OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN: NEW EDITIONS OF THE ARAMAIC UNIDENTIFIED FRAGMENTS OF QUMRAN CAVE 1 by BRANDON DIGGENS Bachelor of Theology, Pacific Life Bible College, 2016 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN BIBLICAL STUDIES in the FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY May 2023 © Brandon Diggens, 2023 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN ii Abstract This thesis is a collection of editions for fragmentary Aramaic Qumran Cave 1 manuscripts: 1Q63–1Q68, or “Unidentified fragments ar.” For the first time, several of the fragments in these editions receive a complete transcription, translation, and commentary, despite having been known to Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship for seventy-five years. This thesis presents new readings for these fragments which may provide further possible context for the greater manuscripts of Cave 1 already pored over by scholars. Each edition is comprised of a bibliography of previous research, photography details, physical descriptions of the leather fragments, a brief palaeography, transcription, translation, notes on readings, and a final commentary. Especial focus is given to the correct identification of fragments within their designated manuscripts. This project demonstrates that there is still work to be done within many of the fragmentary manuscripts found in the Qumran caves in smaller, overlooked, and often unclassified texts. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN iii Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................... ii Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................iii Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1Q63 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) ........................................................................................................................... 21 1Q64 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar).......................................................................................................................... 30 1Q65 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) .......................................................................................................................... 44 1Q66 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar).......................................................................................................................... 50 1Q67 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) ......................................................................................................................... 60 1Q68 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar)........................................................................................................................... 71 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 97 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 100 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 1 Introduction A few years ago in 2017, there was some controversy stirred up over the Dead Sea Scrolls acquisitions of a rather impressive and well-known private collection as well as that of a prominent American museum, the validity and provenance of which were brought into question. 1 It is no surprise that among researchers and private collectors, there exists an eagerness for newly-discovered ancient finds to mull over, and with which to further expand our present understanding of early Jewish scribal culture and its creations. Upon the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls around seventy years ago, scholars found themselves with hundreds of manuscripts and thousands of fragments to work through. But with so many years between the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and today, and after decades of careful scholarship, it seems the depths of the Dead Sea Scrolls have almost been fished out, thus intensifying an eagerness for new discoveries. With individuals and institutions showing they are ready and willing to pay good money for such discoveries, there exists the alarming possibility that a seller’s market for unprovenanced fragments has opened its doors. There exists at Qumran, however, a rather sizable body of fragments—fragments often similar in size to those in the collections above—that have not had the same careful treatment as the more significant finds at Qumran. 2 This thesis is a collection of editions for a group of Aramaic fragments from Cave 1Q that are unidentified and without classification. Beyond providing a revised and more thorough discussion of these materials, I also hope this project will demonstrate that there is still work to be done within many of the fragments found in all the Qumran caves, not just of the major texts, but in smaller, overlooked, and often unclassified works. Insight into these small fragments may in fact provide more context for the greater manuscripts already pored over by scholarship. The reasons these fragments have been overlooked could seem straightforward. Upon their discovery, the Scrolls that were of highest interest were those that contained biblical texts a thousand years older than the earliest extant witnesses upon which our modern Bibles are based. It would be expected that the authors of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1 (DJD) 3 would devote the lion’s share of their time to so-called biblical texts like 1QDeuteronomya, 1QPsalmsa, or a preliminary treatment of 1QIsaiahb. The efforts of scholarship, then, were poured into the evaluation of these so-called “biblical 1 Kipp Davis, “Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments,” in Dead Sea Discoveries 24 (2017): 229–270. 2 Beyond Davis’s “Caves of Dispute,” the small scraps from the Schøyen and Museum of the Bible (MOTB) collections have generated hundreds of more pages of research and discussion: the MOTB collection was published in a retracted Brill publication, while a scribal analysis of those fragments will be the subject of a forthcoming book from Davis; the Schøyen collection, meanwhile, has been published in a 500-page book, Gleanings from the Caves. See Elgvin, Torleif, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois, Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection, Library of Second Temple Studies, ed. Lester L. Grabbe (New York: Bloomsbury, T & T Clark, 2016). 3 Barthélemy, Dominique and Józef Tadeusz Milik. Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 2 texts,” 4 often caring just as much for what they said about the “accuracy” and textual transmission of our own modern Bibles as for the fragments in themselves as text-objects. Then would come interest in both the “Sectarian” texts (texts thought to reveal something of the identity of the Qumran community, like 1QS, 1QM, or 1QH) and so-called “parabiblical” texts that include expansions to well-known biblical texts (1QpMic, or Genesis Apocryphon). 