leave the impression of interdependency on the one hand, and the equally palpable distinction between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 in characteristics of grammar and scribal features, as well as in their respective ideological and religious presuppositions on the other. This relationship is best explained on the basis of a common tradition, or a dependency of one upon the other, but allowing for development according to differing trajectories along the lines of religious experience and historical outlook into what I have earlier called an historical, ideological pastiche. There is a clear awareness of one another within these texts, but not so precise as to describe one as a rewritten or reworked copy of the other. How then does one best construe this literary kinship? Contrary to Dimant’s position, that 4Q390 represents “different points in the description of the historical sequence” that she believes to be in common with the Apocryphon c,117 I rather propose that the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 are parallel to one another, and that this structural, thematic, and occasionally literary agreement is evidence that actually supports their separation, when marshalled in complement to the aforementioned grammatical and ideological arguments. However, in accordance with Dimant, I maintain that this relationship extant between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 is not to be understated, as Werman unfortunately has done.118 Dimant is correct in noting that “[t]he resemblance between 4Q390 and the copies of the Apocryphon

117 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 34, n. 68, in which she re- sponds to my argument for different “stages” of development are reflected between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390, in Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 468–472. 118 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 229–230. 228 chapter 4 in style and locution is so great that one may almost say that 4Q390 is a pastiche of expressions from these copies.”119 The challenge, then, is in how to account for these similarities and differences in a cogent and sustainable fashion. Dimant has done well to recognise the important contribution that the Apocryphon c makes to the on-going and lively discussion of “rewritten Bible” at Qumran. She rightly criticises recent essays and monographs on the topic for excluding the Apocryphon on the basis that it fails to fit too narrowly defined criteria.120 Inadvertently, she has also drawn attention to the precise literary activity through which the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 are connected. Brooke has recently called for reconsidering the phenomena and effects of rewriting “scripture” from a larger set of compositions: “at least all those in early Judaism concerned with the transmission of authoritative traditions, both those that might be labelled as scripture and those that interpret them implicitly or explicitly.”121 While the Apocryphon c and texts similar to it have been precluded from discussions of rewritten Bible to this point, they have been alluded to as exemplary of the process through which rewriting takes place; in one case, as an authority conferring exercise: “The tendency for almost all extant scriptural traditions to be matched by interpretive reworkings in the precanonical period may indicate that rewriting and reworking were normally or usually carried out on compositions that carried some authority.”122 Brooke has also argued that the shift between implicit and explicit character in the so-called rewritten Bible texts is indicative of the instability of genre generally, and more specifically points to the evolutionary process of change and development in the concept of authority and authoritative texts in Second Temple Judaism.123 I have drawn from Najman’s model of Mosaic discourse to show how this authority transference might have occurred for Jeremianic literature in Second

119 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 36. 120 Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 37–38. She isolates Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible” for his insistence that rewritten Bible applied only to biblical narratives. She also criticises the monograph by Falk, The Parabiblical Texts, and White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, who restricted their treatments of the phenomenon to only within the confines of the rewritten Torah materials. 121 Brooke, “Genre Theory,” 342. 122 Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon,” 98. 123 Brooke, “Genre Theory,” 346–347. This process of the evolution of authority conferring strategies and devices is similar to the shifts in what Najman identified as forms of “Mosaic Discourse” in the Pentateuch traditions in Najman, Seconding Sinai. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 229

Temple Judaism as traditions tied to the reputation of their “founder,” Jeremiah the prophet.124 The epochal elements in common between the Apocryphon c, 4Q390, as well as in the Animal Apocalypse, scriptural Daniel, Jubilees, and a number of other Second Temple texts bind these together, but also point to the manner in which this sense of “periodised history” became an adaptive form of historiography, particularly popular in the Qumran scrolls.125 In light of the complicated nature, then, of so-called rewritten Bible texts, how do the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 fit this discussion, and how do they relate to one another? I propose that the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 together represent products of this emerging sense of epochal historiography, and that they function as part of a broader common group of authoritative traditions that in part promoted group identification and the dissemination of idealised leadership criteria. My reconfiguration of 4Q390 together with the Apocryphon c as an alternative “reading” produced fruit that appears reminiscent of Maxine L. Grossman’s “new historiography” as she applied it to the Damascus Document:

A second stage of reading turns away from a focus on authorial intent, to focus more directly on audience responses to the text, identifying changes in the potential interpretations of a given passage of theme, when it is read and re-read by audiences in other settings or with different primary concerns. The variables that shape these readings take many forms: changes in the community in which a reading occurs, changes in the approach to interpretation (whether historical, metaphorical, or other), interpretations in light of other authoritative texts, and changes over time (as texts develop authoritative status, or as the end-times fail to arrive), for example.126

124 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 7–16; section 1.3. Reputation and Authority: Jeremiah the Prophet as a “Founder” in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Chapter 1 above. 125 DiTommaso, “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography”; cf. George J. Brooke, “Types of Historiography in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography / L’Historiographie Biblique, Ancienne et Moderne (ed. G.J. Brooke and T. Römer; betl 207; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007), 211–230, 220–223. 126 Maxine L. Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study (stdj 45; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 37–38; also idem, “Roland Barthes and the Teacher of Righteousness: The Death of the Author of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Lim and Collins, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 709–722, 715–717. 230 chapter 4

One way of illustrating the process in how this might have occurred is to consider the transmission of the traditions within these texts analogous to the transference of myth in ancient Israel through what Bernard Batto has called “mythopoeic speculation.”127 He used this term simply to refer to the conscious process “by which new myths are created or old myths are extended to include new dimensions.”128 Analogously speaking in terms of textual production and transmission, this process remained on-going in Second Temple Judaism, and may be extant in the transference of history within a stream of Jeremianic traditions from the Apocryphon c into 4Q390 as follows: First, the 490-year epochal scheme in common between these texts speaks to their association, which is further assumed under the umbrella of Jeremianic traditions that find their grounding in the seventy-year prophecies from Jer 25:11 and 29:10, and which also includes Daniel 9. The same model for interpreting the history of the Second Temple period is evident between the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 in the precise isolation of the same events and periods, from the beginning of the Babylonian exile, through to the Antiochene period, the Has- monaean revolt, and culminating in the last days. I have argued that diachronically speaking, the contents of Apocalypse i in the Apocryphon c are likely earlier, and that Apocalypse ii in 4Q390 represents a development of this same large pericope, but according to changing perspectives of the exile, the function and legitimacy of the temple service and the priesthood, and their relationship to one another. This relationship is further enforced by the appearance of “transitional” redactive elements in 4Q389 8 ii 4–6 and in 4Q387 2 iii 4–5, where the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ are first introduced into the narrative. A new development which is peculiar to Apocalypse ii, is the increasing concern for the festivals and the Sabbaths, which implies an overarching shift in the interest of the calendar in this text. In this sense, Apocalypse ii reflects these changing perceptions and ideals by the historical echoes drawn from Apocalypse i. While 4Q390 may not have ever mentioned the prophet Jeremiah by name, it can still be subsumed under the same umbrella of Jeremi- anic traditions by way of this close association with the Apocryphon c, which is entrenched in Jeremianic authority. As we will come to discover from other expressions of Jeremianic discourse, this sort of implicit treatment of traditions is quite common.

127 Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 12–13. 128 Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 12. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 231

Second, the function of the Jeremiah persona as it appears to inform each text is founded on emerging perceptions of community identity, as well as competing perceptions of idealised community leadership in Second Temple Judaism. Jeremianic discourse is distinguished by its on-going political concerns, and for the maintenance and survival of Judaism within the empire— whichever empire happens to be in view. The impact of the Jeremiah persona within each text will be featured in the following chapter, and it will serve to illustrate in greater detail how the classification of both the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 as Jeremianic traditions better accounts for their place in the Qum- ran scrolls, and the function of Jeremianic traditions in the literature of the Yaḥad more broadly. For the Apocryphon c, Jeremiah is depicted as one who asserts his authority over a massive dispersion of the people in many nations. Jeremiah resides in Egypt (4Q385a 18 ii; 4Q389 1 5), but his influence extends to include the Jewish community in Babylon (4Q385a 18 i; 4Q389 1 6–7). Because of the current situation that sees the ideal “Israel” scattered across the known world, there is a heightened concern that this leadership address matters of cultural and religious conformity, and that it is best expressed in the proper interpretation and dissemination of the Torah. Community identity for the Apocryphon c rests in this ideal of cultural preservation, and resistance to the powerful Hellenistic forces that seek to dilute and pervert what it means to be Jewish. The Jeremiah persona is not explicitly presented in 4Q390, but it is expressed via the interdependency between this text and the Apocryphon c. Most evidently, Jeremiah’s influence in conversation between 4Q390 and the Apoc- ryphon c is observed in his function as exilic leader par excellence, but also in complement to the sympathetic appraisal that he maintains for the Babylonian Jewish community present in the Apocryphon c. In 4Q389 1 5–6 the community addressed at the beginning of the Apocryphon c is the “sons of Israel” in exile in Babylon. In 4Q385a 18 i 16–18, it is the outgoing exiles on their way to Baby- lon who “listened” to the exhortatory words of Jeremiah, and who “kept the covenant of the God of their fathers in the land of Babylon.” The rather positive portrayal of the exilic group in the Apocryphon c contrasts with the otherwise largely negative portrayal of the Egyptian Jews in 4Q385a 18 ii, and of Egypt more generally throughout. This “pro-Babylonian” sense that is attached to the Jeremiah persona is similarly extant in 4Q390, where the Babylonian exile is presented as a process of purification and renewal, which produces a generation of reform in the return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. The generation of returnees draws positive comparison with the exiles from 4Q385a 18 i, and is extolled for their receptivity to the “words” and “commandments” of God (4Q390 1 6). Fur- 232 chapter 4 thermore, they are contrasted against later generations who will defile “all my precepts and all my commands that I will command them, and I will send by the hand of my servants the prophets” (2 i 5).129 The description of this later generation appears in direct violation (or prophetic fulfilment) of the warning issued by Jeremiah to the Egyptian community in the Apocryphon c, to “seek my statues, and keep my ordinances” (4Q385a 18 ii 8). Jeremiah’s authority in 4Q390 is thus implicit, and perhaps it is for this reason that leadership in this text is construed not primarily as a didactic function, but rather as a matter of priestly conformity to the correct observance of the temple services, and in accordance with the right calendar. Idealised leadership is not individual, but is rather more communal, hereditary, and consecrated. The ideal community in 4Q390 is not global, but rather restricted to those who conform to much more precise, cultically defined conditions of membership. Authority in 4Q390 is disseminated from the considerable influence of Jeremiah, but it is conferred over a larger group who inherit his prophetic mantle, but in large part by virtue of their priestly or cultically informed function. Both the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 may be texts that qualify as traditions tied to the founder Jeremiah, but the function of his authority, and by virtue those parts of his character that are emphasised—as is the case in the Apocryphon c—or alluded to—as in 4Q390—are different. Owing to the genetic relationship and the considerable influence of the Apocryphon c upon the construction of 4Q390, as evidenced in this comparative exercise between Apocalypse i and Apocalypse ii, the title endorsed by Werman for 4Q390, “Pseudo-Moses,” is deemed inappropriate for its dismissal of this important connection. We have come to discover that 4Q390 is an historical, ideological pastiche of the Apocryphon c, and implicitly reflects Jeremiah’s reputation for correct prophecy and as an ideal figure of leadership and instruction in the post-exilic age. Nevertheless, the text is distinct enough to warrant its own classification as a separate composition, but perhaps in light of its subtle treatment of the Jeremianic persona, it is not precise enough to identify it as another Apocryphon of Jeremiah. I rather propose that 4Q390 is more accurately designated as we have throughout this chapter, as a redux of the Second Temple Apocalypse that appears in the Apocryphon c, “Second Temple Apoca- lypse ii.”

129 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 3; idem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 35. 4q390 and the second temple apocalypse redux 233

4.5 Conclusion: 4Q390 As an Historical, Ideological Pastiche

This chapter has sought to produce a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between 4Q390 and the other manuscripts of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. First, through a thorough investigation of the material remains of 4Q390, its grammatical features, and a comparison of the various ideological and theological distinctions between this text and the Apocryphon c, this chapter has demonstrated the exclusivity of 4Q390 as a separate composition, and not another copy of the latter. Second, the transcription and translation of 4Q390 in parallel with the Second Temple Apocalypse in the Apoc- ryphon c has served to establish the very close complementary relationship between these texts. This is further reflected in their designations “Second Tem- ple Apocalypse i” and “Second Temple Apocalypse ii.” Third, I have argued for the maintenance of 4Q390 within a broad stream of Jeremianic traditions on the basis of its association with the Apocryphon c as an historical, ideological pastiche that implicitly participates in Jeremianic discourse. We have seen the features of this most prominently displayed in its dependency upon scriptural Jeremianic themes, and its on-going concern for leadership, religion, and empire. The interdependency between these texts and their presence among the Qumran scrolls will form the basis of the discussion in the following chapter, which attempts to locate the Jeremianic discourse in the scrolls within an even broader stream of Jeremianic traditions in Second Temple Judaism. chapter 5 Character and Content: The “Emerging” (or Diminishing?) Jeremiah in the Literature of the Yaḥad

Up to this point in our study we have considered in exhaustive detail the development, shape, and content of the Qumran collection of scrolls designated the Apocryphon of Jeremiah. I have argued that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389) includes Jeremianic traditions in the form of an apocalyptic, historical narrative that was intended as a broad- ranging critique of Hellenistic cultural influences on the religious prescriptions of Judaism. The text I have chosen to designate Second Temple Apocalypse Redux (4Q390) contains a variety of structural and literary parallels with the Second Temple Apocalypse in the Apocryphon c. It has been interpreted in this investigation as a re-evaluation of the same apocalyptic history, but from a more insular perspective, and close in connexion to concerns for ritual purity and correct religious observance. I have argued for seeing these two important Jeremianic compositions as closely related, complementary of one another, and potentially integral to the establishment of community identity for the Yaḥad Essenes, who are credited for having copied, written, and collected the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These two compositions form the basis for Jeremi- anic discourse as it appears in the scrolls, but to what extent and in what directions do the other minority witnesses in the collection participate in the same stream of traditions that were attached to the reputation of their founder, Jeremiah the prophet? This chapter will attempt to build upon this appraisal of the Apocryphon manuscripts in an effort to show the influence of Jeremianic traditions more broadly in the larger corpus of sectarian compositions and other texts from Qumran. In the first part, I shall explore the presentation of the prophet Jere- miah himself in the Apocryphon c in conversation with 4Q390, and will extrapolate from this a series of common themes for distilling underlying Jeremianic content in the rest of the Qumran literature. It is believed that this is achieved through a more thoroughgoing appreciation of Jeremiah’s persona and perception in accordance with the personality studies of sociologists Barry Schwartz,1

1 Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory; cf. Chapter One, section 1.3. Reputation and Authority: Jeremiah the Prophet as a “Founder” in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278448_007 character and content 235 and Gary Alan Fine.2 Second, I shall consider the re-presentation of Jeremiah the prophet and traditions and prophecies associated with him as they appear in the Qumran sectarian literature, and a selection of other texts from Qumran Cave 4. At first, through a discussion of the most pertinent examples from Qum- ran of Jeremianic literary traditions, and then second, through a more acute exploration of the presence and function of possible allusions to the Apoc- ryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390 in the Damascus Document, in Pseudo-Daniel a (4Q243–4Q244), and the indebtedness of these texts to the language and perspective of Jubilees: a composition that in conjunction with cd is accurately characterised as formative to the development and ideology of the Yaḥad.

5.1 The Prophet Jeremiah in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390: A Progressive Appraisal

5.1.1 Prophetic Persona in the Jeremianic Narrative of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c There are two sections in the extant fragments of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c that inform about the character of the prophet Jeremiah, and establish him as the featured player for the whole composition. The narrative fragments 4Q389 1 and 4Q385a 18 i–ii have been interpreted by Dimant as a framework for the entire work around a “Divine Discourse Reviewing History.” These two narrative pericopae contain elements which suggest that they were parts of introductory and concluding sections, perhaps for the whole text, but possibly also in the formation of a transition between one text and another.3 In 4Q389 particular, the third person style, a reference to a specific date (4Q389 1 6), and the scene of a public reading,4 are considered familiar ingredients for an introduction.5 Assuming that the proposed reconstructions in Chapter Three are accurate6

2 Fine, Difficult Reputations. 3 Cf. discussion about the arrangement of the 4Q385a fragments in previous Chapters Two and Three. 4 Dimant, djd 30, 221; Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 66; idem, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’,” 66; cf. discussion above in Chapter 3, section 3.3.1. An Introduction to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c?. 5 Dimant, djd 30, 99. 6 Cf. also Dimant, djd 30, 99–100; Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 55–56 comments as follows on Dimant’s reconstruction: “Für das kompositionelle Verständnis des Werks kann man davon ausgehen, dass die Abschnitte zum Wirken Jeremias (4Q389 1; 4Q385a 18 i– ii) einen Rahmenum dasWerk formen. 4Q385a Frgm. 18 lag in der verkehrt herum gewickelten 236 chapter 5 and that the Apocryphon c forms the basis for the perception of Jeremiah as a founder elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the contents of 4Q389 frg. 1 and 4Q385a 18 i–ii are an acceptable launching point from which to discuss the presentation and function of the prophet in the Apocryphon c. Lutz Doering, in his detailed study on the subject7 has divided the material from the fragments according to three distinct settings: the first features Jeremiah’s activity as he is presented accompanying the exiles on the way to Babylon (4Q385a 18 i), and the second finds the prophet interacting with the Diaspora in Egypt (4Q385a 18 ii). Both pericopae may be distinguished from one another for present purposes as the “Golah Discourse” in frg. 18 i and the “Tahpanes Discourse” in frg. 18 ii.8 In the third setting—which is suggested as an introduction to the historical discourse that includes the Second Temple Apocalypse (4Q385a 3–5, 4Q387 1–3, 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 8 ii)— Jeremiah writes from Egypt to the Babylonian Golah (4Q389 1). The Golah Discourse (g) and the Tahpanes Discourse (t) are significant for establishing a Jeremianic narrative framework that illustrates the sociological need to address specific challenges that have arisen from Hellenization. First, the need for strong, new leadership to galvanise the Jewish communities in a new world of empirical dominance. Second, to distinguish the Jewish communities from one another: between those persevering to maintain a religious and cultural identity (Babylon), and those who appear to be unaware of their own passive, cultural demise that is occurring through increased Hellenization (Egypt).9 Doering has portrayed the prophet Jeremiah as a teacher and leader par excellence for the period of the Jewish dispersion, analogous to Moses’ presentation as a national leader and icon in the post-Sinaitic narratives. He con-

Rolle … oben auf, befand sich also ursprünglich am Ende der Handschrift (und damit wohl auch des gesamten Werks). Für 4Q389 1 schließt Dimant—m.E. mit Recht—aus der einzigen z. 5]) und genauer Orts- und] [י] היקלחןבהימר ) Erwähnung des vollen Namens des Propheten Zeitangaben, dass dieses Fragment an den Anfang des Werks gehört” (emph. orig.). 7 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten.” 8 Cf. Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 472–473. 9 On the cultural effects of Hellenization, cf. Louis H. Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism Recon- sidered (JSJSupp 107; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 24–29; Grabbe, History of the Jews 2: 140–151. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hel- lenistic Period (John Bowden trans.; 2 vols.; Fortress: Philadelphia, 1974), esp. 1: 65–78, maintained that the cultural influence was not geographically limited to the Diaspora, and was largely the result of the “penetration of Greek education” (1: 104) that was already occurring in the third cent. bce. character and content 237 tends effectively that Jeremiah is configured as a “new Moses” who instructs the Babylonian Golah and the Egyptian Diaspora in matters of Toraparänese (good Jewish conduct in exile).10 What is especially significant for Doering is that Jeremiah is reported to have performed this function through a conflation of media: Jeremiah’s Toraparänese is delivered “sowohl mündlich, durch die persönliche Präsenz des Propheten bei den nach Babel Geführten und der ägyptischen Diaspora, als auch schriftlich, von Ägypten nach Babel.”11 4Q385a frg. 18 i develops the pericope from the end of the book of Jeremiah, specifically 픐 Jer 52:12–27 (Cf. also 픐 Jer 39:5–40:6; 2Kgs 25:20–21), which chronicles the destruction of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar and Neb- i 4).12 Nebuzaradan appears 18 , םיחבטהברןדרזובנ ) uzaradan, his chief courtier to be credited with the slaughter of the chief priests and the officers at Ribla in l. 4 (Jer 52:27),13 followed by his removal of the temple furnishings, which were then carried to Babylon with the priests and the people of Israel (4Q385a 18 i 5–6).14 What is especially striking about the fragment’s development of this episode is what follows in ll. 6–11: Jeremiah accompanies the exiles “as ll. 6–7),15 where he proceeds , רהנהדעםהמעאיבנההימריךליו ) ”far as the river to “instruct them in how they were to conduct themselves in the land of their -l. 7). There is some speculation regard , םאיבשץראבושעירשאתאםוציו ) ”captivity ing both the location of the river, and the content of Jeremiah’s address to the exiles; whether this formed the historical and apocalyptic discourse in the Apocryphon c itself, or is to be understood as something altogether different.16

10 Cf. Chapter 3, n. 207 above. Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum, 79–83; Dimant, “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” 25ff.; Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives,” 282; Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 384; Dimant, djd 30, 105; Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 61. 11 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 72. 12 Cf. also 픐 Jer 39:11, 13 (not extant in 픊); 40:1 (픊 47:1); 52:26; 2Kgs 25:8; Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 57–58. 13 The object of his butchering has disappeared in the lacuna, but the pericope appears to וּהָיִּקְדִציֵנְבּ־תֶאלֶבָבְּךֶלֶמטַחְשִׁיַּו :be a conflation of Jer 52:10 and 27; compare with 픐 Jer 39:6 It is noteworthy that the longer tradition of . לֶבָבְּךֶלֶמטַחָשׁהָדוּהְייֵרֹח־לָכּתֵאְוויָניֵעְלהָלְבִרְבּ Nebuchadnezzar’s slaughter at Ribla in 픐 Jer 39:5–14 does not appear in 픊. 14 Cf. Jer 27:16–28:6; 2Chron 36:7; refer to discussion in preceding chapter on the significance of the temple vessels in section 4.2.3.1. The Second Temple; also Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels.” also Midr. Teh. 137 §2; some texts otherwise suggest that ; רהנלעיגהשׁןויכ Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26 15 Jeremiah attended to the exiles and spent time with them in the land of Babylon (cf. 4Bar. 3:15; 4:6; 5:19; 7:27–29; 2Bar. 10:1–5; 33:2; also Tg. Est. 1:1); Dimant, djd 30, 161–162. 16 Dimant, djd 30, 160 and Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 58 both note that 238 chapter 5

Jeremiah’s accompaniment of the captives as far as “the river,” and his verbal instructions at the advent of the exile in the Apocryphon c “somit der bislang früheste Beleg für die Tradition eines Gangs Jeremias mit den Exulanten nach Babylonien”;17 a tradition which is revealed elsewhere in early Jewish literature.18 However, what is most interesting in Doering’s view is the implication that Jeremiah’s travels and didactic activity provide for a broader understanding of his function:

Auch wenn die syntaktische Struktur nicht mehr ganz aufhellbar ist, kann man doch deutlich erkennen, dass es im umfassenden Sinn um Torapäranese für die Gola geht. Der Prophet verkündet dabei nicht etwa neue halachische Entscheide, sondern schärft summarisch die Richtli- nien des künftigen Handelns im Exil ein (‚was sie tun sollen‘), mahnt sie, dort ‚den Bund des Gottes ihrer Väter‘ zu halten und sich damit von den Sünden der Vergangenheit zu verabschieden, und ruft schließlich auf zum Hören auf die ‚Dinge, die ihm Gott‘—in der Gottesrede(?), s.o.—‚geboten hatte‘19

Jeremiah’s office as a national leader and instructor (subsumed under Doering’s rubric Toraparänese) serves to intensify the underlying, analogous relationship between the prophet and Moses throughout the text. When the cultic and territorial principles for the Jewish community are suspended, this prescriptive reminder fills the vacuum and provides orientation for the future of the exiles.20 In such a setting as this, a relationship between Jeremiah and the setting for the book of Deuteronomy becomes particularly pronounced. Jeremiah accompanies the exiles, as Moses led the Israelites to the boundary of the land (Deut 1:3–8; cf. Num 33:1–49); Jeremiah delivers oral instructions regarding their conduct in a foreign land, just as Moses did prior to the Canaanite campaign (Deut 1:3–5; 4:44–46; 27:1); as Jeremiah does not cross the river into the land of captivity with the exiles, so Moses was barred from crossing the Jordan River (Deut 3:23–27; 34:4). In each respect, there appears to be a conscious reflexion upon the character and function of Moses in the figure of Jeremiah.

the river may either be the Euphrates, as in Pesiq. Rab. 26, or another in Syria, based on the geographical location of the reconstructed “Riblah” in l. 4. 17 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 58 (emph. orig.). 18 Cf. e.g. 2Macc 2:1–3: καὶ ὡς ἐνετείλατο τοῖς μεταγενομένοις ὁ προφήτης δοὺς αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον ἵνα μὴ ἐπιλάθωνται τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ κυρίου (v. 2). 19 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 59–60. 20 Cf. Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 61. character and content 239

Continuing in 4Q385a 18 ii, there is a shift in the setting from the journey with סנפחתב ) the captives to Babylon (18 i 6–7), to Tahpanes in the land of Egypt ii 1, cf. l. 6). This pericope is based on events recorded in 18 , םירצמץראברשא Jeremiah 42–44 (픊 49–51) and Jeremiah’s exchanges with the members of the Egyptian Diaspora. Anna Maria Schwemer has suggested that this Egyptian setting—which is also featured in the commemoration of Jeremiah in Lives of the Prophets—more closely corresponds to the arrangement in 픊 Jeremiah, where this narrative is found at the end of the book.21 This same setting in frg. 18 ii would align with my prior arguments for the Sitz im Leben of the Apocryphon c in the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora.22 In the Septuagint version of events, Jeremiah is first entreated by the leaders of those left in Judah to seek an answer from yhwh as to where they should settle (픊 Jer 49:1–6). He assents to their request and delivers yhwh’s response, advising them to remain in Judah and to continue under the care of the King of Babylon (vv. 9–12), and admonishing them not to travel to Egypt (vv. 13–22). However, he is ignored and accused of being a liar and a political pawn by the people of the land (픊 50:1–3). They continue into Egypt taking Jeremiah and his “co-conspirator” Baruch with them, to where they settle in Tahpanes (vv. 4–7). The narrative in frg. 18 ii opens where this passage has left off. Jeremiah is ורמאיו ) ”first asked by the Egyptian residents to “inquire of God on our behalf ii 2). The basis for the incident is 픊 Jer 49:1–6, but 18 , םיהלאלונדעבאנשורדול here it takes place not in Judah but in Tahpanes. Unlike the narrative in 픊, Jeremiah is not so compliant. We go on to read that “Jeremiah would not to listen to them; he refused to seek God on their behalf, and he would not raise םהלשורדיתלבלהימריםהלעמשאלו ) ”on their account petition and supplication ii 2–4).23 Rather than address their petition 18 , הלפתוהנרםדעבאשנאלוםיהלאל

21 Anna Maria Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Propheta- rum (tsaj 49; 2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 1: 165; cf. Doering, “Jeremia in Baby- lonien und Ägypten,” 63, also Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 474–479. 22 Cf. sections 3.4.3. Second Temple Apocalypse and especially 4.2.3. Ideology, Religion and History in 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c in Chapters Three and Four above. 23 For an alternate transcription, see Strugnell’s reading in Wacholder and Abegg, Prelimi- 4Q385) ןאמיו ] ̇ימריםהל [ לה ] הלאלםהלשורדית̊ל̊ב [ הימריאשיוםי ] הלפתוהנר :nary Edition, 3: 236 16 ii 2–4); also García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2: 772–773, and Brady, “Prophetic Traditions,” 1: 152. Compare Abegg’s translation in the first edition of Wise, Abegg and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper- Collins, 1996), 352: “But] Jeremi[ah refused] to inquire of God for them. [He lifted up] a song of rejoicing and a prayer …” The translation was emended to reflect Dimant’s transcription in the revised edition, 446. Dimant’s reconstruction is based on Jer 7:16 and 11:14 (djd 30, 164). 240 chapter 5 for intercession, Jeremiah’s response is then in stubborn defiance to take up in ii 18 , תוניקןנוקמהימרייהיו … םילשורילע ) situ dirges over the plight of Jerusalem 4–5).24 Doering has observed that the durative temporal aspect of the construc- stands in juxtaposition to the preceding request of those ןנוקמהימרייהיו tion who are with Jeremiah in Egypt.25 Jeremiah’s actions imply a sense of exile and distance as one that is on-going, and not easily resolved through the performative platitudes of the cult.26 Contrary to what appears in scriptural Jeremiah, Jeremiah’s persona here in the final columns of the Apocryphon c is considerably more assertive, forceful, and demonstrates a capacity for leadership that is not apparent in either 픊 or 픐. The re-presentation of the Jeremiah figure in the Apocryphon c has signalled heightened concern for issues pertaining to community leadership that also aligns with a setting for the Apocryphon c in the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora. In the final five extant lines from frg. 18 ii, the subject shifts to Jeremiah’s delivery of Toraparänese, only this time for the Egyptian residents. It is similar to the instructions of Jeremiah in the previous column, but featuring plural תאושרדםויםוי ) ”imperatives to “daily seek my statutes and keep my ordinances 4Q385a 18 ii 8). Where this column differs from the former , ורמשיתוצמתאויתוקח is in two regards: first, the object of Jeremiah’s address is not limited to only the col. i 6) but rather includes the “sons of Judah and , לארשיינב ) ”sons of Israel“ ii 7).27 Second, the focus in the admonishment , םימינבוהדוהיינבלאו ) ”Benjamin is a warning against idolatry and not upon covenant preservation (18 i 9). This is closer to the pericope preserved in 픊 Jeremiah 51 where Jeremiah issues a warning against idol worship in Tahpanes (픊 Jer 51:1–10). Ll. 8–10 read: “Do not walk after the other idols of the nations, after whom your fathers walked, for surely they will not deliver you.”

24 Doering “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 64 suggests that this allusion to Jeremiah’s lament provides perhaps the earliest written testimony to the commonly held tradition that Jeremiah mourned for Jerusalem; cf. other references to this tradition in 2Bar. 5:5–7; 9:1–2; 4Bar. 2:10; 3:14; also particularly the superscription in 픊 Lamentations (cf. b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 26a; b. B. Bat. 15a; Lam. Rab. Prologue; 픖 Lam 1:1). 25 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 64; cf. gkc §134.2; Joüon §121 f; §154m. 26 Cf. discussion in previous chapter, 4.2.3.3. The Exile and Its Long-Term Consequences.A similar attitude towards the Egyptian Diaspora may be alluded to elsewhere in 4Q387 a 1–5. This fragment was originally assigned by Strugnell to 4Q387, but Dimant, djd 30, 197 has concluded that dissimilarities in its colour, and larger spaces between lines and letters disqualify it from inclusion with 4Q387 frgs. 1–4. 27 Dimant, djd 30, 165 has noted that the combination of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin appears in 2Chron 11:1, 3; 34:9; Ezr 1:5; 4:1, also 1QM i 2 and 4Q372 1 14 with the addition of Levi; cf. also idem, “From the book of Jeremiah,” 459–460. character and content 241

It is not coincidental that Jeremiah’s message to the Tahpanes group differs from that which was delivered to the Babylonian Golah. A polemic against Egypt seems to be prominent especially in the Apocryphon c: it is detected in the rewritten oracle from Nahum 3 uttered against Egypt that is preserved in 4Q385a 17a–e ii,28 and in a prior prediction of the destruction of Egypt in 4Q387 2 iii 1). The imperatives in , םירצמתכלממתארבשא ) Apocalypse i §29 4Q385a 18 ii 8–10 coupled with Jeremiah’s refusal to perform intercession for the Egyptian Diaspora would logically have been prompted by particularly strong feelings towards the thoroughly Hellenised Alexandrian Jewish community, and offered in reaction to the instruction recorded in Deut 17:16 “never again .( דוֹעהֶזַּהְךֶרֶדַּבּבוּשָׁלןוּפִסֹתאֹלםֶכָלרַמָאהָוהיַו ) ”(to return in this way (to Egypt Incorporated into Jeremiah’s function as a national leader is his re-presentation in the Tahpanes Discourse as a priestly intercessor on behalf of the Egyptian group.29 Despite this important difference, Jeremiah’s function for both the outgoing exiles and the Egyptian Diaspora is largely the same: he is projected as a national leader and teacher who guides each community in the establishment of exilic Jewish culture and religion, through the vehicle of Doering’s Toraparä- nese; that is, the public, oral delivery of the law. The third narrative section in the Apocryphon c is in 4Q389 1, and is placed prior to the beginning of the Second Temple Apocalypse.30 There is again a change in setting from 4Q385a frg.18 i–ii, which here appears to feature the Golah in the midst of exile in the city of Babylon. 4Q389 1 6–7 records that וארק ) ”they read these words before all the sons of Israel by the River Sur“

28 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 227–230 has dedicated a detailed discussion to the Nahum passage in 4Q385a 17 ii. He argues for this as an example of “revelatory exegesis” by which the prophet Jeremiah has “read and recontextualized” a “scriptural prophecy” (p. 230). Jassen draws attention to Jeremiah’s “reading and interpreting” of scripture in this instance as an indicator for the “scribalized” development in his own persona. While it is true that Jeremiah is a reading and writing prophet in the Apocryphon c, Jassen has not noticed the significance of the settings in which Jeremiah’s Toraparänese is always a performed, auditory event. See further the discussion of the rewritten Nahum prophecy in Chapter Three above, in section 3.4.5. Prophetic Oracle of Judgement: A Previously Unattested Ver- sion of Nahum 3:8–10. The odd appearance of the Nahum oracle in a text dominated by apocalyptic discourse may suggest that the Apocryphon c held more closely to a notion of prophecy in a ritualistic context. 29 It may be important to note that the Jeremiah’s intercession appear to be ineffective, as the results are not reported in the extant remains of the fragment. This should be expected in light of the Apocryphon c’s apparent disregard for the priestly office in the Second Temple period. See Chapter Four, section 4.2.3.2. The Priesthood, Religion, and Power above. 30 Cf. Chapter Three, section 3.3.1. An Introduction to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c? above. 242 chapter 5

The setting is defined temporally .( רוסרהנלעלארשיינבלכינפלהלאהםירבדה , לארשיתולגלהנשששוםישולש ) ”in the “thirty-sixth year of the exile of Israel l. 6), and the fragment features the prophet “Jeremiah son of Hilqiah from l. 5). The striking similarities , םירצמץראמהיקלחןבהימרי ) ”the land of Egypt between the content in this fragment and the prologue of 1Baruch provides a broader understanding for the context of the Apocryphon c. These include first, the association of a Jeremianic figure with the event (Βαρουχ υἱὸς Νηριου υἱοῦ Μαασαιου υἱοῦ Σεδεκιου υἱοῦ Ασαδιου υἱοῦ Χελκιου, Bar 1:1; cf. v. 3), who happens to be situated in the land of dispersion (ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, v.1); second, the calendrical designation for the event, specifically relative to the exile (ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ πέμπτῳ ἐν ἑβδόμῃ τοῦ μηνὸς ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ᾧ ἔλαβον οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τὴν Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτὴν ἐν πυρί, v. 2);31 third, the description of the event as a public reading (καὶ ἀνέγνω Βαρουχ τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου, v. 3); and fourth, the location of the event by a river (ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἐπὶ ποταμοῦ Σουδ, v. 5).32 These similarities suggest that both the Apocryphon c and 1Baruch may have shared a common source, albeit they emerged with some significant variation.33

31 It is noteworthy that the specific event with which each text connects itself is slightly different. In 1Baruch, the public reading is dated from when “the Chaldeans seized Jerusalem and burned it with fire” (Bar 1:2), while in the Apocryphon c the reading is situated from a 4Q389 1 6; cf. Jer 52:31 = 2Kgs 25:27 , לארשיתולגל ) ”point in time “during the exile of Israel for a similar syntactical construction). 32 Dimant, djd 30, 222, has noted that the “River Sur” is unknown, and while Baruch has the very similar Soud, 픖 reads ṣwr. The variance is best explained through an “interchange of the graphically similar dālet and rêš in the square script.” Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 67–68, has offered a solution for locating the river, citing a suggestion by Odil Hannes Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zur Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (frlant 160; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 24: “den topographisch sonst nicht identifizierbaren Fluss Sur aus einer Kombination von ורוס ) Esr 8 (Sammlung des Volks vor der Rückführung am Fluss Ahawa) und Jes 52.11 weicht, biegt ab’) zu erklären; gemeint wäre ‘somit der Fluß “Abbiegen”’, von dem‘ ורוס später zur Zeit Esras dann zur Heimkehr abgebogen wird.” 33 Cf. Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 68. Most scholars consider 1Baruch to be a composite work, and that the prologue was a late addition; cf. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, 257, 275; David G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruc- tion and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9 (sblscs 10; Chico, Calif.: Scholar’s Press, 1982), 29–32; Donald E. Gowan, “Wisdom,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D.A. Carson et al.; wunt 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 215–239, 222. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch, 290–303, argues persuasively for the compositional unity of the whole, and assigns a date for 1Baruch between 164–162bce. Cf. also the brief summary in Doron Mendels, “Baruch, Book of,” abd 1: 618–620, 620. For another counter position cf. P.-M. Bogaert, “Le person- character and content 243

Where Baruch has become a central figure in the composition that bears his name, he is never mentioned in the extant portions of the Apocryphon c.34 Neither Dimant nor Doering have offered an explanation for Baruch’s absence, although it may be attributed to the author’s tendency towards emphasising the relationship between Moses and Jeremiah throughout the text. It is possible that the presence of Baruch was thought to detract from the characterisation of Jeremiah as the “new Moses”; after all, the latter’s disciple, Joshua, is little more than an auxiliary character in the book of Deuteronomy. The choice of one figure over the other may also reflect on how the collecting community perceived its own access to revelation. In the Apocryphon c, Jeremiah presents himself before God directly, while 1Baruch frequently features the “key” to divine wisdom in the correct interpretation of the Torah (cf. e.g. Bar 3:14, 25–4:1). The subtle difference between the way in which these two figures are presented in parallel situations may be telling of the theological divergence between two communities who wrote, collected, and rewrote these traditions.35 Jeremiah confronts; Baruch studies. Baruch, the cosmopolitan sage; Jeremiah, the explo- sive charismatic. For those behind 1Baruch, a pragmatic, sophisticated and much more worldly approach to religious practice.36 While for those behind the Apocryphon c, God remained present and directly accessible, as they imagined themselves in continuity with the biblical world, and attuned to the otherworldly forces that would swiftly bring about its transformation in the last days. Besides the difference in the protagonist, one will also notice in the Apoc- ryphon c that—while he may exist in the lacunae—the king and his royal consorts are not present as they are in 1Baruch. Additionally, while Baruch is

nage de Baruch et l’histoire du livre de Jérémie: Aux origines du livre deutéro-canonique de Baruch,” se (ed. E.A. Livingstone; vol. 7, tu 126; Berlin: Akademie, 1982), 73–81, 74, who sets a date between 63bce and 70ce. 34 A possible exception is in another potentially related text, 4Q383 4 2; cf. Dimant, djd 30, 121–122. 35 For more on the differences between the personae of Jeremiah and Baruch and their function in 1Baruch and the Apocryphon c, cf. Davis, “Prophets of Exile.” 36 Burke, The Poetry of Baruch, 34–35, attributes a heightened commitment to Torah observance as part of a reaction to the onset of Hellenism. The emphasis placed upon νόμος (Bar. 2:2, 28; 4:1, 12) and πρόσταγμα (1:18; 2:10; 4:1; 5:8) throughout the text forms the basis for the community’s penitence. Note the recurring accompanying formula οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν in 1:18–19, 21; 2:5, 10, 22–24, 29; 3:4; cf. also George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd revd. edn.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 2005), 95–96. 244 chapter 5 understood to have composed and then read his work before the gathering of the exiles, in the Apocryphon c the writing appears to have come from Jeremiah in Egypt, and is read collectively by the people themselves.37 This has led Doering to draw a connexion between the writing of Jeremiah in 4Q389 1 and the other instances of Jeremiah’s Toraparänese in the Apocryphon c. In this regard, the prophet functions in absentia through written correspondence from his own situation among the Egyptian Diaspora. This is a unique conflation of the “new Moses” motif with the “Diaspora letters” tradition found throughout the late Second Temple period;38 according to Doering:

Pragmatisches Anliegen eines solchen Texts kann freilich nicht die An- bindung der Gola an das Mutterland in einem irgendwie lokal verstande- nen Sinn sein. Stattdessen wird der Zusammenhalt des Gottesvolks hier durch die Weisung des autorisierten Propheten angestrebt, der aufgrund der Umstände ebenfalls außerhalb des ‘Landes’ weilen muss.39

Elsewhere Doering has written that this type of epistolary communication set in the Babylonian exile is reflective of an on-going situation faced by the Jewish Diaspora from as early as the second cent. bce: it functioned in a more

37 It may actually be the case that the Apocryphon c is less “scribally oriented” than 1Baruch; a reflexion of the perception of “scripture” relative to each text. This would also make sense in light of the increasing importance of the scribal medium that is associated with Baruch in the subsequent Baruch traditions; cf. also 2Bar. 50:1; 77:12–19; 78:1; 87:1; 4Bar. 6:15–19; Cf. J. Edward Wright, “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. M.E. Stone and T.A. Bergren; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press Int’l, 1998) 264–289. On the transformation of prophecy into a scribal medium, cf. Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 197–278. 38 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 70, idem, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters,’” 68–69, has suggested that there is a genre or “Briefsorte” to which early Jewish “Diasporabriefe” may be assigned. This includes Jer 51[픊 28]:59–64; Ep Jer; Tg. Neb. Jer 10:11—and to a lesser extent 2Bar. 77:11–87:1; 4Bar. 6:15–7:1; 7:12–36—all of which are based on the example of a well-educated Jeremiah in Jer 29[36]:1–23, who writes to the exiles from Jerusalem or its environs; cf. e.g. 2Bar. 6:1; 77:18: Baruch writes from an oak tree; 4Bar. 4:11; 6:1; 7:1: Baruch writes from a sepulchre. 39 Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 70 (emph. in orig.): in the relocation of the prophetic authority from the “motherland” to another place in an exilic crisis, Doering has also found an interesting parallel with the Sitz im Leben presented in 1Peter, which purports to have been written to the Christian “Diaspora” (παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας, 1Pet 1:1), from “Babylon” (Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι; 5:13); pp. 70–71, 76–79. character and content 245

“local sense” for those living in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora, and in a rather “qualitative sense” for those who saw themselves as part of an implicit, on-going “exile.”40 Doering has argued that through the medium of written communication, the receptivity of Jeremiah’s Toraparänese is facilitated beyond the group of original addressees, and becomes a continuous prescription for Jewish conduct in dispersion or exile.41 It could be said that the Apocryphon c is imbued with an “authoritative” quality among its readers by virtue of the process of writing alluded to in 4Q389 frg. 1, and that this method for authorisation is part of a continuing Mosaic/Jeremianic tradition. In the book of Deuteronomy, much weight is added to the divine nature of Moses’s words in his instructions in 27:3 to the “elders of Israel” to “write … all of the words of this Torah” cf. 31:9, 24). In Jeremiah 36 the prophet is ; ָתְּבַתָכְו … תאֹזַּההָרוֹתַּהיֵרְבִדּ־לָכּ־תֶא ) commanded by yhwh to write upon a scroll “all the words that I have spoken v. 2, cf. also vv. 4, 17, 32). It is , ָךיֶלֵאיִתְּרַבִּדּ־רֶשֲׁאםיִרָבְדַּה־לָכּתֵאָהיֶלֵאָתְּבַתָכְו ) ”to you assumed that through Jeremiah’s preserved written communication there is a trumped assurance that the words contained therein have a special quality. If Jassen is correct, then it would seem that the emphasis upon Jeremiah’s writing abilities enhances his prophetic calibre.42 This aspect of Jeremiah’s persona is conjoined to a Mosaicised construction for leadership by which he assertively admonishes (4Q385a 18 ii 2–4; cf. Deut 8:11–20; 28:15–68) and instructs (4Q385a 18 i 7; ii 7–10; cf. Deut 1:3–5; 4:44–46; 27: 1) his followers.43 There can be little doubt that the connexion between Jeremiah and Moses is further enhanced through the emphasis on their writing abilities, and while this signifies a sort of leadership-from-distance that Doering suggests, it is debatable whether this is the primary authorising feature in the Apocryphon c.

