AVH5065-6505-Gimse.Pdf (1.961Mb)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANCIENT OR MODERN? An Analysis of Layout and Variant Readings in Unprovenanced Post -2002 “Dead Sea Scrolls” Fragments Ingrid Breilid Gimse Supervisor Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Matthew Phillip Monger MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, AVH5065: Thesis Programme of Professional Study in Theology (30 ECTS), Fall 2018. Word count: 23 985 1 i Foreword This thesis was written as a part of the Professional Study in Theology at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion, and Society. I have enjoyed the work immensely, much thanks to the wonderful people who have helped and encouraged me along the way. I am very grateful, and wish to thank each of you. First and foremost, to my supervisor, Matthew Monger: Thank you for your contagious enthusiasm for ancient scrolls and fragments. You have been an inspiration and an ideal supervisor. I have greatly benefited from your knowledge, encouragement, critical questions, and patience. Thank you for motivating me and helping me to better my work. I will be ever grateful. I also wish to thank Årstein Justnes, Magnar Kartveit, Torleif Elgvin, Hasia Rimon, Josephine Munch Rasmussen, and Ludvik Kjeldsberg. Thank you all for showing interest in my project, sharing of your knowledge, answering questions, and encouraging me in my work. You have all contributed to making this a very enjoyable and educational semester. Without you, the thesis would not be what it is today. Lastly, to my husband, Johan: Thank you for sharing in on my enthusiasm for this project, and for believing in me. Oslo, Norway December 11, 2018. ii iii Abstract Scholars have raised concern regarding the authenticity of several unprovenanced post- 2002 “Dead Sea Scrolls” fragments. In addition to addressing suspicious physical and scribal features, a theory of textual correspondence between the fragments and modern editions of the Hebrew Bible has been proposed. This theory is twofold: It argues 1) that there is a correspondence in line to line layout, and 2) that readings suggested in the critical apparatus by the editors of the modern editions seem to have been imported to the fragments. This thesis intends to aid scholars in determining the fragments’ authenticity by testing the theory of textual correspondence through a systematic analysis of several unprovenanced fragments. Twenty-seven fragments from the Schøyen Collection and the Museum of the Bible Collection have been selected for this analysis. Ten of them are already referred to as modern forgeries in relevant literature, six of which confirm the theory of textual correspondence. It therefore seems probable that textual correspondence is in some cases a characteristic of modern forgery. As seven of the remaining seventeen fragments also show textual correspondence to modern editions of the Hebrew Bible, there is good reason to question the authenticity of these fragments as well. This thesis therefore argues that further research must be done in order to determine the authenticity of all published unprovenanced “Dead Sea Scrolls” fragments. iv v Abbreviations BHK Biblia Hebraica Kittel 2nd edition BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia DSS Dead Sea Scrolls DSSFMC Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection Gleanings Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection L Codex Leningrad 픏 Old Latin 픐 Masoretic Text (sometimes referred to as MT in quotes) MotB Museum of the Bible 픖 Peshitta ⅏ Samaritan Pentateuch 픊 Septuagint 픗 Targum 픙 Vulgate vi vii Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Outset ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Aim ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Selected Material ................................................................................................. 4 2. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................... 7 2.1 What is a Fragment? ............................................................................................ 7 2.3 What is a Modern Forgery? .................................................................................. 7 2.4 What Left Scholars Susceptible to Modern Forgeries? ........................................... 8 2.5 Ethics ................................................................................................................ 13 2.6 Research History................................................................................................ 17 3. METHOD ............................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Tools ................................................................................................................. 23 3.2 Approach ........................................................................................................... 25 4. ANALYSIS OF FRAGMENTS REFERRED TO AS MODERN FORGERIES .............. 29 4.1. F.103 – F.Exod3 ................................................................................................ 29 4.2 F.104 – F.Exod4 ................................................................................................. 32 4.3 F.105 – F.Exod5 ................................................................................................. 34 4.4 F.112 – F.Sam1 ..................................................................................................... 36 4.5. F.122 – F.Neh1 ................................................................................................. 38 4.6 F.191 – F.Gen2 .................................................................................................. 42 4.7 F.194 – F.Num2 ................................................................................................. 45 4.8 F.197 – F.Jon1 ................................................................................................... 48 4.9 F.201 – F.Neh2 .................................................................................................. 50 4.10 F.203 – F.Lev6 ................................................................................................. 54 4.11 Results of Analysis ........................................................................................... 56 5. ANALYSIS OF FLAGGED FRAGMENTS ................................................................ 59 viii 5.1. F.113 – F.Sam2 ................................................................................................. 59 5.2 F.116 – F.Jer1 .................................................................................................... 61 5.3 F.119 – F.Prov1 ................................................................................................. 63 5.4 F.195 – F.Jer2 .................................................................................................... 65 5.5 F.198 – F.Mic1 ................................................................................................... 68 5.6 F.200 – F.Dan6 .................................................................................................. 71 5.7 Results of Analysis ............................................................................................. 73 6. ANALYSIS OF REMAINING FRAGMENTS ............................................................ 75 6.1 F.101 – F.Gen1 .................................................................................................. 75 6.2 F.107 – F.Num1 ................................................................................................. 79 6.3 F.108 – F.Deut5 ................................................................................................. 81 6.4 F.109 – F.Deut6 ................................................................................................. 84 6.5 F.114 – F.Sam3 .................................................................................................. 86 6.6 F.115 – F.Kgs1 ................................................................................................... 88 6.7 F.118 – F.Ps2 ..................................................................................................... 89 6.8 F.120 – F.Ruth1 ................................................................................................. 91 6.9 F.192 – F.Exod6 ................................................................................................. 93 6.10 F.196 – F.Ezek1 ............................................................................................... 95 6.11 F.199 – F.Ps3 ................................................................................................... 98 6.12 Results of Analysis ......................................................................................... 100 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 103 7.1 Schøyen ........................................................................................................... 103 7.2 Museum of the Bible ........................................................................................ 104 7.3 Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................... 106 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 109 9. APPENDIX