5 With all of this exciting scholarship to do, it is perhaps unsurprising that researchers overlooked then, and continue to overlook the subjects of the present study: tens of fragments with indeterminable designations scattered across museum plates in their archipelagos. The Shape of the Project and the Selection of Texts In this thesis I attempt to take up the task of providing new editions for some of these neglected fragment groups: 1Q63, 1Q64, 1Q65, 1Q66, 1Q67, and 1Q68, all of which have the designation “Unidentified Fragments ar.” 6 This project began with a much broader scope and with a different shape altogether. Initially, the project was meant to bring together all the fragmentary literary Aramaic texts found in the eleven Qumran caves. The intent of the project was to create a treasury of new or missed readings that would act as a jumping off point for expanding our understanding of the Qumran Aramaic texts or for establishing designations for unclassified fragments. Thus, the project originally encompassed hundreds of more fragments, covering works from Caves 1Q, 3Q, 4Q, 5Q, 6Q, and 11Q. 4 I use the term “biblical” to speak of the books at Qumran we know from our Masoretic Text (MT) and which inform modern Bibles. James C. Vanderkam has captured well the problem of classifying as “biblical” Qumran manuscripts that we have in the MT. First, there is no evidence for a canon of scripture before 70 CE (i.e. a closed and fixed list of onlyauthoritative scriptures), thus rendering the term anachronistic (p. 90). Second, the “biblical” manuscripts of Qumran are characterized by “textual fluidity” or “textual diversity.” Compared to our MT, the “biblical” books from Qumran preserve traditions Emanuel Tov classified variously as proto-Masoretic, pre-Samaritan, proto-Septuagintal, and non-aligned biblical texts (p. 94). Third, is the problem of “rewritten Bible,” works that clearly have their basis in the Pentateuch but which have major additions (including the Temple Scroll and Jubilees). The fact that there are so many of these scrolls (five copies of the Temple Scroll and twelve of Jubilees) suggests that the Qumran community considered these authoritative (pp. 96–107). See James C. Vanderkam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 91–109. 5 The term “parabiblical” (sometimes “parascriptural”) is a broad term that encompasses a number of different genres but which denotes a connection to what we would consider the biblical texts of the Hebrew Bible (the term suffers the same criticism as the term “biblical”—see n. 2 above). The parameters for parabiblical literature are broad. In her entry for the T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls, Molly M. Zahn notes that, beyond commentaries, the term “constitute[s] a range of literary genres: narrative, law, apocalypse, [and] poetry” (p. 378), acting as a sort of genre “catch all” (p. 381). Though it cannot be accepted a priori that parabiblical texts are dependent on earlier scripture, “many ‘parabiblical’ texts demonstrably derive from reflection on an existing textual tradition similar to the one that has come down to us” (pp. 379–80). A technique of parabiblical writing that will become important later in this study is “rewritten Bible/Scripture.” These pseudepigraphal works “rewrite” the familiar narratives of an extant textual tradition by “adding, amending or deleting material in accordance with the author’s point of view” (p. 378) as a means of establishing a text’s authority and “to produce new interpretations of Israel’s tradition that locate [its readers] within that same tradition” (p. 383). See Molly M. Zahn, “Parabiblical Texts/Rewritten Scripture” in T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 378–85. 6 Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Boston: Brill, 2010), 19. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 3 The selection of MSS was based on five criteria. First, the texts had to have come from the Qumran Cave complex (as opposed to Murabba‘at, for example). Second, the texts had to be identifiably Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew or Greek (see below). Third, the texts had to be literary, not documentary. Fourth, the fragment either needed to have the designation “Unidentified Fragments,” or, fifth, they had to have been treated in under ten bibliographical sources. The original list therefore initially included the following: • • • • • • • 1Q63–1Q68 3Q12–13, 3Q14 frags. 4–9 4Q630a, 4Q558a, 4Q562, 4Q564, 4Q567, 4Q570, 4Q572–574, 4Q575a, 4Q584–586 5Q24 6Q23 11Q24 and several others from Caves 4 and 6, including 4Q488–489, 4Q520, 4Q563, 4Q565, 4Q566, 4Q568–71, 4Q580–583, 4Q587, 6Q14, 6Q19, and 6Q31. The project became enormous. As such, it was necessary at this level to become more focused, and thus the first criterion was adjusted to “texts that came from Cave 1Q,” and the project changed from a sort of treasury of readings to proper editions. This allows us to treat each MS with the care they deserve. As will be shown, each of 1Q63–1Q68 have little to nothing written about them. Even in their official editions, all of which can be found in DJD 1, neither transcriptions, nor translations, notes, or comments were published for a number of these fragments. Instead, only photographs of the PAM plates containing the manuscripts appear at the end of the volume. A Brief History of the Qumran Cave Discoveries and the Cave 1 Fragments Discovery The story of the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the caves in which they were found is well known. 7 The first fragments were found by Bedouin shepherds who discovered Cave 1Q either in 1947 or in the months preceding it. 8 Fragments continued to show up in the months leading up to the cave’s excavation in 1949 by Gerald Lankester Harding and the influential Dominican priest Roland de Vaux. 9 Lankaster Harding had been Palestine’s Inspector of Antiquities since 1939 and had just been appointed head of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan in 1949. 10 De Vaux was the president of the board of trustees of the Palestine Antiquities Museum (PAM; later called the Rockefeller Museum) and director of Jerusalem’s École biblique et Archéologique Française, where he also served as a professor. 11 These 7 The story has been recorded with impressive detail in Weston W. Fields’, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Volume 1 (Boston: Brill, 2009). 8 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 23–25, 497. 9 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 92. 10 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 94. 11 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 93–94. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 4 two men did much of the legwork to secure scroll fragments for the PAM, and de Vaux would be appointed the Editor in Chief of the edition princeps of the Scrolls that would be published as the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series (DJD). 12 Then, in early 1952 the caves at Wadi Murabba‘at were discovered, as well as Cave 2Q and Cave 3Q, both north of Cave 1Q. 13 Later, in August or September of the same year, Cave 4Q (which is actually two caves containing veritable treasure troves of fragments) was found along with Cave 5Q just north of it. 14 Cave 6Q was then discovered in a matter of days at Wadi Qumran. 15 Two or three years later in 1955, Caves 7Q through 10Q were discovered in terraces around Qumran, and in February 1956 the Bedouin discovered and cleared out the final cave, Cave 11Q. 16 The major discoveries of Cave 1Q came in two batches. The first group of scrolls—a set of three—were found sometime in the months before February 1947 by Bedouin shepherds.17 These were the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), a commentary on Habbakuk (1QpHab), and the “Manual of Discipline” or “Community Rule” (1QS). 