40 Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’,” 70. Because of its place in the library of Qumran and preoccupation with exile, Doering has found a meaningful connexion between the Apocryphon and the pre-history of the community who penned the Dam- ascus Document. He argues that there is a “conception of pilgrimage” which is applied to the new covenant, through which “kann man annehmen, dass ein Selbstver-ständnis als ‘Fremde’, vielleicht sogar in örtlichem Sinn außerhalb des Landes Israel, in besonderer Weise analogie-fähig für die im Apokryphon vorausgesetzte Situation des Exils bzw. Des Wohnens im Ausland ist,” Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 74–75 (emph. orig.); cf. cd 8:20–21 and discussion in following section 5.3.1. cd 1:3–7; also Dimant, djd 30, 111–112. 41 Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’,” 71. 42 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 203–207. 43 Cf. also Najman, Seconding Sinai, 36–39. 246 chapter 5

It is equally significant that in the Apocryphon c Jeremiah’s instructions are transmitted both orally as well as in writing, but in every case the words of Jeremiah—both written and spoken—receive attention in their performance in a public setting. Such is the case of 4Q389 1 6, in which the words of Jeremiah are read aloud by the receiving community.44 In her study of the forms of Mosaic discourse in ancient Judaism, Najman draws attention to what she has called “re-presentation,” whereby “[t]here is repeated emphasis on gaining access to revelation through a re-creation of the Sinai event, even in the face of destruction and exile.”45 In particular, Najman notes that in such instances of re-presentation, the location of the event and the emphasis on the point of view of the text’s reader or listener indicate a conference of authority via “the presence of tradition of those who read or hear the words of Torah.”46 Both the setting by the river in the Apocryphon c, and the emphasis on the act of reading imply something similar. It may be, then, that the authority in this text actually emanates from the participation in public reading itself, and that the authorising figure is the community in the event in which the words of the founder Jeremiah are recalled. In this sense, leadership-from-distance is merely a vehicle by which the receiving community is virtually sanctioned to perform the authorising function for itself in the occasion of a public reading.

5.1.2 Dual Audiences: From Egypt to Babylon in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390 Jeremiah’s re-presentation as a Mosaic sort of prophetic leader conformed to the ideological foundations for the Apocryphon c, but this leadership programme functioned on two levels and for two separate groups. As already indicated in the previous discussion, the narrative portions of the Apocryphon c contain two distinct audiences: one in Babylon and the other in Egypt. What is the significance of this distinction between geographical locations? For the readers of the Apocryphon c, the difference between the two rather vividly represented the realia of their situation: they perceived themselves as an immi- grant community, even within the historical boundaries of Israel, but moreover, the differences between Babylon and Egypt provided for a sense of community identity by which they distinguished between covenant insiders and outsiders. In short, the readers of the Apocryphon c perceived two types of Judaism or Jew- which is different , וארק It is important to note here that the verb used is the plural active 44 from the setting in 1Bar 1:13 where καὶ ἀνέγνω Βαρουχ τοὺς λόγους himself before the gathered exiles. 45 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 16–17. 46 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 32 (emph. orig.). character and content 247 ish culture that were symbolised by Babylon and Egypt: the former was ideal and projected Jewish life as a matter of conscious covenant obedience in the face of foreign cultural influence. The latter was viewed as a systemic problem which only served to exacerbate the current undesirable situation of foreign integration and assimilation.47 The Babylonian recipients appear in two places in the Apocryphon c: in the introduction to the historical discourse in 4Q389 1 7, congregated on the shore of the “River Sur,” and in the post destruction narrative summary where Jeremiah accompanies the outgoing exiles as far as “the river” in 4Q385a 18 i. Significantly, it is the Babylonian group that departed by way of the river, and later congregated on the shores of another for the delivery of Jeremiah’s covenant instructions in Babylon. I have already noted the significance of the river in these two pericopae for the projection of Jeremiah as a “new Moses,” but furthermore, the location of the Babylonian Jews on the shores of a river in each pericope also appears to coincide with their receptivity to Jeremiah’s instructions. Notice especially in 4Q385a 18 i 8–9 that those departing for to the words that ,( הימרילוקבועמשיו ) Babylon “listened to the voice of Jeremiah God had instructed to him to do.” Their receptivity to Jeremiah’s instructions for covenant obedience appear in fairly sharp contrast to the Jewish residents in Egypt in the following column. The Egyptian community, as we have already seen occupies the attention of 4Q385a 18 ii, and their presentation is considerably less sympathetic than that of the Babylonian group in the previous column. The differing evaluation ,in frg. 18 ii שׁרד is particularly evident in the frequent appearance of the verb especially as it is juxtaposed against other uses of this word in various other parts of the Apocryphon c. The Egyptian community requests intercession before God through Jere- miah, and the prophet’s response is quite telling. In 4Q385a 18 ii, the verb appears three times: first in ll. 2–3, which records the request issued by the שׁרד Egyptian Jews to Jeremiah and his reply: “And they said to him: ‘Seek now on But Jeremiah would not listen .( םיהלאלונדעבאנשורד ) ’our account before God ,In l. 8 .( םיהלאלםהלשורדיתלבל ) ”to them. He refused to seek God on their behalf is used to describe the correct response of the Jewish Diaspora: “Daily seek שׁרד -my statutes.” Other occurrences of this verb are located in a pos ( ושרדםויםוי ) you sought“ , ינשרדתו ,itive contrast to the pre-temple generation in 4Q389 2 1

47 Dimant, “From the Book of Jeremiah,” 458 makes a similar observation, and ties the negative/positive contrast between the Jewish communities in Egypt/Babylon to passages in Jer 24; 42:15–22; 44:11–14. 248 chapter 5 after me,” and possibly in 4Q385a 16 7.48 However, Apocalypse i §§13–14 predicts a similar situation to what appears in the narrative conclusion in 4Q385a 18 ii: “And they will seek my face in their distress, but I will not respond to ”on account of their treachery by which they betrayed me ( םהלשרדאאלו ) them (4Q387 2 ii 2–3). By way of Jeremiah’s fierce rejection in 4Q385a 18 ii 3, it appears as though the Egyptian Jewish community “seeks” after God inappropriately, and they are rebuffed for their idolatrous treachery through his refusal to listen. They serve as a model for future generations who would dare to approach God insincerely.49 The warning here, the accompanying prophecies in Apoca- lypse i §§13–14, and the multiple references to Egypt in §§29–30 all make sense within an overarching anti-Hellenistic programme that informs Apocalypse i.50 This appears in contrast with a more affirmative presentation of Babylon in the introductory section in 4Q389 frg. 1 and the first column in the post destruction narrative summary in 4Q385a frg. 18 i. Despite the apparent endorsement of Babylon in contrast to Egypt in the Apocryphon c, there is a tension created between these rival communities that never receives a clear resolution. Egypt is projected as representative of those who are guilty of violating the covenant through their practices of cultural

48 Cf. discussion in Chapter Three, 3.4.2. Historical Discourse, which draws attention to the importance of various types of “seeking” to the whole theme of the Apocryphon c. The instance in 4Q385a 16 7 is reconstructed, and the placement of this fragment as part of an eschatological prediction suggests that this may be applied to future heirs of God’s kingdom who perhaps “seek after yhwh.” 49 It is of interest to note that in the chronological sequence in Apocalypse i §29, Egypt , םירצמתוכלמתארובשאומיב ) is explicitly singled out and their destruction is predicted 4Q388a 7 ii 4 || 4Q387 2 iii 1). 50 The close attention of the Diaspora narrative set upon the issue of idolatry makes reasonable historical sense, in light of the fact that religious syncretism seems to have been the predominant concern among integrated Jewish communities of the fourth to third cent. bce within Hellenistic culture; cf. John M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Dias- pora: From Alexander to Trajan (323bce–117ce) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Cf. also the review by Louis Feldman, “Studies in the Ancient Jewish Mediterranean Diaspora,” ijct 7 (2000): 244–256; repr. in Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism, 135–153, esp. pp. 136–146. Grabbe, History of the Jews, 2: 125–165 argues that while cultural syncretism is something that doubtlessly occurred, the amount of social concern that it generated was probably quite minimal. Religious purity insofar as Judaism distinguished itself as monotheistic was a matter of great importance. However, there is little evidence that the Jews were suppressed and persecuted for their beliefs by the Ptolemies; 2: 149–151; cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1: 107–115 and his discussion of the pluriformity and “intellectual multiplicity” extant in Jewish literature as early as the third cent. bce. character and content 249 treachery. Babylon receives attention for having been receptive to Jeremiah’s covenant prescriptions even in exile, but the undesirable condition of foreign occupation and cultural suppression is one that is very much on-going and seems to be permanent. 4Q389 1 6 locates the Babylonian Jews temporally at the precise mid-point of the exile. Its conclusion is foreseen only in the (probably distant) future arrival of the kingdom of God in the last days, which probably appears in the scant remains of a lengthy description comprising 4Q385a frgs. 10–15 or frg. 16. The Babylonian community is generally presented as distant and tangibly unreachable, and thus they remain little more than symbolic of a hopeful ideal—the covenant was broken, and the only hope for the recipients of the Apocryphon c is that they might “daily seek after” the precepts of God (4Q385a 18 ii 8). This was a tension that was not resolved until the Babylonian community was more clearly identified as the source of hope in the exile in the Second Temple Apocalypse Redux (4Q390 1 5–7).51 Werman correctly identified the anti-Hellenistic hostility that is prevalent in the Apocryphon c, but there is another element, especially in the comparison/contrast between the Jews in exile and those in community with Jeremiah that is particularly important for reading Apocalypse i in parallel with Apoc- alypse ii in 4Q390. Doering touched upon the positive endorsement of ex- eventu leadership that is a hallmark of what he has singled out as the “Diaspora letters”: Jeremiah writes to and instructs the Babylonian exiles; he provides advice regarding the exile and preparations for their future return.52 He writes from Egypt, where he also provides strict censures regarding idol worship, and for whom he refuses to intercede before God.53 In the Apocalypse ii redux, Jeremiah is absent from the text, but the mantle of his leadership is implicitly reflected for all Israel outside of Israel, at a distance from the favoured community in Babylon.

51 The reading provided by 4Q390 to the historical schemata in Apocalypse i–ii but with Babylon in the foreground provides tangible support for the “multiple audiences” that Grossman argued for in her methodological study of the Damascus Document: “By understanding the Damascus Document’s historical narratives in terms of the hypothetical readings of its original audiences, as well as a variety of other audiences in the course of the lifetime of the text, such an approach allows for discussion not only of the history ‘behind’ the text, but also of the potential for the text to shape and contribute to an on-going understanding of history, long after the text’s original composition,” Grossman, Reading for History, 127. It will remain to be seen how the 4Q390 version of the Second Temple Apocalypse in particular affects and enlightens our reading of the parallel historical treatise in cd 1:3–11 in the following section below. 52 Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’,” 70–71. 53 Cf. especially Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’,” 67. 250 chapter 5

The two audiences can account for many of the differences that Werman detected between the two chronological schemata in Apocalypse i and Apoca- lypse ii. We have already seen how the inappropriate “seeking” of the Egyptian community in 4Q385a frg. 18 ii also serves as an example of cultural treachery expressed in the “idolatry” of future generations in §§28–33 in Apoca- lypse i. Conversely, Apocalypse ii contains none of these same elements; Egypt -never appears, and the fairly specific injunctions against idola שׁרד ,is absent try are altogether missing. Interestingly, the situation in Apocalypse ii seems to be anticipated 4Q385a frg. 18 i in the Apocryphon c, and Jeremiah’s sympathetic treatment of the outgoing exiles. When Jeremiah instructs them on the banks of the river here, their response to his instruction has nothing to do with idolatry, nor with correct penitential posterity. Rather, this group is positively תאורמשיו ) ”remembered for “(keeping) the covenant of the God of their fathers 4Q385a 18 i 9). In Apocalypse ii, the later Second Temple , םהיתובאיהלאתירב generation of descendents from those who have emerged from out of Babylon is indicted for their failure to remember “statute and festival and Sabbath and 4Q390 1 8).54 As I have argued in the , תירבותבשודעומוקוחוחכשי ) ”covenant preceding chapter, the concerns in Apocalypse ii are for only internal matters pertaining to Israel and the priesthood, and the rest of the world that occupies the attention of Apocalypse i is ignored entirely. In her evaluation of Apocalypse i–ii together, Dimant has made note of some of the different emphases in the epochal calculations, but her explanation for the supposed discrepancies is that the 4Q390 prediction is narrowly focused on only a specific point: the seventh jubilee of the whole sequence of ten jubilees in 4Q387 2 ii 3–4.55 The evidence for a close relationship or common origin between the two texts presented in the previous chapter accounts for a more plausible explanation that points to separate audiences encompassed in each. The first, in the Apocryphon c is more general and inclusive of all the people of Israel that had been dispersed after the destruction of Jerusalem. It is offered as part of the post destruction narrative in 4Q385a frg. 18 ii in Tahpanes in Egypt, and it addresses the failure of the larger community of Israel to honour and worship God appropriately and to keep his Torah. This emphasis on the distance of God is reminiscent of the narrative in 픊 Jer 49:1–50:7, in which the

54 Cf. also 4Q390 2 i 6. 55 Dimant, djd 30, 236, idem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c,” 33. See my critique of Dimant’s position in Chapter Two, section 2.2.3. Cana Werman et al., 4Q390 and Pseudo-Moses revisited. character and content 251 remaining settlers in Jerusalem refused to listen to the word of yhwh, and took Jeremiah with them away from the land and into Egypt. Jeremiah’s onerous response is encapsulated in the scathing oracle that follows:

If you say: “We will not dwell in this land! Neither will we listen to the voice of the Lord! For we will go to the land of Egypt where we shall see no war, neither will we hear the sound of trumpets, nor shall we hunger for bread. So there we shall remain.” So then listen now to the word of the Lord: thus says the Lord! If you indeed set your face towards Egypt, and you there to live, so it shall be that the sword that you fear will find you in the land of Egypt. And the famine for which you have no regard will overtake you, coming after you in Egypt, and there you shall die. And all the men and all the foreigners who set their faces towards Egypt to live there will die by the sword and by famine, and no one from among them shall escape from the evils that I am bringing against them. 픊 Jer 49:13–17

The people and the nation are singled out for their sins, and the fate of Israel ,22; םיבשתוצראב §) ”and its dispersed population in the “lands of captivity 4Q385a 4 9 || 4Q389 8 ii 3) comprise the bulk of Apocalypse i. Apocalypse ii recalls what was included in the written instruction that Jeremiah sent to the idealised Babylonian exiles anticipated in the introduction to the historical discourse (4Q389 1) and echoed in the first column of the post-destruction narrative summary (4Q385a 18 i). It concerns the future of the “remnant” from this group, which is favourably described in their return to the land and the rebuilding of the temple, in contradistinction to the activity of the rest of Israel. The accusations in Apocalypse ii are levelled against the priesthood, and concern specific covenant and calendar violations.56 There are several mentions of cultic defilement, but at no point is this sin connected השעו ;specifically to the worship of foreign idols as it is in Apocalypse i (eg. §19 4Q385a 5 9 || 4Q387 2 iii + 3 15). These failings , רכאנידבעו ;4Q387 2 ii 8; §41 , תובעת appear deliberately re-expressed in Apocalypse ii, and are rather presented as 4Q390 יניעבערהושעיו ) tangible affronts to the performance of God’s instructions 1 8–9, 12; 2 i 8). Furthermore, the authority-from-distance observed by Doer- ing alludes to the sense that is conveyed elsewhere in the Qumran sectarian texts: that the condition of exile was one of purification through which the

56 Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 246–247; cf. the discussion in the preceding chapter, section 4.2.3. Ideology, Religion, and History in 4Q390 and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. 252 chapter 5 group could discern and accomplish the true will of God.57 The Jewish community in Babylon that was idealised and tragically never realistically posited in Apocalypse i becomes a tangible reality for the readers of Apocalypse ii. It is quite possible that the brief narrative account of Jeremiah’s interaction with the Babylonian exiles in the Apocryphon c resonated with members of an Essene group of priestly dissidents, and formed the historical framing for another version of the Second Temple Apocalypse, which appeared in 4Q390. But what of Jeremiah’s conspicuous absence from 4Q390? It remains speculative, and also possible that there was some attribution of Apocalypse ii to Jeremiah that has since disappeared in the lacunae. Otherwise, Jeremiah’s disappearance may have been related to the strong sense of Mosaic authority and impression of authorship that emerged with the sectarian literature in the Qumran scrolls.58 In a text such as 4Q390—featuring strong echoes of Mosaic leadership and authority structures along with thematic influences from Deuteronomy, but via Jeremiah—it may stand to reason that Jeremiah’s explicit presence in this text had become otiose. In his study of apocalyptic language in Second Temple Judaism, Reynolds draws attention to Jeremiah’s authoritative status in the Apocryphon c as a feature that distinguishes this text clearly from apocalyptic presentations in the Qumran scrolls more generally.59 There is fairly evidently a shift in the perception of revelation that appears in the more clearly sectarian literature in which individual figures of renown are supplanted by the “inspired” interpretative skills of the Teacher of Righteous- ness, and the community by extension. Such a view would not only help to explain Jeremiah’s absence from 4Q390, but would also conform to other elements from this manuscript that appear in closer proximity to the theology, worldview, and language of the Yaḥad Essenes from Qumran.60

57 On the concept of exile in the Qumranic sectarian literature cf. Abegg, “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” also Jonathan G. Campbell, “Essene-Qumran Origins in the Exile: A Scriptural Basis,” jjs 46 (1995): 143–156. 58 Cf. Daniel R. Schwartz, “Special People or Special Books: On Qumran and New Testament Versions of Canon,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Pro- ceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 11–13 January, 2004 (ed. Daniel R. Schwartz and Ruth A. Clements; stdj 84; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 49–60. 59 Reynolds, Between Symbolism and Realism, 272, cf. also Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997), 153. 60 Cf. especially section 4.2.2. Variation in Verbal Constructions in 4Q390 in the preceding chapter, and section 5.1.3. Deuteronomy and “the Land” in the Second TempleApocalypse i–ii below. character and content 253

When both texts are assessed together, their relationship may be expressed as follows: exile and dispersion were universal conditions that affected all but it ,( םיבשתוצרא dispersed in the ןימינבוהדוהיינב of Israel (including the ץרא who remained in the לארשיינב was only the group from Babylon (the that was singled out for spiritual restoration. The Babylonian community ( םיבש is a hopeful ideal in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c that becomes viable and established in 4Q390. The uncovering of both audiences—the metaphorical “Babylon” and “Egypt”—in their places in both texts helps to inform us about how Apocalypse ii might have developed from the same common tradition preserved in the Apocryphon c.

5.1.3 Deuteronomy and “the Land” in the Second Temple Apocalypse i–ii Dimant stated that the presence of “Deuteronomistic idioms” discernible in the Jeremiah material was a determining factor in her decision to separate the Apocryphon c from the Pseudo-Ezekiel composition.61 It should come as no surprise that themes and terminology characteristic of the book of Deuteron- omy and the Deuteronomic school of thought are so prevalent in both the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390, especially given the weighty influence of Deuteronomy in a high number of important texts from Qumran more globally.62 These influences that Dimant observed throughout the Apocryphon

61 Dimant, djd 30, 2; cf. also pp. 91–92, 101–102. 62 Cf. Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Lit- erature, 96–112. A computer search of Wise, Abegg and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation yields 167 citations from or allusions to scriptural Deuteronomy, but the number is almost certain to be considerably higher. E.g. most prominently the prevalent reworking of Deuteronomy in 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364–367), and in the structural dependence of the Temple Scroll cols. lii–lxvi on Deuteronomy 12–23; Cf. Lawrence Schiffman, “The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 15/4 (1992) 543–567; Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (saoc 49; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1990), esp. 35–44, 101–128; Moshe Bernstein, “Pen- tateuchal Interpretation at Qumran,” 154–158. On the influence of Deuteronomy more generally cf. e.g. Shani Tzoref, “Qumran Pesharim and the Pentateuch: Explicit Citation, Overt Typologies, and Implicit Interpretive Traditions,” dsd 16 (2009): 190–220; Jonathan G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20 (bzaw 228; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), esp. 57–59, 91–95, 184, 185–189. Hanne von Weissenberg, “Deuteron- omy at Qumran and in 4QMMT,” in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2008), 520–537, 525–526 draws attention to the variety of allusions from Deuteronomy in a number of the sectarian texts, most prominently in Pesher Habakkuk, Serek ha-Yaḥad, and Miqsat Maʿaśeh ha-Torah. 254 chapter 5 appear predominantly in the Second Temple Apocalypse i and ii, and are clearly seen in the significant or frequent use of terms and images particularly drawn from the preamble to the Song of Moses in Deut 32:16–18. Throughout Apocalypse i–ii are repeated warnings against forms of cove- Whether .( בזע ) ”nant failure and idolatry couched in terms of “abandonment with regards to the people’s abandonment of God (i: 4Q387 2 iii 3–5; 4Q388a 7 ii 6; ii: 4Q390 1 6–7; 2 i 7–8), or God’s abandonment of his people for their covenant unfaithfulness (i: 4Q385a 3 5 || 4Q387 1 2), the dire warning from Deut 31:16–17 appears to be clearly in view:

yhwh said to Moses, “Soon you will lie down with your fathers. Then this people will rise up and prostitute themselves to other gods from foreign nations that are among them in the place which they are going; they will .breaking my covenant that I have made with them ,( יִנַבָזֲעַו ) forsake me And my anger will be kindled against them in that day.”

In the verses that immediately follow, yhwh threatens to abandon his people for their cultic infidelity, and in so doing ensures the removal of his “presence” from their midst:

יַנָפיִתְּרַתְּסִהְוםיִתְּבַזֲעַו ) I will abandon them and hide my face from them .they will be devoured, and many terrible troubles will find them ;( םֶהֵמ In that day they will say, “Have not these troubles come upon us because And I will surely hide ”?( יִבְּרִקְבּיַהֹלֱאןיֵא־יִכּלַע ) our God is not in our midst on that day because of all the evil they have ( יַנָפּריִתְּסַארֵתְּסַהיִכֹנָאְו ) my face done, for they have turned to other gods. vv. 17–18

In keeping with the complementary themes of idolatry and covenant breach, Apocalypse i–ii are similarly beholden to the idea that God’s presence is conditional upon the observance of the covenant. It is significant to note the -a recur— ינפיתרתסה appearance of the highly charged Deuteronomic phrase ring consequence for cultic infidelity (Deut 31:17–18)63—in its frequent usage throughout these texts. It appears in four instances in Apocalypse i,64 twice in Apocalypse ii,65 and occasionally elsewhere in the Qumran sectarian litera-

63 Cf. Deut 32:20; Isa 8:17; 64:7; Jer 33:5; Ezek 39:23–24, 29; Mic 3:4; also Ps 10:11; 13:2; 22:25; 27:9; 30:8; 31:21; 44:25; 51:11; 69:18; 88:15; 102:3; 104:29; 143:7. 64 4Q388a 6 2; 4Q387 2 ii 9; iii 4; 4Q389 8 ii 4. 65 4Q390 1 9, 10. character and content 255 ture.66 In view of the prominence of Deuteronomy for the Qumran covenanters on the one hand, and the authorising presence of the Deuteronomic prophet Jeremiah in the Apocryphon c on the other, it is not so controversial to sup- pose the reason for the strong influence of Deuteronomy in Apocalypse i–ii. It likely accorded well with the perceived character of Jeremiah, and it spoke directly to the problems of religious and cultural dilution that seem to be of on-going concern throughout the Apocryphon.67 However, what is particularly interesting for this discussion is not so much these influences collectively, but rather how the various Deuteronomic idioms appear to reveal particular stages of theological development within all the Apocryphon manuscripts. The variety of interpretation for Deuteronomic terminology and idioms is most apparent in the treatment of two features: first, how the promise of abandonment and the loss of divine favour from Deut 31:16–18 are applied specifically with reference to the temple and the land. And second, both the prevalence and peculiar absence of concern for the human condition so signalled by the Hebrew words .heart,” which are so common throughout the book of Deuteronomy“ , בבל or בל

5.1.3.1 The Presence of yhwh and the Condition of the Land The parallel ideas of abandonment, desertion, and the absence of the divine -I have removed my face/pres“ , ינפיתרתסה favour signalled by the construction ence,” appear to make slight shifts through three sets of witnesses to the Second Temple Apocalypse in 1) 4Q388a and 4Q389, 2) 4Q387, and 3) 4Q390. The verb appears in Apocalypse i §3, and Dimant has incorrectly reconstructed this בזע line to reflect the people’s complaint from Deut 31:17—“have not these troubles come upon us because our God is not in our midst?”68 yhwh’s desertion

66 Cf. cd 1:1–3 (4Q266 2 ii 8; 4Q268 1 11); 4Q177 10–11 8; 11QTa 59:2–9. The opening phrase of the Damascus Document is a conflation of allusions to Isa 51:1, 7; Hos 4:1; Jer 25:31. 67 Moreover, there may also be a scribal distinction that explains the fascination and prominence of Deuteronomy in the so-called “rewritten Bible” texts, which plausibly includes the Apocryphon manuscripts. Von Weissenberg, “Deuteronomy at Qumran,” 522–523 draws attention to the prominence of Deuteronomy in the 4QRP texts and in 11QTa cols. li–lxvi, and ponders the possibility that such flexible usage suggests an on-going development of Deuteronomy, and a still on-going gradually escalating authoritative status. Cf. also Najman, Seconding Sinai, 19–31, who argues that textual transformation is a prevalent feature of Mosaic discourse that was founded on the idea that Deuteronomy was a re- exposition of Torah. This could also possibly point towards a scribal or exegetical method that groups these texts together as suggested by White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 142– 145. 68 Dimant, djd 30, 175; cf. section 3.2. The Combined Text with Translation and Notes in Chapter Three above. 256 chapter 5 in the Deuteronomy passage, and the people’s recognition of it occurs as a consequence of their own abandonment of yhwh. While the reconstruction in at בזע Apocalypse i §3 is likely not accurate, the clear appearance of the verb this point in the text may significantly recall Deut 31:17. The text goes on to level charges from God’s perspective against the people for their treatment of “my statutes … the festivals of my covenant” (§4); the recipients have “profaned my name,” likely have defiled “the sanctuary” (§§4–5), and “sacrificed to goat demons” (§5; 4Q385a 3 5–7 || 4Q387 1 2–4). The context here describes the conditions just prior to the beginning of the post-temple era that ensued with the destruction of Solomon’s temple in 586bce. While there may be mention is not ינפיתרתסה of it in the lacunae, the Deuteronomically infused expression explicitly present in this section. Nevertheless, when recounting the beginning of the Archaemenid empire—signalled by the emergence of the Zāḏôn and the first blasphemer in §§17–21—which chronologically aligns with the beginning of the Second Temple period, God proclaims the removal of his favour from 4Q387 2 ii , לארשימםירתסמינפו ) ”Israel: “my face will be hidden from Israel 9). In keeping with the prevalent perspective throughout the Apocryphon c, which asserts the end of temple religion coincident with the destruction of Solomon’s temple, the situation evokes a similar sense of permanence: the people have failed to recognise God’s temple presence (§3?), have ruined the temple institution by their covenant disobedience (§§3–5), and God’s favour has been withdrawn as a result (§§17–21). The Apocryphon c interprets these events quite literally, and denotes in two places that God’s absence is geographical. In one witness to Apocalypse i, 4Q389 8 ii 4–5 understands the removal of God’s presence to be conditional, “until the time when their iniquity will be made complete” (§24). The total- ity of the people’s sins is marked by God’s voluntary absence from the land: 4Q389 8 ii 6). This presents ;25§ , ץראהתאיתבזע ) ”I have abandoned the land“ an interpretive gesture of the “abandonment” and the absence of God’s favour that was forecasted in Deut 31:17–18 by way of Lev 26:43, where the exile is presented in terms of Sabbath rest; an atonement for the sins of the people.69 However, in this part of the Apocryphon c—and unlike the passage in Leviticus 26, which goes on to promise an end to the emptiness of the land in vv. 44–45— the resolution appears to be indefinite. The prediction only likens the empty land to a “sign when (the undefined period of) their iniquity will be made

69 Cf. also Lev 26:34–35. This notion that the land must observe a period of purification is connected to the concept of the “sacredness” of the land, and it is contingent upon the purity of the people in Lev 18:24–30 and 20:22–26; cf. Wenell, Jesus and the Land, 64–65. character and content 257 and not as a form of rejuvenation and 70,( םנועםלשבתואהםהלהזו ) ”complete rest in anticipation for future use. While the completion of payment for their sins remains a future option, the Apocryphon c does not seem to provide much hope for its expected fulfilment. The second such geographical absence appears in §§31–32, as part of the description of the Antiochene crisis, and here again, the period of God’s abandonment is indefinite. 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6 records God’s promise that “I will make and I will distance myself from the 71,( ץראהתאיתומשהו ) the land desolate -Fol 72.( המשהבץראהתאיתבזעו ) ”ground; I will abandon the land in its desolation lowing from the prediction of God’s abandonment in §§24–25, the present pas- here םמשׁ sage maintains the theme of futility, but the appearance of the verb recalls the narrative from §§8–10, which depicted the end of the temple era. This dire recollection of the sins of the former kingdom that appears in the reconstruction for 4Q387 1 7–9 may have inspired the present description of your ( המשאו ) the national leaders during the late Seleucid period: “I desolated ,Thus .( המשהב ) ”land, and the land observed its Sabbaths amid its desolation the progression from beginning to the end of Apocalypse i is as follows: the people have failed to recognise God’s temple presence (§3?), have ruined the temple institution by their covenant disobedience (§§3–5), and God’s favour has been withdrawn as a result (§§17–21). The destruction of Solomon’s temple and the end of its institution results in the “desolation”—or ruin—of the land (§§18–20), which stands as a “sign” of his continuing absence (§23–25) from Israel. This desolation of the land is reconfirmed in the sins of the Antiochene the priests of Jerusalem”—and their actions recall“ , םילשוריינהכ priests—the

םלשב The structure of the clause is uncertain, and the function of the infinitive construct 70 the“ , תואה is ambiguous. Dimant, djd 30, 229 translates it as a genitive specifier for םנוע sign … of the requital of their iniquity.” Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation (2nd edn.), 354, and Garcia Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2: 781 both translate the clause adverbially, as a temporal specifier for when the period of iniquity might end. This second option is not as faithful to the context of the whole passage, as both translations provide the implausible sense that God’s abandonment continues as a sign of its completion. Dimant is closer to what appears to be the author’s intent in her translation, in that the infinitive conveys the present condition of the land’s emptiness as an indicator of the current need for recompense. 71 Reconstructed from the overlap in 4Q387 2 iii 3. -are found in five places in two fragments from two separate manu םמשׁ Verbal forms for 72 scripts: Apocryphon c = 4Q387 1 7, 8 || 4Q389 6 1, 2; 2 iii 3. There is another possible The verbal root ; הב [ המש .reconstruction in 4Q388a 7 ii 6 || 4Q387 2 iii 5 = hof inf. cnst .is entirely absent from 4Q390 םמשׁ 258 chapter 5 the sins of the last generation of the First Temple era (§§32–34). Furthermore, this rather negative appraisal of the land may also have implicitly confirmed the prominent concern for life in the Diaspora that embraced a more international outlook. The land was no longer sacred, but is rather emptied of the divine presence that once distinguished it from among the nations. Sacred space in this respect was greatly expanded to ensure that the practice and survival of Judaism in the Diaspora was more practically realized.73 In another copy of the Apocryphon c, 4Q387 2 iii 4–5 preserves an alternative reading for the Antiochene crisis that includes a possible interpretive gloss. This copy overlaps with 4Q388a 7 ii 6–7 and it includes a sizeable plus, §§32:1–3, which ties the abandonment and desolation of the land to the presence of the “Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ,” and to the explicit removal of God’s presence (4Q387 2 iii 3–5): “And I will abandon the land in the hand of the Angels of ינפיתרתסהו ) and will hide my face from Israel ,( תומטשמהיכאלמדיב ) Maśṭēmôṯ So this is a sign for them on that day: I will abandon the land in its .( לארשימ desolation.” I have argued in the previous two chapters for a common relationship or a dependency of Apocalypse ii in 4Q390 on Apocalypse i in the Apoc- ryphon c, and this interpretive gloss in 4Q387 may present further evidence for -is signifi תומטשמהיכאלמ this development. In particular, the appearance of cant, given that the moniker is exclusive to only 4Q387 and 4Q390 from among the entire collection of Dead Sea Scrolls. Of more substantial present interest is how the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ have been similarly understood between both of these texts in conjunction with the dual theme of God’s abandonment of the land, and the removal of his favour from his people. In 4Q387 and in 4Q390 1 9–11, God does not leave the land empty when his presence is removed, rather, this absence is filled by foreign and otherworldly adver- saries: and I will deliver ,( המהמינפיתרתסהו ) So I will hide my face from them them into the hand of their enemies, and will surrender them to the sword. But I will let survive from them fugitives, so that they may not be

73 This perspective of the land may analogous to Jesus’s rejection of purity. According to Wenell, Jesus and Land, 97–103, accounts of Jesus’s activities and teachings indicate an implicit rejection of ritual purity as part of a larger programme of religious inclusiveness. Cf. also another apparent expansion of “sacred space” in Bar 3:24–25, ὦ Ισραηλ ὡς μέγας ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπιμήκης ὁ τόπος τῆς κτήσεως αὐτοῦ μέγας καὶ οὐκ ἔχει τελευτήν ὑψηλὸς καὶ ἀμέτρητος, “Ah Israel, how great is the house of God! how vast the territory of its estate! It is great and has no end; it is high and immeasurable.” Cf. also Davis, “Prophets of Exile,” 522–525. character and content 259

completely destroyed by my wrath, when my face is hidden from them ולשמו ) Then the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ will rule over them .( םהמינפרתסהבו ) .but I will reject them ,( תומטשמהיכאלמהמהב 4Q390 1 9–11

This stands in fair contrast to the prevailing tone in 4Q388a 7 ii 5–6, in which the land is portrayed as utterly ruined, and totally devoid of anything. At of the land as in ( בזע ) no point does 4Q390 ever predict the abandonment the Apocryphon c.74 Moreover, this witness preserves a clear hope for future renewal in the expectation that the survival of “fugitives” would ensure that “they may not be completely destroyed.”75 There is no such assertion in the witness in 4Q387 2 iii 4–5, although the classification of this event as a “sign for them on that day” seems to reflect the earlier faint hope in §§24–25, in which the period of abandonment might last only “until the (indefinite) time when their iniquity will be made complete” (4Q389 8 ii 6). In short, there is a progression in view between three discernible witnesses to the Second Temple Apocalypse and the meaning of the Deuteronomic warning of yhwh’s abandonment from Deut 31:17–18. At its most basic stage, the cultic sins of the First Temple generation have resulted in the removal of God’s favour from his people and his absence from the land, which is regarded empty and desolate in §§8–24. The sins are repeated and his distance is reinforced during the Antiochene crisis in §§24–25 according to the reading in 4Q389 8 ii 6. A brief insertion in 4Q387 2 iii 4–5 alternatively presents the emptiness

in frg. 1 7 and 2 i 8, and in both of בזע 4Q390 has preserved two occurrences of the verb 74 these instances, the verb is plural and applied to the people: “Unto these shall I speak, and I will send unto them commandments, and they will understand everything that they and But they will not know“ .(7–6 1 , םהיתובאוםהובזערשאלוכב ) ”their fathers had abandoned nor will they perceive that I was enraged on their account, because of their treachery by .(i 7–8 2 , ינובזערשאםלעומב ) ”which they abandoned me 75 This perspective of “the land” is one of the peculiar features of the Qumran sectarian writings, and may set 4Q390 in closer affinity to the literature of the Yaḥad. Essenes. Cf. also Esther G. Chazon, “‘Gather the Dispersed of Judah’: Seeking a Return to the Land as a Factor in Jewish Identity of Late Antiquity,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 159–175; Noah Hacham, “Exile and Self Identity in the Qumran Sect and Second Temple Judaism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005 (ed. Esther G. Chazon, Betsy Halpern-Amaru, and Ruth A. Clements; stdj 88; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–21. 260 chapter 5 of the land in more spiritual terms, and envisions the replacement of God’s presence and his favour by the occupation of the dreaded Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ. Their presence serves as a sign of God’s absence, but recalls the faint hope in §§24 that God’s presence is contingent upon the people’s behaviour, and it is removed because of their transgressions. The idea that this is a conditional situation culminates in Apocalypse ii, in which the land is not desolate, and the absence of God’s favour and the rule of the Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ will be endured and eventually surpassed through the survival of a remnant (4Q390 1 5–6, 10). The prophecy from Deut 31:16–18 was understood in the Apocryphon c to be coincident with the presence of Solomon’s temple. When the temple was destroyed, God’s presence and his favour were removed, and the land was cultically emptied and desolate. In the Second Temple Apocalypse Redux, the same prophecy was reinterpreted and applied to on-going cultic activities in both the first and second temple, and to the collective, religious conduct of the people. God did not completely empty the land, but kept religious hope alive through the preservation of a remnant.

