APPENDIX I

NOTES AND COMMENTS ON READINGS IN 4QZODIACAL PHYSIOGNOMY (4Q186) AND 4QPHYSIOGNOMY AR (4Q561)

4QZODIACAL PHYSIOGNOMY (4Q186)

Notes and Comments on Readings in 4Q186 1 i 4Q186 1 i 4: The small fragment carrying l.4 first appears in PAM 41.314 and is joined in PAM 41.804 with 4Q186 1. The first letter is probably he: two legs and part of the head are visible. Two down strokes, the right one of which curves slightly to the left, follow he. These strokes might have been part of æalep, but this is not clear (see also PAM 42.616). 4Q186 1 i 7: With Allegro, I reconstruct the last letter of this line as qop.1 The long down stroke curves to the left (“s”-shaped). This feature makes it probable that qop should be read here. Wise translates “Anyone, the ha[ir of whose head] shall be,” most likely reconstructing wçwarr[¿ç.2 Although the reconstruction is interesting, the reading is paleographically improbable. The left down stroke extends further down below the right arm than is usual with in/in. Also, one would expect to see remnants of the right arm of in. 4Q186 1 i 8: The second word, μylglgs, “round,” is entirely recorded in paleo-Hebrew characters. Allegro reads μylglg_ _w_, “rounded,”3 but paleo-

1 Allegro, DJD 5.88. See also García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE, 380. Apart from three minor instances, the recent presentation (transcription and translation) of 4QZodiacal Physiognomy by N. Gordon agrees completely with Allegro’s DJD edition and does not add anything new; see D.W. Parry and E. Tov (eds.), Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts (DSSR 6; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 220-23. Therefore, I will not refer individu- ally to this publication in the following discussion. The three minor differences are in 4Q186 1 ii 7: rówbb/rwbb; 1 iii 3: “and his teeth are …”/“and his teeth are elevated”; 2 ii 7: the addi- tional suggestion that çlwg could mean “flowing.” 2 Wise, “Horoscope Written in Code,” 277. 3 Allegro, DJD 5.88-89 (the italics are Allegro’s and indicate the uncertainty of the translation). Note that in his preliminary publication (“Astrological Cryptic Document,” 292- 93), Allegro gives a table of the scripts used in 4QZodiacal Physiognomy that differs from the one in the final publication (Allegro, DJD 5.90). In the preliminary publication Allegro un- derstands the disputed letter to be paleo-Hebrew samek, but suggests that it should be recog- nized as a waw (=w?). In the final publication the table has been adapted and the identifica- tion of a samek has been replaced by a clear waw. But note that both tables are ordered al- APPENDIX I 241

Hebrew samek is clearly visible and there is no need to revert to another reading as this one makes sense.4 In addition, Allegro is uncertain of read- ing gimel. It is not clear whether he understands it to be an example of a paleo-Hebrew or a cryptic character. It is unnecessary to assume that gimel is written in a cryptic script.5 The character is perfectly understandable as paleo-Hebrew gimel. It is comparable with gimel in some of the biblical manuscripts that are written entirely in paleo-Hebrew characters, especially 11QpaleoLeva.6 Strugnell proposes reading μylglgs, assuming a leap by the copyist from waw to samek in paleo-Hebrew, a suggestion adopted by most translators.7 4Q186 1 i 9: The final letters are written continuously, seemingly as one word,8 but it is also possible that the scribe forgot to separate two dis- tinct words.9 The reading of the first three letters is clear, but various read- ings have been proposed for the traces of characters after raç. Allegro reads two separate words, ¿ç‚y_h‚raç, but he gives no translation for the last word (“the flesh of […”).10 According to Carmignac the traces of the letters that follow should be considered as forming one word with raç, which he, contrary to Allegro (raev]), understands to mean “remnant, rest” (ra…v]). He considers the fourth and fifth letters to be either yod or waw, although the fifth letter might also just be an ink spot. The remains of the sixth letter might have belonged to he, dalet, or re (r÷d÷hñwÑyñwÑyraç). If one reads two separate words, then Carmignac tentatively proposes reconstructing j¿rñwÑyraç (“the rest of the moo[n (mon[th)”), but if one word should be read, perhaps one could recon- phabetically, and that the position of the sign for waw/samek remains the same in both publi- cations, namely the alphabetic position of samek. 4 The reading μylglgs is generally accepted. See Carmignac, “Les Horoscopes,” 200; Delcor, “Recherches sur un horoscope,” 299; Licht, “Legs as Signs,” 19; Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V,” 274; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE, 380. Von Stuckrad, Frömmigkeit und Wissenschaft, 119 n. 419, states that Carmignac proposed reading zayin instead of waw, but this is clearly not the case. 5 It does not, for example, correspond in any way with the Cryptic A sign for gimel (cf. Pfann, “Introduction,” 527), nor can it be related to the still undeciphered Cryptic B. 6 In this latter document the paleographic development of gimel has resulted in a subtle variation regarding the tilt of the letter as it is suspended from the upper line, because the scribe apparently had a tendency to let the bottom of the letter swing forward. Cf. R.S. Han- son, “Paleography,” in The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews; Winona Lake, Indiana: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1985), 15. This same trend is observable in 4QZodiacal Physiognomy. Here the scribe has swung the bottom of gimel even more to the left, and the leg of the first gimel curves more inwards to the left than does that of the second gimel. 7 Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V,” 274. See e.g. Maier, Texte vom Toten Meer, 2:135; Wise, “Horoscope Written in Code,” 277; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE, 381. 8 ç‚w_r‚raç, see PAM 41.804; 42.616; 43.344; 43.438. r 9 See also 4Q186 1 ii 8: hawh ça. 10 Allegro, DJD 5.88-89.