18 They would be sold on consignment through an enterprising Bethlehem merchant known by the epithet “Kando” to a Syrian Orthodox metropolitan of St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem, Athanasius Samuel. 19 The second set were then found by one of the same Bedouin along with an antiquities dealer, George Isha‘ya, sometime between May and June of 1947.20 These were 1QIsaiahb; the “War Scroll” (1QM); the “Thanksgiving Hymns” (1QH); and the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), an inventive Aramaic retelling of the stories of Abraham, and possibly others of the Patriarchs. The first three in this group would be sold to yet another antiquities dealer, Faidi Salahi, who would in turn sell them to E. L. Sukenik, operating on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where he was a professor of archaeology. The Genesis Apocryphon would be held back and sold to Kando, who would eventually sell again to the Metropolitan Samuel. 21 At some point in 1948 (Weston W. Fields suggests August), Isha‘ya returned to Cave 1Q and found more fragments belonging to Daniel, Enoch, and a Prayer Scroll, along with others. He would turn these over to the Metropolitan. 22 All told, Isha‘ya probably returned to the cave upwards of four times according to Fields. 23 This latter collection given to the Metropolitan would eventually be 12 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 106–07 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 132–36, 505. 14 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 138–144, 505. 15 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 142, 505. 16 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 252, 505. In February 2017, a twelfth cave was discovered in close proximity to Caves 1Q–11Q, though it appears to have been plundered of its fragments sometime in the 1940s. https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-dead-sea-scroll-cave-found-near-qumran-but-scrolls-are-gone/. 17 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 23–25. 18 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 26. 19 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 33. 20 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 29. 21 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 29. 22 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 85. 23 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 505. 13 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 5 smuggled out of the country and not seen again.24 After all this ado, Harding and De Vaux were, in February and March of 1949, finally able to excavate Cave 1Q, wherein they found hundreds of fragments belonging to about seventy scrolls. Of the seven original Cave 1Q manuscripts, only fragments of Sukenik’s collection were found (1QIsab, 1QM, and 1QH) throwing into question whether the Metropolitan’s 1QIsaa, 1QpHab, and 1QS were actually found in the same cave at all. Confirming this suspicion, there were in fact two descriptions for Cave 1Q, one that said it was located “midway up the cliffs” (this is the one which was excavated by Harding and de Vaux), and one that said it was entered through a different means altogether—through a maw at the top of a level area. 25 Part of the difficulty here is that antiquities dealers and Bedouin sellers were understandably reticent to reveal the locations of their caves, as it meant a blow to a new source of income. Regardless, fragments assigned to 1Q63– 1Q68 are likely the product of Harding’s and de Vaux’s excavation. Complicating things, Harding and de Vaux also used a purchasing system through the PAM to incentivize sellers to come to the museum directly so that (1) other buyers—middlemen—would not interfere with the collection of fragments; and that (2) they might keep sellers from worrying about drawing the attention of authorities from either the Palestinian or Israeli governments.26 Thus, tens of thousands of dollars were spent on fragment acquisitions. In Fields’ appendix, a PAM Scrolls Ledger is reproduced. Under the label “Purchase of Antiquities by the Palestine Archaeological Museum,” there is one entry that appears as follows: 27 12.5.51 Haj Taher Marakshy 31.000 Fragments Q1 That means that in December of 1951, a Haj Taher Marakshy brought in an unidentified number of fragments from Cave 1Q and was paid 31 Jordanian Dinar (JOD; about 86.80 USD at the time). In a second ledger, labelled “Accounting by Cave, Payments by the Palestine Archaeological Museum,” there are two entries and a subtotal for Cave 1Q. One of those entries matches the 31.000 JOD above, but the second entry is “1,000.000” (or 2800 USD). 28 This purchasing system thus complicates things further, since without de Vaux or Harding’s notes, it is not possible to say which fragments came from de Vaux and Harding’s excavations and which came from private sellers, or even whether the purchased fragments were considered to be authentic and so folded into the official Cave 1Q collection. Thus, the history of the Cave 1Q finds is odd and singularly messy, clearly complicated by the many parties looking to profit from a burgeoning antiquities market. Publication History 24 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 85. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 111. 26 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 107–09. 27 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 561. 28 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 563. 25 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 6 In 1951 work began on the first volume of DJD. De Vaux and Harding chose two scholars to write the first volume of their new project. Dominique Barthélemy, a French Dominican who had been studying the Bible at the École biblique since 1948, would write most of the editions on the biblical texts along with 1QS. According to Fields, Barthélemy had been part of the excavation team at Qumran for every season from 1949 to 1953, where he would have met de Vaux. 29 Józef Milik was a Polish priest and student of the Pontifical Oriental Institute and the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. While studying there, Milik had published papers on what fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls had been made available through other publications. De Vaux had been impressed with Milik’s work and in 1951 invited him to Jerusalem to join the École biblique and work with Barthélemy on the Cave 1Q finds. 30 Milik would write the editions for the remaining non-biblical texts, including those featured in this study, 1Q63–1Q68. The work was completed in 1953 and the volume was published in 1955. During this time, not only would these scholars work through their transcriptions, translations, and comments, but they would sort through and organize the fragments available to them in the Scrollery. 31 At some point, the fragments were organized onto plates into their present designations to be photographed for DJD 1, likely by Najib Albina, a photographer of the PAM who appears to have had his own studio at the museum. 32 Once the work was finished but before DJD 1 was published, our fragments, 1Q63–1Q68 were acquired by the Bibliothèque nationale de Paris (BnF) from the École biblique where they have remained to this day.33 After the publication of DJD 1, 1Q63–1Q68 would next appear in print in 1978 when Jesuit scholars Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington assembled A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts. The goal of this volume was not to provide new critical editions, but rather to gather Palestinian Aramaic texts from 200 BCE to 200 CE into a single place “with the hope that this collection of texts will give some idea of the kind of Aramaic in use in Palestine during this period.” 