5.1.3.2 The “Heart” in the Apocryphon The second prominent feature in this discussion of the Deuteronomic influences and their interpretation in the Second Temple Apocalypse appears in the frequent characterisation of the people for their corporate “exaltation of -4Q389 8 ii 6). The phrase is based upon the instruc , ינממםבבלםורב ) ”the heart tion in Deut 8:11 to the Israelites upon their entry into Canaan: “take care that you do not forget yhwh your God, by failing to keep his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes, which I am commanding you today.” In the verses that follow, the people taking possession of the land of promise are charged to ָךֶבָבְלםָרְו ) remember yhwh: “do not exalt yourself, forgetting yhwh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the ,( ָךיֶהֹלֱאהָוהְי־תֶאָתְּחַכָשְׁו house of slavery.” (Deut 8:14).76 One instance in the Apocryphon c is found in the miniscule remains of 4Q385a 8 2, assigned to unsituated fragment Group iii of 4Q385a. This text possibly preserves a reciprocation of Deut 29:3. The passage recalls the wondrous intervention of yhwh witnessed by Israel in their wilderness wanderings produced within the pre-temple generation “a heart to God.77 Elsewhere in 4Q385a 1 ii 4, as part of the description ( תַעַדָלבֵל ) ”know

as ןפ The negative force of this instruction is implied in the earlier use of the telic particle 76 .(v. 12) לַכאֹתּ־ןֶפּ … ;(v. 11) חַכְּשִׁתּ־ןֶפָּךְלרֶמָשִּׁה … :an agent of contingency 77 This same text was taken up by the prophet Jeremiah in an oracle forecasting the return —( בבל ) of the exiles from Babylon in Jer 24:6–7. Curiously, the longer form of the word character and content 261 of the reign of King David, the same phrase is democratised to describe the quality of David’s own heart: “when he earnestly sought my presence, and his 78.( ינממובבלםראלו ) ”heart did not grow haughty towards me -appears five separate times in the Apocryphon c, and its pres בבל The word ence consistently conforms to the same prevalent theme: that the covenant is conditional upon the internal motivations of the people; humble submission to God will result in the enjoyment of his favour, whereas haughty insubordina- tion signalled by idolatry would result in punishment and calamity. This is seen in Apocalypse i §§12–13 in a reworking of the popular covenant formula from Deut 6:5, “you must be resolved to serve me with all your heart and with all your soul” (cf. 4Q387 2 ii 1–2). A few lines below in the same column, the retroactive prophecy of the Second Temple era continues to predict dire consequences for the people’s failure to comply with God’s instructions: “You will walk about in and by the ,( בבלהןהמתו ) madness and in blindness and bewilderment of heart end of that generation I will rend the kingdom from the hand of those who have held it” (2 ii 4–6). This forecast is based on Deut 28:28, which forms part of a long list of covenantal curses for the failure of the people to satisfy yhwh’s demands in 28:1–44: “But if you will not obey yhwh your God by diligently observing all his commandments and decrees, which I am commanding you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you” (v. 1). Among the inven- ןוֹהְמִתְבוּןוֹרָוִּעְבוּןוֹעָגִּשְׁבּהָוהְיהָכְכַּי :tory of misfortunes appears the dire warning ”yhwh will afflict you with madness, blindness, and confusion of mind“ , בָבֵל (v. 28).79 In keeping with this dependence on the themes of abandonment and the tenuousness of yhwh’s presence as these things appear in Deuteronomy, the Apocryphon c also features the “heart” as a barometer for signalling the reli-

usually characteristic of the book of Deuteronomy—actually appears here where in Deu- is found only בל appears 47 times in Deuteronomy, where בבל .teronomy the word is short four times in Deut 4:11; 28:65; 29:3, 18. 78 Cf. also Deut 17:20 where the same phrase functions as a prescription for the installation In the Temple Scroll these requirements .( ויָחֶאֵמוֹבָבְל־םוּריִתְּלִבְל ) of a king over the nation have been expanded to include the community, and to subjugate the king to the authority of the priesthood: “So twelve princes of his people are with him, twelve priests and from the Levites there shall be twelve who will sit with him altogether to deliberate matters of ,( המהמובבלםוריאולו ) justice and the Law. And he shall not exalt his heart against them nor shall he do anything according to any counsel outside of theirs” (11QTa 57:11–14). 79 Cf. similar language used in Jub. 1:11 where, in the prediction that the people will engage in offering child sacrifices, the objects of these offerings are “demons” and “every deed of .( םבלתועתישעמלכלו ) ”the error of their heart 262 chapter 5 gious condition of the people. In David’s kingdom, and possibly in the time of Moses the “heart” is positively presented in obedient submission before God, coincident with pre-temple worship and with the inauguration of Solomon’s temple. It is elsewhere transformed in Apocalypse i to describe the reprobate state of the post-temple generation in accordance with Deuteronomic warnings. is prominently featured and closely informs בבל Curiously enough, where the theological perspective of the Apocryphon c, there are no extant occur- in any of the fragments of 4Q390. The Second Temple בבל or בל rences of either Apocalypse Redux is replete with Deuteronomic terminology and theology, yet the matter of the condition of the heart is not addressed. It seems most probable that for Apocalypse ii matters of practical, tangible religion take greater precedence over more internal motivations or attitudes. This would help to explain why the specific violations of the existing second temple service are so prominent in Apocalypse ii, in contrast to their absence in the Apocryphon c. From what we have observed so far, the preoccupation in the Apocryphon c with the internal “spirit” and collective mind-set of the community with regards to God and religious practice is further reflected in the prevailing notion that religion in the Hellenistic world is a matter of prayer and correct Torah observance (cf. 4Q387 3 6–9; 4Q385a 18 ii 16–17): religion outside of the land is necessarily not fixated on the functions of the second temple. Whereas in Apoca- lypse ii, God appears much less concerned about the internal condition, and is more so affected by what he observes: the festivals and the Sabbaths; symbols of the covenant and the Torah as he perceives them with his own eyes (cf. 4Q390 1 9, 12; 2 i 8). How then, does one assess these features of Deuteronomic influence in con- fluence with the persona and authorising elements of the prophet Jeremiah, and the dual audiences presupposed in both the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390? After we have gained a comprehensive view of these texts, the process of scriptural rewriting as it has been described in particular by Brooke,80 Falk,81 Najman82 and others helps to provide a good sense of how the shared traditions in these texts developed, were transmitted, and transformed to meet the various needs of what we might perceive to have been different communities. A close, collective reading of the manuscripts reveals that these texts were

80 Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives”; idem, “Between Authority and Canon”; idem, “New Perspectives of the Bible.” 81 Falk, The Parabiblical Texts. 82 Najman, Seconding Sinai; idem, “Reflections on John Barton’s Oracles of God.” character and content 263

“rewritten” insofar as they were adapted according to particular changing sets of ideals and circumstances for those who read them and valued their underlying traditions. At its most basic stage, the Apocryphon c functioned as a leadership and ideological critique that originally featured the prophet Jeremiah: a Mosaicised leader for various imperial periods of dispersion and cultural conflict. A variety of techniques were employed through which Jeremiah’s message closely approximated the contents of scriptural Deuteronomy in the form of an historical review and retroactive prophecies for the future. But this occurs with special attention to the meaning of “the land,” God’s presence and absence, and how these were to be understood relative to the institution of religion in the present. Remnants of Jeremiah’s influence may be detected in the Second Temple Apocalypse Redux, but the concerns of this text for correct religious practice through cultic observance apart from external cultural influences has severely undermined the original leadership motifs within the Apocryphon c. Furthermore, a growing sensitivity towards Mosaic authority, and then the implicit community authority that extends from the Teacher of Righteous- ness and is evident within the Qumran sectarian scrolls may have also influenced Jeremiah’s place in this text. Nevertheless, 4Q390 may still be classified as “Jeremianic” in accordance with its dependence upon the 70-year prophecy from the book of Jeremiah, as well as its structural relationship with Apoca- lypse i in the Apocryphon c.83 While Jeremiah is never mentioned in 4Q390, Dimant found a convergence of terminology and expressions with other parts in the narrative portions of the Apocryphon c—most particularly in 4Q385a 18 i—that prompted her to include this manuscript as a copy of the same composition. A variety of intricate relationships between this pericope in the Apocryphon c and 4Q390 are discernible reflexions of “dual audiences,” especially when juxtaposed against the contents of the following column in frg. 18 ii, and Apocalypse i. When considered together and in contradistinction to one another based on the different responses that Jeremiah exhibits towards the Egyptian Diaspora and the Babylonian captives, the classification of 4Q390 as “Jeremianic”—and closely related to the rest of the Apocryphon—emerges more clearly. Granting their prominence in the collection of the Qumran scrolls, these texts may help to provide clearer insight on the influence of Jeremiah and the Jeremianic traditions for the rest of sectarian literature from Qumran, even in those places where Jeremiah is not explicitly present. This will become the primary focus of the following section, as we continue to explore

83 Cf. Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 469–472. 264 chapter 5 how the persona of the founder, the prophet Jeremiah informed other writings from the Qumran scrolls, and how these correlate to and are in turn informed by the Jeremianic traditions reflected in the Apocryphon c and 4Q390.

5.2 Jeremiah Traditions in the Qumran Literature

The book of Jeremiah is extant in six manuscripts in the Qumran scrolls, the remains of which are mostly fragmentary, preserving only small portions of material.84 This best explains why to date there has been limited study on the scriptural Jeremiah scrolls at Qumran;85 most of the essays and articles that deal with these manuscripts are concerned almost exclusively with the conformity of the individual texts to either a proto-픐 type of Jeremiah, or more closely aligned to the edition found in 픊.86 Conclusions regarding the presence of

84 2QJer (2Q13) = Jer 42:7–11, 14; 43:8–11; 44:1–3, 12–14; 46:27–47:7; 48:7, 25–39, 43–45; 49:10 (Baillet, djd 3, 62–69). 4QJera (4Q70) = Jer 7:1–2; 15–19; 7:28–9:2; 9:7–15; 10:9–14, 23; 11:3– 6, 19–20; 12:3–7, 13–16; 12:17–13:7; 13:22?, 27; 14:4–7; 15:1–2; 17:8–26; 18:15–19:1; 20:14–18; 21:1?; 22:3–16; 4QJerb (4Q71) = Jer 9:22–10:21; 4QJerc (4Q72) = Jer 4:5, 13–16; 8:1–3; 8:21–9:5; 10:12–13; 19:8–9; 20:2–5, 7–9, 13–15; 21:7–10; 22:4–6, 10–28; 25:7–8, 15–17, 24–26; 26:10–13; 27:1–3, 13–15; 30:6–9; 30:17–31:4; 31:4–14, 19–26; 33:?, 16–20; 4QJerd (4Q72a) = Jer 43:2–10; 4QJere (4Q72b) = Jer 50:4–6 (Emanuel Tov, in E. Ulrich et al., eds., djd 15, 145–207). The total extant material represents approximately 7% of 픐 Jeremiah, and 1% of 픊. 85 Cf. also Ada Yardeni, “The Paleography of 4QJera—A Comparative Study,” Textus 15 (1991): 233–268; Emanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Le Livre de Jérémie et son milieu: les oracles et leur transmission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; betl 54; Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 145–176; idem, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J. Tigay, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 211–237; idem, “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,” RevQ 14/2 (1989): 189–206; idem, “4QJerc (4Q72),” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday (ed. G.J. Norton and S. Pisano; obo 109; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 249–276; idem, “Three Fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran Cave 4,”RevQ 15/4 (1992): 531–541. 86 F.M. Cross, “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” jbl 74 (1955): 147–172, 164; idem, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. F.M. Cross and S. Talmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306– 320, 308–309; idem, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts”; F.M. Cross in D.N. Freed- man and K.A. Matthews; with contributions by R.S. Hanson, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (Winona Lake, Ind.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1985), 55; A. HaCohen, “4QJera—A Pre Masoretic Text?” Textus 17 (1994): 1–8 (Heb.); Tov, Tex- tual Criticism, Third Edition, esp. 286–294; Raymond F. Person, Jr., The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions (bzaw 252; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 91–92; Brooke, “The Book character and content 265

Jeremiah scrolls have been limited to affirming that while the book of Jeremiah appears to have had a role and function prior to and in the formative days of the Qumran sectarians, its importance seems to have diminished over time.87 Many of the questions pertaining to scriptural Jeremiah at Qumran deserve continued attention and remain largely unanswered,88 but this is not within the purview of the present discussion. Rather, what is of primary interest here is the perception of the figure Jeremiah, and the adaptation of his persona in those compositions where he is featured relative to his re-presentation within the traditions preserved in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4Q390, in what we have come to consider a form of Jeremianic discourse. I have defined Jeremi- anic discourse as the dissemination of traditions that are tied to Jeremiah’s prophetic and priestly reputation, with a detectable emphasis on matters of leadership and empire. According to Lange and Weigold’s inventory, there are 60 citations and allusions89 to scriptural Jeremiah in the Qumran scrolls, which are extant in 23

of Jeremiah and Its Reception”; Ulrich, “The Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” 91; idem, The DeadSeaScrollsandtheOriginsoftheBible (sdssrl; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 40–41, 69, 229–30; cf. also Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches. 87 As per Brooke, “The Reception of Jeremiah,” 203–204. 88 Cf. e.g., Eugene Ulrich, “The Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books Documented at Qumran” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Bibli- cal Studies, Vancouver bc, Canada, 2 June, 2008); idem, “Empirical Evidence for Scribal and Editorial Transmission of Second Temple Religious Literature,” (Paper presented at Insights into Editing the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East International Sympo- sium, Ludwig Maximillion University, München, 14 March, 2013); also Kipp Davis, “The Social Milieu of the Jeremiah Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism: New Light from the Schøyen Collection and the Evidence for Multiple Literary Editions at Qumran” in Proceed- ings of the Seventh Meeting of the ioqs in Munich (ed. Samuel I. Thomas, George J. Brooke, Alison Schofield and Eibert Tigchelaar; stdj; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 89 On the matter of defining and distinguishing the nature and type of quotations cf. e.g.: S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (6th edn.; New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons, 1897), 312–13: “Nothing is more difficult … than from a mere comparison of parallel passages to determine on which side the priority lies.” Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 205; Stanley E. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148 / ssejc 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79–96. I defer here to a definition by Carmella Perri, “On Alluding,” Poetics 7 (1978): 289–307, 295–96: “Allusion in literature is a manner of signifying in which some kind of marker (simple or complex, overt or covert) not only signifies unallusively, within the imagined possible 266 chapter 5 compositions.90 A survey of these instances reveals that the vast majority of them appear as allusions to key words or phrases from Jeremiah that were then re-employed to provide literary artistry to a new writing. For this reason, a large number of these occurrences appear in poetic, hymnic, or liturgical compositions, such as in the Hodayot,91 or the Words of the Luminaries (4Q504–506).92 For example, Jer 17:13 appears in several Qumran scrolls,93 often conflated with other passages from Jeremiah: “O hope of Israel! o yhwh! All shall be put to shame; those who turn away from ( ָךיֶבְזֹע־לָכּ ) who forsake you -for they have for ,( וּבֵתָכִּיץֶרָאָבּיַרוּסְו ) you shall be recorded in the underworld ,who is yhwh.” In each instance ,( םיִיַּח־םִיַמ ) saken the fountain of living water the image of God as a “fountain of living water” is used in a new poetic description of the futility of the people’s abandonment of him: “[They abandoned] the and served a foreign god in their … ([ ובזע ] םייחםימרוק̇מ ) fount of living water 4Q504 18:3–4). From many of these examples, it ; םצ̇ראברכנלא̊וד̇ובעי̊ו ) ”land appears that scriptural Jeremiah held some aesthetic value for its handlers, but also supplied imagery for descriptions of impending doom and the foreboding

world of the alluding text, but through echo also denotes a source text and specifies some discrete recoverable property(ies) belonging to the intension of this source text.” Cf. the full discussion by Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (stdj 59; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 44–47. Also Peter W. Flint, “Interpreting the Poetry of Isaiah at Qumran: Theme and Function in the Sectarian Scrolls,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday (ed. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen; stdj 98; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 161–195, 164–166. 90 Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, 141–147. The compositions and frequency of Jeremianic traditions therein are as follows: cd (3×); ms b (2×); 1QHa (20×); 1QS (7×); 1QSb; 1QM (6×); 4Q177; 4Q182; 4Q248; 4QDa; 4Q371+4Q372 (2×); 4Q392 (2×); 4QMMT; 4Q418; 4Q434; 4Q438; 4Q439 (2×); 4Q460; 4QDib- Hama (4×); 4Q522 (2×); 4Q537; 4Q583; 11QPsa (2×); 11QtgJob; 11QTa (2×). The list by Lange and Weigold is not exhaustive, and has been supplemented by a number of other allusions most particularly from the Damascus Document. 91 1QHa 4:26 (Jer 31:36); 7:25–26 (10:23); 27–28, 30 (1:5; 12:3), 34 (10:23); 8:26 (32:19), 27 (14:22); 9:15–17 (10:12 = 51:15); 10:18 (10:13 = 51:16), 29 (10:13 = 51:16), 31 (18:22); 11:8 (13:21); 12:31–32 (10:23); 13:10 (16:16); 15:5–6 (38:22); 16:8 (17:8), 11 (17:8), 25 (17:6), 31 (20:9); 17:29–30 (1:5). On the use of the text of Jeremiah in the Hodayot, cf. Armin Lange, “The Textual History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran Hodayot,” in Penner, Penner, and Wassen, eds., Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 251–284. 92 4QDibHama 18:3–4 (2:13; 5:19; 17:13); 19:4–5 (14:22). 93 cd ms b 19:34; 4Q418 103 ii 6 (+ Jer 2:13); 4Q504 18:3–4 (+ 2:13; 5:19). character and content 267 future in the last days, in large part owing to the many haunting depictions of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem that are prolific within Jeremiah. The War Scroll makes frequent use of a number of these images drawn from Jeremiah in its own forecast of the final cosmic battles between the sons of the light, and Belial and the forces of darkness: “[And you provided f]or our ,You .(ו[ רת ] ונבהכ̊בוטכונינעא ) affliction in accord with Your goodness toward us ̊ן̊ע̊מלהתישע ) ”O God of righteousness, have acted for the sake of Your name 1QM 18:8; cf. Jer 14:7).94 , הכמש While Jeremiah does not appear to function in the Qumran scrolls in the same, more explicit, prophetic sense as other texts such as Isaiah or the Twelve, the Yaḥad Essenes were clearly immersed in the language and imagery from the book, as they used these to shape their own theological and eschatological ideas and expressions. With regards to those citations and allusions to the book of Jeremiah in the Qumran literature, there does seem to be a common purpose behind their use, beyond the appeal of scriptural Jeremiah for its exceptional literary artistry. This purpose is found in consideration of Jeremiah’s office as a prophet, and in his depiction as a kind of prototypical prophet in contrast to the prophets of ill-repute. An overarching theme within the book of Jeremiah is his relationship as a prophet to rival prophets in Jerusalem (cf. Jer 14:11–18; 18:11–23 [4QJera xii 1–12]; 19:14–20:6 [4QJerc vii 1–12]; 23:1–40; 26:1–24 [4QJera xv 1; 4QJerc xvii 1–7]; 27:8–18 [4QJerc xix 1–4]; 32:30–33).95 Large sections of the composition are occupied with accounts of Jeremiah’s oppression at the hand of others from the prophetic schools, and with diatribes issued against these opposing prophets. One example of the highly implicit nature of Jeremiah’s prophetic distinction and function appears in an inventory of quintessential “false prophets” from Israel’s history in 4Q339 (cf. Jeremiah 28–29), which

94 Cf. also 1QM 1:11–12 (Jer 30:7); 3:9 (23:20); 6:13–14 (48:14); 15:1 (30:7); 16:1 (25:29). On the use of the text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll, cf. Armin Lange, “The Text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Nóra Dávid, et. al.; frlant 239; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 95–116. 95 Cf. e.g. an indictment against prophets and priests in Jer 6:13–14; 8:10–11: “For from the least (of them 6:13) to the greatest, every one of them (3ms sfx. 6:13; 3ms/fs sfx. 8:10) is greedy for unjust gain; (and 6:13) from prophet to priest every one of them has behaved falsely the wound of ( וּאְפַּרְיַו ) And they have treated .([6:13 וּ] הֹּלֻכּןֵהֹכּ־דַעְואיִבָנִּמ [/וֹ 6:13] רֶקָשּׁהֶשֹׂע ) saying ‘Peace! Peace!’ when there is ,( הָלַּקְנ־לַע ) the daughter of 8:11) my people carelessly) no peace.” Compare with the complaints of the rival prophets in 14:19: “Have you utterly rejected Judah? Does your soul abhor Zion? Why have you smitten us while there is no Hoping for peace, and yet there is nothing good; for a time ?( אֵפְּרַמוּנָלןיֵאְו ) healing for us ”.but see, there is only terror ,( אֵפְּרַמתֵעְלוּ ) of healing 268 chapter 5 appear to have been featured in contrast to Jeremiah.96 This list includes mention of seven figures, at least four of whom were prominent antagonists in scriptural Jeremiah: Ahab son of Kolaiah and Zedekiah son of Maaseiah (Jer 29:21–24),97 Shemaiah the Nehelamite (Jer 29:24–32), and Hananiah son of Azzur (Jeremiah 28).98 Jeremiah’s relationship to this text must be assumed on the part of the reader, as he is never mentioned by name. However, the very fact that three-or-four of the seven prophets from the list were noted opponents of Jeremiah would seem to cast him as the leading protagonist against this group.99 This presentation of a contentious Jeremiah not surprisingly resonates in those compositions from the Qumran literature where drawing sharp distinctions with their own contemporaries is a primary feature.100 In the following discussion of a sectarian sampling of the Jeremianic traditions, a consistent pattern seems to be in their implicit employment. Only instances in 4QMMT b 76 and 4Q182 discussed below may be considered truly explicit citations,101 and concerning the former this may indicate that the book of Jeremiah did not factor very prominently as a source for “proof-texts” in the Qumran law codes.102

96 Cf. M. Broshi and A. Yardeni, “339. 4QList of False Prophets ar,” in M. Broshi et al., eds., djd 19, 77–79. 97 Cf. also b.Sanh. 73.1; Tanh. Buber 3.7. the prophet who was from Gib]eon” as“ ,[ בגןמידהאיבנ ] ןוע Broshi and Yardeni consider 98 a continuation from l. 8, since the Aramaic is a verbatim correspondence to the Hebrew ,but cf. Jassen ; ן̇ועְבִגִּמרֶשֲׁאאיִבָנַּהרוּזַּע־ןֶבהָיְנַנֲח :description from 28:1 of Hannaniah ben Azzur Mediating the Divine, 304–306. 99 Other explicit false prophet polemics in the Qumran sectarian scrolls are found in cd 5:20– 6:2 (4Q267 2 4–7); 4QpHosa (4Q166) 2 4–6. 100 Bowley, “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran,” 365. . כרשאכ ] ריבוילעבות [ הימ :There is also possibly an explicit reference found in 4QpIsac 1 4 101 However, the fragment is minute and the context for the citation is completely unde- tectable. On 4QMMT b 76 cf. Brooke, “The Reception of Jeremiah,” 196–97; also idem, “The Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Pro- ceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Pub- lished in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez and J. Kampen; stdj 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 70–81; esp. 74–75; Moshe Bernstein, “The Employ- ment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. J. Kampen and M.J. Bernstein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 38–46; esp. 45. 102 Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Traditions and Redaction (stdj 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 11–12, 65–66, has noted two possible exceptions to this from the laws of cd. Jer 17:22 is possibly alluded to as part of the Sabbath Code in the so-called character and content 269

As this section will show, a considerable number of the Jeremianic traditions otherwise appear as true “allusions” or “echoes” in those texts that might be classified as exhortative or didactic, and most are plausibly traced to an early period in the formation of the literature of the Yaḥad Essenes.

5.2.1 The Damascus Document Selections from Jeremiah can be seen to form part of the outline for the Admo- nition of the Damascus Document.103 In what he has identified as the “historical sections” in the text (cd 1:1–2:1; 2:14–4:12a; 5:15– 6:11a),104 Jonathan G. Campbell has observed frequent allusions to Jeremiah 23, 25, and 27, most of which were not included in Lange and Weigold’s list.105 The opening words in cd are formed through a conflation of Jer 25:31 with passages from Isaiah, Hosea, Numbers and ; קדציעדוילכועמש ) Deuteronomy: “And now listen, all who know righteousness cf. Isa 51:1, 7), and consider the works of God. He has issued a complaint against (cf. Jer 25:31 ; השעיטפשמו ) and executes judgement ( רשבלכםעולביריכ ) all flesh against all who have rejected him” (cf. also Hos 4:1; Num 14:23; Deut 31:20).106 Stronger allusions to Jeremiah 23 are spread through the remaining parts of the historical discourse, used to describe the character of sinners throughout his- Jer 23:17; cf. cd 2:17; 3:5, 11; also , וֹבִּלתוּרִרְשִׁבְּךֵלֹה ) ”tory as having “stubborn hearts , רֶקֶשׁיִמְשִׁבּםיִאְבִּנַּה ) ”4Q390 1 12; 4Q387 2 ii 4–6 above);107 they are “lying prophets ;Jer 23:13 , לֵאָרְשִׂי־תֶאיִמַּע־תֶאוּעְתַיַּו ) ”Jer 23:25; cf. cd 6:1) who have “misled Israel cf. cd 5:20). Campbell suggests that the function of the prophetic texts in the historical sections are concentrated thematically around the exile,108 and that their

“urban halakha” in cd 11:7–8; also, there may be an allusion to Jer 11:9–10 in 4QDb 5 ii 3. It should be noted, however, that the relationship of the second selection to Jeremiah is not obvious. 103 The most extensive treatment of scripture in cd is in Campbell, The Use of Scripture. 104 Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 49. 105 Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, 141–147. 106 Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 60. 107 Cf. also various forms of this phrase used in cd 8:8, 19; 19:20, 33; 20:9; 1QS 1:6; 2:14, 26; 3:3; 5:4; 7:19, 24; 9:10. 108 Abegg, “Exile in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 118, argued that “it was the Babylonian exile which had captured the corporate imagination” (p. 125) at Qumran. The sectarian’s perception of this event was one that was transformed from an understanding of it as a result of “God’s righteous judgement on wicked Judah” (e.g. cd 1:4–11) to a conviction that it was symbolic of the prelude to their own “wilderness wandering” in preparation for the coming of God (e.g. 1QS 8:12–14). 270 chapter 5 appearance in the integrated “midrashic sections” (cd 2:2–13; 4:12b–5:15a; 6:11b– 8:21; 19:1–20:34)109 have proceeded from this usage.110 Most notably, this may be observed in an allusion to Jer 29:6 in cd 7:6–7: a symbolic reference perhaps to distinguish between the covenanters “who walk in perfect holiness” (7:4–5) and those who “dwell in camps … in accordance with the policy of the land, they The passage is 111”.( םינבודילוהוםישנוחקלו ) will marry wives and father children drawn from the letter that Jeremiah wrote to the exiles, instructing them about how they were to conduct themselves outside of Israel, but it is of significant note that this same letter is filled with false prophet polemics. The entire letter itself appears to have been included in scriptural Jeremiah perhaps as a reference to his own character, especially in its appearance immediately following the narrative accounts of his encounters with his rivals in Jeremiah 26–28 [픊 33–35]. In Jer 29:8–9 explicit instructions are introduced by the prophetic for- so says yhwh Sabaoth,” cautioning the people to“ , תוֹאָבְצהָוהְירַמָאהֹכיִכּ mula who lie and do not ( םֶכיֵמְסֹקְו ) not be deceived by prophets and necromancers speak for yhwh. Jeremiah in the same letter condemns the prophets Ahab son of Koliah and Zedekiah son of Maaseiah, as well as Shemiah of Nehelam (Jer. 29:20–23, 24–28) for their deception and adultery. This matter of distinguishing from covenant outsiders—who are characterised in similar terms to Jeremiah’s false prophets—appears to be of some concern in cd, and the text of Jeremiah provided fertile soil from which to develop the theme. In cd 8:20–21 Jeremiah is invoked by name and remembered for his teachings passed down to “Baruch son of Neriah,” and this is then compared to, or contrasted against, “that which Elisha spoke to Gehazi his servant.” What follows suggests that Jeremiah’s presence in this passage has something to do with the “new covenant in the land of Damascus” (8:21).112 The obscurity and ambiguity of what it may have been that Jeremiah said to Baruch is compounded by its connexion to Elisha and Gehazi in the following clause. This somewhat unexpected passage has confounded scholars, most of whom have little to say about it outside from the mention of the new covenant from Jer 31:31 in l. 21.113

109 Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 103. 110 Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 100–102, 184–185. 111 Cf. also the appearance of Jer 29:7 in cd 6:21; Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 145–46 notes those who , תונחמ that in the Damascus Document the conditions of exile are applied to the were dwelling in camps. 112 Note that this pericope is missing from the parallel text of cd 19:33–20:1; Cf. Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (cd),” 28–29, 32–33; Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 75, n. 117. 113 Brooke, “The Reception of Jeremiah,” 199. character and content 271

While the new covenant is certainly in view, the key to this pericope is twofold: first, in the content of the speech delivered by the two prophets—Jeremiah and Elisha—and second in the response of the recipients—Baruch and Gehazi, but with both of these features set against the false prophet polemics that are developed throughout the Admonition in cd. Baruch is the only individual in the entire ministry of Jeremiah who sought the prophet’s spiritual direction for his own personal well being, and received a direct reply from yhwh.114 Jer 45:1–5 [픊 51:31–35] records an oracle delivered by אָנ־יוֹא ) !Jeremiah to Baruch, in response to Baruch’s entreaty in v. 3: “Woe is me For yhwh has added sorrow to my pain; I am weary in my groaning, and I ( יִל do not find rest!” To Baruch’s complaint, yhwh retorts rather callously that he should not seek relief from his own suffering, but be content in the decision to save his life amid the divine decimation of the “whole land” (v. 4): “I will grant you your life for spoil in every place that you go” (v. 5).115 Locating a counterpart for this word from Jeremiah to Baruch in the exchanges between Elisha and Gehazi is more challenging. Scholars have tended to focus on the story featuring Naʾaman in 2Kgs 5:9–27, in which Gehazi betrays his master, Elisha, and incurs punishment for his greed, lying and treachery: “The leprosy of Naʾaman will cling to you and your offspring forever” (v. 27). But one might alternatively consider the episode of Elisha’s encounter with the Syrian army in Dothan in 2Kings 6. When the Syrians had surrounded the city with the intent to capture Elisha, his anonymous attendant saw the army and in terror returned to Elisha, consulting him as Baruch had Jeremiah: “Alas, my Whatever shall we do?” (2Kgs 6:15). Elisha interceded on ,( יִנֹדֲאהָּהֲא ) !master v. 17), and prayed that yhwh open his eyes , עָשׁיִלֱאלֵלַּפְּתִיַּו ) behalf of his servant to see that “those who are with us are more than those with them” (v. 16). The “horses and chariots of fire” protected the prophet and his servant from the Syrian hoard (v. 17b). While the servant in the passage is unnamed, a natural candidate is Gehazi, who is featured in the stories that precede and follow this episode in 2Kings 4–5, and in 2Kings 8. When comparing the two incidents, the parallels between them form an underlying allusion from which the author of the Damascus Document drew: both Baruch and Gehazi were prominent servants of famous prophets; both

114 William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52 (ed. Paul D. Hanson; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 310–311. 115 This same passage was first suggested as the basis for the cd pericope by C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 36. Cf. Brooke, “The Reception of Jeremiah,” 198, Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (cd),” 29. 272 chapter 5 protested (“Woe is me!”/“Alas, my master!”); both received a direct word from yhwh through the prophets’ intercession (if Gehazi may indeed be read into the account in 2Kings 6); and the response by each recipient is left unrecorded in the pericopae. On the positive side in the comparison, Baruch complained of his poor state and suffering, likely a result of his association with an unpopular disestablishmentarian prophet.116 He is promised no reprieve for his troubles because yhwh’s plan must unfold, but in his faithfulness his life will be spared. This promise is brought to fruition in the reputation that Baruch developed as a vehicle for the continuous revelation in the several apocryphal traditions and writings that became associated with him. On the negative side, Gehazi cried out in fear for his own safety, and his fears were relieved through the divine intervention by a heavenly host of protectors. But Gehazi was not a faithful servant: he was punished for his greed in 2Kgs 5:19–27, and was included in a mishnaic tractate from Sanhedrin among the “common men” from Israel who m. Sanh. 10:2).117 , אבהםלועלקלחןהלןיא ) ”have “no share in the world to come The significance of the prophet for the community is not in the words that he spoke nor in the oracles proclaimed, rather it is in his implied reputation; this is perhaps most notable in this instance in which the “word which (either to his protégé was left unspoken ( רמארשארבדהאוה ) ”prophet) proclaimed in cd. This sort of ambiguous antithesis accords well with those other parts in cd where Jeremiah is featured. Passages from the book of Jeremiah appear in allusions used to describe the character and behaviour of those who reside outside from the new covenant of the land of Damascus. In a similar fashion, Baruch is upheld as an example of the right response to the covenant, despite the poor treatment he received: “God loved the former generation who testified after him; he loves those who follow after them, for theirs is the covenant of the fathers” (cd 8:16–18). Gehazi, on the other hand, is an exemplum for his failure to obey: “But among those who hate him—the wall builders—his anger burns; and so there is only this judgement against any who despises the commandment of God: he will abandon them to follow their own rebellious

116 Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 310. 117 As another indication of Gehazi’s unpopularity, it is notable that he has completely van- ished from any of Josephus’s recollections of the prophet Elisha’s activities. He preserves the anonymity of the “prophet’s servant” in the account of the Syrian siege of Dothan (Ant. 9:51–59), but the most prominent episodes from 2Kings where Gehazi appears (the stories of Elisha and the wealthy Shunamite woman in 2Kgs 4:8–37, and Elisha and the Syrian general Naʾaman in 2Kgs 5:1–27) receive no treatment by Josephus whatsoever. This same sort of expunction may have been at work already in Dtr., and this perhaps accounts for the mention in the 2Kings 6 passage of only an unnamed servant. character and content 273 cd 8:18–19).118 Of particular prominence in this reading of , םבלתורירשב ) ”heart cd 8:20–21 is that we are left to guess what Jeremiah said to Baruch, and perhaps this is precisely the point: not the content of Jeremiah’s message, but the fact that it was Jeremiah who spoke. The new covenant contained those things that were expounded in much greater depth throughout the other Qumran texts, but the important point drawn from its mention here was its association with the prophet Jeremiah. The other selections from scriptural Jeremiah in the midrashic sections are not as obvious as this. Campbell notes that throughout the Admonition there is much ambiguity between “citation” and “allusion,”119 and as such, the dependence upon Jeremiah does little to enhance our understanding of how he functioned explicitly in the legal material from Qumran. Rather to the contrary, the Damascus Document seems to use pericopae from Jeremiah implicitly, and for emphasising the dualistic distinction between right and false teaching. Almost every one of the clear allusions to Jeremiah that Campbell has identified comes from sections of the book which in one way or another are preoccupied with the polemics against false prophets (Jer 23:1–40; 25:1–8; 27:8–18; 29:15–32).120 Significantly, every one of these allusions is also couched within cd’s historical treatise, and as such, this ambiguous and symbolic presentation of Jeremiah is consistent with the complicated historiographic methodology that governs the text.121 The allusions to Jeremiah in cd are more in accordance with where he is used elsewhere in the Qumran texts for contrasting legitimate and illicit prophecy. The most prominent examples of this can be found explicitly used the so-called Catena texts from Cave 4 (4Q177, 4Q182), and implicitly used in the Hodayot.

5.2.2 4QCatena a (4Q177) and 4QCatena b (4Q182) The Qumran Catena a–b may be considered part of John Barton’s second grouping of texts, where prophetic traditions were used to draw support for certain

118 Cf. cd 2:17; 3:5, 11; 8:8; 4Q390 1 12; 4Q387 2 ii 4–6 and section 5.1.3.2. The “Heart” in the Apocryphon above. 119 Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 176–177, cf. n. 89 above. the “new covenant” from , השׁדחהתירבה The only exceptions are the references made to 120 Jer 31:31 (cd 6:19; 8:21; 20:12). 121 Cf. Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 486–487, also Grossman, Reading for History, 38. Both argue that—in the case at least for cd—the obfuscation of historical details in the Qumran scrolls may have been partly intentional, and preserved a prevalent sense among their handlers of their own continuity with the ancient scriptural texts that formed the kernel of their own prolific literary reflexions. 274 chapter 5 teachings regarding the “last days.”122 In the case of the Jeremiah material, one can detect a nuanced critique of false prophets through the careful selection of pericopae from the book of Jeremiah as an intricate part of a larger eschatological projection. In the first example, Jer 5:7 is cited in 4Q182 1 4–5 as a prophetic warning in the preceding line:

[ לורשפ ] לעםימיהתירחא [ ] םפרועתאושקירשאה [ ] לחהלהמרדיבוערפיו [ כרשא ] מרירפסבםהילעבות [ הי 123] [ ינבךלחולסאתאזליאאיבנה ] ינובזעהכ 124][

[ … this interpretation about] the last days concerns [ … ] who stiffened their necks [ … ]and they utterly threw off all restraint,125 profaning [ … what was w]ritten about them in the book of Jerem[iah ] [the prophet: “How can I forgive you this? ]Your[ sons] have abandoned me[ … ]”

This manuscript is too fragmentary to speculate much upon its context beyond its fairly clear eschatological tenor, nevertheless, it is intriguing to note how the reference from Jeremiah relates to his dealings with false prophets. The recipients of yhwh’s question in scriptural Jeremiah, “how can I forgive you?” are characterised as follows:

122 Barton, Oracles of God, 175–178, and discussion in Chapter One, section 1.2. Perceptions of Prophets and Prophecy in Second Temple Judaism. The most extensive study of 4QCatena a–b was published in Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrange- meinde (4QMidrEschata, b) (stdj 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 123 4Q182 contains one of only three instances in the Qumran collection outside of the Apocryphon c where the prophet is mentioned by name. Cf. also cd 8:20 and above, and 4QpIsac 1 4; (n. 101 above). There is another possible occurrence in 4Q570 30 3 4Q182 has been palaeographically dated c. 30–1bce. Cf. John .̊י] ו̊הימר reconstructed to read Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume v des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,’” RevQ 7/26 (1970): 163–276, 256. 124 This transcription follows García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition 1: 374. דיבלכהורפתו ,Cf. also cd 8:8–9; 19:21; a similar expression appears in Apocalypse i §6 125 .(4Q387 1 5 || 4Q388a 3 7) המר character and content 275

Your sons have forsaken me, and have sworn by those that are not gods. and unto the ,( וּפָאְנִיַּו ) When I satiated them, they committed adultery house of whores they thronged. They were well-fed, lusting stallions, each .( וּלָהְצִיוּהֵעֵרתֶשֵׁא־לֶאשׁיִא ) man neighing after his neighbour’s wife Jer 5:7–8

This description of the adulterous guilty party also recalls Jeremiah’s pro- nouncement against the false prophets Zedekiah son of Maaseiah and Ahab son of Kolaiah from Jer 29:22–23, who “committed adultery with their neigh- What appears to be the most likely intent 126.( םֶהיֵעֵריֵשְׁנ־תֶאוּפֲאַנְיַו ) ”bours’ wives for the citation of Jer 5:7 in 4Q182 is in the allusion this text creates with the description of the false prophets from Jeremiah 29: those who “stiffened their necks” and “arrogantly threw off restraint” in the last days are the realisation of the prophetic symbol that Jeremiah provided in his condemnation of Zedekiah and Kolaiah. In the second example, Jer 18:18 appears in conflation with Ps 6:1–4 as a proof text in 4Q177 12–13 i 6.127 Unlike the former text, 4Q182, 4Q177 was better preserved, and we are able to reconstruct much more of this scroll’s contents, organisation, and significance. Annette Steudel reconstructed five consecutive columns of text from 20 fragments, and based on her supposition that this text is closely aligned with the Florelegium, 4Q174.128 According to Steudel, 4Q177 is

126 Jer 29:23 is the only other occurrence in the book of Jeremiah of the third plural form Only Lev 20:10 .( וּהֵעֵרתֶשֵׁא plural form of) םֶהיֵעֵריֵשְׁנ as well as the expression , ףאנ for could be considered another possible allusion for the passage from 4Q182. Similar to the Jer , םיִכְּשַׁמםיִנָזֻּיְמםיִסוּס ) ”portrayal of adulterous prophets as “well fed lusting stallions 5:8) is a description of the fallen angels in the second vision of Enoch as endowed with “organs like horses” (1 En. 86:4). Cf. also Sus 5–9 for a similar allusion to Zedekiah and Ahab, “concerning whom the master had said: ‘Lawlessness came forth from Babylon, from elders who were judges, who were supposed to govern the people’ … since they lusted after [Sousanna], they diverted their mind and turned away their eyes in order not to look to heaven nor to remember to make right decisions” (nets). This, in accordance with an explicit citation from Jeremiah in Dan 9:2, suggests a Danielic association with Jeremiah traditions that is roughly contemporary with the 4QCatena texts. Cf. further Davis, “Torah Performance and History,” 468–472. 127 Cf. Strugnell, “Notes en marge,” 236–237. 128 Because the fragments are deemed to have preserved text from close to the middle of the scroll, Steudel has assigned them to columns beginning with col. viii in an 18-column work: Col. viii (frgs. 5+6 + 8), col. ix (frgs. 11+10+26+9 + 20+7), col. x (frgs. 2+24+14+3 + 4+31), col. xi (frgs. 19+12+13 i + 15), and col. xii (frg. 13 ii). Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie, 57–70. 276 chapter 5 best classified as an “eschatological midrash”: a collection of biblical passages that served for signposts, which showed reasons and offered explanations for why the expected intervention of God in the last days had been delayed. The text as a whole was intended to offer encouragement to its readers that the last days had already arrived in accordance with scriptural prophecies, but that the rightful elimination of present wickedness had not yet come to pass. Nevertheless, they were charged to persevere and remain faithful.129 The pericope in Steudel’s col. xi, which cites the passage from Jer 18:18, describes the last days as a time when “instruction [will not perish] from the [priest, nor advice from the sage, nor oracles] from the prophet.” These words were originally ascribed to Jeremiah’s opponents who sought to kill him. Here they are interwoven into a lament by David, and used to describe the deplorable conditions in which human wisdom and authority will unadvisedly usurp the counsel of yhwh. In another fragment, Allegro suggested Zeph 3:4 as a possible referent for “these things which are written concerning them in The passage from .(7 1 , תירחאבםהילעבותכרשאהמהו [ םימיה ) ”the last [days Zephaniah complements the reference to Jer 18:18, as part of a description of the ,( םיִזֲחֹפָּהיֶאיִבְנ ) priests and prophets from Jerusalem: “Its prophets are reckless ,( שֶׁדֹק־וּלְלִּחָהיֶנֲהֹכּ ) men of treachery;130 its priests have defiled what is sacred having committed violent acts against the Torah.” In keeping with scriptural Jeremiah’s preoccupation with rivals from the elite classes, the “teaching of the reconstructed) and the , םכחמהצעו ) the council of the sage ,(] כמהרות [ ןהו ) priest are all treated in 4Q177 with unsurprising ( רבדו ] איבנמ ) ”word of the prophet disdain. The possible function for the textual authority ascribed to the book of Jeremiah in these compositions131 accords with Jassen’s description of the

129 Cf. Steudel’s summary in Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie, 161–169, also Campbell, Exegetical Texts, 51–54. 130 J. Allegro with A.A. Anderson, Qumrân Cave 4.i (4Q158–4Q186) (djd 5; Oxford: Clarendon, in the first ]○○ חופה [ םיז Allegro’s suggestion is based on the reconstruction .68–67 ,(1968 line of frg. 3; the placement of which he notes “can only be conjectural” (p. 68). Cf. also as a more likely םיזחפהינהוכ Strugnell, “Notes en marge,” 238–239. Strugnell suggested reconstruction, despite the absence of any supporting evidence from the Hebrew Bible. Cf. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie, 73, who supports Allegro’s reading. 131 Both of the appeals to Jeremiah in these eschatological works have employed citation כרשא ] בות :formulae; in the case of 4Q182, there is direct reference to the book of Jeremiah what is wr]itten about them in the book of Jerem[iah.” In 4Q177, the“ , מרירפסבםהילע [ הי this refers] to the last days,” has been reconstructed following]“ , רשא commentary formula the clear quotation from Jeremiah. Cf. Edward Cook in Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Dead Sea character and content 277 prophets as “lawgivers” in their interpretation of the Mosaic Torah,132 or as what John Barton called a “cryptogram” that is “veiled” for the uninitiated.133 However, quite peculiar to the use of the book of Jeremiah in these examples is the manner in which they are directly related to false prophets who opposed Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s relationship with his rivals appears to function, first, as a model for the kind of resistance that its readers can expect in the last days, and second, as a grounding for them in a prophetic tradition that features persecution. Where Jeremiah has gone before, the heirs of this heritage can expect to follow, but through the same sort of conflict they find assurance in their succession as legitimate. This interpretative method for drawing from the ethos of Jeremiah’s character seems to accord well with how he is re-presented in the Apocryphon. A special status is applied to Jeremiah’s sayings and deeds which draws attention to his qualities as both a leader responding to the imperial forces of the age, and a prophet in the lineage of Moses.

