CHAPTER FIVE

THE ARCHITECTURAL VOCABULARY OF THE COPPER SCROLL AND THE TEMPLE SCROLL

From the earliest discussions of the Copper Scroll it was realized that its vocabulary shared aspects of the later Hebrew dialect generally termed Mishnaic Hebrew or Middle Hebrew.1 In fact, the presence of large numbers of what appeared to be lexical items from this later dialect led many to state incorrectly that the Copper Scroll had actually been composed in the Mishnaic dialect generally in evidence in the rabbinic texts from the tannaitic period. In these discussions, issues of morphology and syntax were generally ignored and the language was classified based on its lexicon alone. The same problems were raised in relation to two other important texts, the Temple Scroll and 4QMMT. In the case of the former, aspects of the grammar and syntax required that the text be classified generally with other Qumran Hebrew documents.2 Indeed, the Temple Scroll is somewhere in between the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and that of the Qumran sectarian writing practice,3 but its vocabulary has decidedly ‘Mishnaic’ elements.4 In many cases, whereas the sectarian documents as a whole use archaizing biblical terminology,5 this scroll uses that known from later usage. 4QMMT was also mistakenly identified as being in Mishnaic Hebrew.6 Actually, this document has the grammar

1 J.T. Milik, “Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15),” in M. Bail- let, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân, DJD 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) 222, 275–276. Milik’s full study of the language is on pp. 221–259. The Mishnaic connection seems to have eluded J.M. Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960) 29–30, where he recognizes the links with other Second Temple period texts. 2 Cf. E. Tov, “The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origin of these Scrolls,” Textus 13 (1986) 31–57. 3 L.H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll in Literary and Philological Perspective,” in W.S. Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism, BJS 9 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 143–158. 4 Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 3 vols. ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University, Shrine of the Book, 1983) I, 33–39. 5 C. Rabin, Qumran Studies, Scripta Judaica, 2 (London: Oxford University Press, 1957) 108–111. 6 Milik, DJD 3, 225. 68 chapter five and syntax of Qumran Hebrew, but numerous terms used here are known from later tannaitic texts.7 Various historical explanations have been given for these facts. How- ever, my purpose here is not historical, but philological. In this chapter I seek to investigate a variety of lexical items and terms that occur in both the Copper Scroll and the Temple Scroll, in the hope that both texts will thereby be illuminated. The chapter will be limited to the discussion of architectural terminology since both of these texts, in very different ways, relate to architecture.8

Architectural Terms in the Copper Scroll and the Temple Scroll

In what follows I investigate one by one, in alphabetical order, the architectural terms that occur in both texts.9

In Copper Scroll 1:6 this word appears for a “cistern”, and in 2:1 it .בור salt pit”, referring to a pit for storing“ ,בור המלח occurs in the phrase salt. This pit is located below the steps. This term also appears in 2:7

7 A thorough study of the language of this text by E. Qimron appears in E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqat Maaśe ha-Torah, DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) 65–110. See also the discussion of ‘Halakhic Terminology’ on pp. 138–142. 8 Architectural terms also appear in the New Jerusalem texts. See M. Broshi, “Visionary Architecture and Town Planning in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–90 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995) 9–22. 9 The Temple Scroll citations follow the numeration of Yadin, The Temple Scroll, II, and the text follows the editions of both Yadin and E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll, A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Beer Sheva-Jerusalem: Ben Gurion University- Israel Exploration Society, 1996). Architecture is emphasized in J. Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary, JSOTSup, 34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), although I generally prefer the analysis of Yadin. For the Copper Scroll, the chapter is based on the readings and numeration of J.K. Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll-3Q15: A New Reading, Translation and Commentary, 2 vols. (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1993), now published in a revised form as The Copper Scroll-3Q15: A Reevaluation: A New Read- ing, Translation and Commentary, STDJ 25 (Leiden, E.J. Brill, 2000). The discussion that follows is everywhere indebted to the excellent and detailed commentary by Lefkovits. A discussion of the vocabulary of the Copper Scroll is found in Milik, DJD 3, 236–275, with architectural terms discussed on pp. 247–249. Our classification differs from that of Milik, and my readings are substantially different due to the vastly improved readings of Lefkovits. Another new reading of the Copper Scroll is A. Wolters, The Copper Scroll: Overview, Text and Translation (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).