34 Following Fitzmyer’s and Harrington’s Manual, the fragments would be published once more in 1984 by Klaus Beyer, an accomplished professor of Semitic studies at the University of Heidelberg, in the first part of his Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer.35 Photographs of all the fragments assigned to 1Q63–1Q68 can be found on the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, a public online repository of the photographs of 930 Dead Sea Scrolls 29 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 105. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 204. 31 The large room at the PAM where scroll fragments were organized and assembled by scholars on large tables. 32 Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1, 258. 33 DJD 1 includes a “Distribution List of the Manuscript Fragments” on page xi, where it is explained that “all the fragments marked EBF [École biblique et Archéologique Française, Jerusalem] were subsequently acquired by the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.” 34 Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic, Biblica et Orientalia, No. 34 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), xi. 35 Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt Inschriften aus Pälastina, dem Testamnet Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle aund den alten talmudischen Zitaten: Aramaistische Einleitung Text, Übersetzung, Deutung Grammatik/Wörterbuch Deutsch-aramäische Wortliste Register (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). 30 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 7 manuscripts made available by the Israeli Antiquities Authority in 2013. 36 In the case of our fragments, the Leon Levy Collection preserves infrared pictures taken by photographer Najib Albina at the PAM in 1953 before the fragments had been organized into their designations. Around the same time the Leon Levy DSS Digital Library was being made available to the public, the BnF presented new pictures of the Dead Sea Scrolls in their collection via their own digital library, Gallica. 37 These are color photographs of the fragments’ recto and verso sides taken in 2013 after they have experienced some decay. The Aramaic Literary Texts at Qumran and at Cave 1Q Our MSS, 1Q63–1Q68, must be considered in the broader context of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. Devorah Dimant has helpfully summarized the numbers: one hundred and twenty-one of the nine hundred and forty-two Qumran scrolls were written in the Aramaic language (about thirteen percent).38 Eleven of those scrolls are from Cave 1Q (nine percent). Of those eleven, six are the unidentified MSS of this study. Florentino García Martínez has noted that the Aramaic scrolls at Qumran share further internal coherence, not based solely on the Aramaic language itself, but on their shared style and content.39 Dimant identifies six thematic categories across the Qumran Aramaic corpus: (1) Works about the Period of the Flood (e.g., the first half of 1QapGen, 4Q Enoch, and Book of Giants); (2) Works dealing with the History of the Patriarchs (4QVisAm or the latter half of GenAp); (3) Visionary Compositions (New Jerusalem or 4QFour Kingdoms); (4) Legendary Narratives and Court Tales (4QTobit or 4QPseudo-Daniel); (5) Astronomy and Magic (4Q318 and 4Q561, 4QZodiology and Brontology and 4QHoroscope respectively); and (6) Varia (targumim like 4Q156 or 11Q10, and 4Q339, a List of False Prophets).40 In the same festschrift, Eibert Tigchelaar divides the Qumran Aramaic corpus into two simpler narrative categories: (1) texts related to pre-Mosaic figures (e.g., Enoch, Abraham, or Amram) and (2) texts that have an Eastern Diaspora setting (Tobit, Daniel, and “proto-Esther”).41 Tigchelaar and Dimant each note in the Qumran Aramaic corpus the absence of historically significant biblical figures, 36 Shuka Dorfman, “A Note from the IAA Director,” The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/about-the-project/a-note-from-the-iaa-director. 37 “A-Propos,” BnF Gallica, accessed February 28, 2023, https://gallica.bnf.fr/edit/und/a-propos. 38 Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honor of Florentino Garcia Martinez. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, ed. John J. Collins (Boston: Brill, 2007), n.10. She has gleaned this data from DJD 39, pp. 221–25. 39 Florentino García Martínez, “Scribal Practices in the Aramaic Literary Texts from Qumran” in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, ed. Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper (Boston: Brill, 2010), 332. 40 Dimant, “Qumran Aramaic Texts and Community,” 200–01. García Martínez has noted the problem here—not all Aramaic texts will necessarily fit a given category. The Genesis Apocryphon can fit into either of Dimant’s first or second options. See García Martínez, “Scribal Practices in Aramaic Texts,” 332. 41 See Eibert Tigchelaar, “The Imaginal Context and the Visionary of the Aramaic New Jerusalem” in Flores, Collins, ed., 261. Dimant’s classification is better able to capture something of a text’s literary genre, not merely its narrative setting. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 8 like Moses, David, and many of the prophets.42 Thus, as Dimant has summarized it, the use of Aramaic may reflect an underlying scribal understanding that “Hebrew belonged to the sphere of Israelite history proper, whereas Aramaic is relegated to earlier generations,” 43 while in the case of a Diaspora setting, Aramaic was “apparently selected as the language of composition precisely because of such a setting, as it was for Dan 2.” 44 Building off the contributions of Dimant and Tigchelaar, García Martínez has observed the “apocalyptic character of a disproportionately large number of [the Aramaic] compositions when compared both with the rest of the known compositions in Aramaic and with the Hebrew compositions found at Qumran (sectarian or not).” 45 The more specific context for our MSS is the five identified Aramaic texts of Cave 1Q, all of which exhibit an apocalyptic outlook: the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), a “Testament of Levi” (1QTLevi), two copies of the “Book of Giants” (1Q23 and 1Q24), 46 and a “New Jerusalem” (1QNJ?). The first, 1QapGen, is a composition of rewritten Bible: it is a damaged scroll comprised of 23 columns. As rewritten Bible, the author of 1QapGen is interested in (as Edward Cook puts it), “details . . . drawn from extrabiblical sources or oral traditions” that “give the proper spin to the biblical text at crucial points where . . . dangerous misinterpretation is possible.” 47 Its narratives encompass Enoch, Lamech, Noah, and Abraham. Beyond narrative additions, 1QapGen is also comprised of dream visions and a lengthy apportionment of the post-diluvian earth to Noah’s sons. 1QTLevi is a highly fragmentary text whose more intelligible parts appear to be part of or related to the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), a text previously known from the Cairo Geniza and which is extant in seven scrolls at Qumran (1Q21, 4Q213, 4Q213a, 4Q213b, 4Q214, 4Q214a, and 4Q214b). 