5.2.3 The Hodayot Jeremiah was distinguished as a prophet of lament and efficacious prayer in the Apocryphon c (cf. 4Q385a 18 ii 2–5), and these features seem to have manifested themselves implicitly for devotional reflexion, specifically in the Hodayot from Qumran.134 Furthermore, Jeremiah’s contentious relationship

Scrolls A New Translation, 264. Allegro, djd 5, 72, in minimalist fashion, does not connect the contents of l. 1 with what follows, and has chosen merely to translate the passage: “at the end of days as David said.” Cf. also García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1: 367. 132 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 40–60. 133 Barton, Oracles of God, 182–183. 134 A full appraisal of the function of scripture quotations and allusions in the Hodayot can be found in Hughes, Scriptural Allusions in the Hodayot. Proverbial meditations on the book of Jeremiah are also seen in one of the mss of 4QInstruction (4Q416 2 ii 12), which makes an allusion to Jer 17:9; J. Strugnell and D.J. Harrington, “416. 4QInstructionb (Mûsar leMevînb),” in Qumran Cave 4.xxiv: 4QInstruction (Mûsar leMevîn): 4Q415ff.. (ed. J. Strugnell, D.J. Harrington and T. Elgvin; djd 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 73–141, 102. Jer 20:13 appears in the opening clause of 4QBarkhi Nafshia (4Q434 1 i 1) as part of a blessing for yhwh who has “delivered the life of the needy” (Cf. also Jer 15:21; 1QHa 2:32; 3:25; 5:13); M. Weinfeld and D. Seeley, “434. 4QBarkhi Nafshia,” in Qumran Cave 4.xx: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E.G. Chazon et al.; djd 29; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 270–274. Other examples of these sorts of devotional readings are found in 4Q460 8 2, where Jer 9:23 is expanded in an indictment of the power brokers who boast in their authority and military strength; E. Larson, “460. 4QNarrative Work and Prayer,” in Qumran Cave 4.xxvi: Cryptic Texts, Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. S.J. Pfann, P.S. Alexander et al.; djd 36; Oxford: 278 chapter 5 with other prophets appears to have influenced quotations and allusions from scriptural Jeremiah in a few poems of 1QHa.135 In her meticulous study of the Hodayot, Julie Hughes has drawn attention to the function of Jeremiah 10–12 in the first of two dualistic poems in 1QHa 7:21–8:40/41,136 making a case that the selection is a meditation upon Jeremiah. Her assertion is founded primarily on the presence of allusions to the language used in Jer 10:23 and 12:3, and is reinforced through what she observes to be a structural dependence. In the introduction of the poem (1QHa 8:23) Hughes has noted a close association with and I surely know,” followed“ , יתעדיינאו Jer 10:23 in the emphatic construction Through the dependence upon . אל by three repetitions of the negative particle to“ , ארב to establish,” and“ , ןוכ ”,to form“ רצי other key words from the text create”—all common to Hebrew creation texts—the echo that Hughes has drawn from Jer 10 is plausibly a meditation upon the supremacy of yhwh 1QHa 7:28) can , קידצ ) through his activity in creation.137 The righteous man

Clarendon, 2000), 380–381. Jer 11:8 appears in 4Q393 frg. 3 along with passages from Neh 9 and Ps 51 as part of an expansion of the penitential prayer from Deut 9:26–29; Daniel Falk, “393. 4QCommunal Confession,” in Chazon, et al., djd 29, 53–58. Finally, in 4QDibHama V 2–3 is found a conflation of Jer 2:13 and 5:19: “[They abandoned] the spring of living water […] and they served a foreign god in their land.” This, along with a citation of Jer 14:22 (VI 4), are contained in weekday liturgies which recall the sins of past generations from Israel’s history; Maurice Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.iii (4Q482–4Q520) (djd 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 145–149. 135 But cf. James R. Davila, “Counterfactual History and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Grossman, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, 128–144, 132–134 who argues that the Hodayot predominantly contains connexions to scriptural Isaiah. Cf. also Flint, “Interpreting the Poetry of Isaiah at Qumran.” 136 For a discussion of the division of the poems in cols. vii and viii cf. Hartmut Stegemann with Eileen Schuller, in Carol Newsom, Hartmut Stegemann and Eileen Schuller, Qum- ran Cave 1.iii: 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 4QHodayota–f and 1QHodayotb (djd 40; Oxford: Clarendon, 2008), 99–100, 110. The relationship between the Jeremianic “laments” in Jer 11:18–12:6; 15:10–21; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; 20:7–18 has long been recognised by scholars; cf. Svend Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 310, 356. For an inventory of the “prominent poetic metaphors” in both the Jeremianic laments and the Teacher Hymns cf. Michael S. Moore, “The Laments in Jeremiah and 1QH: Mapping the Metaphorical Trajectories,” in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (ed. John Goldengay; lbh / ots 459; New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 228–252, 236– 246. 137 Compare with the conflation between Jer 10:12–13 and Ps 135:7 in 11QPsa 26 13–15: “Blessed by his ( לבתןוכמ ) is he who has made the earth by his power; who established the world wisdom. In his understanding he stretched out the heavens, and brought forth the wind from his storehouses. He made lightning for the rain, and raised up clouds from the ends.” character and content 279

דעומלותוניכהםחרמו ) take comfort in the assurance that he is favoured by yhwh תאתונשהללוכלכויהכיאו ) cf. Jer 1:5), whose decrees are unchangeable ;7:28 , ןוצר 1QHa 7:27).138 This is contrasted with the insufficiency of the wicked , הכירבד , התארבםיעשרו ) in the second part of the poem, who are also created by yhwh םתשדקהםחרמו :The allusion here is based on a conflation of Jer 12:3 and 1:5 .(7:30 and from the womb you have consecrated them for the day of“ , הגרהםויל slaughter” (1QHa 7:30). This is in parallel contrast to what is read about the destiny of the righteous man in 7:28. Hughes sees Jeremiah “as the archetypal righteous person and his opponents as the archetypal wicked people.”139 While “the wicked” in the Hodayot and in Jer 12 are not explicitly singled out, Jeremiah’s opponents are frequently identified throughout the book of Jeremiah specifically as “priests” and “prophets” cf. e.g. Jer 26:7). It is not difficult to imagine that the wicked ; םיִאִבְנַּהְוםיִנֲהֹכַּה ) in 1QHa cols. vii–viii are conceived as closely related to these same strata, as alluded to elsewhere in the Qumran scrolls. They are those who “walk in a way 1QHa 7:31; cf. Jer 23:14); who have “rebelled , בוטאלךרדבוכלה ) ”that is not good .1QHa 7:31;140 cf , ̊כ̊ת̊י̊רבבוסאמיו [ יתמאוה ]ך) ”against your covenant and truth Jer 23:28; 28:9); who “have not delighted in everything you have commanded, ורחביוהתיוצרשאלוכבוצראלו ) ”and have chosen that which you have hated 1QHa 7:31–32; cf. Jer 14:14). This sort of “I” and “thou” relationship , התאנשרשאב that dominates the poem is indicative of a more personalised modelling than what was observed in the Catena texts. In the case of this particular hodayah, Jeremiah’s distinction as a righteous prophet over and against his wicked rivals may be seen as a template to provide assurance and instruction for an unspecified individual.141

138 Note the parallel relationship between this clause and the expansion based on Jer 10:23 in ll. 25–26; pluses are indicated with italics: “And I, I know by your understanding that not nor is any man able to ,( אלו ] וכרדםדא ) by the hand of flesh [ and not for] a man his way ,Cf. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions in the Hodayot ”.( ודעצןיכהלשונאלכויאלו ) direct his steps 71–76; but cf. Newsom, Stegemann, and Schuller, djd 40, 98 restore the lacuna in l. 25 to also comments on 103. Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The ;[ םתהללכוי ] וכרדםדא read אלאיכ Hebrew Writings, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2010), 66, alternatively reads that not by the power of his spiritual flesh, and not for a …“ , רשבדיב [ לאלווחור ] וכרדםדא man his way …” 139 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions in the Hodayot, 81. 140 Similarly read by Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 1, 66. Cf. alternative construction by and comments on , ̊כ̊ת̊י̊רבבוסאמיו [ יקוחוה ]ך ,Newsom, Stegemann and Schuller djd 40, 98 p. 104. 141 Jer 10:23 plays a part in the second of the “dualistic poems” from Hughes’ study. 11QHa that a man is righteous, nor is a son of man ( יתעדיינאו ) reads: “And I, I know 32–12:31 280 chapter 5

Carol Newsom sees this poem among a larger collection of so-called “Leader Hymns,”142 which were composed to “articulate the leadership myth of the existing community.”143 For her, these hodayot were not merely personal reflexions, nor were they hymns dedicated to the memory of a specific leader. Rather, these were expressions of sectarian ideals through the self-presentation of the epitomised character of the community’s leader(s), in what she has called “acts of leadership.”144 If this description is accurate, then by implication Jeremiah’s persona seems most prominently to have been the well-spring from which the poet—possibly, but not necessarily the Teacher of Righteousness himself— drew in constructing a model for leadership. In any case, the reflexion of the Jeremiah traditions in the Hodayot is in line with the implicit reliance on Jeremianic authority that appears consistently throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls; the persona of the prophet became their point of access that superseded texts. The common relationship in the verbal parallels to Jeremiah from a selection of the commonly understood sectarian compositions illustrates a concentrated dualistic distinction between idealised and illicit prophecy as symbols by which to demarcate the differences between covenant insiders and outsiders. Jeremiah was perceived by the handlers of these texts as a prophet who stood in a line of succession that began with Moses—a feature they no doubt noticed in the strong Deuteronomic connection between the two figures. This was to be preserved by the community through its leaders. As far as we know, there were no pesharim dedicated to the book of Jeremiah, but the character of the prophet appears to have served an important function in their place. His distinction as a prophet of truth, and one established in the new covenant of God is demonstrated in contrast to the lies, deceit, idolatry

perfect in his way. All righteous deeds belong to God most high, and the way of man is ,Hughes ;”( וללארצי ) except by the spirit which God formed him ,( ןוכת ) not established ScripturalAllusionsintheHodayot, 117. Hughes also notes in 1QHa 12:11 and 14 the references serve as markers to Jer 2:11: “Has the nation רימהל to Belial together with the use of gods even for this that is no god? And the people have changed ( יוֹגּריִמיֵהַה ) exchanged is perhaps even לעב the play on ליִעוֹיאוֹלְבּ ) ?their glory for something of no profit ( ריִמֵה ) .(p. 109) ”( לעילב more aptly applied to 142 More conventionally called “Teacher Hymns”; 1QHa 10:5–21;12:6–13:6; 13:7–21; 13:22–15:8; 15:9–28; 16:5–17:37. These hodayot are all singled out by Newsom as agreed upon by the consensus of scholars as “hymns of the leader,” in Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (stdj 52; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 288. 143 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 289. 144 Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space, 299, emph. orig. character and content 281 and fornication of his rivals. This treatment of the Jeremiah traditions in these sectarian texts seems to operate implicitly as a sort of prophetic criticism that is levelled against any who dare to speak for God in opposition to the community. Perhaps this is why there appears to be a different handling of the Jeremiah texts from Qumran than some of the other well established Hebrew prophets like Isaiah and the Twelve. If the community perceived Jeremiah to be the closest example of a living and active prophetic voice, his words and character were necessarily woven into the fabric of the community’s own expressions. Not primarily as legal proof-texts or clairvoyant sign-posts, but rather as the embodiment of a very palpable tension that existed between them and the larger Jewish religious establishment: forming a part of the “continued viability of prophecy and revelation” observed by Jassen in Qumran’s handling of the prophets.145 In terms of articulating the “leadership myth” for the community, the allusions to scriptural Jeremiah from the Admonition in cd, the Catena texts and the Hodayot are in many ways similar in function to what appears throughout the Apocryphon manuscripts. Despite the generic diver- gences between all of these texts, a familiar pattern seems to have developed in their hermeneutical treatments of Jeremiah; one which focuses on his deeds and words in an effort to project ideal leadership in various times of conflict, and which serves to make sharp distinctions between insiders and outsiders of the new covenant.

5.2.4 4QText Mentioning Zedekiah (4Q470) Unlike all of the previous four examples, 4Q470 is not clearly a sectarian composition, although it belongs in this discussion because of its thematic concentration on the dispensation of a new covenant, and also for its apparent dependency on a selection of pericopae from scriptural Jeremiah.146 4Q470 was published by Erik Larson, Lawrence Schiffman and John Strugnell in Qumran Cave 4 xiv: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (djd 19).147 It consists of only three small frag-

145 Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 17. 146 Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” 27–30 distinguishes between “documents employing terminology connected to the Qumran community,” and “works which do not contain clusters of terms and ideas related to the community.” By way of her classificatory system 4Q470 is assigned to the latter on the basis of its omission of any of the distinctive terminology of the Yaḥad. However, the concern for the correct observance of the covenant that is featured in this text could plausibly have resonated with the Yaḥad Essenes, who almost certainly found value in many more generally Jewish texts for describing their own ideas and circumstances. 147 Erik Larson, Lawrence Schiffman and John Strugnell, “470. 4QText Mentioning Zedekiah,” 282 chapter 5 ments, which, according to the editors, are connected only by their similarity in scribal hand.148 The contents of the fragments may be divided into two groups: who makes a covenant ,(5 ,2 1 , לאכימ ) ”frg. 1 has preserved mention of “Michael , להקהיניע̇ל ) ”ll. 3, 5) “in the eyes of the congregation , היקדצ ) ”with “Zedekiah l. 6). Frg. 3 appears to be contextually situated with the events of the exodus, the wilderness journey, and the sojourn in Qadesh Barnea (cf. Num 13:25–26; Deut 1:19; 2:34–46).149 The editors have suggested construing these fragments together either as an historical account from at least the time of the exodus and culminating in a covenant made by the archangel Michael with Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, or with the account of the exodus in frg. 3 forming an historical preamble to the covenant in frg. 1.150 In either case, the covenant that is featured in frg. 1 appears as a dominant theme, and this naturally raises the question of its identification with a specific covenant from scripture. Lar- son has argued for setting the text in connexion with one of two Jeremianic passages that feature Zedekiah in conjunction with the establishment of a covenant; Jer 23:5–8 (= 33:14–26); or 31:31–34 (= 32:40).151 The first of these in Jer 23:5–8 is part of a larger set of oracles in 21:11– 22:30 censuring the Davidic administration in Jerusalem, and featuring specific complaints against three of the last four kings of Judah, Jehoahaz (22:10–12), Jehoiakim (vv. 13–19), and Jehoiachin (vv. 20–30). These oracles conclude with a prediction of disaster and exile, but then culminate in a hopeful prophecy of a preserved remnant under the care of a future just ruler:

in M. Broshi et al., eds., djd 19, 235–244; cf. also Erik Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation.” 148 Larson, Schiffman and Strugnell, djd 19, 235. 4Q470 is palaeographically assigned an “early Herodian” date, p. 236. 149 Frg. 2 is miniscule and difficult to place in the composition, although the mention of in l. 1 and the imperfect verb in l. 2 suggest that it is probably more closely related הרותה to the contents of frg. 1 than to frg. 3. 150 Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation,” 213. 151 Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation,” 220–223; cf. also Larson, Schiffman, and Strugnell, djd 19, 243–244, in which the editors argue for setting the text in connexion with the name change introduced by Nebuchadnezzar for his appointed vassal Mattaniah to Zedekiah in 2Kgs 24:17; an event which some ancient interpreters inferred to coincide with the establishment of a covenant. Larson also considers the covenant Zedekiah makes with the residents of Jerusalem in Jer 34:8–22, but rejects this on the basis of 4Q470’s rather positive portrayal of Zedekiah, which seems at serious odds with the scriptural account. character and content 283 says yhwh, when I will raise ,( םיִאָבּםיִמָיהֵנִּה ) The days are surely coming and he shall reign as king and ,( קיִדַּצחַמֶצ ) up for David a righteous branch .justice and righteousness in the land ( הָשָׂעְו ) deal wisely, and shall execute In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the .( וּנֵקְדִצהָוהְי ) ”name by which he will be called: “yhwh is our righteousness 23:5–6

The play-on-words formed in the name of this messianic king with Zedekiah is obvious, and has long been noted by commentators as a literary irony used to denote a reversal of Zedekiah’s policies.152 However, the positive appraisal in 4Q470 of Zedekiah suggests that the Jeremianic passage may have been reinterpreted to feature the last Davidic ruler in Judah as the anticipated messianic king. This understanding of the text is bolstered by a possible literary parallel between the promise that this idealised monarch will “do justice in Jer 23:5, and the substance of the ( הָקָדְצוּטָפְּשִׁמהָשָׂעְו ) ”and righteousness תושעל ) ”covenant in 4Q470 1 4 “to do and to render accomplished all of the Torah According to Larson, the covenant made between the 153.( הרותהלכתאתושעהלו archangel Michael and Zedekiah in 4Q470 frg. 1 may be understood as a re- establishment of the Davidic covenant, if the prophecy in Jer 23:5–6 is in view here.154 A second option for interpreting this text is in setting it in the context of the new covenant promised by Jeremiah in Jer 31:31–34: the same new covenant that presumably was adopted by the Yaḥad Essenes to describe their own movement in cd 6:19; 8:20–21; 20:12. Larson asserts that this interpretation may have formed on the basis of the future expectation in 4Q470 1 5, “at] that which may be in parallel to the expectation of the new ,(ב] איההתע ) ”time covenant “after those days” in Jer 31:33, and anticipated by the identical phrase The problem 155. איִהַהתֵעָבּ ,used to introduce the whole larger pericope in 31:1 with this suggestion is that nowhere in the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah is Zedekiah ever mentioned. Nevertheless, Larson does go on to posit that given the literary parallels that are present for both passages in Jer 23:5–6

152 Holladay, Jeremiah1, 619–620; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah21–36 (ab 21b; New York:Double- day, 1999) 175–176; Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (otl; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 258. Cf. also Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context,” in Goldengay, ed., Uprooting and Planting, 308–321. .]○ ̇זההרות̊ה [ תא ,Cf. also frg. 2 1 153 154 Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation,” 222. 155 Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation,” 222–223. 284 chapter 5 and Jer 31:31–33 and 4Q470 frg. 1, it is more plausible that both of these texts were combined to form the background to a covenant that Michael makes with Zedekiah: “In such a view, the covenant described in our text is the new covenant of Jeremiah 31, that here is given to Zedekiah through the agency of the angel Michael and involves performing and causing the performance of all the law.”156 The affiliation of 4Q470 with Jeremiah is confirmed by Larson via John Strugnell’s original notes on this text, in which Strugnell perceived there to be a correspondence between this text and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. It seems that at the early stages of analysis he was frequently tempted to assign the fragments of 4Q470 to 4Q387, and that both texts exhibit “strong similarities between their script.”157 Unfortunately, Larson has not pursued any further the relationships between 4Q470 and the Apocryphon. A number of intriguing parallels between these two compositions possibly provides greater insight about the nature and function of Jeremianic motifs in this text, especially relative to the function of Jeremianic traditions more broadly in the Qumran scrolls. First, it is significant that both the Apocryphon c and 4Q470 have preserved content from narrative descriptions of the exodus and wilderness periods, and which feature the mention of Qadesh Barnea in 4Q470 3 7 and in one of the שדק Apocryphon c fragments, preserved in 4Q389 2 4. It is noteworthy that appears in only one other manuscript from the Qumran scrolls;158 its ענרב common mention in these two texts coupled with their Jeremianic affiliation presents itself as a possible shared motif. Qadesh Barnea would appear to stand in both texts as a symbolic divider between the recipients of the Sinai covenant and the more favoured generation that is featured in the delivery of the Deuteronomic covenant, and who would go on to take possession of ינולמגרשאתאו the land. 4Q389 2 3–4 was reconstructed by Dimant to read and what …“ , ̊םאשאו [ לאםאובדעונבתאשיאאשירשאכ ] םהלהרמאוענרבשד̇ק they repaid me, and I carried them[ as a man carries his son until they came to ]Qadesh Barnea, and I said to them …”159 For both the Apocryphon c and for 4Q470, these events seem to be part of an historical comparison between the recipients of the Sinai covenant, the Deuteronomic covenant, and the new

156 Larson, Schiffman, and Strugnell, djd 19, 244. 157 Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation,” 215. 158 Cf. 4Q364 20 3 (Deut 1:1–2); 23 i 15 (Deut 2:14–15); 26 ii 2 (Deut 9:23–24). 159 Dimant, djd 30, 223–224; cf. Deut 1:19–32. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol. 2, 103 does not offer a reconstruction for 4Q389 2 3–4. character and content 285 covenant generation that would appear in the last days. Furthermore—and in keeping with the prevalent thematic function of Jeremianic traditions in the Damascus Document, the Hodayot, and in the Catena a–b—this comparison serves to draw sharp distinctions between covenant insiders and outsiders for its readers. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the association between Zedekiah and the exiled Jewish community in Babylon that appears in scriptural Jere- miah (Jer 34:3–4; 39:6–7; 52:10–11 [= 2Kgs 25:6–7]; cf. also Bar 1:8–9) helps to affirm and explain his positive portrayal here in 4Q470. As noted in the combined text of the Apocryphon c, the Babylonian Jewish community receives a fairly sympathetic treatment that later served to establish their legitimacy as the ideal recipients of Jeremiah’s covenant stipulations (4Q385a 18 i 9–11). Sim- ilarly (and by virtue of his association with the second deportation to Babylon in 2Kgs 25:7),160 Zedekiah’s covenant, which is established “in the eyes of the congregation,” and likely anticipated by the covenant promises in Jer 23:5–6 and 31:31–34, is most plausibly delivered to Jewish residents in Babylon. This sympathetic appraisal of the Babylonian community in 4Q470 resonates with Jeremianic traditions observed in the Apocryphon and 1Baruch, and which may be traced to the 픐 redaction of scriptural Jeremiah itself:161 Babylon had come to be considered a place of promise, and associated with the prophetic persona and authority of Jeremiah, but arguably also with the political aspirations of loyalists to the Davidic dynasty that ended with Zedekiah. 4Q470 resonates with the other examples from the Qumran scrolls surveyed above; the Damascus Document, Catena a–b, and in the Hodayot—in that the

160 Note that 1Baruch also presumes Zedekiah’s presence in Babylon when he is identified as the one who fashioned the new temple vessels that the Babylonian Jewish community returned to Jerusalem in Bar 1:8–9. 161 The subtly more positive portrayal of Babylon in 픐 Jeremiah is a prominent topic of discussion in John Hill, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah mt (Biblical Interpretation Series; Leiden: Brill, 1999), esp. 38–44. Hill asserts that its structure reflects a more hopeful future for the Babylonian Jewish community. Cf. also Larson, “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation,” 215–217, Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives,” 284 who both suggest a possible mollification of Zedekiah in 픐 Jer 38:9 in contrast to 픊 Jer 45:9; also Josephus Ant. 10:120; b. ʿArak. 17a; b. Sanh. 103a; b. Šabb. 149b. The sympathetic appraisal of Babylon may also be construed from the establishment of an angelic covenant in 4Q470, in light of the similar interaction between the angel Michael and Nebuchadnezzar in another Coptic Jeremianic text; cf. Brooke, “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives,” 284, citing K.-H. Kuhn, “A Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon,”Le Musêon 83 (1970): 95–135, 291–350. 286 chapter 5

Jeremiah persona is employed implicitly in the form of an authority-conferring device, and in part for the purpose of allocating the divide between covenant insiders and outsiders. The composition is not clearly sectarian, although the prominence of the covenant and its satisfaction in the stipulations of the Torah would seem to align with the expectation in cd 8:19–20, that the new covenant would be fulfilled by the members of the Yaḥad in the performance .cd 6:14; cf. ll , הרותהשורפכתושעלורמשי ) ”of “the specifications of the Torah 15ff.). It seems most probable that 4Q470 is best situated as part of the same socio-religious milieu that produced the Apocryphon, and which likely also resonated with various members of the Yaḥad Essene movement.

5.3 4Q390, the “Admonition,” and Pseudo-Daniel a

To this point, we have explored various ways in which the persona of Jeremiah functioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls to project ideal leadership in various times of imperial rule and conflict, and to make sharp distinctions between insiders and outsiders of the new covenant. The Admonition in the Damascus Document serves as an important text for discerning these features, but the Jeremianic traditions also appear here on another interpretive level. These traditions enable us to discern the shape and development of the self-conception and history of the Yaḥad Essene movement in various employments of the same “origins myth” that appears to be at the heart of cd and the Second Temple Apocalypse Redux in 4Q390. Maxine Grossman and Jonathan Campbell have both offered persuasive models for reading the Damascus Document that factor into consideration its complex construction, dynamic function and interpretation.162 For both, “meaning” in cd—as in any ancient text, for that matter—is never a straightforward matter of simply grasping what the text says, even as one is able to trace its various stages of development. Rather, and especially according to Gross- man, “[t]he practice of toggling between the various parts of the text and the text understood as a (theoretical) whole, and of shifting between synchronic and diachronic readings, allows for a consideration of authorial intention as composite, dynamic, and complex.”163 For his part, Campbell reminds us that our failure to accurately comprehend the Weltanschauung that informed cd continues to prompt contemporary scholars to invent and employ theories of

162 Campbell, The Use of Scripture, and Grossman, Reading for History. 163 Grossman, Reading for History, 17. character and content 287 interpretation that confound and leave us not fully satisfied.164 The work of Campbell and Grossman helps to provide us with the recognition of the need for developing a more functional, historiographical sense of the Damascus Doc- ument. Grossman in particular seeks to adjust our perception of meaning as “multiple” phenomena, and subject to a complex system of reading and re- reading that intersects a variety of communities and stretches over time.165 For both of them, the place of the reader and the collecting community in the appropriation of cd is of fundamental importance, and this is amply illustrated by Grossman in her application of a range of various ideological sensitivities and constructions of “authority” to the Damascus Document.166 The methodological trail blazed by Campbell and Grossman on the one hand, and the understanding of the Damascus Document as a “foundational document” on the other,167 promise to make a twofold contribution to this study of Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: first the complexities observed in the reception and interpretation of cd help to inform our perception of the relationship between the individual copies of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (including 4Q390) to one another and to the rest of the Qumran scrolls. Second, cd’s distinction as an historical document is also generically similar to the lengthy preoccupation with history in Apocalypse i and ii in the Apocryphon c and 4Q390, and helps to contextualize this text relative to the larger collection, as well as the Jeremianic traditions within the sectarian self- understanding. In what follows, I shall compare and contrast the structural relationship between Apocalypse i–ii with three important historical pericopae in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 4Q390 in particular presents a series of intriguing literary and historical connexions with the preamble in the Damascus Doc- ument as well as with two of the fragmentary Aramaic Pseudo-Daniel texts, 4Q243–4Q244. All of these compositions appear in various ways indebted to themes and ideas that are prevalent in the early-mid second cent. bce composition Jubilees,168 and are possibly traced to an early stage in the emergence of

164 Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 44. 165 Grossman, Reading for History, esp. 19–24. 166 Cf. esp. Grossman, Reading for History, Chapters Four and Five, 127–209. 167 Grossman, Reading for History, 24–36 defines “foundational documents” as those “texts that take on an authoritative status for the communities in which they are read and interpreted. But the meaning of a foundational document is never transparent, and competing readings of the text can support (or, in fact, generate) competing constructions of communal authority and covenantal identity” (p. 24). 168 On the dating of Jubilees, cf. George Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten,” 101–104. The most thorough treatment of the issues pertaining to the date of Jubilees is found in James C. Van- 288 chapter 5 the Yaḥad Essene movement. The present discussion will treat these relationships in turn with a view to how they inform our understanding of the history and the construction of history behind these texts, and to the underlying contribution of the Jeremianic traditions as they were employed by their respective collecting communities.

5.3.1 cd 1:3–11 The so-called “d sources” now contained in the Damascus Document are widely considered formative in the Qumran collection.169 The preamble in cd likely reflects upon events from the early stages of the Yaḥad Essene movement, and this historical retelling became an important reference point for any future expressions of the community’s ideologies. The Damascus Document has come to be regarded an important repository from which to draw in reconstructing the history of the Qumran group,170 but furthermore, it came to represent and reflect a language and a set of ideals that became ingrained in the self expression of the group or groups who identified with the Yaḥad Essenes. The opening lines of Section a in cd in particular have provided important clues for locating the roots of the Qumran sectarians as part of the “d movement,” in a period of cultic reform sometime in the mid-second cent. or early-first cent. bce. cd 1:3–8 reads:171

derKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (hsm 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for the Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977), 207–285. Unlike Nickelsburg, Van- derKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–21, sets the more likely date for the composition c. 160–150bce. On the relationship between Jubilees and cd cf. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 42–43; but cf. also Eyal Regev, “Jubilees, Qumran and the Essenes,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 426–440, 426–435. 169 Philip R. Davies, “The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document,” in The Damascus Docu- ment: A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998 (ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick; stdj 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 27–44, 30–35. 170 Cf. e.g. Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant; James C. VanderKam, “Identity and History of the Community,” in Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, 2: 487–533, esp. pp. 524–526; Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document, 153–160, 196–209; Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 34–39. 171 Underlined portions of text represent echoes with Apocalypse ii in 4Q390 discussed below. character and content 289

םלעומביכ רשא והובזע ריתסה וינפ לארשימ ושדקממו םנתיו תיריאשריאשהםינשארתירבורכזבוברחל לארשיל אלו םנתנ הלכל ץקבו תואמשולשםינשןורח םיעשתו ותיתל םתוא לבבךלמרצאנדכובנדיב םדקפ חמציו לארשימ ןרהאמו שרוש שורילתעטמ ותמדאבוטבןשדלווצראתא

For when they abandoned him by being faithless, he turned away from Israel and from his sanctuary and gave them up to the sword. But when he called to mind the covenant he made with their forefathers, he left a remnant for Israel and did not allow them to be exterminated. In the era of wrath—three hundred and ninety years at the time he handed them over to the power of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon— he took care of them and caused to grow from Israel and from Aaron a root of planting to inherit his land and to grow fat on the good produce of his soil.172

My interest in this passage is not so much the specification of the events described and their historical alignment with either the second or the first cent. bce. Rather, as we shall see below, this leadership and origins myth bears such a compatible structure to the historical discourse in Apocalypse i–ii so as to suggest a significant relationship. And while the commonalities and differences may not help to clarify the historical reality of the community more precisely, they do show how deeply ingrained this common myth was for the groups behind these texts. Furthermore, these literary and structural parallels may help to unveil the underlying Jeremianic traditions that informed them. For the purposes of this study, I shall proceed to interpret the figures in cd plainly, but with full awareness of the complications that underlie this approach.173

172 Translation by Edward Cook in Wise, Abegg and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation. 173 On the problems of historiography in the Damascus Document, cf. Grossman, Reading for History, esp. pp. 107–118, 144–153, who rightly notes that the ambiguity in line with the theological impetus of the calculations provides for a variety of interpretive options; Jonathan G. Campbell, “Essene-Qumran Origins in the Exile,” esp. 155; Baumgarten and Schwartz, “Damascus Document (cd),” 13; Michael O. Wise, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches,”RevQ 14/56 (1990): 587–614; John J. Collins, “The Time of the Teacher: An Old Debate Renewed,” in Flint, Tov, and 290 chapter 5

Common sense and basic arithmetic suggest that the appearance of the “shoot” grew from Israel and Aaron 390 years after the “time of wrath,” when “Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon” destroyed Jerusalem and the first temple. Conventional dating sets this pivotal moment around 196bce, when a group of penitents arose and wandered leaderless for another twenty years, (cd 1:11 , ובלךרדבםכירדהלקדצהרומםהלםקיו ) ”until the “Teacher of Righteousness went on to galvanise them into a faction of followers (cf. cd 1:9). These dates and this pericope have been critical components in VanderKam’s and Eshel’s efforts to locate the earliest stages of the d movement, their practices and ideology close to the reign of Antiochus iv and the subsequent Hasmonaean revolt.174 But what has often been overlooked in studies of this famous passage is a terminological and structural affinity with the following fragment from the Apocalypse ii in 4Q390:

הוצמםהילאהחלשאוהמהבהרבדאו וניביו לוכב רשא םהיתובאוםהובזע םותמו רודה אוה̇ה לבויב יעיבשה ןברחל ושעיולוכהורפיותירבות̇בשודעומוקוחוחכשיץראה יניעבערה יתרתסהו ינפ המהמ םיתתנו םהיביאדיב ̊תרגסהו [ םי םהמ עמלםיטיל̇פיתראשהוברחל [ן] ̊יאלרשא [כ]ל[ו ] יתמחב [ו] ̊פרתס̇ה̊ב [ ינ ] םהמ 4Q390 1 6–11175

When the pericopae from cd and 4Q390 are juxtaposed alongside one another, a correlation is immediately apparent, which is affirmed by the following four observations regarding their mutual structure.176 First, both texts share in common a distinct temporal reference. Both texts locate an important time in their

VanderKam, eds., Studies in the Hebrew Bible, 212–229. Most Recently, Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 34–39, and Wise, “The Origins and History of the Teacher’s Movement,” in Lim and Collins, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 92–122. 174 Cf. VanderKam, “Identity and History,” 524–525; Eshel, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmon- aean State, 29–32; cf. also Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community, 36–37, who is non- committal about the meaning behind the date, but is careful to note that the origins of the community were very conceivably “some considerable time before” the beginning of the first cent. bce (p. 36). 175 Translations for 4Q390 are located in the previous Chapter Four, section 4.3. 4Q390 and the Second Temple Apocalypse: Text and Translation in Structural Parallel with 4QApocrJer ca–d. 176 Cf. Abegg, “Exile in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 119–121, who first drew attention to this structural allusion. character and content 291 programmatic reconstruction of history after the Babylonian exile.177 In cd 1:3– 4 the “spiritual exile” is figured to end after 390 years, counting forward from Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem, or, 196bce when the group first emerged. In 4Q390, the post-exilic turning point would occur in the “seventh jubilee,” or prior to 254bce using the less precise but most probable “devastation of the land” as a starting point (4Q390 1 7–8).178 Given that these references are programmatic, it stands to reason that the best understanding of the calculations is to interpret them both with reference to a point in time in the imprecise, distant past. Nevertheless, it should be noted that while the specificity of the figures may be in question, they must have been somewhat functionally accurate. As Brooke has observed, “the symbolism would lose much of its force if there were not some kind of relationship to actual historical circumstances.”179 Second, both texts record similar descriptions of the actions of their opponents. cd 1:3 identifies the offending party as those who “abandoned him” in their rebellion; 4Q390 similarly indicts “those and their forefathers [who have] abandoned” everything (4Q390 1 6–7). Third, the punishment for abandonment is issued in identical terms in both texts. In cd 1:4 God “removed his face from Israel and from his sanctuary, and delivered them unto the sword.” 4Q390 projects the same punishment, but in the first person: “I will turn my face from them and abandon them in the hand of their enemies, and I will deliver them up to the sword” (4Q390 1 9–10). Fourth, both works contain the positive mention of a remnant. cd 1:4–5 speaks of a “remnant for Israel” that did not fall into complete destruction. Then in ll. 7–8 the text says that God “brought forth from Israel and Aaron a shoot, a planting to inherit his land and to become

may also be a critical component for locating אוההרודהםותמו This same reference point 177 Apocalypse ii relative to the possible insertion in the 4Q387 copy of Apocalypse i in frg. 2 looking back to the emergence of the “king ומיבו iii 2–3, and corresponds temporally with of the nations” in 4Q389 ii 9 and 4Q387 2 iii 1. 178 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 115, where she notes that there is no precise indication for the starting point of the “devastation of the land.” It remains possible that the seventy year-weeks period begins in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in 605/4bce, or in the year in which the house of Jehoiachin was deported in 597bce. Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 236–237, argues for an alternative method for calculating the epochs according to ten jubilees in Apocalypse i (4Q387 2 ii 3–4). 179 George J. Brooke, “The ‘Apocalyptic’ Community, the Matrix of the Teacher and Rewriting Scripture,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 37–54, 45. It also deserves mention that the precision with which Jews in the first or second cent. bce were even able to calculate the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is not assured. Invariably, these references were probably assumed to be accurate even in the event that they actually were not. 292 chapter 5 fat in the good produce of his soil.” The text in 4Q390 similarly reads that God “will let survive from among them fugitives, so that they may not be completely destroyed.” The relationship between these two passages is even more pronounced when what follows in cd 1:8–11 is juxtaposed with 4Q390 1 11–12:

ויבינו בעונם וידעו כי אנשים אשימים הם ויהיו כעורים וכימגששים דרך שנים עשרים ויבן אל אל מעשיהם כי בלב שלם דרשוהו ויקם להם מורה צדק להדריכם בדרך לבו

They considered their iniquity and they knew that they were guilty men, and had been like the blind and like those groping for the way twenty years. But God considered their deeds, that they had sought Him with a whole heart. So He raised up for them a teacher of righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart.180

ומשלו בהמה מל̇אכי המ̇ש[ט]מות ו̊מ[אסתים ו]ישו̇ב[ו ̊ו̊יעשו[ את ]ה̊ר̊ע ̊בעי̇נ[י ]ויתהלכו בש̊ר[ירות לבם