48 Esther Eshel, Jonas C. Greenfield, and Michael E. Stone place the fragments of 1QTLevi in sections concerning the wars of the sons of Jacob (ALD 2), travels and visions of Levi (ALD 4), Levi’s blessing, priesthood, and instruction (ALD 5); priestly teachings on sacrifice (ALD 8). 49 42 Tigchelaar, “Imaginal Contexts and the Visionary of Aramaic New Jerusalem,” 261. Dimant, “Qumran Aramaic Texts and Community,” 203. 43 Dimant, “Qumran Aramaic Texts and Community,” 203. 44 Dimant, “Qumran Aramaic Texts and Community,” 204. 45 García Martínez, “Scribal Practices,” 331. Note that García Martínez uses the descriptor “apocalyptic” over the formal designation of “apocalypse.” These works are “apocalyptic” in that they feature many of the elements of an apocalypse—an otherworldly mediator and visions, all contributing to revelation concerning present circumstances and an eschatological reality within a narrative framework—without actually being formal apocalypses, like 1 Enoch and Daniel. See John J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre” (pages 1–20) in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre in Semeia 14, 1979. 46 Note that the official designation of 1Q24 is “EnGiantsb? ar,” leaving plenty of room for uncertainty. Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert, 13. 47 Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev’d edn. (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005), 74. 48 Esther Eshel, Jonas C. Greenfield, and Michael E. Stone, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testimenti Pseudepigrapha 19 (Boston: Brill), 1–6. 49 Eshel, Greenfield, and Stone, The Aramaic Levi Document, 58–59, 66–73, and 82–85. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 9 “Book of Giants” is a text similar to the Book of Watchers and known previously from Manichean literature. It tells of the dreams sent to the antediluvian giants, warning them of their impending judgment, and the intercession of Enoch on their behalf. 50 The two Cave 1Q MSS of this work are highly fragmentary with 1Q23 existing in thirty-one fragments and 1Q24 existing in eight. “New Jerusalem” exists in seven scrolls at Qumran (1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554, 4Q554a, 4Q555, 5Q15, and 11Q18). It describes a coming new temple, similar to what appears in chapters 40–48 of Ezekiel. 1QNJ? is possibly part of this grouping with its scant mentions of “pillars,” “walls,” “wheels,” and “cubits.” In light of the above discussion, we should perhaps be expecting the intelligible material of 1Q63–1Q68 to fall into the “coherent whole” of the apocalyptic Aramaic material at Qumran. Such material would presumably fit well into a pre-Mosaic or Eastern Diaspora narrative setting. We might hope to see literary markers indicating visions or the presence of divine beings and interlocutors. As such, we might anticipate that our fragments have subjects found in the other Cave 1Q texts, like building dimensions or familiar names and themes. Methodology Each of these revised editions comprise the following sections: (a) bibliography, (b) photographs, (c) physical description, (d) palaeography, (e) transcription, (f) translation, (g) notes on readings, and (h) comments. (a) Bibliography As illustrated above, the bibliography for these Cave 1Q works is scant. The first and most important publications are Milik’s 1955 editions of 1Q63–1Q68 in DJD 1. The fragments received light treatment, with Milik presenting only transcriptions (sometimes with the barest commentary), and only transcriptions for those fragments that seem to capture something of interest. Take 1Q63 for instance: it is comprised of four fragments, but Milik provided transcriptions for only three of them. Of these transcriptions, Milik provided commentary for only one. In the final section of DJD 1 are images of each of the works grouped together. It seems likely that Milik’s selective treatment of these fragments was rushed or an afterthought. In light of the more significant finds at Qumran, it is unsurprising that these fragments were treated with less regard and handled with haste. I have treated Milik’s editions as the main conversation partner in my transcriptions, notes, and comments. The other two texts found in each edition’s bibliography are (1) Fitzmyer and Harrington’s A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (1978, MPAT) and (2) Beyer’s Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (1984, ATTM). Fitzmyer and Harrington’s volume gathers together any Aramaic text found in Palestine dated between the second centuries before and after the turn of the era. As this was not a collection of new editions, their readings rarely diverge from Milik’s own, and in fact, they ask their 50 Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 246–47. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 10 reader in the Preface to refer to the editiones principes in the case of deeper study. 51 Klaus Beyer’s readings of 1Q63–1Q68 appear in the first of his three-volume work, Aramäischen Texte (1984). It should be noted that the primary focus of these previous publications was to provide transcriptions of 1Q63–1Q68. Fitzmyer and Harrington and Beyer do take things one step further, providing their own translations where possible, while Milik provided commentary for only two of these forty fragments. But none wrestle with the question of the assignment of fragments together within each work and from there, the basis for identifying each fragment as Aramaic as opposed to Hebrew. TABLE 1.1 Work & Fragments Milik (1955) Fitzmyer & Harrington (1978) frg. 1 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 4 C T frg. 1 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 4 frg. 5 C 1Q65 frg. 1 frg. 2  T T 1Q66 frg. 1 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 4 frg. 5   T T T T 1Q67 frg. 1 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 4  T T T 1Q63 1Q64 51 Bibliographical Treatment of Fragments 52 Beyer (1984) T T T T T T Fitzmyer and Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic, xii. “” indicates only a transcription; “C” indicates transcription and commentary; “T” indicates transcription and translation. 52 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 1Q68 11 frg. 5  T T frg. 1 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 4 frg. 5 frg. 6 frg. 7 frg. 8 frg. 9 frg. 10 frg. 11 frg. 12 frg. 13 frg. 14 frg. 15 frg. 16 frg. 17 frg. 18 frg. 19    T T T T T     T (b) Photographs Each edition includes a table with five pieces of information about the photographs for each fragment: (1) the fragment number; (2) the PAM number; (3) the Leon Levy Collection number; (4) the photography date of the PAM plate; and (5) the coordinates of the fragment on the plate (see below). These relate only to the images available within the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Collection, not the BnF collection. 53 Below these tables are images of the fragments correctly oriented and scaled to their actual size. i. The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library contains high quality digital scans of the infrared photographs that were originally made for the Palestine Archaeological Museum (PAM) in April of 1953. 54 The digital scans of these photographs are, for the most part, extremely high quality and well presented, with excellent zoom functionality. In instances where this is not the case (i.e., when the 53 When this thesis was broader in scope, I included along with the PAM number the Israel Antiquities Authority number (IAA). In the case of 1Q63–1Q68, the fragments were whisked away to France sometime before 1955 and before an IAA number could be assigned. 54 Stephen J. Pfann, “Chronological List of the Negatives of the PAM, IAA, and Shrine of the Book,” Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche, ed. Emanuel Tov with Stephan J. Pfann (New York: Brill, 1993), 78. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 12 digital photograph is difficult to work with), I have noted the problems within this section. As for the photographs themselves, there is a relative paucity of images for these fragments with there being only a single image available of each on the Leon Levy website. This is odd, considering works from Cave 4Q tend to have as many as four or five images of each. But photographs of 1Q63–1Q68 were taken only during the 40.000 series, meaning they are an earlier set of photographs when the fragments were not organized together. 55 Thus the fragments of a single work are often scattered across multiple PAM plates. No photographs of 1Q63–1Q68 were taken in a subsequent series where they were organized on the same plate. As mentioned in the Publication History above, this can likely be explained by the BnF’s early acquisition of these fragments sometime between 1953 and 1955. 56 Included with my transcriptions I have provided for each fragment the website catalogue number, which always begins with a “B”—i.e., “B-278274”—to which I have applied a hyperlink for easy access to the reader. Because the plates are in various states of orderliness, I have added a coordinate system to assist in finding the fragment. For instance, 1Q63 frg. 1 has below it “IR Images: B-278277 (1G).” Selecting the hyperlinked “B-278277” will take one directly to the PAM plate image at the Leon Levy Collection. The “1G” in brackets lets the reader know that the fragment is in “Row 1” on the x-axis and “Column G” on the y-axis. In most cases the fragments are arranged to fit many fragments on a page rather than to be tidily displayed and so rows often split along the line. Thus, this coordinate system is imperfect and can often only be an approximation. ii. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, Volume I A set of infrared photographs has been published in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Volume 1 (DJD 1) on Plate XXXV (note that this is a different plate from the PAM plates in the Leon Levy collection). Outside DJD 1, these photographs are no longer available. While compiling his comprehensive The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue, Stephen A. Reed concluded that the photographs used for DJD I were either “old 55 For his section in the article “Imaging the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Pfann summarized five series of PAM photographs taken of the Cave 4Q manuscripts. The first series was of the original plates with unsorted scroll fragments (PAM 40.575–41.139; note that 1Q63–1Q68 are from 40.441–40.544); the second was of plates after general sorting (PAM 41.140–41.762); the third and fourth was of plates where fragments had been sorted horizontally in their designations (PAM 41.763–41.995 and 41.996–42.941); and the fifth was of plates where fragments had been sorted vertically (PAM 42.966–43.701). The Cave 1Q fragments look like they did not receive the same treatment, being capture in only a single, unsorted series of photographs. See Gregory Bearman, Stephan J. Pfann, and Sheila I. Spiro, “Imaging the Dead Sea Scrolls” pages 472–495 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, Vol. 1 Ed. Peter Flint and James C. Vanderkam. (Boston: Brill, 1998), 475. See also Stephen A. Reed’s introduction in The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue: Documents, Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers, SBL Resources for Biblical Study 32 (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1994), xix. 56 The sparsity of photographs might also be understood in light of John Strugnell’s account in the Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche. Strugnell seems to intimate that the Cave 4 team only began taking many pictures after a substantial grant from John D. Rockefeller became available to the team in 1954. Milik and Barthélemy may have been more reserved in their requests for photographs while working on the Cave 1 materials since the IR material was so costly. See John Strugnell, “On the History of the Photographing of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert for the International Team,” Microfiche Companion Volume, 123–34. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 13 photographs [that] were cut up and rearranged for DJD I or . . . are no longer available.” 57 In the former case Reed does not make any indication whether those old photographs would have been taken from the negatives used for the PAM collection or whether they were from another source. 58 Though the DJD photographs have not been as useful as those at BNF and Leon Levy, they have acted as the starting point for identifying fragments. In other words, where a fragment’s designation number differs from DJD, I have opted to consistently follow DJD numbering. Even internally within DJD 1, Milik on one occasion labels a fragment differently in the transcription from the Plate image. In this single instance I follow the fragment number on the plate as the correct one, as opposed to the numbering in the transcription. iii. The Gallica Collection from the Bibliothèque nationale de France A set of color photographs taken around 2013 have been made available to the public through the digital library owned by BnF, where the fragments of 1Q63–1Q68 currently reside.59 This collection preserves images of the fragments’ recto and verso sides. I have relied on these photographs to help with the fragments’ Physical Descriptions and to help describe their deterioration, but rarely do I consult them for deep transcription work. I have provided hyperlinks to both the recto and verso images along with the Leon Levy Infrared image hyperlink so that the reader can immediately see the fragment if they are reading on an electronic device. iv. The Inscriptifact Digital Library from the University of Southern California In the days between the completion and defense of this thesis, my second reader, through a personal connection, made known to me a fourth group of photographs originally available via Inscriptifact, and now hosted by the digital library of the University of Southern California (USC) since Inscriptifact was shut down. These photographs of the BnF plates are high quality color and infrared images taken in 2008 at the BnF. While the IR images are not perfect, having some blurriness on the left and right sides of the photographs, many of the fragments—particularly of 1Q68—are much clearer here and easier to work with. 60 In my own work with the fragments, I have used screenshots from the Leon Levy collection and features within Adobe Photoshop to enhance the contrast of images—to make the light parts of the leather lighter and the dark parts darker. The intention is to make ink strokes as clear as possible so that they can be best evaluated. In a few cases I have also attempted to fix issues of clarity, to make blurry 57 Stephen A. Reed The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue, xxiii. According to Reed, the PAM negatives were disseminated to other institutions outside of Israel to “safeguard” the photographs. See Reed, The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue, xx. 59 The BnF photographs for Cave 1 are listed in Reed’s Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue as BNPA88/830 on page 465. 