The situations are couched in similar terms, but the appraisal in each stands in בין opposite to the other. One will notice, first, the occurrence of the verb cd 1:8 and 10, which recalls the same word used in 4Q390 1 6. In cd 1:8 “they their iniquity and came to recognise that they were guilty (ויבינו) considered (ויבן) men.” In response to this critical self-examination, God in turn “considers their deeds, that with a whole heart they sought after him” (cd 1:10). When God’s words and commandments are delivered to the returning exiles who would rebuild the temple, 4Q390 1 6 similarly reads that “they will consider everything that they and their fathers abandoned.” Where the pericope (ויבינו) in the Damascus Document offers this favourable assessment of the formative generation that would in due course establish the Yaḥad, Apocalypse ii speaks of the much earlier group of returnees from the exile who were remembered for constructing the second temple.181

180 Wise, Abegg and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation. 181 Cf. Dimant, djd 30, 244; Davis, “Torah-Performance and History,” 484–485. character and content 293

A second parallel is found in the characterisation of the d group in cd 1:10 as They would eventually come .( םלשבלב ) ”seekers after “[God] with a whole heart ”by the Teacher of Righteousness “in the way of his heart ( םכירדהל ) to be led This appears antithetical to the description of the post-return 182.( ובלךרדב ) generation from 4Q390 who would be subject to the rule of the “Angels of Maśṭēmôṯ,” and who would “turn and do that which is evil in my eyes, and will 4Q390 1 ; םבלתורירשב ) ”in the stubbornness of their heart ( וכלהתיו ) walk about 11–12).183 Amid a highly complex connexion between the language and concepts in the two passages, much of the complication in discerning their relationship results from the different periods that are presented in each: a plain reading of both texts reveals that the focal point in the Damascus Document is the early second cent. bce, and concerns the emergence of a group and a leader that formed the beginnings of the d movement. Apocalypse ii sets the turning point some 70–100 years earlier, and the whole picture is one that is much less precise.184 The correspondence between the two lies is in their appraisal of one generation over another. Apocalypse ii presents a favourable evaluation of only the first returnees from Babylon (4Q390 1 5–6). The Damascus Docu- ment has assigned the entire post-exilic generation to a period of wickedness, saving its positive endorsement for only the d group, part of whom would eventually come to form the Yaḥad Essenes.185 The attributes ascribed to the first returnees and the d group are closely related. Central to each is the condition of self-examination that leads each generation to some sort of repentance. In

182 Note also the contrast between the pre- and post-leadership conditions through the In cd 1:9 the group of early penitents is presented as . ךרד placement of the verbal root When the righteous ”.( ךרדםיששגמיכו ) blind men” and “like those who grope in the way“ teacher arrives on the scene, he leads this same group of men “in the way of his heart” .( ובלךרדבםכירדהל ) 183 It is also worth noting that there is also an echo between the “upward movement” of the first returnees from exile in 4Q390 1 5 and the appearance of the Teacher in cd 1:11 who is “raised up” by God for the preservation of the remnant. Compare with Apocalypse i in the transcription and notes in Chapter Three. 184 It may be perhaps that the events of the last half of the third cent. and first quarter of second cent. bce are clarified in the following fragment. This is because of the imprecise placement of the first period of seventy years in 4Q390 1 1, and because there is no clear indication of whether the post-exilic turning in l. 7 occurs during or after the seventh jubilee. Cf. Werman, “Epochs and End-Time,” 245, 253. 185 On the relationship between these two compositions and their significance to early history and ideology of the community cf. Dimant, “New Light from Qumran,” 445– 446; Strugnell and Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel,” 48; Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten,” 76. 294 chapter 5

4Q390 the first returnees are contrasted with the whole of “Israel in the days of their former kingdom” (1 4–5), and they are distinguished as those who “will ”.that they and their fathers had abandoned ( לוכבוניביו ) understand everything In the Damascus Document the d group is said to have “considered their iniq- .(and they came to understand that they were guilty men” (1:8 ,( םנועבוניביו ) uity There are several possible explanations for the highly comparable similarities between cd and 4Q390, one of which is that 4Q390 actually pre-dates the last stage of the Damascus Document. This would seem to support Dimant’s position that 4Q390 is best situated in at least the last quarter of the second cent. bce.186 She accounts for this by positioning the Apocryphon along with other similar texts prior to the Qumran settlement, and originating from outside of the specific Qumran group, as part of an “intermediate category” that includes similar texts such as the Temple Scroll, Jubilees, and the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q378, 4Q379).187 Another possibility is that both the Damascus Doc- ument and 4Q390 are connected via a common tradition, but not necessarily so directly related to one another. Todd Hanneken in a recent essay suggests just this, asserting fairly unequivocally that the common tradition for both is Jubilees.188 Drawing from an often appreciated affinity between the language, imagery, and motifs in common between cd, Jubilees and 4Q390, Hanneken argues persuasively for the authority of Jubilees in its handling and interpretation in Apocalypse ii. He furthermore claims that the “impression of conformity with Jubilees” in 4Q390 even in those places in which the text is at odds with the simple sense of Jubilees confirms its elevated status.189 Hanneken has rightly observed the complexity of the relationship between all three texts, but has failed to note the very important contribution of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c to 4Q390. In the case of 4Q390, the relationship is perhaps best expressed as follows: that 4Q390 read Apocalypse i in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c through the lens of Jubilees; a lens that was similarly applied to cd using a complementary historical narrative but with slightly different results. In other words, Apocalypse i, ii, and the Damascus Document drew from themes, language and

186 Dimant, djd 30, 115–116, never explicitly states as much, but her contention that the Apocryphon “cannot be identified simply as a sectarian document” (p. 112) in conjunction with her dating of the text would seem to suggest that she situates it prior to the writing of cd. She makes a point of classifying the Apocryphon as part of the same category of texts as Jubilees and the Temple Scroll; compositions that are commonly considered to have emerged from within—or prior to—the mid-second cent. bce. 187 Dimant, “Between Sectarian and non Sectarian,” 106–107. 188 Hanneken, “The Status and Interpretation of Jubilees,” 418–419. 189 Hanneken, “The Status and Interpretation of Jubilees,” 422–428. character and content 295 a familiar ideology in Jubilees in varying degrees to shape the origins myth that they held in common between them. In any case, it is equally significant that the preamble in cd should so closely resemble the historical discourse in 4Q390; both compositions are undeniably aware of one another in their employment of this myth. A less conventional appraisal of the relationship between these texts is to consider them more in line with Grossman’s “new historiography”; as actual products that attest to a multiplicity of re-readings and re-interpretations of a common past.190 This more sophisticated methodological approach accounts for the strong similarity in structure and language, and simultaneously reveals ideological and social differences between both accounts. The exile provided shape to the understanding for the origins of each group, but for those who penned the Damascus Document, the end of Israel’s desolation would only occur with the emergence of an individual—a “righteous teacher”—who would evoke knowledge and understanding as a means to fulfil God’s promise to restore Israel in the last days. For those behind 4Q390, the turning point was rather connected to the right observance of the temple rituals—the Sab- baths and the festivals—contra the corrupt officiating priests, or the “sons of Aaron.”191 There was no single leader in view, but an elite group in the more distant past, which found positive comparison with the Babylonian Jews who had returned to rebuild yhwh’s sanctuary. It may not be necessary to situate one text earlier than the other, although it would not be improbable to suggest that 4Q390 informs the preamble in cd.192 Analogous to what Alison Schofield has

190 Grossman, Reading for History, 19–24. An interesting analogous exercise appears in Davila, “Counter-factual History,” who applies Grossman’s method hypothetically to the Hodayot as it may have been read and re-read by Greek and Syrian Christian communities. would situate this text in fairly sharp contrast ןורהאינב The polemic in 4Q390 against the 191 with other “foundational texts” of the Yaḥad; cf. e.g. 1QS 5:21; 9:7; 1QSa 1:23; 2:13; 1QM 7:10; 17:2. Interestingly, there is no mention of the officiating priests in the Damascus Document, but as already noted, the negative appraisal in 4Q390 1 2–5 is unique in the Qumran literature. Cf. Tamási, “Prophesized History of the Postexilic Period,” esp. 318–328, and the discussion in the previous chapter, section 4.2.3.2. The Priesthood, Religion, and Power. 192 I suggested this as the most logical explanation of the relationship in Davis, “Torah- Performance and History,” 484–485, and more forcefully in Davis, “Re-Presentation and the Emerging Authority of the Jeremianic Traditions in Second Temple Judaism” (Ph.D. diss. University of Manchester, 2009), 148–149. Hanneken, “The Status and Interpretation of Jubilees,” 419 claims that cd most likely does not depend upon 4Q390, “given the date of the oldest manuscript and other indicators of the date of composition.” However, this does not present as especially strong evidence, as it only accounts for one possible explanation of the relationship between the two texts. The absence of any earlier witnesses to the Apoc- 296 chapter 5 convincingly demonstrated in the multiple readings of the Serek ha Yaḥad,193 the varied applications of the origins myth in cd and 4Q390 quite plausibly reflect separate but closely related sectarian groups of common descent. Per- haps removed from one another in time, or geographically, or both, but likely part of the same parent tradition that gave shape to the Yaḥad Essene movement.194

5.3.2 Pseudo-Daniel a (4Q243–4Q244) A much less obvious connexion with 4Q390 appears within one of the so- called Aramaic Pseudo-Daniel texts (4Q243–4Q244).195 The composition that is plausibly reconstructed from the overlaps between 4Q243 and 4Q244 is best described as an “historical Jewish apocalypse,”196 very similar to other pseudepigraphic texts such as the Animal Apocalypse in 1Enoch and Jubilees. It takes the form of a narrative retelling of biblical history that conforms to a programmatic division of the past into an epochal scheme that symbolically corresponds to a heptadic chronology,197 similar to what we have observed in 4Q390 and cd 1:3–11.

ryphon may be nothing more than an accident of preservation, or perhaps an indication of geographical separation between various communities of the Yaḥad. We have no way to determine the point historically and the surrounding circumstances behind the arrival of texts at Qumran, and the earlier dates assigned to cd may indicate only that it was present at the Qumran site before the Apocryphon made its way there. Cf. esp. Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 268–271. 193 Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 47–51; cf. also Collins, “Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” esp. 157–160. 194 Furthermore, it may be that such a tradition that informed a single group or set of groups was not based in any sort of “real” history, but rather “cobbled together” from a more disparate collection of historical fragments, or invented out of whole cloth entirely. Cf. Hayim Lapin, “Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historiography of Ancient Judaism,” in Grossman, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, 108–127, esp. 122–124. 195 Collins and Flint, “243–245. 4QPseudo-Daniel ar”; cf. also Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in The Book of Daniel, Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; 2 vols.; VTSup 83/2; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2: 329–367; DiTommaso, “4QPseudo- Daniela–b (4Q243–4Q244) and the Book of Daniel,”dsd 12 (2005): 101–133; idem, “The Devel- opment of Apocalyptic Historiography,” 516–517. 196 The term was used by Dimant to describe the Apocryphon, Dimant, djd 30, 99; DiTom- maso, “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography,” 503–508 provides a more thorough and nuanced discussion of the sort of “apocalyptic historiography” that appears in these historical texts that depend so heavily upon an apocalyptic worldview. 197 Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen, 382–387. character and content 297

The text opens with a Babylonian court setting in which the biblical Daniel is pictured reading from an unidentified piece of writing, and expounding the divine plan for history from the time of Enoch, into the exilic period. The history culminates in an eschatological prediction that likely resembles the sectarian expectations for the last days, in which the forces of evil will be defeated finally in the establishment of an ideal kingdom of God. The structure of the composition was divided into five “acts” by the official editors, and outlined as follows:

1. The Court Setting (4Q243 frg. 2, 4Q244 frgs. 1–4, 4Q243 frgs. 1, 3, 5–6) 2. The Primeval History (4Q243 frg. 9, 4Q244 frgs. 8–9, 4Q243 frg. 10, 4Q244 frg. 13) 3. From the Patriarchs to the Exile (4Q243 frgs. 35, 11 ii, 12, 28, 34, 4Q243 frg. 13+4Q244 frg. 12, 4Q243 frgs. 14, 7–8) 4. The Hellenistic Era (4Q243 frgs. 21, 19, 22, 20) 5. The Eschatological Period (4Q243 frgs. 16, 25, 33, 24, 26)

There are a number of interesting parallels between the supposed structure of “Pseudo-Daniel a”198 above and the hypothetical sequence of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c as outlined in chapter two: first, the historical discourses in both texts are introduced by a narrative preamble that is set during the Babylo- nian exile. Second, both feature “Jeremianic” figures who provide revelation about the future Second Temple period.199 Third, the unfolding of this revelation follows a similar pattern that highlights the escalating sins of Hellenistic sympathisers, and culminates in an eschatological hope for a future, ideal Jew- ish kingdom. This last point on its own is perhaps not quite as notable; after all, increasing sin, judgement and the expectation of the last days is a common characteristic among so-called Jewish “historical apocalypses.”200 How-

198 The combined text of 4Q243–4Q244 most logically deserves the title “Pseudo-Daniel a,” which effectively distinguishes it from the other text “Pseudo-Daniel b” in 4Q245. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” 338 refers to this text simply as “the first Pseudo-Daniel composition.” 199 I have discussed the significance of Daniel as a “Jeremianic figure” on the basis of his association with the exiled Babylonian Jewish community, and his dependence upon Jeremiah’s seventy-years predictions (Jer 25:11; 29:10) in Dan 9:2 in Davis, “Torah Performance and His- tory,” 469–472. 200 Cf. the description of apocalyptic characteristics in Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 5–9; esp. the chart on p. 7; also DiTommaso, “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiog- raphy,” 499–502. 298 chapter 5 ever, these minor congruencies with the Apocryphon c are bolstered by several intriguing terminological and conceptual affinities. The overlapping text in 4Q243 frg. 13 and 4Q244 frg. 12, which is assigned in the sequence to the late First Temple period,201 was reconstructed by Collins and Flint to read as follows:

][ ןמןוהיפנאלארשיינבורחב [ ןיהולאיפנא ] בדווהו ] אוןיהולאןוהילעזגרואתועטידישלןוהינבלןיח [ רמ ] ןתנמל בנדיבןונא [ בךלמרצנדכ ] שידןמןוהנמןוהעראאברחאלולב [י ○○][ ̊א̊ת̊ש̊א ○][ אתולגינב 202[○ 4Q243 12+4Q243 13 1–4

[ ] The Israelites chose their presence rather than [the presence of God] [and they were sacri]ficing their children to the demons of error, and God became angry at them and sa[id] to give them into the hand of Neb[uchadnezzar king of Ba]bylon, and to make their land desolate of them, because[ [ ] … [ ] the exiles [203 translated “presence,” may be synonymous with the , ףנא The Aramaic word .that appears with considerable frequency in both Apocalypse i–ii ינפ Hebrew It is used to describe the post-exilic desolation of the land, in which yhwh 4Q387 2 iii 4; 4Q389 , ינפיתרתסהו .hides his face,” or “removes his presence” (eg“ 8 ii 4; 4Q390 1 9; cf. 4Q387 2 ii 9; 4Q388a 6 2; 4Q390 1 10).204 The text in Pseudo-Daniel a has been plausibly reconstructed to show the preference of the First Temple generation for foreign deities who replaced the “presence” of God. The fragment continues in line 2 to echo §5 in the reconstructed text in Apocalypse i, which also describes this same generation “sacrificing to goat demons” (4Q385a 3 7 || 4Q387 1 4 || 4Q388a 3 5–6). The divinely mandated consequence for this idolatrous action in Pseudo-Daniel a is Babylonian foreign

201 Collins and Flint, djd 22, 142. 202 Collins and Flint, djd 22, 142. 203 Collins and Flint, djd 22, 147. 204 Cf. e.g. the various renderings of the pericopae in Deut 31: 17–18: both Tg. Onk and Tg. Ps. ךופהאו whereas Tg. Neof. has preferred , יתניכשׁקלסאו with יַנָפיִתְּרַתְּסִהְו Jon have translated גילפיא and Tg. Ps. Jon. reads , יפאךופהא Cf. also 32:20 where Tg. Neof. reads . יפארמטא and יפא . יתניכשׁקילסא ,.in contrast to Tg. Onk , יפא character and content 299

אברחאלו ) and the desolation of the land ( רצנדכבנדיבןונאןתנמלרמאו ) oppression 4Q243 13 3–4 || 4Q244 12 2–3). This is also highly reminiscent of , ןוהנמןוהערא the destruction and exile event as it is rehearsed in Apocalypse i, in which God recalls that he “delivered (them) into the hand of (their) enemy and devastated (their) land” (§7; 4Q387 1 7 || 4Q389 6 1–2).205 There is a clear thematic and terminological link between the parallel descriptions of the late-First Temple generation and the destruction of Jerusalem in Pseudo-Daniel a and in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c.206 The texts are similar enough as to suggest a reconstruction for the gap in 4Q243 13+4Q244 12 3–4 of Pseudo-Daniel a based on Apocalypse i §§13–15. My own reconstructed text reads as follows:

שידןמןוהנמןוהעראאברחאלו [ ןיקב הימיקתיןיספמוהיתי ○○] ̊א̊ת̊ש̊א ○][ אתולגינב [○

and to make their land desolate of them, because[ they abandoned him and they defiled his covenant ] … [ ] … the exiles … [207

םיתרגסהוםהיביאדיבםיתתנו :4Q390 1 9–10 ; לבבךלמרצאנדכובנדיבםתואותיתל :Cf. also cd 1 6 205 . ברחל 206 Another text from the Qumran scrolls that shares some possible terminological and thematic links with the Apocryphon c, 4Q390, and this pericope in Pseudo-Daniel is 4Q372 and connects ,( ידבע [ לספה ]) ”frg. 1 3–6, which makes mention of “those who serve idols this statement to God’s punishment in the exile: “And he gave them into the hand of the and ,( תוצראהלכב ) and he scattered] them in all the lands … ] … ( םיוגהדיבםנתיו ) nations among all[ the nations he dispersed them”; E. Schuller and M. Bernstein, “372. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb,” in Wadi Daliyeh ii: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4.xxviii: Miscellanea, Part 2 (ed. Douglas M. Gropp, et al.; djd 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 165–197, 168–169. Knibb, “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390,” featured 4Q372 frg. 1 together with 4Q390 frgs. 1–2 based on their treatment of exilic themes. Matthew Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile,”dsd 15 (2008): 380–395, argues that 4Q372 is to be read as a sympathetic appraisal of the northern tribes who still remain in exile, also forwarding the idea that the fate of the southern tribes Judah and Benjamin is inextricably tied to the fulfilment of Deut 32, which implied the continuance of the northern exile as a sign of the present need for restoration. While there are some literary overlaps between these lines, it is difficult to see a relationship between 4Q372 and the Apocryphon c or 4Q390, especially owing to the significance of “Joseph” in the former. 207 Cf. 4Q385a 3 5–7 || 4Q387 1 2–4 || 4Q388a 3 4–6; also cd 1 3–4; Chapter Three, section 3.3.2. Second Temple Apocalypse: 4Q385a 3–5; 4Q387 1–3, 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 8 ii. 300 chapter 5

The strong literary parallels suggest that Pseudo-Daniel a joins the Apocry- phon c, the Damascus Document and 4Q390 as yet another variation on a common origins myth—albeit an Aramaic witness,208 which helps to explain its presence in the Qumran scrolls. The distinction of the contours of this tradition in both Hebrew and Aramaic, and the presence of both in the Qumran collection attests to its broad dissemination throughout a range of collecting groups. In addition to the above, clear relationship, Pseudo-Daniel a also appears to possibly coalesce with the 490-year epochal calculations that are prominent in Apocalypse ii in 4Q390, and in cd (see above). This affiliation is uncertain, although there is clearly a lingering concern throughout the fragments of Pseudo-Daniel a for the correct calculation of dates in the history of Israel. 4Q243 frg. 12—a fragment that appears to describe the exodus—echoes Gen 15:13 and Jub. 14:13 in recalling the period of sojourn and slavery of the Israelites l. 1).209 , ראןינש ] האמעב ) ”in Egypt according to a period of “four hundred years More significantly, 4Q243 frg. 19 contains a fragmentary mention of another cal- which the official editors reconstructed and translated as , תןינש [ ןיתל culation “thi[rty (or three or thirteen)] years.”210 On its own this fragment is not particularly noteworthy, although one also reads in 4Q243 frg. 16 a possible mention ,] ץיא ○○ ןינשםיע [) ”of foreign oppression that lasts for a period of “seventy years l. 1). It must be noted that in place of either “three” or “thirteen” for a recon- ןינש struction in 4Q243 19 1, an even more appealing reconstruction would be three hundred years.” Readers will readily recall that the calculation“ , האמתלת of the exile in cd 1:3–4 is “three-hundred ninety years,” and that the period of iniquity following the return from exile in 4Q390 is either six or seven “jubilees of years,” or two-hundred ninety-four or three-hundred forty-three years. The mention of an era within the range of three hundred years in Pseudo-Daniel a, as well as a period of seventy years of oppression would echo similar calculations

208 The Aramaic texts from Qumran have long been recognised as a distinct group of texts, and likely one whose provenance was different—or at least more broadly disseminated—from that of the so-called “sectarian” compositions. Most recently, cf. Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary Observations,” in Popovic, ed., Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 155–171. However, Tigchelaar also identifies all the Aramaic “Danielic” texts from Qumran as “problematic” for the lack of any clear evidence that scriptural Daniel preceded or influenced any of these other texts (p. 167). 209 Collins and Flint, djd 22, 105. 210 Collins and Flint, djd 22, 111. character and content 301 that appear in 4Q390.211 This relationship would provide yet another—albeit fragmentary—witness to the common origins myth that appears to inform the Apocryphon c, the Damascus Document, and Apocalypse ii in 4Q390. Connecting this epochal history with an exilic figure that also has ties to Jeremianic authority in scriptural Daniel further serves to situate all of these texts within a more generally distinguished milieu of traditions that were in one way or another associated with the prophet Jeremiah or with scriptural Jeremiah. Furthermore, the appearance of these traditions in consort with a Jeremianic figure attests to the possible existence of a non-textualized authority structure that presided in the prophetic persona of the “founder” Jeremiah, which in various ways informed an assortment of self-understandings and conceptions of identity in the literature of the Yaḥad.

211 On this point Collins and Flint, djd 22, 151 are in error by asserting that the seventy years in 4Q390 1 2 is with reference to a period other than the exile; cf. discussion in previous chapter, section 4.3. 4Q390 and the Second Temple Apocalypse: Text and Translation in Structural Parallel with 4QApocrJer ca–d. conclusions Jeremiah, Community Leadership, and the “Origins Myth” for the Yaḥad

A comprehensive and balanced appraisal of the Jeremianic traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls reveals the effects of publicly assented personae in the development of the biblical figure Jeremiah. This study has set focus on the impact of these personae upon the communities that penned, collected, and transmitted the Jeremianic traditions that survived in the scrolls found at Qumran. The Jeremianic traditions considered in this presentation have been evaluated as traditions tied to a founder. A number of continuities and discontinuities that have been observed in the recollection or reconstitution of these traditions reflect on the important status of Jeremiah for conferring authority. The focus in this presentation was intentionally narrowed to the manuscripts from the Qumran scrolls now designated the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c, with particular close attention paid to the most extensive of these witnesses, 4Q385a, and in conversation with fragments from other copies in 4Q387, 4Q388a, and 4Q389. This investigation of texts demonstrates an attachment to the reputation of Jeremiah, and further has helped to show the extent to which his reputational authority functioned in contributing to a wider leadership myth for the community or communities that would eventually form the Yaḥad Essenes, some of whom resided at Qumran. Elements from Jeremiah’s persona have been observed as features for imbu- ing authority in texts and institutions throughout the Qumran literature. It was argued that the biographical interest in the prophet Jeremiah was a dynamic and powerful instrument for legitimating various beliefs and practices, all within the context of asserting an ideal model for good leadership in the prevailing perceptions of who Jeremiah was and what he did. Jeremiah’s reputation as a prototypical prophet, combined with the recollection of his announce- ment of the “new covenant” in Jer 31:31 set him apart in a special way for the sectarians as a symbol for covenant obedience. The Jeremianic traditions in the Qumran scrolls in various ways all conform to this feature more than any other; they functioned as vivid depictions of the contrast between covenant “insiders” and “outsiders,” and effectively contributed to affirming community identity by what it meant to be participants in the “new covenant in the land .(cd 8:21 , קשמדץראבהשדחהתירבבואב ) ”of Damascus This investigation has revealed that while scriptural Jeremiah appears not to have been significant in the reading and interpretation of authoritative or

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278448_008 jeremiah, community leadership, and the “origins myth” 303 sacred literature, Jeremiah’s prophetic persona was attested and echoed in a number of important texts. His reputation perhaps functioned as an authorising feature in the community’s own self understanding and history. The Jeremi- anic traditions surveyed in this study are evaluated according to a reputational model for authority that is not primarily textualized. This has helped to provide a clearer perspective of the collective regard for Jeremiah in the Qumran literature. But furthermore, these traditions also serve to demonstrate how streams of ideological and religious convictions developed and were shaped according to a process of textual transmission that resembles what are often considered “rewritten Bible” texts. A careful reading of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389), and the discovery of developmental features in this text that are rea- lised in the Second Temple Apocalypse Redux (4Q390) reveal how the process for rewriting might be explained under the rubric of reputational authority: a phenomenon of transmission by which traditions are drawn into the orbit of their founder, whose persona is irrevocably shaped by them in return. Jeremiah’s persona at various levels governs the process, but its significance is more pronounced in how traditions are recycled, re-read, and re-interpreted as part of a sophisticated programme of textual development and intertextuality that conforms more realistically to on-going ideological, social, and religious change. From these close readings of the Apocryphon and the sectarian texts together, I would suggest the following four conclusions. First, the function of Jeremiah traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls was not “scriptural” in the traditionally understood sense, but rather what I would prefer to call “transfigurative.” What I mean by transfigurative is that these traditions served as models for conduct through popular perceptions of their “founder”—the meaning of Jeremiah’s words became secondary to his presentation as the prototypical prophet of exile, and his articulation of the new covenant. By the late second cent. bce when the Qumran scrolls began to appear in increasing abundance there is clearly an emerging sense of “scripture” in the prophetic fulfilment of significant portions of their sacred literature. The Jeremiah traditions never approach this level of reading, but this does not in any way render them unim- portant for the group. As opposed to the more cryptic and symbolic interpretations of texts that manifested in the pesharim, the Jeremianic traditions are revealed in reflexions on the prophet’s character. His identity is absorbed into the traditions themselves—as seen in the development of the Jeremiah persona from the Apocryphon c to its apparent absence in 4Q390. But the prophet’s example remains intact for the community—as demonstrated in cd, and for their own leaders—as suggested for the readings in the Hodayot. 304 conclusions

Second, the Jeremiah figure functioned as an emblem for community leadership and for propaganda used to distinguish covenant insiders from outsiders. His presence was employed analogously in the form of contrasts between meritorious and false prophecy that appears rooted at an earlier stage of the Yaḥad Essene movement. In the surveys of the Qumran literature from Chap- ter Five there is a concentrated, dualistic distinction between idealised and illicit prophecy. Moreover, this focus on Jeremiah’s prophetic and leadership acumen appears foundational, and is most discernible in the foundational sectarian literature: particularly in the Damascus Document and in the Hodayot. In terms of articulating community ideals for leadership, the allusions to the book of Jeremiah from the Admonition in cd, the Catena texts and the Hodayot are similar in function to what appears in the narrative accounts in the Apoc- ryphon c and in 4Q390. Despite the distinction in the genres between all of these texts, a similar pattern seems to have developed in their interpretative treatments of Jeremiah; one which focuses on his deeds and words in an effort to project proper leadership in different ways, and in various times of conflict. For the Qumran covenanters, “what Jeremiah declared to Baruch the son of Ner- iah” (cd 8:20) was specifically not as significant as the observation that it was Jeremiah who was speaking. Again, Jeremiah’s reputation superseded his message and the distinction in his prophetic credentials appears to have carried weight in the Yaḥad’s formulations for leadership and organisation. Third, the implicit nature of the Jeremianic traditions in the Qumran scrolls coincide with an “instinctive” sense of alternative authority beyond that which is primarily textual. In other words, it seems that different conventions were applied to Jeremianic traditions than other more textualized authorities in large part as a result of their association with the prophet Jeremiah. This proceeds from the first point, in that the Jeremianic traditions were valued by the sectarians less for their fulfilment, and more for their reflexion. The studies of reputation by Schwartz and Fine which were founded on Wendy Griswold’s “cultural diamond”1 speak persuasively to this. Griswold’s model for understanding social interaction featured an intersection between four distinct elements of culture: the “cultural object,” the “social world,” the “creator,” and the “receiver.”2 In Chapter One I argued that the cooperative interaction of these facets together was carried forward in the reputations of notable figures,

1 Griswold, Renaissance Revivals, and idem, Cultures and Societies in a Changing World; cf. Chapter One above, section 1.3. Reputation and Authority: Jeremiah the Prophet as a “Foun- der” in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 Fine, Difficult Reputations, 17–22. jeremiah, community leadership, and the “origins myth” 305 in accordance with Fine’s understanding of “reputational” authority. Founders have the capacity to draw an increasing number of traditions into their orbit, and are symbiotically shaped by the traditions amassed around their reputation. From the perspective of the collective memory theory formulated by Schwartz and Fine, it would appear that the cultural object for the Yaḥad at every stage of development in the Apocryphon manuscripts is Jeremiah’s reputation: the group’s understanding of who this man was shaped their re- presentations of his activities and ideals and vice-versa. Because of who Jere- miah was presumed to be, the content of his words were subject to change and to adaptation as the community emerged and grew into the various ideals that he represented. Understanding the Apocryphon according to it’s re- presentation of the Jeremiah figure as opposed to a “rewriting” of underlying written sources provides a more nuanced depiction of the social, historical and institutional effects on the scribal activity that is integrally connected to textual transmission. Furthermore, the subtle, underlying echoes of Jeremiah’s character dispersed through collections of both sectarian and non-sectarian writing that were discussed in Chapters Three, Four, and Five show how reputation may have functioned as an implicit authorising feature quite different from more conventional understandings of textual authority that communicates through the idea of “scripture.” The recollection of Israel’s past, its figures, their deeds and words became the bedrock upon which scripture was eventually first authoritative, and then canonical. But because in the period prior to the second cent. ce Jewish scriptures were still in a state of emergence, it seems true that for certain figures and certain texts, the transition from reputation to word was also still in process. Based on the above evaluation of the Jeremianic traditions, Jeremiah appears to have been a figure for whom there was tremendous and on- going respect, but the actual content of his prophecies did not always achieve that same level of textualised religious influence.3 There is a clear indication

3 It has not been discussed in the past in these terms, but the atypically heightened interest in Jeremiah’s personality in ancient Judaism has received much attention from commentators. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (D.G.M. Stalker trans.; 3 vols. London: scm Press, 1975), 2: 197 spoke of a “shift in centre from the message to the messenger (which) is in fact characteristic of the whole tradition of Jeremiah.” Cf. also Timothy Polk, Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self (JSOTSup 32; Sheffield: jsot Press, 1984), 8–18. In Holladay’s introduction to his commentary he declares that “we have more biographical narrative regarding King David and we have more recorded words from the apostle Paul in the New Testament: but with respect to both recorded words and biographical narrative in 306 conclusions from the echoes and allusions to scriptural Jeremiah throughout the Qumran scrolls that their handlers were so immersed in the Jeremianic traditions, in such a way that its expressions and ideals virtually permeated their own. Fourth, the Jeremianic traditions in the Qumran scrolls are best understood as developmental and dynamic, and this points towards a complex matrix of diachronic or geographical progression and adaptation. The Jeremianic traditions convey some level of consistency throughout the Qumran literature, but there are also some provocative differences that suggest shifting perceptions within the Yaḥad that occurred perhaps over the course of time, but potentially also propagated from one group to another within a larger and more complex movement. The common origins myth that informs Apocalypse i–ii, the Dam- ascus Document, and is perhaps rooted in Jubilees shows polyvalent perspectives of the exile and community leadership, and varied opinions concerning the temple institution. One features the Teacher of Righteousness where the others seem to prefer a broader, communal structure of leadership. Within the Apocryphon manuscripts themselves we have seen a variety of religious perspectives, specifically with regards to the temple in Apocalypse i–ii, concerning the land in 4Q387, and concerns about internal versus external motivations in various readings of Deuteronomy. Collectively, the implicit nature and the wide range of Jeremianic traditions and their echoes in the Qumran scrolls provide a sense of diversity that does not always accord well with conventional perceptions of the Dead Sea sect as a consistently uniform group. The shifting ideals in a number of the texts surveyed— and especially those such as 4Q390 and 4Q470—may reasonably call into question the long-standing “sectarian” and “non-sectarian” divide between the Qumran texts themselves. While the standard compartmentalisation has proven to be very helpful for detecting the dominant voices—or perhaps the “great traditions” according to Schofield’s model,4 what of the other voices, and the “little traditions” in the margins? Perspectives of the Qumran community con-

the Bible, Jeremiah would be difficult to match” (Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 1). Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (otl; 2nd edn.; London: scm Press, 1986), 717, traces the shift in the emphasis from Jeremiah’s strength of character to his prophetic word in the book of Jeremiah, and describes his persona as “otiose” by the conclusion of the book. 4 Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad, 47–51; also 58–66. Schofield envisions a “‘dialogic model’ of literary exchange” (p. 58), which she applies to the Serek texts, but quite realistically explains the nature of the Qumran collection more generally: “Redfield’s social- anthropological model … would similarly explain the great literary traditions of Second- Temple Palestine as radiating ones. These diverging traditions were continually updated with the passage of people and place to place, to and from those learned few” (p. 66). jeremiah, community leadership, and the “origins myth” 307 tinue to move away from the notion that they were all pure isolationists, and it bears considerable further inquiry into the relationship between and amongst the so-called “sectarian” and “non-sectarian” texts for gaining a better sense of how and on what levels this group (or groups) engaged with their rivals, contemporaries, and one another. The entire collection of texts represents an extensive snapshot of on-going conversations taking place in Second Temple Judaism, and it is hoped that this study has helped to uncover supplementary methods for tracking some of these conversations. If the Yaḥad was more het- erogeneous, more socially and religiously complex, and more broadly disseminated across geographical and temporal boundaries, then it stands to reason that more intentional efforts to explain the sectarian/non-sectarian relationships between the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls will in turn result in a more comprehensive and richer understanding of the collecting groups and their history.

Bibliography

Abegg, Martin G. “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 111–126 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. Supplements to the Journal of the Study of Judaism 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. . “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 325–358 in Volume 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 Volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999. . “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More than (Initially) Meets the Eye.” Pages 48–68 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Abegg, Martin G. Jr., Peter W. Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999. Abel, F.-M. et J. Starcky. Les livres des Maccabées. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961. Ackroyd, Paul R. “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme.” Pages 166–181 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Albright, W.F. “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 140 (1955): 27–33. Alexander, Philip S. “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–121 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ssf. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge, 1988. Allegro, J. with A.A. Anderson. Qumrân Cave 4.i (4Q158–4Q186). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westmin- ster John Knox, 2008. Anderson, Gary A. “Aaron.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L.H. Schiff- man and J.C. VanderKam. E-reference Edition. Oxford University Press 2000, 2008. Assmann, Jan. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München: Beck, 1992. . “Ancient Egyptian Antijudaism: A Case of Distorted Memory.” Pages 365–376 in Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past. Edited by Daniel L. Schecter. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1995. . Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. . Religion and Cultural Memory: TenStudies. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. 310 bibliography

Attridge, Harold et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4, viii: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Bacher, Wilhelm. Die Agada der Tannaïten. 2 Volumes. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner, 1890– 1903. . Die Agada palästinensischen Amoräer. 3 Volumes. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner, 1892–1899. . DieexegetischeTerminologieder jüdischenTraditionsliteratur. 2 Volumes. Leip- zig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899–1905. Baillet, Maurice. Qumrân grotte 4.iii (4Q482–4Q520). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Baillet, Maurice, Jozef T. Milik and Roland de Vaux, eds. Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 3. 2 Volumes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 bce–117ce). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. . Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10: Against Apion. Ed- ited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986. Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Bauckham, Richard, James Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds. Old Testament Pseu- depigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Grand Rapids, Mich: 2013. Baumgarten, Joseph M., and Daniel R. Schwartz. “Damascus Document (cd).” Pages 4– 58 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Transla- tions, Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Berner, Christoph. Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptio- nen im Antiken Judentum. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wis- senschaft 383. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Bernstein, Moshe. “Re-arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon,”Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 37–57. . “The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations.” Pages 38–46 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by J. Kampen and M.J. Bernstein. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. . “Pentateuchal Interpretation at Qumran.” Pages 128–159 in Volume 1 of Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. . “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–196. bibliography 311

Berrin, Shani. The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 53. Leiden: Brill, 2004. . “Qumran Pesharim.” Pages 110–133 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. Billig, Michael. Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routlidge, 1992. Bloch, Renée. “Midrash.” Pages 1263–1281 in Supplément au Dictionnaire de le Bible, Volume 5. Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1952. . “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la littérature rabbinique,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 43 (1955): 194–227. Bogaert, P.-M. “Le personnage de Baruch et l’histoire du livre de Jérémie: Aux origines du livre deutérocanonique de Baruch.” Pages 73–81 in Studia Evangelica, Volume 7. Edited by E.A. Livingstone. Texte und Untersuchungen 126. Berlin: Akademie, 1982. . “Qui exerce la royauté dans le livre de Jérémie (et Baruch 1–5)? Du trône de David au trône de Dieu dans sa Ville.” Pages 381–416 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 195. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006. Bowley, James E. “Prophets and Prophecy at Qumran.” Pages 354–378 in Volume 2 of Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. Brady, Monica (L. Walsh). “Prophetic Traditions at Qumran: A Study of 4Q383–391.” 2 Volumes. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Notre Dame, 2000. . “Biblical Interpretation in the ‘Pseudo-Ezekiel’ Fragments (4Q383–391) from Cave Four.” Pages 88–109 in Henze, ed., Biblical Interpretation. Brooke, George J. “The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 183–205 in The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception. Edited by A.H.W. Curtis and T. Römer. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 128. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. . “The Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT.” Pages 70–81 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization forQumranStudies,PublishedinHonourofJosephM.Baumgarten. Edited by M. Bern- stein, F. García Martínez and J. Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. . “Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives.” Pages 271–301 in Volume 1 of Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. . “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 777–781 in Volume 2 of Schiffman and VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. . “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by E.D. Hebert and E. Tov. London and New Castle: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, 2002. 312 bibliography

. Review of Devorah Dimant, Qumran Cave 4., Volume 21: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-prophetic Texts (djd xxx), Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 99 (June 2002): 26. . “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the Bible at Qumran in the Context of Second Temple Judaism: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 15–17 January, 2002. Edited by E.G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R.A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. . “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism.” Pages 26–42 in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September, 2003. Edited by J.G. Campbell, W.J. Lyons, and L.K. Pietersen. Library of Second Temple Studies 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005. . “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards.” Pages 151–165 in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by M.H. Floyd and R.D. Haak. Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 427. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. . “Types of Historiography in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 211–230 in Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography / L’Historiographie Biblique, Ancienne et Mod- erne. Edited by G.J. Brooke and T. Römer. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 207. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007. .“Pesher and Midrash in Qumran Literature: Issues for Lexicography,”Revue de Qumran 24/93 (June 2009): 79–95. . “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible, and Pesher,” Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010): 332–357. . “The ‘Apocalyptic’ Community, the Matrix of the Teacher and Rewriting Scrip- ture.” Pages 37–54 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popovic. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Brooke, George J. et al. (eds.), in consultation with James C. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4.xvii: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Broshi, M. et al. (eds.), in consultation with J. VanderKam. Qumran Cave 4. xiv, Para- biblical Texts, Part 2. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Broshi, M., and A. Yardeni. “339. 4QList of False Prophets ar.” Pages 77–79 in M. Broshi et al., eds., djd 19. Burke, David G. The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 10; Chico, Calif.: Scholar’s Press, 1982. bibliography 313

Campbell, Jonathan G. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20. Bei- hefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. . “Essene-Qumran Origins in the Exile: A Scriptural Basis?” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 143–156. . The Exegetical Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls. London: T & T Clark, 2004. . “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological Critique.” Pages 43–68 in Campbell, Lyons, and Pietersen, eds., New Directions in Qumran Studies. Campbell, J.G., W.J. Lyons, and L.K. Pietersen, eds. New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September, 2003. Library of Second Temple Studies 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah. Old Testament Library. Second Edition. London: scm Press, 1986. Chazon, Esther G. “‘Gather the Dispersed of Judah’: Seeking a Return to the Land as a Factor in Jewish Identity of Late Antiquity.” Pages 159–175 in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 119. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Chazon, E.G., M.E. Stone, and A. Pinnick, eds. Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apoc- rypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Inter- national Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Chazon, E.G. et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4.xx: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. Discov- eries in the Judaean Desert 29. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Collins, John J. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. . Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997. . The ApocalypticImagination: An Introductionto Jewish Apocalypticism. Second Revised Edition. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. . “The Time of the Teacher: An Old Debate Renewed.” Pages 212–229 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint presented to Eugene Ulrich. Sup- plements to Vetus Testamentum 101. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 2006. . “Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 151–172 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. . The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2010. 314 bibliography

. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, John J. and Peter W. Flint. “4Q234–244: The Combined Text.” Pages in 133–151 in Qumran Cave 4. xvii. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Edited by J.C. VanderKam et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Cook, Edward M. “What Did the Jews of Qumran Know about God and How Did They Know It? Revelation and God in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 3–22 in The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 2: Worldview, Comparing Judaisms. Edited by A.J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B.D. Chilton. Handbook of Oriental Studies: Abt. 1, The Near and Middle East 5. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Cooley, Charles Horton. Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. New York: Shocken, 1983. Cross, Frank M. “The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 147–172. . “The Contribution of the Qumrân Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text,” Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 81–95. . “The Development of Jewish Scripts.” Pages 3–43 in idem, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Reprinted from pages 133–202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by G.E. Wright; Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1961. . “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Pages 306–320 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F.M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Cross, F.M. in D.N. Freedman and K.A. Matthews, with contributions by R.S. Han- son. The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev). Winona Lake, Ind.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1985. Cross, Frank Moore and Shemaryahu Talmon. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Davies, Philip R. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Docu- ment.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983. . “The Social World of Apocalyptic Writings.” Pages 251–271 in The World of Ancient Israel: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study: Sociologi- cal, Anthropological and Political Perspectives. Edited by R.E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. . In Search of “Ancient Israel.” Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. . “The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document.” Pages 27–44 in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Sympo- siumoftheOrionCenterfortheStudyoftheDeadSeaScrollsandAssociatedLiterature, bibliography 315

4–8 February, 1998. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. . “Crypto-Minimalism,” Journal of Semitic Studies 50 (2005): 117–136. . “Beginning at the End,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 6–11. . The Origins of Biblical Israel. Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 485. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 6. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. . “Counterfactual History and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 128–144 in Grossman, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. Davis, Kipp (C.J. Patrick). “Jeremiah, Masculinity, and his Portrayal as the ‘Lamenting Prophet’.” Pages 189–210 in Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond. Edited by Ovidia Creangă. The Bible in the Modern World 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010. . “Torah Performance and History in the Golah: Rewritten Bible or ‘Re-presentational’ Authority in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c.” Pages 467–495 in Celebrating the DeadSeaScrolls,ACanadianCollection. Edited by P.W.Flint, J. Duhaime, and K. Baek. Early Judaism and Its Literature 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. . “Prophets of Exile: 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah c, Apocryphal Baruch and the Efficacy of the Second Temple,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 44 (2013): 497–529. . “The Social Milieu of the Jeremiah Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism: New Light from the Schøyen Collection and the Evidence for Multiple Literary Editions at Qumran.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the ioqs in Munich. Edited by Samuel I. Thomas, George J. Brooke, Alison Schofield and Eibert Tigchelaar. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Delamarter, Steve. “Shemaryahu Talmon and His Sociological Models for Understand- ing the Community at Qumran: Including an appendix with email responses from Dr. Talmon.” Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of Pacific North- west Region of the sbl. Moscow, Idaho., 25–27 April 2003. De Troyer, Kristin, Armin Lange, and L.L. Schulte, eds. Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra- Biblical Prophecy. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 52. Leuven: Pee- ters, 2009. Dever, William G. “Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up? Archaeology and Israelite Historiography: Part i,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 297 (1995): 61–80. . What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archae- ology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. 316 bibliography

Dimant, Devorah. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 483–550 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M.E. Stone. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2/ii. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. . “New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha—4Q390.” Pages 405– 448 in Volume 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 Volumes. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. . “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel at Qumran.” Pages 31–51 in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Edited by I. Gruenwald, S. Shaked, and G. Stroumaa. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992. . “Apocalyptic Texts at Qumran.” Pages 175–191 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993. . “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9:24–27) in the Light of New Qumranic Texts.” Pages 57–76 in The Book of Daniel in Light of New Findings. Edited by A.S. van der Woude. Leuven: University Press, 1993. . “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385B = 4Q385 16).” Pages 11–30 in New Qumran Texts & Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George Brooke. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. . “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 151–159. . “The Qumran Manuscripts: Content and Significance.” Pages 23–58 in Time to Prepare the Way of the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls, by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. Edited by D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. . “A Quotation from Nahum 3:8–10 in the Fragment 4Q385 6 from Qumran.” Pages 31–37 in The Bible in Light of Its Interpreters: Sara Kamin Memorial Volume. Edited by S. Japhet. Magnes: Jerusalem, 1995 (Hebrew). . “The Four Kingdoms in the Book of Daniel 2 in Light of Compositions from Qumran.” Pages 33–41 in Many Voices: Memorial Volume for Rebekah S.Z. Oppen- heimer. Edited by R. Elior and J. Dan. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1996. . “4Q389 2—‘Pseudo-Moses’ and the Discussion of a Past Connection.” Pages 220–226 in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht. Edited by Y. Hoffman and F.H. Polak. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997 (Hebrew). bibliography 317

. “4Q386 ii–iii—A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?”Revue de Qumran 18/72 (1998): 511–529. . “The Library of Qumran: Its Content and Character.” Pages 170–176 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J.C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in conjunction with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Mu- seum, 2000. . Qumran Cave 4, Volume 21: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-prophetic Texts. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 30. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. . “L’apocryphe de Jérémie c de Qoumrân,” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 85 (2005): 497–515. . “Between Sectarian and non Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua.” Pages 105–134 in Chazon, Dimant, and Clements, eds., Reworking the Bible. . “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: The so-called Book of Noah and the alleged Quota- tion of Jubilees in cd 16:3–4.” Pages 230–249 in Flint, Tov, and VanderKamp, eds., Studies in the Hebrew Bible. . “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at Qumran.” Pages 447–467 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume Two: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. 3 Volumes. Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. Waco, Tex.: Baylor, 2006. .“Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c in Perspective.” Revue de Qumran 25/97 (2011): 17–39. . “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” Dead Sea Discoveries 20 (2013): 452–471 Dimant, Devorah and John Strugnell. “The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4),”Revue de Qumran 14/56 (Jan 1991): 331–348. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “4QPseudo-Daniela–b (4Q243–4Q244) and the Book of Daniel,” Dead Sea Discoveries 12 (2005): 101–133. . “The Apolcayptic Other.” Pages 221–246 in The Other in Second TempleJudaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow, et al. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. . “The Development of Apocalyptic Historiography in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 497–522 in Flint, Duhaime, and Baek, eds., Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Doering, Lutz. “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten: Mündliche und schriftliche Tora- paränese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah c.” Pages 50–79 in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie: Mit einem Anbang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. . “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism: Epistolary Commu- 318 bibliography

nication with the Golah as Medium for Dealing with the Present.” Pages 44–72 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations. Edited by K. De Troyer and A. Lange, with the assistance of K.M. Goertz and S. Bond. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Driver, S.R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Sixth Edition. New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons, 1897. Duke, Robert R. The Social Location of the Visions of Amram (4Q543–547). New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Elgvin, Torleif and Kipp Davis. “ms 4612/9. 11Q(?)Jer (Jer 3.15–19).” In Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artifacts from the Schøyen Collection. Edited by Torleif Elgvin, et al. Library of Second Temple Studies. London: T & T Clark, forthcoming. Enders, Jody. “Dramatic Rumors and Truthful Appearances: The Medieval Myth of Ritual Murder by Proxy.” Pages 15–29 in Rumor Mills: The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend. Edited by G.A. Fine, V. Campion-Vincent and C. Heath. New Brunswick, nj: AldineTransaction, 2005. Eshel, Hanan. “4Q390, the 490-YearProphecy, and the Calendrical History of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 102–110 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a For- gotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. . The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Falk, Daniel K. “393. 4QCommunal Confession.” Pages 53–58 in E.G. Chazon et al., eds., djd 29. . The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls. Library of Second Temple Studies 63. London: T & T Clark, 2007. Feldman, Louis H. “Studies in the Ancient Jewish Mediterranean Diaspora,” Interna- tional Journal of the Classical Tradition 7 (2000): 244–256. . Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Fine, Gary Alan . Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Contro- versial. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Fine, G.A., V. Campion-Vincent and C. Heath, eds. Rumor Mills: The Social Impact of Rumor and Legend. New Brunswick, nj: AldineTransaction, 2005. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Clarendon: Oxford, 1985. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. A Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Revised and Expanded. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. bibliography 319

Flint, Peter W.“The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 329–367 in Volume 1 of The Book of Daniel, Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 83/2. 2 Volumes. Leiden: Brill, 2001. . “The Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah in the Qumran Scrolls: Quotations, Citations, Allusions, and Diachronic Implications.” Pages 389–406 in Volume 1 of A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason et al. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2011. . “Interpreting the Poetry of Isaiah at Qumran: Theme and Function in the Sectarian Scrolls.” Pages 161–195 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner and Cecilia Wassen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 98. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Flint, Peter W.,Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek, eds. CelebratingtheDeadSeaScrolls:A Canadian Collection. Early Judaism and Its Literature 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Flint, Peter W., Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam, eds. Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint presented to Eugene Ulrich. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Flint, Peter W. and James C. VanderKam, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. 2 Volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999 Floyd, Michael H. “Penitential Prayer in the Second Temple Period from the Perspective of Baruch.” Pages 51–82 in Seeking the Favor of God, Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mark Boda, Daniel Falk and Rodney Werline. Early Judaism and Its Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. . “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period.” Pages 276–297 in Floyd and Haak, eds., Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts. Floyd, M.H. and R.D. Haak. Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 427. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Bible Dictionary and the Anchor Bible Dictionary on cdRom. Six Volumes. Electronic Text, version 1.3, prepared by Oaktree Software. New York: Doubleday, 1999. García Martínez, Florentíno. “Las tradiciones apocalípticas en Qumrán: 4QSecond Ezekiel.” Pages 303–321 in Biblische und judaïstische Studien: Festschrift für Paolo Sacchi. Edited by A. Viviano. Frankfurt: Lang, 1990. . “Nuevos textos no bíblicos procedentes de Qumrán,”Estudiosbíblicos 49 (1991): 97–134. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 Volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998. 320 bibliography

Geiger, Abraham Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte von der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels bis zum Ende des zwölften Jahrhunderts. In zwölf Vorlesungen. Nebst einem Anhange: Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Professor Dr. Holtzmann. 3 Volumes. Bres- lau: Schlechter, 1865–1871. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 Volumes. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938. Goldengay, John. Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 459. New York: T & T Clark, 2007. Gowan, Donald E. “Wisdom.” Pages 215–239 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D.A. Carson et al. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Grabbe, Lester. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah. Library of Second Temple Studies 47. London: T & T Clark, 2004. . A History, Volume 2: The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175bce). Library of Second Temple Studies 68. London: T & T Clark, 2008. Griswold, Wendy. Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theater, 1576–1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. . Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge, 1994. Grossman, Maxine L. Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 45. Leiden: Brill, 2002. . “Roland Barthes and the Teacher of Righteousness: The Death of the Author of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 709–722 in Lim and Collins, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grossman, Maxine L., ed. Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Hacham, Noah. “Exile and Self Identity in the Qumran Sect and Second Temple Juda- ism.” Pages 3–21 in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Lit- erature, 9–11 January, 2005. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Betsy Halpern-Amaru, and Ruth A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 88. Leiden: Brill, 2010. HaCohen, A. “4QJera—A Pre Masoretic Text?” Textus 17 (1994): 1–8 (Hebrew). Halbwachs, Maurice. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Reprinted. Archontes 5. Paris: Mouton, 1976. . Collective Memory. Translated by Francis J. Ditter Jr. and Vida Yadzi Ditter. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. Hanneken, Todd R. “The Status and Interpretation of Jubilees in 4Q390.” Pages 407–428 in Volume 1 of Mason et al., eds., A Teacher for All Generations. bibliography 321

Harrington, Daniel J. “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives: The Bible Rewrit- ten.” Pages 239–247 in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W.E. Nickelsburg. The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Hempel, Charlotte. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Traditions and Redac- tion. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Hendel, Ronald. “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 324–351. Hengel, Martin G. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine Dur- ing the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. 2 Volumes. Fortress: Philadelphia, 1974. Henze, Matthias. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. . “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah c and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Two ‘Historical’ Apoc- alypses.” Pages 25–41 in De Troyer, Lange and Schulte, eds., Prophecy after the Prop- hets? Hill, John. Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah mt. Biblical Interpretation Series. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Judaism and Hellenism in 2Maccabees,”PoeticsToday 19/1 (1998): 19–40. Hobsbawm, E.J. and T.O. Ranger eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters1–25 Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Paul D. Hanson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. . Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Paul D. Hanson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Horgan, Maurya P. “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Prophecies: The Bible Ex- plained.” Pages 247–253 in Kraft and Nickelsburg, eds., Early Judaism and Its Mod- ern Interpreters. Hughes, Julie A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 59. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Hultgren, Stephen. From the Damascus Covenant to the Covenant of the Community. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 66. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jokiranta, Jutta. “Sociological Approaches to Qumran Sectarianism.” Pages 200–231 in Lim and Collins, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. . “Social Scientific Approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 246–263 in Gross- man, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. 322 bibliography

Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959. Knibb, Michael A. “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390.” Pages 164–177 in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C.J. Labuschagne. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kraft, Robert A. and George W.E. Nickelsburg, eds. Early Judaism and Its Modern Inter- preters. The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Kugel, James L. “The Bible of Changed Meanings: Some Thoughts on John Barton’s Oracles of God,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 12–21. Kuhn, K.-H. “A Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon,”Le Muséon 83 (1970): 95–135, 291–350. Lange, Armin. “The Text of Jeremiah in the War Scroll from Qumran.” Pages 95–116 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nóra Dávid, et al. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 239. Göt- tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. . “The Textual History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Allusions and Implicit Quotations in the Qumran Hodayot.” Pages 251–284 in Penner, Penner, and Wassen, eds., Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 251–284. Lange, A. with U. Mittmann-Richert. “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judaean Desert Classified by Content and Genre.” Pages 115–164 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert Indices, and An Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by E. Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Lange, Armin and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements, Volume 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Lapin, Hayim “Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historiography of Ancient Judaism.” Pages 108– 127 in Grossman ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. Larson, Erik. “4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation of King Zedekiah,” Dead Sea Dis- coveries 1 (1994): 210–228. . “460. 4QNarrative Work and Prayer.” Pages in Qumran Cave 4.xxvi: Cryptic Texts, Miscellanea, Part 1. Edited by S.J. Pfann, P.S. Alexander et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Larson, Erik, Lawrence Schiffman and John Strugnell. “470. 4QText Mentioning Zede- kiah.” Pages 235–244 in M. Broshi et al., eds., djd 19. Lemche, Niels P. TheIsraelitesinHistoryandTradition. Louisville, Ky.:Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. . “Ideology and the History of Ancient Israel,” sjot 14/2 (2000): 165–193 . “Conservative Scholarship–Critical Scholarship: Or How Did We Get Caught by This Bogus Discussion: On Behalf of the Devers-Davies Exchange,” The Bible and Interpretation. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Conservative_Scholarship .shtml. bibliography 323

Levin, Christoph. “The ‘Word of Yahweh’: A Theological Concept in the Book of Jere- miah.” Pages 42–62 in Floyd and Haak, eds., Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts. Lim, Timothy H. and John J. Collins, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lundbom, Jack R. “Rhetorical Structures in Jeremiah 1,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 193–210. . Jeremiah 1–20. The Anchor Bible 21a. New York: Doubleday, 1999. . Jeremiah 21–36. The Anchor Bible 21b. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Malina, Bruce. “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” Interpretation 37 (1982): 229–242. . “Jesus as a Charismatic Leader?”Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984): 55–62. . The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels. London: Routledge, 1996. Mason, Eric F. et al., eds. A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. Van- derKam. 2 Volumes. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2011. McCane, William. Jeremiah i. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Mendels, Doron. “Baruch, Book of.” Pages 618–620 in Volume 1 of Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary. . Memory in Jewish, Pagan, and Christian Societies of the Graeco-Roman World: Fragmented Memory—Comprehensive Memory—Collective Memory. Library of Sec- ond Temple Studies 45. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004. Milik, J.T. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Translated by J. Strugnell. Studies in Biblical Theology 26. London: scm Press, 1959. . The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Mitzal, Barbara. Theories of Social Remembering. Theorizing Society Series. Maiden- head; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003. Moore, C.A. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. The Anchor Bible 44. Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1977. Moore, Michael S. “The Laments in Jeremiah and 1QH: Mapping the Metaphorical Trajectories.” Pages 228–252 in Goldengay, ed., Uprooting and Planting. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. . “The Symbolic Significance of Writing in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 139–173 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by H. Najman and J.H. Newman. Supplements to the Journal of the Study of Judaism 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004. . “Reflections on John Barton’s Oracles of God,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 22–28. 324 bibliography

. “Toward A Study of the Uses of the Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 447–466 in Flint, Duhaime, and Baek, eds., Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Newsom, Carol. A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 52. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Newsom, Carol, Hartmut Stegemann and Eileen Schuller. Qumran Cave 1.iii: 1QHoday- ota, with Incorporation of 4QHodayota–f and 1QHodayotb. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2008. Nickelsburg, George W.E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pages 89–156 in Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. . Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Second Revised Edition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2005. Nora, Pierre. Realms of Memory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Pajunen, Mika S. The Land to the Elect and Justice for All: Reading Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Parry Donald W. and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Part 3: Parabiblical Texts. 6 Volumes. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Penner, Jeremy, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, eds. Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 98. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Perri, Carmella. “On Alluding,”Poetics 7 (1978): 289–307. Person, Raymond F. Jr. The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 252. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Piovanelli, Pierluigi. “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority: On the Historical Applicability of a Sociological Model,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73 (June 2005): 395–427. Polk, Timothy. Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1984. Popovic, Mladen, ed. Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Porter, Stanley E. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Com- ment on Method and Terminology.” Pages 79–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 148 / Studies in Early Judaism and Christianity 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Puech, Émile. Qumran Cave 4.xxvii: Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550–575, 580– 582. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 37. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. . “Review of Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Totem Meer, Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten,” Revue de Qumran 25/97 (2011): 155–156. bibliography 325

Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. . The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Volume 1. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2010. . The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Volume 2. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2013. Rabin, C. The Zadokite Documents. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D.G.M. Stalker. 3 Volumes. London: scm Press, 1975. Rappaport, Solomon. Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus. Veröffenttlichungen der Oberrabbiner Dr. H.P. Chajes-Preisstiftung an der Israelitisch-theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien. Wien: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930. Redfield, Robert. The Little Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Regev, Eyal. “Jubilees, Qumran and the Essenes.” Pages 426–440 in Enochand the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Reynolds, Bennie H. iii. Between Symbolism and Realism: The Use of Symbolic and Non- Symbolic Language in Ancient Jewish Apocalypses 333–363bce. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Robert, André. “Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov 1–9,”Revue Biblique 43 (1934): 42–68, 172–204; 44 (1935): 344–365, 374–384, 502–525. Sanders, James A. “The Scrolls and the Canonical Process.” Pages 1–23 in Volume 2 of Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the Temple Scroll,”Revue de Qumran 15/4 (1992): 543–567. . “4QMysteries (4Q299–301).” Pages 33–123 in Qumran Cave 4, xv: Sapiential Texts, Part 1. Edited by T. Elgvin, et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 20. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. . “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Tem- ple Literature.” Pages 121–131 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the International Sym- posium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Liter- ature, 12–14 January, 1997. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Schiffman, Lawrence H., Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery 1947–1997. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Con- gress, July 20–25, 1997. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in Cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000, 391–399. Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam, eds. The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 Volumes. E-reference Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2008. 326 bibliography

Schniedewind, William M. The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 197. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schuller, E. and M. Bernstein. “372. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb.” Pages 165– 197 in Wadi Daliyeh ii: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh and Qumran Cave 4.xxviii: Miscellanea, Part 2. Edited by Douglas M. Gropp, et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 28. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Schwartz, Barry. George Washington: the Making of an American Symbol. New York: Free Press, 1987. . “Popular Memory: Theory, Politics, and Method.” Pages 205–252 in Making Histories: Studies in History-Writing and Politics. Edited by R. Johnson, et al. London: Hutchinson, 1982. . Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Special People or Special Books: On Qumran and New Testament Versions of Canon.” Pages 49–60 in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 11–13 January, 2004. Edited by Daniel R. Schwartz and Ruth A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 84. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schwemer, Anna Maria. Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophe- tarum. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 49. 2 Volumes. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Segal, Michael. “‘4QReworked Pentateuch’ or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–399 in Schiff- man, Tov, and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery. . “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Henze, ed., Biblical Inter- pretation at Qumran. Spencer, John P. “Aaron (Person).” Pages 1–6 in Volume 1 of Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Steck, Odil Hannes. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zur Rezeption und Konzentra- tion “kanonischer” Überlieferung. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Frag- ments.” Pages 189–220 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. bibliography 327

Schiffman. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 8. jsot / asor Monographs 2. Hapog Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies at New York University. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apolo- getic Historiography. Novum Testamentum Supplements 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992. :(in the Texts from Qumran,”Revue de Qumran 16/2 (1993 םימיהתירחא “ .Steudel, Annette 225–246. . Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata, b). Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994. . “Assembling and Reconstructing Manuscripts.” Pages 516–534 in Volume 1 of Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. Stone, Michael E., ed. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseude- pigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Compendia Rerum Iudaica- rum ad Novum Testamentum 2/ii. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Stone, M.E., and T.A. Bergren, eds. Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998. Strugnell, John. “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits de Qumrân,” Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 49–67. . “Notes en marge du volume v des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,’”Revue de Qumran 7/26 (1970): 163–276. Strugnell, John and Devorah Dimant. “4Q Second Ezekiel,” Revue de Qumran 13 (Oct 1988): 45–58. Strugnell, J., and D.J. Harrington. “416. 4QInstructionb (Mûsar leMevînb).” Pages 73–141 in Qumran Cave 4.xxiv: 4QInstruction (Mûsar leMevîn): 4Q415ff.. Edited by Strugnell, Harrington, and T. Elgvin. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Stuckenbruck, Lawrence T. 1Enoch 91–108. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context.” Pages 308–321 in Goldengay, ed., Uprooting and Planting. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Old Testament Text.” Pages 1–41 in Cross and Talmon, eds., QumranandtheHistoryoftheBiblicalText. Reprinted from Paul R. Ackroyd and Craig F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome. Pages 159–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. . “The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook,” Pages 321–400 in Cross and Talmon, eds., Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. . “The Transmission and History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran and Other Sites in the Judean Desert.” Pages 40–50 in Schiffman, Tov, and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery. 328 bibliography

Tamási, Balász. “Prophesized History of the Postexilic Period and Polemics against Priests in 4Q390 from Qumran: Levite Authorship behind the Fragments.” Pages 310– 328 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by Karoly Daniel Dobos and Miklos Koszeghy. Hebrew Bible Mono- graphs 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008. Thiessen, Matthew. “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile,” Dead Sea Discov- eries 15 (2008): 380–395. Thompson, Thomas L. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. London: Basic Books, 1999. Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. “Annotated Lists of Overlaps and Parallels in the Non-biblical Texts from Qumran and Masada.” Pages 285–322 in Tov, ed., djd 39. . “Constructing, Deconstructing and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a Study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman).” Pages 26–47 in Grossman, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. . “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary Observations.” Pages 155–171 in Popovic, ed., Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. . “Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apoc- ryphon of Jeremiah c,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 43 (2012): 519–550. . “Unities and Disunities in Jeremianic Texts.” Unpublished paper presented at Yale University, 8 October, 2013. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the lxx of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. Missoula, Mont.: Schol- ars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976. . The Text Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem: Simor, 1981. . “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 145–176 in Le Livre de Jérémie et son milieu: les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 54. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. . “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of Its Textual History.” Pages 211–237 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by J. Tigay. Philadel- phia: Fortress, 1985. . “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,”Revue de Qumran 14/2 (1989): 189–206. . “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” Pages 107–137 in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic–Roman Period. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991. . “4QJerc (4Q72).” Pages 249–276 in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to bibliography 329

Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday. Edited by G.J. Norton and S. Pisano. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 109. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991. . “Three Fragments of Jeremiah from Qumran Cave 4,” Revue de Qumran 15 (1992): 531–541. . “Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special attention to 4QRP and 4QparaGen-Exod.” Pages 111–136 in Ulrich and VanderKam, eds., The Community of the Renewed Covenant. . “Scribal Practices Reflected in the Documents from the Judean Desert and in the Rabbinic Literature: A Comparative Study.” Pages 383–403 in Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. . Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Second Revised Edition. Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 2001. . The Texts from the Judaean Desert Indices, and An Introduction to the Discover- ies in the Judaean Desert Series. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 39. Oxford: Claren- don, 2002. . Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts of the Judean Desert. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. . “Reflections on the Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture in Light of the lxx and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” Shnaton 18 (2008): 133–148 (Hebrew). . Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Third Edition, Revised & Expanded. Min- neapolis: Fortress, 2012. Tzoref, Shani. “Qumran Pesherim and the Pentateuch: Explicit Citation, Overt Typolo- gies, and Implicit Interpretive Traditions,” Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009): 190– 220. Ulrich, Eugene. “Horizons of Old Testament Textual Research at the Thirtieth Anniver- sary of Qumran Cave 4,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984): 613–636. . “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text.” Pages 78–105 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996. . The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. . “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and the Latter Stages in the Compo- sition of the Bible.” Pages 51–78 in idem., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. . “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” Pages 79–100 in Volume 1 of Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. 330 bibliography

. “The Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books Documented at Qumran.” Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, Vancouver bc, Canada, 2 June, 2008. . “Empirical Evidence for Scribal and Editorial Transmission of Second Tem- ple Religious Literature.” Unpublished paper presented at Insights into Editing the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East International Symposium, Ludwig Max- imillion University, München, 14 March, 2013. Ulrich E. et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4.x: The Prophets. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Ulrich, Eugene and James C. VanderKam, eds. The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. South Bend, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993. VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic Monographs 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for the Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977. . The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. . “Identity and History of the Community.” Pages 487–533 in Volume 2 of Flint and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. . From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. . “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran.” Pages 469–491 in Volume 2 of Charlesworth, ed., The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Studa Post-Biblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. . “The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Jewish Studies During the Last Twenty- Five Years,” Journal of Jewish Studies nos. 1–2 (1975): 1–14. Reprinted in pages 201– 214 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice. Edited by William Scott Green. Brown Judaic Studies 1. Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1978. . “Biblical Midrash.” Pages 308–341 in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: A New English Version, Volume 3.1. Edited by Emil Schürer. Revised and edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation, and Commentary. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 56. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wacholder, Ben Zion, and Martin G. Abegg Jr. A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle 3. Washing- ton d.c.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995. Waltke, Bruce K. “How We Got the Bible: The Text and Canon of the Old Testament.” Pages 27–50 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W.Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. bibliography 331

Wanke, Gunther. Jeremia, Teilband.1. Zürcher Bibelkommentare / Altes Testament 20/1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1995. Webster, B. “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 351–446 in Tov, ed., djd 39. Weinfeld, M., and D. Seeley. “434. 4QBarkhi Nafshia.” Pages 270–274 in Chazon, et al., eds., djd 29. Weissenberg, Hanne von. “Deuteronomy at Qumran and in 4QMMT.” Pages 520–537 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2008. Wenell, Karen J. Jesus and the Land: Sacred and Social Space in Second Temple Judaism. Library of New Testament Studies 334. London: T & T Clark, 2007. Werman, Cana. “The Eschaton in Second Temple Literature,” Tarbiz 72/1–2 (2003): 37–57 (Hebrew). . “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Literature,” Dead Sea Discoveries 13 (2006): 229–255. Werrett, Ian C. Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 72. Leiden: Brill, 2007. White, Luise. “Social Construction and Social Consequences: Rumors and Evidence.” Pages 241–254 in Fine, Campion-Vincent, and Heath, eds., Rumor Mills. White Crawford, Sidnie. “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts.” Pages 173–195 in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. N. Rich- land Hills, Tex.: Bibal, 2000. . Rewriting Scriptures in Second Temple Times. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Wise, Michael O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1990. . “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches,”Revue de Qumran 14/56 (1990): 587–614. . “4Q245 (4QpsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” Dead Sea Discoveries 12 (2005): 313–362. . “The Origins and History of the Teacher’s Movement.” Pages 92–122 in Lim and Collins, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996. .The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Second Revised Edition. San Fran- cisco: HarperCollins, 2005. Wolff, Christian. Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum. Texte und Untersuch- ungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 118. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976. Wright, Benjamin G. iii. “Talking with God and Losing His Head: Extrabiblical Tradi- 332 bibliography

tions about the Prophet Ezekiel.” Pages 290–315 in Stone and Bergren, eds., Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. . “Qumran Pseudepigrapha in Early Christianity: Is 1Clem 50:4 a Citation of 4QPseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385)?” Pages 183–193 in Chazon, Stone and Pinnick, eds., Pseu- depigraphic Perspectives. . “The Apocryphon of Ezekiel and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel.” Pages 344–345 in Schiff- man, Tov, and VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery. . “Notes on 4Q391 (papPseudo-Ezekiel) and Biblical Ezekiel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 344–345. . Review of Devorah Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, Volume 21: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-prophetic Texts, Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002): 249–253. Wright, J. Edward. “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer.” Pages 264– 289 in in Stone and Bergren, eds., Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Yadin, Yigael. “The Temple Scroll,”Biblical Archaeology 30 (1967): 135–139. . TheTempleScroll. 3 Volumes. English translation. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Yardeni, Ada. “The Paleography of 4QJera—A Comparative Study,” Textus 15 (1991): 233–268. . The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design. London: The British Library, 2002. Zahn, Molly M. “Rewritten Scripture.” Pages 323–336 in Lim and Collins, Oxford Hand- book of the Dead Sea Scrolls. . Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Zerubavel, Eviatar. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Zunz, Leopold. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: ein Bei- trag zur Alterthum-skunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschich- te. Berlin: A. Asher, 1832. . Zur Geschichte und Literatur. Berlin: Verlag von Veit und Comp, 1845. Index of Modern Authors

Abegg, M.G. 2 n.6, 48 n.3, 52 n.17, 64 n.71, 108 Berrin, S. 33, 33 n.78 (2×) (3×), 108 n.14, 114, 114 n.37, 116, 116 n.44, 117, Billig, M. 41 n.111 118 (3×), 118 n.49, n.51, 119 n.55, 121 n.60, 122, Bloch, R. 16, 17 n.10 (2×), n.12 122 n.63, 126, 126 n.76, 129 n.90, n.92, 134 Boccaccini, G. 287–288 n.168 n.112, 149 n.151–152, 161 n.180, 163 n.183, 166 Boda, M. 93 n.146 n.193, 173 n.207, 176 n.131, 186 n.30, 186–187 Bogaert, P.-M. 92 n.145, 143 n.144 (2×), 242 n.33 (2×), 189 (2×), 189 n.44, 46–47 (4×), n.33 190, 205 n.82, 237 n.10, 225 n.115, 239 n.23 Bond, S. 144 n.147 (3×), 252 n.57, 253 n.62, 257 n.70, 269 n.108, Bowden, J. 236 289 n.172, 290 n.176, 292 n.180 Bowley, J.E. 31 n.70, 268 n.100 Abel, F.-M 47 n.1 Brady, M.L.W. 48 n.2 (3×), 56 n.32, 58 (4×), Ackroyd, P.R. 21 n.31, 193 n.60, 194, 194 59 n.48–49, 60 (5×), 60 n.50–54, 61 (2×), 61 n.61–62 n.55–58, 62 (7×), 62 n.59, 69 n.100–101, 71, Albright, W.F. 21 71 n.108–110, 80 n.129, 81 n.131, 93 n.147, 94 Alexander, P.S. 17, 18 n.13 (2×), 277 n.134 n.148, n.153, 95 n.158, 99 n.163, n.165–166, Allegro, J. 276, 276–277 n.130, n.131 100 n.168–169, 108, 108 n.15–16, 109, 109 Allen, L.C. 283 n.152 n.18, 111 n.27, 113 n.29, n.32, 114 n.37, n.39, Anderson, A.A. 276 n.130 116 n.40, 117, 117 n.46–47, 118 (5×), 118 Anderson, G.A. 211 n.88 n.48, n.50–52, n.54, 121 n.60, 124 n.72, 125 Assmann, J. 38 n.93 (3×), 41 n.111, 44 n.126 n.74, 126 n.75, n.81, 129 n.92, 130 n.100, (2×) 132, 132 n.105, 134, 134 n.112, 138 n.130–131, Attridge, H. 23 n.39 139, 139 n.134, 144 (2×), 150, 150 n.157, 239 Avery-Peck, A.J. 34 n.82 n.23 Brooke, G.J. 4 n.11, 5, 5 n.15, 15 (2×), 15 n.3, Bacher, W. 17 n.12 (3×) n.5, 16 n.6, 20 (2×), 20 n.25, 20 n.29–30, 22, Baek, K.S. 34 n.83, 137 n.127, 163 n.183 22 n.38, 23 n.40, 24, 31 n.68 (3×), 31 n.70, 37, Baillet, M. 14 n.1, 176 n.4, 264 n.84, 277–278 37 n.91, 48 n.3, 58 n.42 (2×), 65, 106 n.7, 158 n.134 n.170, 173 n.207, 228, 228 n.121–123, 229 n.125 Barclay, J.M.G. 35 n.86, 248 n.50 (2×), 262, 262 n.80, 264–265 n.86, 265 n.87, Barrera, J.T. 49 n.10 268 n.101, 270 n.113, 271 n.115, 285 n.161, 291, Barton, J. 29 (3×), 29 n.63, 30 (3×), 30 291 n.279 n.64–67, 31, 31 n.68–70, 32, 32 n.73, 33 (2×), Broshi, M. 4 n.13, 71 n.104, 177 n.8, 268 n.96, 33 n.74–77, 34 (3×), 34 n.80, n.82, 36, 273, n.98, 282 n.148 274 n.122, 277, 277 n.133 Burke, D.G. 242 n.33, n.36 Batto, B.F. 230, 230 n.127–128 (2×) Bauckham, R. 9 n.20 Campbell, J.G. 25 (4×), 25 n.49–53, 187 n.35, Baumgarten, J.M. 3 n.8, 270 n.112, 271 n.115, 252 n.57, 253 n.62, 269, 269 n.103–104, 288 n.169, 289 n.173 n.106, 270 n.109–111, 273 (2×), 286, 287, 273 Bergren, T.A. 58 n.44, 244 n.37 n.119, 286 n.162, 287 n.164, 289 n.173 Berner, C. 64, 64 n.75, n.77, 66, 67, 67 n.92, Campion-Vincent, V. 40 n.109 (2×) 69, 101, 103, 166 n.192 (2×), 185, 180 n.15, Carroll, R.P. 305–306 n.3 181 n.20, 188 n.37, 190 n.51, 224 n.112, 296 Carson, D.A. 18 n.13, 242 n.33 n.197 Charlesworth, J.H. 3 n.8, 15 n.4 Bernstein, M. 18 (2×), 18 n.16 (3×), n.18, 19, Chazon, E.G. 22 n.38, 28 n.60, 58 n.44, 19 n.19, 228 n.120, 253 n.62, 268 n.101, 299 191 n.54, 259 n.75 (2×), 277 n.134, 288 n.206 n.169 334 index of modern authors

Chetri, C. 105 (2×), 87 n.140–141, n.143, 89, 90, 90 n.144, Chilton, B.D. 34 n.82 91, 94 (4×), 94 n.148–153, n.155–156, 95, 95 Clements, R.A. 22 n.38, 28 n.59, 191 n.54, 252 n.159, 98 (2×), 98 n.161–162, 99, 99 n.165, n.58, 259 n.75 100 (2×), 100 n.167, n.169–170, 101 (4×), Collins, J.J. 2 n.4 (3×), 16 n.7, 36, 36 n.89, 103, 105 (2×), 106, 106 n.4, 107, 108 (4×), 110 n.25, 122 n.65, 160 n.175, 191 n.55, 199 108 n.12, 109 (4×), 109 n.17–20, 110, 110 n.21, n.70, 200 n.71, 229 n.126, 252 n.59, 287–288 n.24, 111 (8×), 111 n.26–27, 113 (4×), 113 n.28, n.168, 288 n.170, 298, 289 n.173, 289–290 n.31–33, 114, 114 n.34–36, 115 (2×), 116 (2×), n.173, 290 n.174, 296 n.193, 296 n.195, 297 116 n.43, 117 (3×), 117 n.45–46, 118 (5×), 118 n.200, 298 n.201–203, 300 n.209–210, 301 n.48–49, n.53, 119, 119 n.56, 120, 121 (5×), n.211 121 n.58, n.61, 122 (3×), 122 n.64, n.66, n.68, Cook, E.M. 2 n.6, 34 n.82, 149 n.152, 186–187 123, 123 n.69, 124, 124 n.70, 125, 125 n.73, n.33, 225 n.115, 239 n.23, 253 n.62, 257 n.70, 126 (4×), 126 n.75, n.79, 127 (3×), 127 n.83, 276 n.131, 289 n.172, 292 n.180 129 (7×), 129 n.86–87, n.89, n.91, n.93, 130 Cooley, C.H. 41 n.112 (5×), 130 n.94–96, n.98, n.100, 131 (6×), 131 Creangă, O. 139 n.133 n.101, n.103, 132, 132 n.104, 133, 133 n.108, Cross, F.M. 21, 21 n.31, n.35, 71 n.110, 94 134 (2×), 134 n.109, n.111, 135, 135 n.118–119, n.156–157, 264 n.86 136 (5×), 136 n.122–123, n.125, 137, 138 (2×), Curtis, A.H.W. 4 n.11 138 n.128–129, 139 (3×), 139 n.132, n.136, 140 (2×), 140 n.138, n.140–141, 141 n.142, Dan, J. 49 n.13 142, 142 n.143, 143, 143 n.144–145, 144, 144 Dávid, N. 267 n.94 n.146–147, 146, 146 n.148, 147 (4×), 147 n.149, Davies, P.R. 3 n.8, 28 n.59, 32, 32 n.73 (2×), 149 (4×), 149 n.151–153, 150 (3×), 150 n.154, 34 n.82, 36 n.88, 38 n.93, 39, 39 n.103–104, n.158, 151, 151 n.160, 152 (2×), 153 (2×), 156 193–194 n.60, 288 n.169–170 (2×), 157, 158, 158 n.169, 160, 160 n.176, 163 Davila, J. 9 n.20, 187 n.35, 278 n.135, 295 n.190 n.184, 164 n.186, 165, 165 n.190, 166 n.192, Davis, K. 4 n.10, 6 n.16, 93 n.146, 137 n.127, 170 n.201, 172, 173 (2×), 173 n.206–208, 174 139 n.133, 140 n.139, 158 n.170, 161 n.180, n.209, 175 n.2, 175 (4×), 176 n.4, 176 n.5, 176 164 n.188, 206 n.82, 207 n.83, 225 n.113, 227 n.6, 177 n.7, 177, 178 n.9 (2×), 179 (2×), 179 n.117, 236 n.8, 239 n.21, 243 n.35, 258 n.73, n.10, 180 n.14 (2×), 181 n.17, 181 n.18, 181 n.19, 263 n.83, 265 n.88, 273 n.121, 175 n.126, 295 184 (2×), 185, 185 n.30 (3×), 186, 186 n.32, n.190, 297 n.199 191 (2×), 197, 190 n.48, 50 (2×), 191 n.52–54 Delamarter, S. 22 n.37 (6×), 197 n.67–68 (2×), 202 n.78 (2×), 203, De Troyer, K. 67 n.92, 144 n.147 203 n.79, 208 n.85, 209 n.86, 219, 219 n.98, Dever, W.G. 39 n.104 (2×) 224, 225 n.111, 226 n.116, 227 (3×), 227 n.117, Dimant, D. 2 n.4 (2×), 4 n.12–13, 11 (×2), 14 228, 228 n.119–120 (2×), 232 n.129, 235, 235 n.2, 22 n.38, 34 n.81 (2×), 48 (2×), 48 n.2 n.4, 235 n.5–6, 236 n.6, 237 n.10, n.15–16, (3×), 48 n.3–7, 49 (5×), 49 n.8, n.10–14, 50, 239 n.23 (2×), 240 n.26–27, 242 n.32, 243, 50 n.15, 51 n.16, 52 n.17, 53 (4×), 53 n.18, 54 243 n.34, 241 n.40, 247 n.47, 250, 250 n.55 (3×), 54 n.19, n.21–23, 55 (6×), 55 n.24–29, (2×), 253 (2×), 252 n.61, 255, 255 n.68, 257 56 (2×), 56 n.30, n.32, 57 (4×), 57 n.34–36, n.70 (2×), 263, 282 n.146, 284, 284 n.159, 58 (3×), 58 n.37–41, 59 (6×), 59 n.47 (2×), 291 n.178, 293 n.185, 294, 294 n.186–178, 296 60 (3×), 61 n.55 (2×), n.59, 62 (8×), 62 n.196 n.60–62, n.64, 63 (2×), 63 n.65 (2×), 64, DiTommaso, L. 34, 34 n.83, 35, 35 n.84–85, 65 (4×), 65 n.82–85, 66 (7×), 66 n.86–90, 36, 160 n.175 (2×), 229 n.125, 296 n.195–196, 67 (3×), 67 n.92–93, 68, 69 n.100, 71(3×), 297 n.200 71 n.103, n.106–107, n.110, 72 (3×), 73 n.118, Ditter, F.J. Jr. 38 n.96 74 (2×), 74 n.119, n.121, 75 n.122, 80 (2×), Ditter, V.Y. 38 n.96 82, 85 (2×), 85 n.136, n.138–139, 86 (2×), 87 Dobos, K.D. 202 n.76 index of modern authors 335

Doering, L. 62 n.63–64, 135, 135 n.120, 136 Grabbe, L. 139 n.137, 140 n.137, 163 n.182, 236 n.121, 139, 139 n.133, 144 (2×), 144 n.147, 172 n.9, 248 n.50 (2×), 173 n.207, 235 n.6, 236 (2×), 236 n.7, Green, W.S. 16 n.9 237, 237 n.10–12, 237 n.16, 238 (2×), 238 n.17, Griswold, W. 43 (3×), 43 n.121 (2×), 304, 304 n.19–21, 240, 240 n.24–25, 242 n.32–33, 243, n.1 244 (3×), 244 n.38–39 (2×), 245 (2×), 245 Gropp, D.M. 299 n.206 n.40(3×), 245 n.41, 249, 249 n.52–53, 251, Grossman, M.L. 2 n.4, 72 n.111, 189 n.44, 229, 293 n.185 229 n.126, 249, 278 n.135, 286 (2×), 287 (4×), Driver, S.R. 265 n.89 286 n.163, 287 n.165–167, 288 n.170, 289 Duhaime, J. 34 n.83, 137 n.127, 163 n.183 n.173, 295, 295 n.190, 296 n.194 Duke, R.R. 187 n.35 Gruenwald, I. 59 n.47

Elgvin, T. 4 n.10 (2×), 6 n.16, 185 n.30 (2×), Haak, R.D. 31 n.70, 36 n.88 187 n.35, 277 n.134 Hacham, N. 259 n.75 Elior, R. 49 n.13 HaCohen, A. 264 n.86 Enders, J. 40 n.109 Halbwachs, M. 38 (5×), 38 n.95–96, 39 (2×) Eshel, H. 64, 65, 65 n.78–80, 66, 67, 69, 101, Halpern-Amaru, B. 259 n.75 103, 181 n.16, 184 n.28, 185, 188, 188 n.38, 190, Hanneken, T.R. 202 n.76–77 (2×), 294 (2×), 191 n.52, 197–198 n.69 (2×), 202 n.73, 212 294 n.188–189, 295 n.190 n.90, 212, 216 n.95, 216, 220, 220 n.105–107 Hanson, P.D. 159 n.173, 271 n.114 (3×), 222, 222 n.109, 290, 290 n.174 Hanson, R.S. 264 n.86 Evans, C.A. 21 n.31, 265 n.89 Harlow, D.C. 35 n.84 Harrington, D.J. 20 (2×), 20 n.27, 277 n.134 Falk, D.K. 23 (2×), 23 n.41, 24 (2×), 24 Heath, C. 40 n.109 (2×) n.44–48, 93 n.146, 229 n.120, 262, 262 n.81, Hempel, C. 268 n.102 277–228 n.134 Hendel, R. 21–22 n.36 Feldman, L.H. 236 n.9, 248 n.50 (2×) Hengel, M.G. 236, 248 n.50 Fine, G.A. 38 n.98, 40 (2×), 40 n.108–109 Henze, M. 18 n.15, 33 n.78, 60 n.54, 67 n.92, (3×), 41 (2×), 41 n.110–113 (2×), 43 (3×), 43 158 n.169, 170 n.201, 181 n.20, 190, 191 n.52 n.122, n.124, 44, 44 n.126, 45, 235, 235 n.2, Herbert, E.D. 23 n.40 304, 304 n.2, 305 Hilhorst, A. 184 n.29 Fishbane, M. 20, 20 n.28 Hill, J. 285 n.161 (2×) Fitzmyer, J.A. 186–187 n.33 Himmelfarb, M. 158 n.171 Flint, P.W. 7 n.18, 15 n.3, 18 n.16, 22 n.36, 29 Hobsbawm, E.J. 38, 39 n.100 n.63, 31, 34 n.83, 85 n.135, 110 n.25, 122 n.65, Hoffman, Y. 54 n.22 137 n.127, 161 n.180, 163 n.183, 166 n.193, 173 Holladay, W.L. 159 n.173, 271 n.114, 272 n.116, n.207, 185 n.30 (2×), 186 n.31, 200 n.71, 237 283 n.152, 305 n.3 n.10, 265–266 n.89, 278 n.135, 298, 289 n.173, Holm-Nielsen, S. 278 n.136 296 n.195 (2×), 297 n.198, 298 n.201–203, Horgan, M.P. 20, 20 n.27 300 n.209–210, 301 n.211 Hughes, J.A. 278 (3×), 279, 265–266 n.89, 277 Floyd, M.H. 31 n.70, 33 n.74, 36 n.88, 93 n.134, 279 n.138, n.139, 280 n.141 n.146 Hultgren, S. 213 n.91 Fox, M.V. 21 n.32 Freedman, D.N. 264 n.86 Ibba, G. 287–288 n.168 Geiger, A. 17 n.12 Ginzberg, L. 17 n.12 (2×) Japhet, S. 129 n.86 Goertz, K.M. 144 n.147 Jassen A.P. 31 (2×), 31 n.71, 32 (3×), 32 n.72, Goldengay, J. 278 n.136 33, 34 n.79, 35, 35 n.87, 268 (2×), 268 n.197, Gowan, D.E. 242 n.33 276, 277 n.132, 281, 281 n.145 336 index of modern authors

Jastrow, M. 116 n.42 Najman, H. 26, 27 (4×), 27 n.55–58, 28 (2×), Johnson, R. 40 n.108 28 n.59–60, 29, 37 (2×), 37 n.92, 41, 44, 44 Jokiranta, J. 2 n.4, 42 n.118 n.127, 70 n.102 (2×), 159 n.172, 163 n.183, 228, Justnes, Å. 128 n.84 230 n.124, 245 n.43, 246 (2×), 246 n.45–46, 255 n.67, 262, 262 n.82 Kahle, P. 17 n.12 Neusner, J. 34 n.82 Kampen, J. 268 n.101 Newman, J.H. 27 n.55 Knibb, M.A. 92 n.145, 184 n.29, 299 n.206 Newsom, C.A. 278 n.136, 279 n.138, n.140, 280 Koszeghy, M. 202 n.76 n.142–144, 280 Kraft, R.A. 20 n.27 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 19 (3×), 19 n.23, 20 (3×), Kraus, W. 62 n.63 20 n.26–27, 243 n.36, 287–288 n.168 (2×) Kugel, J.L. 33 n.77 (2×) Niebuhr, K-.W. 62 n.63 Kuhn, K.-H. 285 n.161 Nissinen, M. 253 n.62 Nora, P. 38, 38 n.99, 39 Labuschagne, C.J. 184 n.29 Norton, G.J. 264 n.85 Lange, A. 3 n.9, 14 n.3, 67 n.92, 144 n.147, 253 n.62, 265, 266 n.90–91, 267 n.94, 269, 269 Pajunen, M.S. 72 n.111, 96 n.160, 184 n.27 n.105 Pakkala, J. 253 n.62 Lapin, H. 296 n.194 Panayotov, A. 9 n.20 Larson, E. 135 n.117, 277 n.134, 281, 281–282 Parry D.W. 21 n.33, 23 n.39 (2×) n.147, 282, 282 n.148, n.150–151, 283, Penner, J. 265–266 n.89, 91 283 n.154–155, 284, 284 n.156–157, 285 Penner, K.M. 265–266 n.89, 91 n.161 Perri, C. 265 n.89 Lemche, N.P. 39, 39 n.101, 39 n.104 Person, R.F. Jr. 264 n.86 Levin, C. 36 n.88 Pfann, S.J. 185 n.30, 277 n.134 LiDonnici, L. 259 n.75 Pietersen, L.K. 25 n.49 Lieber, A. 259 n.75 Pinnick, A. 58 n.44, 288 n.169 Lim, T.H. 2 n.4 (2×), 16 n.7, 229 n.126, Piovanelli, P. 42 n.120 288–289 n.173 Pisano, S. 264 n.85 Livingstone, E.A. 243 n.33 Polak, F.H. 54 n.22 Lundbom, J.R. 159 n.173 (2×), 170 n.200 Polk, T. 305 n.3 Lyons, W.J. 25 n.49 Popovic, M. 291 n.179, 300 n.208 Porter, S.E. 265 n.89 Malina, B. 42 (3×), 42 n.115–117, n.119 (3×) Puech, É. 185 n.30, 187 n.34 Martinez, F.G. 2 n.6, 49 n.9 (2×), 150, 150 n.155, 239 n.23, 257 n.70, 268 n.101, 174 Qimron, E. 68 (5×), 68 n.95–98, 69 (5×), 69 n.124 n.99, 105 (2×), 105 n.2, 106 (3×), 106 n.5–6, Mason, E.F. 7 n.18, 35 n.86, 202 n.76 107, 107 n.8, 108, 108 n.13, 109 n.18, 110, 110 Mason, S. 35 n.86 n.22, 111 n.26, 113 n.28, 114, 114 n.35, n.38, Matthews, K.A. 264 n.86 116, 116 n.41, 124 n.71, 126 (2×), 126 n.77, McCane, W. 170 n.200 (2×) n.80, 127 n.82, 129, 129 n.88, 132, 132 n.106, Mendels, D. 38 n.93, 242 n.33 134, 134 n.110, n.114, 135 n.118, 136 (2×), 136 Milik, J.T. 47 n.1 (2×), 54, 54 n.20 n.124–125, 137, 138 n.128–129, 146 n.148, 149, Millar, F. 17 n.11 150, 150 n.156, n.157, 152, 152 n.161–162, 179, Mittmann-Richert, U. 14 n.3 179 n.12, 279 n.138, n.140, 284 n.159 Mitzal, B. 38 n.94, 38 n.98 Montaner, L.V. 49 n.10 Rabin, C. 271 n.115 Moore, C.A. 49 n.9 Rabin, I. 6 n.16 Moore, M.S. 242 n.33, 278 n.136 von Rad, G. 305 n.3 index of modern authors 337

Ranger, T.O. 39, 39 n.100 n.26–27, 185, 219 n.99, 274 n.122, 275 n.128, Rappaport, S. 17 n.12 276, 276 n.129–130 Redfield, R. 192 n.47 Stone, M.E. 19 n.23, 28 n.60, 48 n.44 (2×), Regev, E. 287–288 n.168 244 n.37 Reynolds, B.H. iii 36, 36 n.89–90, 65 (2×), 65 Stroumaa, G. 59 n.47 n.81, 67 n.92, 68 (2×), 68 n.94, 107 n.9 (2×), Strugnell, J. 47 n.1 (3×), 48 (2×), 48 n.2–7, 49 155 n.164, 161, 161 n.177–178, 204 n.81, 252, (2×), 51 n.16, 54 (5×), 54 n.20–21, 56 (4×), 252 n.59 56 n.32, 57, 59 n.47, 69 n.100, 71 (2×), 74, Ricks, S.D. 21 n.33 80, 87 n.141, 94, 96 n.161, 98 n.161, 99 n.163, Robert, A. 17 n.12 n.165–166, 100, 100 n.169 (2×), 108, 109 n.18, Römer, T. 4 n.11, 229 n.125 111 n.27, 113 (2×), 114, 115–116, 117 n.46, 118 (3×), 118 n.51, 121, 121 n.60, 124, 126, 126 n.75, Sanders, J.A. 29 n.63 129 (2×), 130 (3×), 131 (3×), 138, 141, 144, Schecter, D.L. 44 n.126 239 n.23, 240 n.26, 274 n.123, 275 n.127, 277 Schiffman, L.H. 2 n.4, 15 n.5, 18 n.15, 21 n.31, n.134, 281, 282 n.149, n.151, 284, 284 n.156, 28 n.60, 56 n.31, 58 n.44, 59 n.47, 187 n.35, 293 n.185 190 n.50, 211 n.88, 253 n.62, 281, 282 n.148, Stuckenbruck, L.T. 188 n.39 n.151, 284 n.156 Sweeney, M.A. 283 n.152 Schniedewind, W.M. 36, 36 n.88 Schofield, A. 2 n.4, 191 n.55, 192 n.56–57 (2×), Talmon, S. 20–21, 21 n.31–32, 264 n.86 192, 213 n.91, 295, 295–296 n.192–193, 306, Tamási, B. 201, 202 n.76 (2×), 295 n.190 306 n.4 (2×) Thiessen, M. 299 n.206 Schuller, E. 278 n.136, 279 n.138, n.140, 299 Thompson, T.L. 39, 39 n.102 n.206 Tigay, J. 264 n.85 Schulte, L.L. 67 n.92 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 2 n.6, 57 n.33, 67, 67 n.91, Schultz, R.L. 265 n.89 68, 72 n.111, 101 n.171, 102 n.173, 128 n.84, Schürer, E. 17 n.11 131(2×), 131 n.102 (2×), 150, 150 n.155, 157, 157 Schwartz, B. 38 n.97, 38 n.99, 39 (4×), 39 n.168, 170 n.200, 186–187 n.33 (2×), 239 n.23, n.105–106, 40 (2×), 40 n.107–108 (2×), 41, 41 257 n.70, 274 n.124, 300 n.208 (2×) n.113, 42, 42 n.114, 43 (2×), 43 n.123, 44 (2×), Toepel, A. 9 n.20 44, 234, 234 n.1, 252 n.58 (2×), 270 n.112, 271 Tov, E. 3 n.10, 18, 18 n.14–15, n.17, 21, 21 n.115, 289 n.173, 304, 305 n.31–32, n.36 (2×), 22 n.36 (2×), 23 n.39–40, Schwartz, D.R. 3 n.8 24, 58 n.44, 75 n.122, 80 n.130, 99 n.164, 133 Schwemer, A.M. 239, 239 n.21 n.107 (3×), 135 n.116, 142 n.144, 143 n.144, Scott, J.M. 64 n.71 162 n.181, 185 n.30 (2×), 186–187 n.33, Seeley, D. 277 n.134 189 n.43–45 (4×), 190 n.50, 237 n.10, 264 Segal, M. 18, 18 n.15 (2×) n.84–86, 289 n.173 Shaked, S. 59 n.47 Tzoref, S. 253 n.62 Smith, M. 71, 177 Spencer, J.P. 201 n.74 Ulrich, E. 14 n.1, 18 n.14, 21, 21 n.33 (3×), 30 Stalker, D.G.M. 305 n.3 n.63, 34 n.81, 161 n.180, 166 n.193, 173 n.207, Starcky, J. 47 n.1 (2×) 185 n.30 (2×), 264 n.84, n.86, 265 n.88 Steck, O.H. 242 n.32–33 Stegemann, H. 56, 56 n.31, 72 (3×), 72 n.111 VanderKam, J.C. 4 n.13, 15 n.3, n.5, 18 n.14–16, (2×), n.114, 73, 73 n.115–117, 75 n.123, 85 21 n.31, n.33, 29 n.63, 31 n.70, 34 n.81, 58 n.134, 183, 183 n.23–24, 184 n.25, 185, 278 n.44, 59 n.47, 85 n.135, 106 n.7, 110 n.25, 164 n.136, 279 n.138, n.140 n.186, n.188, 185 n.30, 190 n.50, 195 n.64, 211 Sterling, G.E. 36 n.88 n.88, 220 n.102, 287–288 n.168, 288 n.170, Steudel, A. 85 n.135, 183 n.22, 183, 184 290, 288–290 n.173, 290 n.174 338 index of modern authors de Vaux, R. 14 n.1 (2×), 210 n.87, 227, 227 n.118, 232, 249, 251 Vermes, G. 16 (2×), 16 n.8–9, 17 (2×), 17 n.56, 291 n.178, 293 n.184 n.11–12, 19 n.22 Werrett, I.C. 187 n.35 Viviano, A. 49 n.9 White, L. 40 n.109 (2×), 43 n.125 White Crawford, S. 15 n.4, 16, 16 n.7, 23 (2×), Wacholder, B.Z. 6 n.17 (3×), 48 n.3, 52 n.17, 23 n.39, n.42–43, 24, 202 n.76 (2×), 228 108 (3×), 108 n.14, 114, 114 n.37, 116, 116 n.44, n.120, 255 n.67 117, 118 (3×), 118 n.49, n.51, 119 n.55, 121 n.60, Williamson, H.G.M. 18 n.13 122, 122 n.63, 126, 126 n.76, 129 n.90, n.92, Wise, M.O. 2 n.6, 80 n.128, 149 n.152, 164 130 n.97, 134 n.112, 239 n.23 n.187–188, 182 n.21, 186–187 n.33, 200 n.71, Waltke, B.K. 22 n.36 220 n.102, 225 n.115, 253 n.62 (2×), 257 n.70, Wanke, G. 173 n.207 176 n.131, 289 n.172, 289 n.173 (2×), 292 Wassen, C. 265–266 n.89, 91 n.180 Webster, B. 3 n.10 Wolff, C. 9 n.20 (2×), 12, 12 n.22, 47 n.1, 173 Weigold, M. 3 n.9, 253 n.62, 265, 266 n.90, n.207, 237 n.10 269, 269 n.105 van der Woude, A.S. 49 n.10 Weinfeld, M. 277 n.134 Wright, B.G. iii 58, 58 n.42–44, 59, 59 Werline, R. 93 n.146 n.45–46 von Weissenberg, H. 253 n.62, 255 n.67 Wright, G.E. 72 n.110 Wenell, K.J. 201 n.73, 256 n.69, 258 n.73 Wright, J.E. 244 n.37 Werman, C. 14 n.2, 62 (2×), 63 (4×), 63 n.65–70, 64 (2×), 64 n.71–76, 65 (4×), 66 Yadin, Y. 19, 19 n.20–22 (3×), 28 n.60 (4×) (2×), 67 (2×), 68 (4×), 69 (2×), 71 n.104, Yardeni, A. 94 n.156–157, 264 n.85, 268 n.96, 101, 103, 113, 113 n.30, 149, 149 n.150, 155, 155 n.98 n.163, 156 n.165, 162 n.182, 163 n.182, 166 n.192, 172 (3×), 172 n.203–205, 175 n.1, 175, Zahn, M.M. 16 n.7, 26 (3×), 26 n.54, 29 n.61 185, 188, 188 n.36, 190 n.51, 191 n.55, 192 (3×), Zerubavel, E. 40 n.107 192 n.58, 193 n.59, 201 n.75, 202 n.76, 78 Zunz, L. 17 n.12 (2×) Index of Ancient Sources

Dead Sea Scrolls

Cairo Geniza 17 n.12 7:6–7 270 8:8 269 n.107, 273 n.118 cd (Damascus Document) 1, 2 n.6, 3, 5, 6, 12 8:8–9 274 n.125 (×2), 43, 50, 58, 178, 189 n.43, 202, 235 (2×), 8:19 269 n.107 245 n.40, 249 n.51 (2×), 255, 266 n.90 (2×), 8:16–18 272 268 n.268, 269 n.103, 270 n.112, 271, 271 n.115, 8:16–20 6, 8, 42, 43 272 (2×), 273 (2×), 273 n.121, 281, 285, 286 8:16–21 1 (5×), 287 (4×), 286–287 n.168, 288 (5×), 8:18–19 273 289, 289 n.173, 290, 292, 293 (2×), 294 (4×), 8:19–20 286 294 n.186, 295 (2×), 295 n.192, 300 (2×), 301, 8:20 274 n.123, 304 303, 304 (2×), 305 8:20–21 245 n.40, 270, 273, 283 1:1–2:1 269 8:21 4, 270, 273 n.120 1:1–3 255 n.66 9:7–8 6 n.17 1:3 291 11:7–8 268–269 n.102 1:3–4 291, 299 n.207, 300 16:3–4 178 1:3–8 288, 289 16:5 155 n.164 1:3–11 249, 296 19:1–20:34 270 1:4 291 19:20 269 n.107 1:4–5 291 19:21 274 n.124 1:6 299 n.205 19:33 269 n.107 1:8 292 (2×) 19:30 1 n.1 1:9 290, 293 n.182 19:33–34 3 n.7 1:10 292 (2×), 293 19:33–20:1 270 n.112 1:11 290, 293 n.183 20:9 269 n.107 2:2–13 270 20:12 4, 273 n.120, 283 2:5–7 216 n.96 2:11–12 216 n.96 Cave 1 2:14–4:12a 269 1QIsaa 161 n.180, 166 n.193, 281 2:17 269, 273 n.118 1QpHab 3:5 269, 273 n.118 7:4–5 37 3:11 269, 273 n.118 8–10 222 4:12b–5:15a 270 8:8–13 190 n.51 4:20–5:11 190 n.51 1q19, 1Q19bis, 4q534 (Book of Noah) 23 n.39 5:15–6:11a 269 1q20 (1QapGen) 23 n.39, 24 n.43 (2×), 24 5:20 269 n.45 (2×), 26 5:20–6:2 268 n.99 1q23–1q24, 2q26, 4q530–4q533 (Book of 6:1 269 Giants) 23 n.39, 186 n.33 6:4–5 3 n.6 1q26 (1QInst) 186 n.33 6:7 163 n.185 1q27 (1QMyst) 186 n.33 6:11b–8:21 270 1 i 5 151 6:14 286 1q28 (1qs) Rule of the Community 186 n.33, 6:19 4, 283, 273 n.120 266 n.90 6:21 270 n.111 1:6 269 n.107 7:4–5 270 2:14 269 n.107 340 index of ancient sources

1q28 (1qs) Rule of the Community (cont.) 9:15–17 266 n.91 2:26 269 n.107 10:18 266 n.91 3:3 269 n.107 10:29 266 n.91 5:4 269 n.107 10:31 266 n.91 5:21 211 n.88, 295 n.191 10:5–21 280 n.142 7:19 269 n.107 11:8 266 n.91 7:24 269 n.107 12:6–13:6 280 n.142 8:1–10 213, 225 n.115 12:11 279–280 n.141 8:5 130 12:14 279–280 n.141 8:12–14 269 n.108 12:31–32 266 n.91, 279 n.141 9:3–5 213, 225 n.115 13:7–21 280 n.142 9:7 211 n.88, 295 n.191 13:10 266 n.91 9:10 269 n.108 13:22–15:8 280 n.142 9:11 199 n.70 15:5–6 266 n.91 1Q28a (1QSa) Rule of the Congregation 15:9–28 280 n.142 1:23 211 n.88, 295 n.191 16:5–17:37 280 n.142 2:13 211 n.88, 295 n.191 16:8 266 n.91 1q29 (1QLit. of 3 Tongues of Fire) 186 n.33 16:11 266 n.91 1q33 (1qm) War Scroll 94, 186 n.33, 266 n.90 16:25 266 n.91 1:2 139, 240 n.27 16:31 266 n.91 1:11–12 267 n.94 17:29–30 266 n.91 3:9 267 n.94 6:13–14 267 n.94 Cave 2 7:10 211 n.88, 295 n.191 2q13 (2QJer) 14 n.1, 46, 264 n.84 15:1 267 n.94 2q22, 4q371, 4q372, 4q373, 4q373a Narrative 16:1 267 n.94 and Poetic Composition 128, 186 n.33 17:2 211 n.88, 295 n.191 2q24 (2qnj ar) 186 n.33 18:8 267 1q34 (1QLitPra) 186 n.33 Cave 3 1Q34bis (1QLitPrb) 186 n.33 3q4 (3QpIsa) 185 1qha Hodayot 6 n.16, 12, 186 n.33, 266 n.90, 278, 278 n.136, 279 n.138 Cave 4 2:32 277 n.134 4q70 (4QJera) 14 n.1, 46, 264 n.84, 267 (2×) 3:25 277 n.134 4q71 (4QJerb) 14 n.1, 46, 264 n.84 4:26 266 n.91 4q72 (4QJerc) 14 n.1, 46, 264 n.84, 267 (3×) 5:13 277 n.134 4Q72a (4QJerd) 14 n.1, 46, 264 n.84 6:35 2 n.6 4Q72b (4QJere) 14 n.1, 46, 264 n.84 7:21–8:40 278 4q89 (4QPsg) 7:25–26 266 n.91 1 5 133 n.107 7:27 279 4q117 (4QEzra) 185 n.30 7:27–28 266 n.91 4q158, 4q364–4q367 Reworked Pentateuch 7:28 278 23 n.39, 24 n.43, n.45 (2×), 25–26 (3×), 7:30 279 28, 29 n.61, 186 (4×), 253 n.62, 255 7:31–32 279 n.67 7:30 266 n.91 4q159 (4QOrda) 186 n.33 7:34 266 n.91 4q160 (4QVisSam) 23 n.39 8:23 278 4q161 (4QpIsaa) 185 8:26 266 n.91 2–4 2–10 186 8:27 266 n.91 4q162 (4QpIsab) 185 index of ancient sources 341

4q163 (4Qpap pIsac) 185 2 297 1 4 268 n.101, 274 n.123 3 297 4–7 ii 19–21 186 5–6 297 4q164 (4QpIsad) 185 9 297 4q165 (4QpIsae) 185 10 297 4q166 (4QpHosa) 11 ii 297 2 4–6 268 n.99 12 297, 298, 300 2:14–17 197–198 n.69 13 297, 298, 299 4Q169 (4QpNah) 13 2–4 110 3:8 129 13 1–4 298, 299 3:10 130 (2×), 131 (2×) 16 297, 300 3:11 131 16 1 122 n.65 4:1 132 (2×) 19 297, 300 4:2 132 (2×) 19 1 300 4q171 (4QpPsa) 20 297 2:16–20 222 21 297 3:1 2 n.6 22 297 4:24 2 n.6 24 297 4q174 (4QFlor) 275, 275 n.128 25 297 4q175 (4QTest) 26 297 1–20 199 n.70 28 297 4q177 (4QCatena a) 12, 266 n.90, 273, 274 33 297 n.122, 275, 276 (2×), 276 n.131, 279, 281, 285, 34 297 304 35 297 5–6 13 106 4q244 (4QpsDanb ar) 12, 186 n.33, 296 10–11 8 255 n.66 1–4 297 12–13 i 6 275 8–9 297 4q178 4QMidr Eschatd? 12 297, 298 4q180, 4q181 Ages of Creation a–b 187 n.35 12 2–3 299 4q182 (4QCatena b) 1, 12, 266 n.90, 268, 273, 12 2–4 110, 299 274 n.122–123, 275 (2×), 274 n.123, 275 n.126, 13 297 276 n.131, 279, 281, 285, 304 4q245 (4QpsDanc ar) 164 n.187, 187 n.35, 199 1 4 1–2, 7 4q247 (4QApocWeeks?) 48 1 4–5 274 4q249 [=4q250 Recto] (4Qpap cryptA msm) 4q208–4q211 Astronomical Enoch 23 n.39 1 2 112 4q213–4Q214b Aramaic Levi Document 23 4q249c (4Qpap cryptA sec) n.39 1 5 211 n.88 4q215 (4QTNaph) 23 n.39, 185 n.30 4q249f (4Qpap cryptA sef) 4q225–4q226 Pseudo-Jubilees 23 n.39, 186 1–3 2 211 n.88 4q225 (4QpsJuba) 4q249g (4Qpap cryptA seg) 2 i 9 155 n.164 3–7 13 211 n.88 2 ii 6–7 155 n.164 4q251 (4QHalakhah a) 30 2 ii 13–14 155 n.164 4q252 (4QcommGen a 24 n.45 (2×) 4q242 (4QPrNab ar) 4 4 120 4 2 161 4q253 (4QcommGen b) 24 n.45 (2×) 4q243–4q244 Pseudo-Daniel 110, 235, 287, 4Q253a (4QcommMal) 24 n.45 (2×) 296, 297 n.198 4q254 (4QcommGen c) 24 n.45 (2×) 4q243 (4QpsDana ar) 12, 296 4Q254a (4QcommGen d) 24 n.45 (2×) 1 297 4q255 (4QpapSa) 186 n.33 342 index of ancient sources

4q256 (4qsb) 186 n.33 5 5 151 20 1 120 5 13 151 4q257 (4QpapSc) 186 n.33 6 8 151 4q258 (4qsd) 186 n.33 6 17 151 2 1 211 n.88 4q321, 4Q321a 4QCalendrical Document/ 7 7 211 n.88 Mishmarot b–c 186 n.33 4q259 (4qse) 186 n.33 4Q324i, 4q328, 4q329 4QMishmarot a / f / g 4q260 (4qsf) 186 n.33 186 n.33 4q261 (4qsg) 186 n.33 4q339 (4QList of False Prophets ar) 267 4q262 (4qsh) 186 n.33 4q364 (4qrpb) 4q263 (4qsi) 186 n.33 20 3 284 n.158 4q264 (4qsj) 186 n.33 23 i 15 284 n.158 4Q264a, 4q420, 4q421 Ways of Righteousness 26 ii 2 284 n.158 186 n.33 4q368 (4QapocrPent a) 23 n.39 4q266–4q273 4QDamascus Document 189 4q369, 4q499 Prayer of Enosh 23 n.39, 186 n.43 n.33 4q266 (4qda) 186 n.33, 266 n.90 4q371 (4QNarrativea) 186 n.33, 266 n.90 2 ii 8 255 n.66 1 1–13 169 5 ii 5 211 n.88 2 2 169 4q267 (4qdb) 186 n.33 4q372 (4QNarrativeb) 186 n.33, 266 n.90, 299 2 4 7 268 n.99 n.206 5 ii 3 268–269 n.102 1 299 n.206 4q268 (4qdc) 186 n.33 1 3–6 299 n.206 1 11 255 n.66 1 1–16 169 4q269 (4qdd) 186 n.33 1 14 139, 240 n.27 4q270 (4qde) 186 n.33 1 16–31 169 2 ii 6 211 n.88 2–3 169 6 ii 17 178 4q373 186 n.33 6 ii 18 155 n.164 4q374 (4q Exod/Conq. Trad.) 23 n.39 4q271 (4qdf) 186 n.33 4q375–4q376 Apocryphon of Moses 23 n.39, 4 ii 5 178 186 n.33 4 ii 6 155 n.164 4q378–4q379, 5q9 Apocryphon of Joshua 23 4q272 (4qdg) 186 n.33 n.39, 294 1 ii 2 211 n.88 4q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms b) 72 n.111 4q273 (4QpapDh) 186 n.33 4q383 (4QapocrJer a) 4, 8 (×2), 8 n.19, 11, 46 4q276 (4QTohorot ba) 186 n.33 (2×), 46, 49, 59, 61, 63 n.66, 71, 71 n.104 (2×), 4q277 (4QTohorot bb) 186 n.33 176 (4×), 177, 178, 180, 188 4q279 (4QFour Lots) 4 2 243 n.34 5 4 211 n.88 5 2 177 4q285 (4qsm) 186 n.33 4q384 (4QapocrJer b?) 4, 8 (×2), 8 n.19, 4q286 (4QBera) 186 n.33 11, 46, 59, 61, 71, 176, 177 (2×), 178, 180, 17b 1 211 n.88 188 4q287 (4QBerb) 186 n.33 7 2 177–178 4q288 (4QBerc) 186 n.33 4q385, 4q385b, 4q385c, 4q386, 4q388 4q299 (4QMysta) 186 n.33 Pseudo-Ezekiel 23 n.39, 23 n.43, 46, 4q300 (4QMystb) 186 n.33 47, 48 n.2, 49, 53 (3×), 54 (4×), 55 (3×), 4q301 (4QMystc) 187 n.35 57 (3×), 58 (2×), 59 (2×), 61, 61 n.55 4q319 (4QOtot) (2×), 62, 63, 63 n.65, 68, 69, 74, 186 n.33, 4 17 151 253 index of ancient sources 343

4q385 (4QpsEzeka) 48 n.3, 49 (2×), 103 (5×), 142 (2×), 149, 150, 153, 157, 165 55 (3×), 56 (4×), 60, 60 n.51, 63 n.65, n.189, 166, 217, 235 n.3, 248, 248 n.48, 260, 69 302, 303 2 48 n.3, 55 n.26 1 56, 69 (2×), 69 n.100, 74 (4×), 2 1 57 75 (4×), 75 n.123, 80, 81 (5×) 81 2 2 55 n.131 (2×), 82 (6×), 86 (3×), 88, 2 5 57 90 3 4 57 1–6 157 4 48 n.3, 57 1 i 84 (2×), 90 (2×), 104–105 6 48 n.3 1 i 7 90 (2×), 247 4q385a, 4q387, 4q388a, 4q389 Apocryphon of 1 i 7–8 87 Jeremiah c 8 (4×), 9 (2×), 10, 11 (9×), 12 1 i–11 90 (4×), 14 (2×), 14 n.2, 15 (6×), 15 n.3, 16 (2×), 1 ii 68, 69, 84, 86, 104, 105–107, 193 26 (4×), 27, 28, 29 (4×), 36 (2×), 37, 40, 41 1 ii 2 180 (2×), 42, 44, 45 (2×), 46 (3×), 47 (4×), 49 1 ii 2–3 159, 193 n.14, 53 (4×), 54 (3×), 55 (2×), 57 (2×), (3×), 1 ii 4 159, 161, 177, 179, 180, 261 59 (2×), 61 (2×), 61 n.55, 62 (3×), 63 (6×), 1 ii 5 87, 89 63 n.65, 63 n.66 (2×), 64 (4×), 64 n.70, 65 1 ii 5–6 159 (8×), 66 (7×), 67 (3×), 67 n.92, 68 (5×), 69 1 ii 6–8 75 (5×), 70 (5×), 71 (2×), 71 n.104, 73, 74, 79, 1 ii 7 87, 105, 159, 193, 194 84, 85, 85 n.137 (2×), 86 (2×), 93 (3×), 93 1 ii 7–8 86 n.145, 93 n.146, 95, 99, 100, 101 (5×), 102, 1 ii–2 84, 94, 101 103, 143 n.144, 160 n. 175, 163 n.183 (2×), 1–3 85, 86 165 (3×), 168, 169 (3×), 170 n.201, 171 (2×), 1–5 75 171 n.202, 172 (3×), 173 (3×), 174 (3×), 177 1–6 57, 69 n.100, 73, 77 (2×), 79, 80, (5×), 178 (3×), 179 (5×), 191 (5×), 175 (6×), 81, 86, 88, 90, 103 (3×) 176 (3×), 180 (5×), 181 (2×), 184 (3×), 188 2 73, 74 (3×), 75 (2×), 84, 86 (7×), 190 (3×), 192 (4×), 193 (3×), 194–195 (4×), 87, 104, 107, 193 n.63, 194, 195 (3×), 196 (6×), 196 n.66, 197 2 1 193, 194 (2×), 198 (7×), 199 (3×), 200 (2×), 201, 203 2 2 87, 159 (5×), 204 (2×), 205 (8×), 206 (5×), 207 (6×), 3 56, 67 n.92, 69, 74 (2×), 75 208 (4×), 208 n.85, 210 (3×), 213 (2×), 214 (3×), 86 (3×), 87 (4×), 95, 98, (2×), 217 (2×), 220, 226, 234 (4×), 217 n.97 107–112, 145, 146, 147, 160, 193 (3×), 223 (2×), 225, 226 n.116 (2×), 227 (6×), (2×), 197 n.68 227 n.117, 228 (3×), 229 (4×), 230 (4×), 231 3 2–9 98 (8×), 232 (6×), 233 (3×), 235 (4×), 236 (2×), 3 2 57, 145, 159, 219 n.101 238, 239, 240 (3×), 241 (2×), 241 n.28–29, 3 4 98, 147 (2×) 242 (2×), 242 n.31, 243 (4×), 243 n.35, 244 3 5 245 (2×), 244 n.37, 245 (3×), 245 n.40 (6×), 3 5–7 256, 299 n.207 247 (2×), 249 (2×), 250 (2×), 252 (2×), 253 3 5–8 159 (5×), 255 (2×), 256 (3×), 257, 257 n.72, 258 3 6–7 193, 200 (2×), 259, 260 (2×), 261 (2×), 262 (3×), 263 3 6–9 197 (5×), 264, 274 n.123, 277, 284 (3×), 285, 303, 3 6–11 86 304 3 7 196, 298 4q385a (4QapocrJer ca) 4 n.12, 10 (×2), 11, 14, 3 7–8 87 47 (2×), 46 n.3, 49, 51 n.16, 48 n.3, 56 (2×), 3 7–9 87 56 n.32, 69, 70 (7×), 71 (3×), 73 (2×), 77, 74 3 8–10 87 n.120, 79, 84, 86 (2×), 93 (3×), 95 (3×), 98 3 9 159, 207 (4×), 99 (2×), 100, 101 (4×), 102, 102 n.172, 3–4 160 344 index of ancient sources

4q385a (4QapocrJer ca) (cont.) 10 ii 1 77 3–5 69 (2×), 73, 74, 81, 98, 102 n.172, 10 ii 2 88 166, 175 n.3, 236 10 ii 3 88, 89, 198 3–6 66, 84, 103 10 ii 3–5 88 4 67 n.92, 69, 74, 75, 94, 95, 96, 10 ii 5 88, 89 98, 112–114, 160, 160 n.174 10–11 74, 77 (2×), 79, 80 (2×), 82, 88 4 1 57, 162, 411 (3×), 89 4 1–2 162 10–15 249 4 1–9 63 n.70, 149 10–17 i 84 (2×) 4 2 161 10–18 80, 81, 86, 90, 103, 157 4 2–4 161 11 74, 77 (4×), 91 4 2–5 160 11 i 77, 86, 88 4 4 211 11 i–ii 88, 89, 120, 121–123 4 4–6 160 11 i 1 88 4 4–7 161 11 i 2 77 4 5 149, 162, 169 n.199, 211 11 i 3 88, 159, 166 n.192 4 6 57, 162, 210, 211 11 i 3–4 166 4 7 149 11 i 3–5 88 4 8 150, 210, 211 11 i 4 166 4 8–9 204 11 i 5 89 4 9 162, 178, 204, 213, 251 11 ii 77, 88 4–5 85, 145, 214 11 ii 1 166 4–6 83 11 ii 3 88 5 57, 69, 74, 75, 77, 94, 95, 96, 98, 12–13 74, 77, 122 115–117, 165 (2×) 14 77, 78, 80, 88, 89, 91, 123–124 5 1 98, 153, 156 14–16 69 5 2 164, 165, 195, 198, 199 14–17 77 5 3 165, 194 14–18 74, 77 (3×), 79, 80 5 3–4 156 15 77 (3×), 74, 78 (3×), 78 n.126, 5 4 153, 219 80, 88, 89 5 5 154, 219 15 i 89, 124–125 5 7 57 15 i–ii 79 5 7–8 164, 219 15 ii 78, 79, 86, 89 5 7–9 156, 195, 198 15 ii 1–2 78, 79 5 8–9 200, 200 n.72 15 ii 2–3 78, 79 (2×), 167 5 9 251 15 ii–16 89, 125–127 6 69, 69 n.100, 74, 77, 84, 90, 15–17 89 (2×) 117–119, 165 (2×) 16 77, 78 (9×), 78 n.126, 79 (2×), 6 2 165 80 (2×), 86, 89 (9×), 167, 249 6 3 165 16 1–2 79 (2×) 8 74, 75, 141 16 2–3 79 (3×) 8 2 260 16 3 188 n.40 8–9 74 (3×), 74 n.120, 80 (2×), 86, 16 3–4 79 (2×) 103 16 4 89 (2×) 9 74, 75, 141–142 16 6 89 10 74, 77 (7×), 90, 91 16 7 57, 168, 171 n.202, 248 10 i 3 88, 89 16–17 85 10 i–ii 88, 89, 120–122 17 69, 74 (3×), 74 (2×), 77 (3×), 78 10 ii 77, 86, 88, 166 (5×), 78 n.126, 80 (4×), 88 (6×) index of ancient sources 345

17 i 78 (2×), 79, 86, 89 (2×), 240, 247 (3×), 248, 250 (2×), 125–127 263 17 i 3–4 78, 79 (2×), 167 18 ii 1 175, 177–178, 239 17 i 4 89, 167 18 ii 1–5 158 17 i 4–5 78, 79, 89 (2×) 18 ii 2 171, 239 17 i 5 89 18 ii 2–3 57, 143, 236 (2×), 247 17 i–ii 79, 81 n.131, 88, 89 18 ii 2–4 239, 245 17 ii 77, 84 (2×), 89, 128–132, 241, 18 ii 2–5 277 241 n.28 18 ii 3 248 17 ii 3 166, 168 (2×) 18 ii 3–4 169, 171 17 ii 4–9 168 18 ii 3–10 81 17 ii 4–15 169 18 ii 4–5 177, 240 17 ii 5–6 78, 241 n.28 18 ii 6 81, 239 17 ii 7 169 18 ii 7 143, 180, 240 17 ii 8–9 169 18 ii 8 57, 81, 232, 240, 249 18 55 n.26, 73, 77 (3×), 74 (2×), 80 18 ii 7–10 245 (3×), 81 n.131, 100, 170 n.201, 174, 18 ii 8 226 n.116 177, 214, 235 n.6 18 ii 8–10 86, 90 (2×), 241 18 i 84 (2×), 132–137, 142, 174, 193, 18 ii 10 90 236 (2×), 237, 247, 248, 250, 18 ii 16 171 251, 263 18 ii 16–17 262 18 i–ii 48 n.3, 55, 78, 80 (2×), 85, 90, a 141 100, 170, 170 n.199, 171 n.202, a–k 122 235, 236, 241 4q385b (4QpsEzekc) 55, 62 n.61 18 i 1 170 4q385c (4QpsEzek?) 51 n.16 18 i 2 143 4q386 (4QpsEzekb) 49, 49 n.9, 55, 55 n.27, 56 18 i 3 162 n.183 (2×), 61 18 i 4 237 (2×) 1 i 60 18 i 4–5 170 1 i–iii 60, 61 n.55 18 i 5 198, 199 (2×) 1 ii 60 18 i 5–6 78, 237 1 ii 1 57 18 i 6 55, 240 1 ii 2 57 18 i 6–7 204, 237, 239 1 iii 60 18 i 6–10 158 1 iii 1 61 n.55 18 i 6–11 237 4q387 (4QapocrJer cb) 4 n.12, 8 n.19, 10, 12, 18 i 7 171, 178, 179, 193, 194, 196, 204, 14, 49, 49 n.9, 56 (3×), 67 n.91, 70 (2×), 74, 213, 214, 237, 245 93 (5×), 93 n.147, 94 (2×), 95 (4×), 98 (2×), 18 i 7–11 177 99 (2×), 101, 102 n.172 (2×), 106 (3×), 113 18 i 8–9 247 (3×), 116, 179, 217, 255, 258 (3×), 284, 302, 18 i 8–10 171, 240 303, 305 18 i 9 240, 250 1 56, 67 n.92, 85, 88, 95 (4×), 18 i 9–11 285 96 (4×), 109, 111, 114, 160, 18 i 10 156, 198, 199 (2×), 231 193, 197 n.68, 240 n.26, 18 i 10–11 199 255 18 i 11 193 n.60 1 1 160 n.174 18 i 16–18 231 (2×) 1 2 98, 109, 109 n.18, 254 18 ii 80, 81 (3×), 82 (5×), 84 (3×), 1 2–4 256, 300 n.207 88, 90 (2×3), 137–140, 142 (2×), 1 2–5 159 167, 172, 174, 231 (2×), 239 (3×), 1 3 109, 110 346 index of ancient sources

4q387 (4QapocrJer cb) (cont.) 2 iii 95 (2×), 96 (5×), 98, 99, 115 1 3–4 193, 197, 200 (2×), 116, 154–156 1 4 88, 110, 111, 298 2 iii 1 241, 248 n.49, 210, 213, 214, 225 1 5 111, 207 (2×) 1 6 138, 159 2 iii 1–2 158, 195, 202 1 7 257 n.72, 299 2 iii 1–7 98 1 7–8 100, 151 2 iii 2 216 (2×) 1 7–9 180, 257 2 iii 2–5 162 1 8 100, 257 n.72 2 iii 3 153, 216, 194–195 n.63, 257 n.70 1 9 160, 213 n.92 2 iii 3–4 225 1 10 100 2 iii 3–5 163, 169 n.199, 205, 254, 258 1–2 i 99, 146–148 2 iii 3–6 151, 163 n.184, 206 1–3 66, 98 (2×), 103, 175 n.3, 181 2 iii 4 57, 64, 67, 207, 216 (2×), 217, n.20, 236 245 n.64 1–4 94, 179, 240 n.26 2 iii 4–5 115, 153, 194–195 n.63, 209, 216, 2 94, 95 (3×), 96 (4×) 230, 258 (2×) 2 i 96, 98, 160 2 iii 5 151, 257 n.72 2 i–ii 94, 95 2 iii 6 115, 116, 194, 198, 206, 210, 216, 2 i–iii 11, 94 271, 226 (2×) 2 i 1 137 2 iii 6–7 115, 163, 195, 199 2 i 3 110, 159 2 iii 7 116, 153, 194, 206 2 ii 63 n.70, 95 (4×), 96 (6×), 2 iii 7–8 164 148–150, 160 3 67, 72, 95 (3×), 96 (10×), 115 2 ii–iii 67 n.92, 85, 94, 95, 96, 194 (3×), 154–155, 156–157, 166 2 ii 1 188 n.40, 225 n.114, 291 n.177 n.191 2 ii 1–2 261 3 1 116, 153, 194, 219, 226 2 ii 1–5 95 3 1–5 219 2 ii 2 57, 138, 161, 177 3 2 116, 219, 226 2 ii 2–3 140, 161, 210, 248, 291 n.177 3 3 116 2 ii 2–11 96 3 4 164 n.188 2 ii 3 166 n.192 3 4–5 57, 117, 164, 219 2 ii 3–4 162 (2×), 166, 177, 178, 203, 210, 3 4–6 198 250, 291 n.178 3 4–9 223 2 ii 4 57, 113, 180, 211, 298 3 5 137 2 ii 4–5 162 3 6 221, 222 (2×) 2 ii 4–6 261, 269 3 6–9 262 2 ii 5 113, 225 n.114 3 7 188 n.40, 222 2 ii 5–7 160 3 7–8 164, 222, 226 2 ii 6 98, 113, 210, 211 3 8 196, 223 (2×) 2 ii 6–8 212 3 8–9 164 2 ii 6–9 160 3 12 194 2 ii 7 113, 162, 211, 214 3 13–14 200 2 ii 8 57, 114, 162, 206, 211 (2×), 217 3 13–17 195 2 ii 8–9 114 3 15 200 2 ii 8–12 100 3 17 200 2 ii 9 64, 114, 162, 177, 245 n.64, 256, 4 85, 166 n.191 298 4 3 166 n.191 2 ii 10 114, 156, 169 n.199 4 4 98, 166 n.191 2 ii 11 136, 213 (2×) 5 2 181 n14 index of ancient sources 347

a 94 (3×) 205, 216, 257, 259 a 1–5 240 n.26 7 ii 6 151, 155, 217 (2×), 254, 257 n.72 4q387a (4QapocrJer cf) 4 n.12, 8 n.19, 11, 14, 7 ii 6–7 163, 195, 258 49, 94, 106 (2×), 176, 179, 180 (2×), 255 7 ii 7 116, 194, 199, 206 (2×), 216, 217, 1 11, 85 226 1 1 179 7 ii 7–10 115 1 5 174 n.125 7 ii 8 164 n.188, 195 3 11 7 ii 9 116 (2×), 194 4 179 4q389 (4QapocrJerd) 4 n. 12, 8 n.19, 10, 14, 49, 4 2 179 49 n.9, 56 (3×), 70 (2×), 74, 93 (2×), 95, 99 5 68, 69, 140, 179 (2×), 100 (3×), 100 n.169, 113, 235 (2×), 255, 5 3 105 302, 303 6 2 179 1 11, 85, 91, 93, 99, 100 (2×), 4q388 (4QpsEzekd) 49, 55, 56 (2×), 99 n.163 143–145, 157, 158 (2×), 170 7 ii 3 225 n.114 n.199, n.201, 171 (3×), 177, 236 4q388a (4QapocrJerc) 4 n. 12, 8 n.19, 10, 14, (2×), 236 n.6, 241, 244, 245, 49, 56 (2×), 70 (2×), 74, 93 (2×), 95, 98 (3×), 248, 251, 255 99, 100, 116, 163, 217, 255, 302, 303 1 3 158 1–6 98 1 3–4 169 n.198 1–7 98 1 4–7 158 2–3 85 1 4–11 269 n.108 3 11, 56, 66, 67 n.92, 98 (2×), 99 1 5 231 (3×), 103, 145–146, 159, 175 n.3, 1 5–6 231 193 1 5–7 93 3 2 57, 108, 160, 219 n.101 1 6 135, 204, 204 n.80, 205, 235, 3 3 160 n.174 242, 242 n.31, 246, 249 3 4–6 197, 299 n.207 1 6–7 231, 241 3 4–7 159 1 7 158, 179 3 5 99 2 85, 99, 158 n.173 3 5–6 193, 200, 298 2 1 57, 138, 177, 247 3 6 110 2 3–4 284, 284 n.159 3 7 111, 274 n.125 2 4 284 4 2 166 n.191 2 7 57, 177, 180 6 85, 155 3–7 99 6 2 254 n.64, 298 4 180 7 85, 98, 103, 163 n.184 4–6 85 7 i 98, 99 5 100, 101, 159 n.173 (2×), 179 7 ii 11, 66, 67 n.92, 99 (2×), 115, 116, 5 2 158 n.173 152–154, 175 n.3, 236 6 100 (3×), 100 n.169 7 ii 1 137, 152, 210, 214 6 1 257 n.72 7 ii 1–2 162 6 1–2 100 (2×), 299 7 ii 2–11 95 6 2 100, 257 n.72 7 ii 3 162, 194–195 n.63, 195, 211, 216 6–7 67 n.92 7 ii 3–4 202, 214 6–8 66, 100 7 ii 3–5 195, 202 7 85, 99, 100 (5×), 100 n.169 (2×) 7 ii 4 152, 210, 248 n.49 7 2 100 7 ii 4–5 158 7–8 103 7 ii 5 216 (2×), 225 8 85, 99 (2×), 100 (2×), 100 n.169 7 ii 5–6 151, 162, 163 n.184, 194–195 n.63, (2×) 348 index of ancient sources

4q389 (4QapocrJerd) (cont.) (3×), 292, 293 (2×), 294 (9×), 295 (3×), 295 8 i 100 n.191–192, 296 (3×), 300 (3×), 301 (2×), 301 8 i–ii 100 (2×) n.211, 303 (2×), 303, 306 8 ii 11, 67 n.92, 100, 116, 150–152, 1 64, 66 (3×), 67 n.92, 181 (2×), 162, 175 n.3, 194, 236 183 (5×), 184, 185 (2×), 181 n.20, 8 ii 1–4 63 n.70, 100 183 n.24 8 ii 1–10 96 1 1 188 n.41, 293 n.184 8 ii 2 114, 210, 211, 213 1 2 122, 201 (2×), 208, 210, 211, 214, 8 ii 2–3 204 219, 301 n.211 8 ii 3 135–136 n.127, 162, 178, 204, 213, 1 2–3 198, 206, 212 251 1 2–5 295 n.191 8 ii 4 162, 196 n.65, 254 n.64, 213, 214, 1 3 180, 202, 211 (2×), 219 298 1 4 211, 212, 213,, 220 n.103, 225, 227 8 ii 4–5 207, 256 1 4–5 211, 217 8 ii 4–6 205, 209, 230 1 5 137 n.127, 178, 211, 213 (3×), 214 8 ii 5 89, 159, 162 n.94, 225 (2×), 293 n.183 8 ii 5–6 106, 155, 169 n.199 1 5–6 260, 293 8 ii 6 162, 256, 259 (2×), 260 1 5–7 205, 206, 249 8 ii 7 137, 153, 156, 210, 213 (2×), 214, 1 6 174 n.209, 196 (2×), 214, 224, 225 231, 292 (2×) 8 ii 7–9 162 1 6–7 213, 220, 254, 259 n.74, 291 8 ii 7–11 98 1 6–11 290 8 ii 9 57, 153, 156, 162, 195, 213, 216 1 7 183, 213, 214, 220, 259 n.74, 293 (2×), 225 n.184 8 ii 9–10 153, 195, 202 1 7–8 67 n.92, 197 (2×), 203, 204, 216, 8 ii 10 214 291 8 ii 10–11 95 1 8 192 (2×), 203, 207, 250 9 99 1 8–9 216 (2×), 220 n.103, 251 4q390 (4QapocrJere) 4 n.12, 8 n.19, 11 (5×), 1 9 67 n.92, 112, 147, 207, 210, 216 12 (3×), 14 n.2, 45, 46, 49 (2×), 49 n.9, 50, (2×), 254 n.65, 225, 262, 298 53, 55 n.27, 59, 61, 62, 63 (5×), 63 n.65, 64 1 9–10 220 n.104, 225, 299 n.205 (5×), 65 (8×), 66 (12×), 67 (3×), 67 n.91, 1 9–11 216, 258, 259 67 n.92 (2×), 68 (4×), 69 (2×), 85 n.137, 101 1 10 216 (2×), 254 n.65, 298 (2×), 107 (7×), 122, 145, 163 n.184, 173 (2×), 1 10–11 206 174 (2×), 175 (10×), 176 (5×), 179, 180 (4×), 1 11 57, 155, 155 n.164, 207, 216, 219, 181 (6×), 181 n.20, 183 (3×), 185 (3×), 187, 188 226 (8×), 188 n.42, 189 (2×), 190 (5×), 190 n.51, 1 11–12 201 n.75, 216, 217, 226, 292, 293 191 (6×), 191 n.53 (2×), 192 (9×), 193 (2×), 1 12 180, 212, 220 n.103, 227, 269, 273 193 n.59 (2×), 195 (6×), 197, 197 n.67, 198 n.118 (6×), 197–198 n.63, 200, 202, 202 n.76 (2×), 1–2 72, 299 n.206 203, 204, 205, 206 (8×), 208 (5×), 208 n.85, 1–2 i–ii 85 210 (2×), 211 (2×), 211 n.88–89 (2×), 212, 214, 2 64, 66, 181 (2×), 181 n.20, 183 217 (2×), 220, 222, 223, 224 (2×), 224 n.112, (8×), 184, 185 (2×), 183 n.24 226, 227 (6×), 227 n.117, 228 (2×), 229 (4×), (3×) 230 (4×), 231 (4×), 232 (9×), 233 (5×), 234 2 i 66 (2×) (2×), 235 (2×), 246, 249, 249 n.51 (2×), 250, 2 i 2 196, 197, 219, 226 252 (4×), 253, 255, 225 n.115, 257, 258 (2×), 2 i 2–5 219 259, 259 n.74 (2×), 262 (2×), 263 (4×), 264, 2 i 3 188 n.41 265, 287, 288 n.171, 290, 290 n.175 (2×), 291 2 i 4 219, 226 index of ancient sources 349

2 i 4–5 174 n.209, 226 n.116 4q427 (4qha) 186 n.33 2 i 5 183, 188 n.41 4q428 (4qhb) 186 n.33 2 i 5–6 192 4q429 (4qhc) 186 n.33 2 i 6 122, 197, 222 n.108, 226 4q430 (4qhd) 186 n.33 2 i 6–10 197–198 n.69 4q431 (4qhe) 186 n.33 2 i 7 57, 155, 155 n.164, 207 4q432 (4qhf) 186 n.33 (2×) 2 i 7–8 220, 254, 259 n.74 4q434, 4q435, 4q437, 4q438 Barki Nafshi 186 2 i 8 251, 259 n.74 n.33, 266 n.90 2 i 8–9 192, 221, 222 4q434 (4QBarki Nafshia) 2 i 9 188, 196, 222 1 i 1 277 n.134 2 i 9–10 192, 203, 220, 226 4q439, 4q469 Lament + Narrative i 186 n.33, 2 i 10 192, 198, 222 (2×), 223 266 n.90 2 ii 67, 224, 184 n.29 4q460 (4QNarrative Work and Prayer) 266 2 ii 4–6 273 n.118 n.90 2 ii 7 223 8 2 277 n.134 2 ii 8 149, 223 4q462, 4q467 (4QSelf Glorification Hymn) 2 ii 9 223 186 n.33 2 ii 10 198 4q470 (4QText Mentioning Zedekiah) 12, 2 ii 10–11 192 281 (2×), 281 n.246, 282 n.148, 283, 283 3–8 209 n.86 n.151, 284 (5×), 285 (3×), 285 n.161, 286, 4q391 (4QpsEzeke) 49, 59, 61 306 4q392 (4QWorks of God) 266 n.90 1 134, 282 (2×), 283, 284, 282 4q393 (4QCommunal Confession) n.149 3 277–278 n.134 1 2 282, 282 n.149 4q394 (4qmmtb) 266 n.90, 268 n.101 1 4 283 3 5–7 190 n.51 1 5 283 6 13, 12 268 2 1 283 n.153 4q396 (4qmmtc) 3 282 (2×), 282 n.149 1–2 iv 8, 11 211 n.88 3 5 282 4q397 (4qmmtd) 3 7 284 6–13 14 211 n.88 4q471 (4QWar Scroll-like Text b) 186 n.33 4q400, 4q401, 4q402, 4q403, 4q404, 4q405, 4Q471b (4QSelf Glorification Hymna) 186 4q406, 4q406, 11q7 Songs of the Sabbath n.33 Sacrifice 186 n.33 4Q481d (4QFragments with Red Ink) 105, 4q406 (4QShirShabbg) 105 n.3 1 4 187 3 68, 69, 94, 106 (4×), 107 4q407 (4QShirShabbh) 187 n.35 3 1 105 4q408 (4QApocr Mosc?) 186 n.33 3 3 105 n.3, 106 4q415 (4QInstructiona) 186 n.33 4 106 4q416 (4QInstructionb) 186 n.33 5 106 2 ii 12 277 n.134 4q482 (4QpapJubi) 186 4q417 (4QInstructionc) 186 n.33 4q483 (4QpapGen or Jub[?]) 186 4q418 (4QInstructiond) 186 n.33, 266 n.90 4q491 (4qma) 186 n.33 4Q418a (4QInstructione) 186 n.33 4q492 (4qmb) 186 n.33 4q419, 4q466 Sapential Work b 186 n.33 4q493 (4qmc) 4q421 (4QWays of Righteousnessb) 1 1 211 n.88 1a i 4 211 n.211 4q494 (4qmd) 186 n.33 4q423 (4QInstructiong) 186 n.33 4q495 (4qme) 186 n.33 4q427–4q429 4QHodayot 189 n.43 4q496 (4qmf) 186 n.33 350 index of ancient sources

4q504 (4QDibHama) 186 n.33, 266, 266 5q20 (5QUnid) n.90 1 2 211 n.88 5:2–3 277–278 n.134 6:4 277–278 n.134 Cave 6 18:3–4 266, 266 n.92 6q8 (6QpapGiants ar) 186 n.33 19:4–5 266 n.92 6q12 (6QapocrProph) 176 n.4 4q505 (4QpapDibHamb?) 266, 186 n.33 6q15 (6qd) 186 n.33 (2×) 4q506 (4QpapDibHamc) 186 n.33, 266 Cave 7 4q508 (4QPrFêtesb) 186 n.33 7q2 (7QLXXEpJer) 4q509 (4QpapPrFrêtesc) 186 n.33 (2×) 43–44 6 n.16 4q510, 4q511 Songs of the Sage 4q511 (4QShirb) Cave 11 63–64 ii 3 120 11q5 (11QPsa) 266 n.90 63 iii 2 120 26 13–15 278 n.137 4q513 (4QOrdb) 11q10 (11QtgJob) 266 n.90 10 ii 8 211 n.88 3:2 133 n.107 4q514 (4QOrdc?) 187 n.35 11q11 (11QapocrPs) 4q522 (4QapoccrJoshc) 266 n.90 2 4 155 n.164 4q524 (4qt) 189 n.43 11q14 (11qsm) 186 n.33 4q525 (4QBeat) 11q18 (11qnj ar) 186 n.33 19 4 155 n.164 11qta 19, 19 n.22 (2×), 23 n.39, 24 n.43 (2×), 26, 4q534, 4q535, 4q536 Birth of Noah 28, 28 n.60 (2×), 189 n.43 4q537 (4QTJacobar?) 266 n.90 22:5 211 n.88 4q540–4q541 Apocryphon of Levi? 23 n.39 34:13 211 n.88 4q542 (4QTQahat ar) 23 n.39 44:5 211 n.88 4q543–4q548 Visions of Amram 23 n.39, 186 46:10 197 n.67 n.33, 187 n.35 51–66 255 n.67 4q552, 4q553 Four Kingdoms 186 n.33 52–66 253 n.62 4q552 (4QFourKgdmsa ar) 187 57:11–14 261 n.78 4q553 (4QFourKgdmsb ar) 187 59:2 162 4q553a (4QFourKgdmsc ar) 187 59:2–9 255 n.66 4q554 (4qnja ar) 186 n.33 59:6 162 4q555 (4qnjc ar) 186 n.33 11q20 (11qtb) 4q570 (4QUnid h ar) 5 25 211 n.88 30 3 274 n.123 1q22 (1qdm) 4q583 4QProphecye ar 266 n.90 1 i 3 211 n.88 11q29 (11qs-Like) 186 n.33 Cave 5 5q11 (5qs) 186 n.33 Murrabbaʿat 5q12 (5qd) 186 n.33 Mur 88 MurXII 5q15 (5qnj ar) 186 n.33 17:16 130

Hebrew Bible (픐)

Genesis Exodus 15:10 128 32:6 87 n.142 40:19 124 index of ancient sources 351

Leviticus 6:5 261 1:5–8 201 6:14 140 2:1–16 201 8:2 141 4:1–5:13 201 8:5 141 5:14–26 201 8:11 260, 260 n.76 8:1–36 201 8:11–20 245 16:33 197 n.67 8:12 260 n.76 18:24–30 256 n.69 8:14 260 20:3 110 n.21 9:23–24 284 n.158 20:10 275 n.126 9:26–29 277–278 n.134 20:22–26 256 n.69 11:9 166 n.194 22:2 110 n.21 11:24 167 n.196 22:32 110 n.21 12–23 253 n.62 26 256 17:16 241 26:22 127 17:20 261 n.78 26:34–35 256 n.69 18:9–22 36 n.88 26:38–39 147 18:21 141 26:39 148 21:23–25 166 n.195 26:43 151 (2×), 162, 256 26:9 166 n.194 26:44–45 256 26:15 166 n.194 27:1 238, 245 Numbers 159, 167, 269 27:3 166 n.194, 245 13:25–26 282 28:15–68 245 13:27 166 n.194 28:28 261 14:8 166 n.194 28:65 260–261 n.77 14:23 269 29:3 260, 260–261 n.77 16:13–14 166 n.194 29:18 217, 260–261 n.77 33:1–49 238 29:27 162 35:33 194 n.63 31:9 245 31:16–17 245 Deuteronomy 12, 14, 17, 28, 36 n.88, 44, 54, 31:17 149 58, 141, 159, 167, 171, 238, 243, 245, 252, 253 31:17–18 298 n.204 (2×), 253 n.62 (4×), 255 (3×), 255 n.67 (2×), 31:20 166 n.194, 269, 298 272 n.117 n.204 1–3 159 31:24 245 1:1–2 284 n.158 32 300 n.206 1:1–3 135 32:16–18 254, 255, 260 1:3–5 238, 245 32:17 255, 256 1:3–8 238 32:17–18 254 (2×), 256, 259 1:19 282 32:20 254 n.63 1:19–32 284 n.159 34:4 238 2:14–15 284 n.158 34:10–12 27 2:23–27 238 2:34–46 282 Joshua 3:23–27 135 1:4 167 n.196 4:11 260–261 n.77 13:14 141 4:39 141 4:44–46 238, 245 Judges 6:3 166 n.194 20:26 87 352 index of ancient sources

Judges (cont.) Isaiah 3, 7, 9, 14 21:4 87 1:1 185 1–2Samuel 58 2:2 130 n.99, 132 5:5–6:9 185 1Samuel 8:7–32:6 185 8:6 100 8:17 254 n.63 10:22–27 186 2Samuel 10:22–11:5 185 7:1 58 10:23–24 186 24:25 87 14:3–4 161 n.180 14:4 161 n.180 1–2Kings 58, 159 14:19–32:7 185 18:1 126 1Kings 24:5 194 n.63 1:13 106 n.6 26:9 106 1:17 106 n.6 27:1 131 1:30 106 n.6 48:12 109 1:46 106 n.6 51:1 255 n.66, 269 2:12 106 n.6 51:7 255 n.66, 269 2:19 106 n.6 52:11 242 n.32 2:44 141 54:12 185 3:15 87 64:7 254 n.63 8 87 8:38–39 141 Jeremiah 2, 3, 4, 5 (×4), 6 (2×), 7 (4×), 8, 9 8:62–66 87, 107, 193 n.20, 13, 14 (2×), 44, 45, 46 (2×), 54, 57, 61 9:19 167 n.196 n.57 (4×), 87 n.141, 92, 143 n.44, 170 n.200 9:25 87 (2×), 237, 240 (2×) 14:15 126 n.78 1:1 44 1:5 266 n.91 (2×), 279 2Kings 272 n.117 1:5–6 159 n.173 4–5 271 1:7 173 n.207 4:8–37 272 n.117 1:7–9 36 n.88 5:1–27 272 n.117 1:9 173 n.207 5:9–27 271 2:7–8 44 n.128 5:19–27 272 2:11 279–280 n.143 5:27 271 2:13 266 n.92, 277–278 n.134 6 271, 272, 272 n.117 3:1–2 194 n.63 6:15 271 3:9 194 n.63 6:17 271 (2×) 3:15–19 3 n.10 8 271 3:17 217 19:29 58 4:5 264 n.84 20:3 58 4:13–16 264 n.84 24:17 282 n.151 5:7 274, 275 25:6 134 5:7–8 275 25:6–7 285 5:8 275 n.126 25:7 134, 285 5:19 266 n.92, 277–278 n.134 25:8 237 n.12 5:29–31 44 n.128 25:20–21 237 6:13 267 n.95 (3×) 25:27 242 n.31 6:19 124 index of ancient sources 353

7:1–2 264 n.84 15:4 113 7:12–14 159 n.173 15:10–21 278 n.136 7:15–19 264 n.84 15:21 277 n.134 7:16 138, 239 n.23 16:16 266 n.91 7:28–9:2 264 n.84 17:6 266 n.91 8:1–3 264 n.84 17:8–26 264 n.84 8:8–10 44 n.128 17:8 266 n.91 (2×) 8:10–11 267 n.95 17:9 277 n.134 8:11 267 n.95 17:13 266 n.92 8:21–9:5 264 n.84 17:14–18 278 n.136 9:7–15 264 n.84 17:22 168 n.102 9:22–10:21 264 n.84 18:15–19:1 264 n.84 9:23 277 n.134 18:18 275, 276 (2×) 10 278 18:18–23 278 n.136 10:9–14 264 n.84 18:22 266 n.91 10:12–13 264 n.84 19:8–9 264 n.84 10:12 266 n.91 20:2–5 264 n.84 10:12–13 278 n.137 20:7–9 264 n.84 10:13 266 n.91 (2×) 20:7–18 278 n.136 10:22–27 186 20:9 266 n.91 10:23 264 n.84, 266 n.91 (3×), 278 20:13 277 n.134 (2×), 279 n.138, 141 20:13–15 264 n.84 10:23–24 186 20:14–18 264 n.84 11:3–6 264 n.84 21:7–10 264 n.84 11:8 277–278 n.134 21:21? 264 n.84 11:9–10 268–269 n.102 21:2 138 11:19–20 264 n.84 21:11–22:30 282 11:10 140 22:4–6 264 n.84 11:12 90, 140 22:10–28 264 n.84 11:14 138, 239 n.23 22:10–12 282 11:18–12:6 278 n.136 22:13–19 282 12 279 23 269 (2×) 12:3 266 n.91, 278, 279 23:1–40 273 12:3–7 264 n.84 23:3–16 264 n.84 13:13–16 264 n.84 23:5 283 12:17–13:7 264 n.84 23:5–6 283 (2×), 285 13:15–17 177 23:5–8 282 13:21 266 n.91 23:9–12 44 n.128 13:22? 264 n.84 23:11 194 n.63 13:27 264 n.84 23:13 269 14:4–7 264 n.84 23:14 279 14:7 267 23:17 269 14:11–18 267 23:20 267 n.94 14:14 279 23:25 269 14:17–18 44 n.128 23:28 279 14:22 266 n.91, 266 n.92, 277–278 24 247 n.47 n.134 24:6–7 260 n.77, 260 n.77 15:1 159 n.173 24:9 113, 217 15:1–2 264 n.84 25 269 354 index of ancient sources

Jeremiah (cont.) 33–34 46 25:1–8 273 33:16–20 264 n.84 25:7–8 264 n.84 33:5 254 n.63 25:15–17 264 n.84 34:3–4 285 25:24–26 264 n.84 34:8–22 282 n.151 25:11 204, 206, 230 34:17 113 25:11–12 122 34:19 129 25:29 267 n.94 36:2 245 25:31 255 n.66, 269 (2×) 36:4 245 26–28 270 36:17 245 26:4–6 159 n.173 36:32 245 26:7 279 38:9 134, 285 n.161 26:10–13 264 n.84 38:22 266 n.91 27 269 39 142 27:1–3 264 n.84 39:4–10 92 27:13–15 264 n.84 39:5 134 27:8–18 273 39:5–14 237 n.13 27:16–22 194 39:5–40:6 237 27:16–28:6 237 n.14 39:6 237 n.13 28:1 268 n.98 39:6–7 285 28:8–9 270 39:11 237 n.12 28:9 279 39:13 237 n.12 29 275 40:1 237 n.12 29:1–23 244 n.38 42–43 142 29:6 270 42–44 92, 239 29:7 270 n.111 42 138 n.131 29:10 122, 204, 206, 230 42:2 138 29:15–32 273 42:7–11 264 n.84 29:18 113 42:14 264 n.84 29:20–23 270 42:15–22 247 n.47 29:22–23 275 43:2–10 264 n.84 29:23 275 n.126 43:7 178 29:24–28 270 43:8–11 264 n.84 29:21–24 268 44:1 178 29:24–32 268 44:1–3 264 n.84 30:6–9 264 n.84 44:12–14 264 n.84 30:7 267 n.94 (2×) 44:11–14 247 n.47 30:10 178, 207 n.84 45:1–5 271 30:17–31:4 264 n.84 46–51 89, 167 31:4–14 264 n.84 46:2–51:64 92 31:19–26 264 n.84 46:27 178, 207 n.84, 213 n.93 31:10 126 n.78, 178, 213 n.93 46:27–47:7 264 n.84 31:31 4 n.14, 273 n.120, 302 48:7 264 n.84 31:31–33 284 48:14 267 n.94 31:31–34 4, 282, 283, 285 48:25–39 264 n.84 31:36 266 n.91 48:43–50 264 n.84 31:33 283 49:10 264 n.84 32:19 266 n.91 50:31–32 161 32:32 137 50:4–6 264 n.84 index of ancient sources 355

51 60, 61 36:3 151 51:2 126 n.78 36:19 126 n.78 51:7 60 36:20–22 110 n.21 51:13 130 36:37–37:1 57 n.34 51:15 266 n.91 37 60 51:16 266 n.91 (2×) 37:1–14 57 51:59–64 244 n.38 38:22–39:1 57 n.34 52:4–27 92 39:5–7 57 n.34 52:9 134 39:7 110 n.21 52:10 237 n.13 39:25 110 n.21 52:10–11 285 39:27–29 57 n.34 52:12–27 237 39:23–24 254 n.63 52:26 237 n.12 43:7–8 110 n.21 52:27 237, 237 n.13 44:8 110 n.21 52:31 242 n.31 Hosea Ezekiel 3, 30, 48, 61 n.57 (4×) 2:9 163 n.185 5:10 126 n.78 3:5 163 n.185 5:12–14 57 n.34. 4:1 255, 269 5:17 127 5:15 106, 163 n.185 6:5 126 n.78 7:10 163 n.185 6:9–11 57 n.34 6:13–7:1 57 n.34 Amos 7:26–8:1 57 n.34 2:7 110 n.21 12:14–17 57 n.34 12:15 126 n.78 Micah 13:10 151 3:4 254 n.63 14:21 127 4:1 130 n.99 20:23 126 n.78 4:11 194 n.63 20:39 110 n.22 22:15 126 n.78 Nahum 168 24:23 147 3 84, 133, 158, 168, 169, 241 24:26–25:1 57 n.34 3:8–9 169 25:10–12 57 n.34 3:8–10 128, 129, 168, 169 (2×) 25:16–26:1 57 n.34 3:8 129 26:5–7 57 n.34 3:12–19 169 28:21–29:1 57 n.34 3:13 131 29:8–10 57 n.34 29:12 126 n.78 Zephaniah 29:20–30:1 57 n.34 3:4 276 30:7–9 57 n.34 3:10 126 30:18–20 57 n.34 30:23 126 n.78 Zechariah 30:24–31:1 57 n.34 6:8 118 30:26 126 n.78 32:14–16 57 n.34 Psalms 14, 57 33:28–30 57 n.34 6:1–4 275 34:26–31 57 n.34 10:11 254 n.63 35:14–36:1 57 n.34 13:2 254 n.63 356 index of ancient sources

Psalms (cont.) 9:13 166 n.195 22:25 254 n.63 9:25 166 n.195 27:9 254 n.63 30:8 254 n.63 Daniel 3, 9, 46, 63, 64, 65 (2×), 67 n.92 33:21 110 n.21, 254 n.63 4 165 44:12 126 n.78 4:34 160 44:25 254 n.63 6 161 51 277–278 n.134 7 128 n.85 51:11 254 n.63 7:13–14 165 63:1 106 7:25 197–198 n.69, 217 n.95 69:18 254 n.63 9–12 64 72:16 132 9 65, 168, 230 78:34 106 9:2 275 n.126, 297 n.199 79:2 124 9:2f. 122 88:15 254 n.63 9:4–19 128 n.85 89:31–32 110 n.21 11 168 102:3 254 n.63 11:32 194 n.63 103:1 110 n.21 11:36 161 n.180 105:3 110 n.21 11:40–41 165 n.191 106:27 126 n.78 11:41–45 167 106:38 194 n.63 106:47 110 n.21 Ezra 58 118:23 118 1:5 139, 240 n.27 135:7 278 n.137 3:12 118 143:7 254 n.63 4:1 139, 240 n.27 145:21 110 n.21 8 242 n.32 9:14–15 216 n.96 Proverbs 1:28–29 106 Nehemiah 58, 185 n.30 11:27 106 3:14–15 185 n.30 9 277–278 n.134 Job 12:44 120 8:5 106 12:47 201 26:13 131 37:9 126 1–2Chronicles 9, 17, 36, 58

Song of Songs 1Chronicles 2:17 129 9:28f 194 3:2 132 16:1 87 16:10 110 n.21 Lamentations 16:35 110 n.21 1:1 139 17:24 130 n.99 21:26 87 Esther 23:28 201 5:14 166 n.195 28:5 106 n.6 6:4 166 n.195 29:16 110 n.21 7:9 166 n.195 29:23 106 n.6 7:10 166 n.195 8:7 166 n.195 index of ancient sources 357

2Chronicles 11:3 139, 240 n.27 6:37–38 58, 207 n.84, 213 n.93 13:9–10 201 7:1 107 29:8 118 7:3 107 29:18 194 7:1–3 107, 193 34:9 139, 240 n.27 7:7 87, 107 35–36 9 n.20 7:14 163 n.185 35:14 107 n.11 11:1 139, 240 n.27 36:7 237 n.14

Septuagint (픊)

Jeremiah 61, 91, 92 (2×), 143 n.144, 167, 237 49:9–12 239 n.12–13, 239 (3×), 240 49:13–17 251 25:14–31:44 89, 92 49:13–22 239 26–31 167 51 240 28:59–64 244 n.38 51:1–10 240 32:40 282 51:31–35 271 33–35 270 52:4–27 92 33:14–16 282 36:1–23 244 n.38 Lamentations 9, 139, 240, 240 n.24 45:9 134, 285 n.161 47:1 237 Nahum 49–51 92, 239 3:8 129, 130 (3×), 131 (2×) 49:1–6 239 (2×) 3:9 131 (3×) 49:1–50:7 250 3:10 132 (5×)

Apocrypha

1Baruch 9, 46, 92, 93 (2×), 93 n.145, 93 2:10 243 n.36 (2×) n.146, 100, 143 n.144, 242 (2×), 242 n.31–33 2:22–24 243 n.36 (2×), 243 (3×), 243 n.35, 244 n.37, 285, 287 2:28 243 n.36 n.160 2:29 243 n.36 1 142 (2×) 3:4 243 n.36 1:1 242 (2×) 3:14 243 1:1–5 144 3:24–25 258 n.73 1:2 242, 242 n.31 4:1 243 n.36 (2×) 1:3 242 (2×) 4:12 243 n.36 1:5 242 5:8 243 n.36 1:5–7 169 n.198 1:8–9 285, 287 n.160 Bel and the Dragon 161 1:15–3:8 169 1:13 246 Susanna 9 1:18 243 n.36 5–9 275 n.126 1:18–19 243 n.36 1:21 243 n.36 Epistle of Jeremiah 9, 46, 244 n.38 2:2 243 n.36 43–44 6 n.16 2:5 243 n.36 358 index of ancient sources

1Maccabees 5:21–23 195 4:36–59 196 n.66 13:3–8 195 7:1–9 195 15:6–19 158 n.171 7:24–25 195 15:13 158 n.171 15:12–16 9 n.20 2Maccabees 9, 46, 158 n.171 1:10ff. 9 n.20 4Maccabees 2:1–3 238 n.18 7:11–12 201 2:2 238 n.18 4:8–10 195 Ben Sira 9 4:18–19 195 49:6 9 n.20 4:24–25 195

Pseudepigrapha (alphabetical)

2Baruch 9 n.20, 48, 58 4Ezra 48, 58 5:5–7 138, 240 n.24 6:1 244 n.38 Aramaic Levi Document (ald) 23 n.39, 202 9:1–2 138, 240 n.24 10:1–5 135, 237 n.15 Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36) 23 n.39 33:2 135, 237 n.15 50:1 244 n.37 Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90) 23 n.39, 48, 49 77:11–87:1 244 n.38 89:51–94:4 49 n.14 77:12–19 244 n.37 77:18 244 n.38 Cave of Treasures 78:1 244 n.37 50:24ff. 9 n.20 87:1 244 n.37 Eupolemus 9 n.20 4Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) 9 n.20 2:10 139, 240 n.24 Jubilees 12, 23 n.39, 24 n.43 (2×), 26 (2×), 3:14 139, 240 n.24 46, 49, 68, 178 (2×), 235, 286–287 n.168, 294 3:15 135, 237 n.15 (8×), 294 n.186, 296 4:6 135, 237 n.15 1:9–15 49 n.14 4:11 244 n.38 1:11 261 n.79 5:19 135, 237 n.15 14:13 300 6:1 244 n.38 23:11–26 49 n.14 6:15–19 244 n.37 6:15–7:1 244 n.38 Lives of the Prophets 9, 9 n.20 7:1 244 n.38 7:12–36 244 n.38 Letter of Enoch (1 En. 91–108) 23 n.39 7:27–29 135, 237 n.15 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (lab) 58 1Enoch 23 n.43, 46, 296 56:6 9 n.20 86:4 275 n.126 Psalms (non-Masoretic) 3Enoch 151 185 n.30 2:3 201 154 185 n.30 155 185 n.30 index of ancient sources 359

Syriac Apocryphon of Jeremiah 9 n.20 Testament of Judah 23 n.39

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Jacob 23 n.39

Testament of Benjamin 23 n.39 Testament of Levi 202

Testament of Joseph 23 n.39 Testament of Moses 49

New Testament

Matthew 2Corinthians 16:14 9 n.20 3:6–18 4 n.14 18:23–25 201 n.73 20:1–16 201 n.73 Hebrews 7:22 4 n.14 Mark 8:6–13 4 n.14 12:1–9 201 n.73 9:15 4 n.14 10:16–17 4 n.14 Luke 22:20 4 n.14 1Peter 244 n.38 1:1 244 n.38 1Corinthians 5:13 244 n.38 11:25 4 n.14

Classical and Rabbinic Sources

Philo 24 b. B. Bat 15a 139, 240 n.24 Josephus 9 n.20, 31 n.69, 35 n.86, 36 n.88 b. Moʾed Qaṭ (2×), 164 n.188 26a 139, 240 n.24 Against Apion (Ag. Ap.) m. Sahn. 1.37 35 n.86, 31 n.69 10:2 272 1:54 36 n.88 b. Sanh. Jewish Antiquities (Ant.) 73.1 268 n.97 9:51–59 272 n. 117 103a 135, 285 n.161 10:120 135, 185 n.161 b. Šabb. 12:316–326 196 n.66 149b 135, 285 n.161 12:413 164 n.188 Lam. Rab. 139, 240 n.24 12:426 164 n.188 Targums Mishnah and Talmud Tg. Onq. m. Abot Deut. 31:17–18 1:1 31 n.69, 35 n.86 298 n.204 b. Arak Deut. 32:20 298 n.204 17a 135, 185 n.161 Tg. Neb. 360 index of ancient sources

Jeremiah Deut. 32:20 298 n.204 10:11 244 n.38 Tg. Esth. 1:1 135, 237 n.15 Nahum 3:9 132 Rabbinic Works Tg. Neof. Midr. Teh. Deut. 31:17–18 137.2 135, 237 298 n.204 Pesiq. Rab Kah. Deut. 32:20 298 n.204 26 135, 237 Tg. Ps.-J. Tanḥ. Buber Deut. 31:17–18 3.7 268 n.97 298 n.204