60 The Inscriptifact images at the USC digital library can be accessed at https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/Archive/InscriptiFact----an-image-database-of-inscriptions-and-artifacts2A3BF1OL6PW?Flat=1, and one can find the Cave 1 photographs by searching the following photo accession number: BN1427 Pl. VIII. 58 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 14 photographs clearer. This means I may see things that are not obvious by plainly looking at a photograph in the above collections. Included in both the Physical Description and in the Notes on Reading sections are figures of some of the fragments usually based on tracings of the Leon Levy images. These are to aide the reader in seeing more clearly what appears in the descriptions. (c) Physical Description One of the unfortunate limitations of this project was the inability to conduct on-site investigations of the fragments assigned to 1Q63–1Q68, all of which are located at the BnF. Comments provided throughout regarding their physical and scribal features are based on whatever photographs have been made publicly available. Physical descriptions are based primarily on the relatively new set of photographs taken in 2013 at the BnF, meaning descriptions tend to be based on how the fragments appeared an entire decade ago. Physical descriptions follow the same basic format, beginning with (i) the shape of fragments including their maximal measurements on the x- and y-axes, and (ii) patterns of damage to the surface of the leather and damage to fragment edges as they appear in the photographs. For descriptions of each fragment color, I depend on Adobe Photoshop to isolate and identify colors as they appear in the photographs. Where there has been substantial damage—i.e., where the new images look nothing like their earlier counterparts—I have attempted to describe the damage, which usually already begins to manifest in the PAM image taken 60 years prior. Included with each fragment is a table listing maximal measurements of its (i) width (x-axis) and (ii) height (y-axis) in centimetres; and (iii) total area of the fragment in square centimetres. The procedure for analysing each fragment is as follows. Fragments appearing on the PAM plates are all imported into Adobe Photoshop and precisely scaled. The background of the fragment is cut away digitally with great care. 61 Maintaining a consistent alignment of the x- and y-axes to the text on each fragment is crucial for ensuring accurate descriptions of the size and shape of the fragments relative to one another and within the larger work. One has to carefully make sure the text within the fragment is aligned as much as possible with one of Photoshop’s horizontal guidelines. (d) Palaeography Palaeography will be treated very generally in the editions. These brief sections include discussions on the more significant features of the script on each fragment, relative to their grouping/designations. In other words, while palaeography is primarily used to date a text by determining its script type, my 61 The image is also reoriented so the writing will be right-side up. In my experience, most PAM photos have been oriented so that the writing of the 5cm ruler is right-side up, even if that means the majority of the Hebrew or Aramaic writing on the plate fragments will be upside down. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 15 observations here will aim more generally to determine if the fragments of a designation belong together, and also to aid in identifying more damaged letters on fragments in the same groupings. i. Measurements Measurements of scripts were performed using Adobe Photoshop (see Physical Description above) and a summary table can be found at the end of each Palaeography section. That table consists of (1) fragment, (2) line spacing, (3) word spacing, (4) average letter height, (5) average width of thin strokes, (6) average width of thick strokes, and (7) margins. For line spacing, the ruler line is oriented perpendicular to the guideline and is measured from the dryline of an upper line to the dryline of the next line. For word spacing, I set vertical lines at the extreme ends of the letters around spaces, measure them, and determine the mean. As for letter height, I take measurements of all complete letters on every line that are within standard size then determine the mean. I do not include the measurements here of anything with a lengthy superlinear stroke or descender like a lamed or final kaf, since those would throw off the averages. As for the widths of the strokes, when possible I take an average measure of the thinnest strokes and take an average of the thicker strokes, to help get an idea of pen nib size and general type—whether it is “flat” or “beveled.” All of the above data is intended to inform whether all the fragments that have come under a certain designation are written by the same pen or scribe, and so help us decide if they actually belong together. All of these measurements are placed in summary tables at the end of the palaeography sections to easily compare the data. ii. Letter Descriptions For letter descriptions I have partially relied on descriptions from Frank Moore Cross’s findings on a letter-by-letter basis, published in his seminal paleographical essay, “The Development of Jewish Scripts.” 62 Cross’s paper is divided into script-types, beginning with archaic letter forms (i.e. preHasmonaean scripts), before moving into the Hasmonaean and Herodian letter forms, with briefer sections on the semi-formal and semi-cursive forms in between. His by-the-letter descriptions are apropos to the task at hand, since in many cases the Cave 1Q Unidentified Fragments have only a few (often incomplete) letters on each fragment with which to work. iii. Some Notes on Terminology While Cross has been my main conversation partner, I depart from his use of language in some ways in describing the different parts of the letters. Cross tends to use more anthropomorphic language: the rightmost stroke of a shin or alef he might call an “arm,” or the peak of a vav or yod he would call a “head,” or the downstroke of a he a “leg,” or the leftmost stroke of a tav a “foot.” I avoid this terminology when possible, favoring the use of directional language. For horizontal strokes, I use the terms “cross stroke” or “transverse”; for “legs” I use “downstroke”; for “head” I may use the term “peak” instead. For strokes that run diagonally, like the leftmost stroke of a mem, the bottom stroke of a lamed, or the 62 Frank Moore Cross, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. Ernest Wright (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961), 170–264. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 16 second stroke of an alef, I use the term “oblique.” This choice is intended to bring clarity, but making the language less concise may render it more tedious for the reader. There are instances when it is simpler to speak of a “head” or “foot.” In these cases I put the word in quotation marks. Another set of words may be used for the adornments on letter strokes, that is, those strokes that differentiate a serif script from a sans-serif script. Again, avoiding somatic language, I do not use the term “horn” but rather keraia and tick (the latter is more general, and the former specific to ornaments on top of cross- or transverse strokes). 63 Another set of terms I borrow from Cross are the terms “semi-looping” or “looping” and “semiligaturing.” Looping is simply when the scribe does not lift his pen off the page so that he may write a letter with a single pen stroke. For instance, the scribe writes a dalet beginning at the top of the lefthand keraia, then moves into the left-to-right cross stroke; rather than taking his pen off the page to draw the righthand keraia and downstroke with a new stroke, he loops the cross stroke up and to the right, then loops it into the downstroke. In writing, ligaturing is when two letters are formally drawn together to represent a single unit, like the English letter “æ” that represented the dipthong of “a” and “e,” but which has fallen out of use. Semi-ligaturing is the connecting of two letters without representing a different sound and which just seems to naturally arise out of a practiced hand. This is commonly seen when a long base stroke is immediately followed by a letter with a downstroke, usually a vav or yod. The vav or yod will often descend enough to touch the base stroke. This can also be seen with the oblique stroke of mem which will reach to the left and touch the downstroke of the following letter. In my letter descriptions, there is plenty of comparison of stroke height to the dryline and baseline of the script. I usually speak of the “dryline” as it is often a real line etched into the leather from which the scribe “hangs” his letters. I also use the term “baseline” frequently to speak of the scribe’s awareness of an imagined “base” to which letters may reach but on which letters do not actually sit. 64 This is helpful in distinguishing between Hasmonaean or Herodian hands or distinguishing different letter possibilities. iv. Hasmonaean and Herodian Letter Features The majority of scripts at Qumran can be divided into Hasmonaean and Herodian scripts. Certain guiding principles can be used as general indicators. First, the Hasmonaean scripts tend to be more varied in their letter size while Herodian scripts move towards a standardization of size so that letters appear more “square.” Second is what Cross calls a “feel” for the baseline, the hypothetical base upon which a letter would sit. As there is a movement toward standardization of letter size progressing from 63 This may still be inappropriate, since keraia is simply Greek for “horn.” Tov has described adherence to dry lines this way: “Scribes usually adhered to the ruled lines under which they hung the letters hung the letters (i.e., “dry lines”), while a very few wrote on the lines or disregarded the dry rulings altogether and wrote through the lines. Virtually all scribes adhered to the right vertical ruling indicating the beginning of the column, while more precise scribes also adhered to the vertical lines at the left margin.” See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Boston: Brill, 2004), 18. 64 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 17 the Hasmonaean to Herodian periods, there is a more consistent reach are awareness for the imaginary baseline for all letters as time moves forward. Third, older scripts may display more of a forward lean to its letters, while later scripts tend to be more erect. A fourth indicator can be the form of keraia. Keraia, or the stylistic embellishments one finds at the extremities of strokes in a serif font, begin as bumps or thickening at the end of strokes. As the decades pass, this thickening becomes more intentional, such that they essentially become their own strokes by the time of the late- and post-Herodian eras and end up in the Jewish book hands. Moving from general features to specific, below is a brief list of features Cross associates with each letter and which I appropriate in the palaeographic sections to describe the script. • • • • • • • • • Alef is a strong indicator for a Hasmonaean or Herodian script. The Hasmonaean alef is smaller than other letters and often written well off the baseline. Most frequently its left downstroke connects between the midpoint and the top of the oblique. The Herodian alef becomes more uniform in size, and the left downstroke often moves closer to the top of the oblique. Bet in the Hasmonaean period is relatively small and often does not reach the baseline. The crossbar tends to be close in length to the base. In the Herodian hand, the crossbar is getting smaller while the base is getting longer. The base also starts to protrude past the downstroke to the right eventually coming to be drawn as a separate stroke altogether. Gimel tends during the earlier period to attach its left stroke high on the oblique. During the Herodian period the left stroke tends to attach lower on the oblique. In the later Herodian period, the peak of the gimel has a pronounced bend to the right. Dalet has two very pronounced ticks jutting up from either side of its cross stroke in the Hasmonaean period. As the Herodian period moves on, it is drawn in a single stroke, creating a semi-loop as the cross stroke transitions into the downstroke. He exhibits variety in how it is written in the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods. The Hasmonaean he tends to be quite a small letter. In the Herodian period it becomes more square and achieves a more uniform shape. Vavs and yods are not great indicators for dating a manuscript. Generally speaking vav is narrow, while yods are differentiated by their standard size relative to the rest of the script. Over time the left stroke of yod becomes shaded to the point that it is created as a wedge to join the right stroke. Khet does not exhibit enough notable development to differentiate between the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods. The Hasmonaean tet is round. In the Herodian era the base flattens making it more square. Kaf is another important indicator for differentiating between a Hasmonaean or Herodian script. In the Hasmonaean period, the letter is narrower so it appears taller, with the base dropping below the baseline. In the Herodian period, the base becomes less rounded and has a stronger feel for the baseline. As for final kaf, in the later Herodian hands, it creates a similar OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN • • • • • • • • • • • 18 semi-looping to the dalet. The descender becomes straighter as opposed to curved, as in the Hasmonaean hand. Lamed can take many forms in both the Hasmonaean and Herodian periods. In the Herodian period, the hook increasingly has a feel for the baseline. Flags begin to appear at the top of the superlinear stroke in the Hasmonaean period. In the Herodian period, it begins to form a loop or a wedge. Mem in the Hasmonaean hand tends to be a larger letter, with its base stroke often curving below the baseline. In the Herodian hand, the base stroke will create a strong angle off the downstroke and not drop so far below the baseline. Final mem in the Hasmonaean period is tall and narrow. In the Herodian period, it becomes squarer as the base moves closer to the baseline. Nun does not develop much, except later forms have a developed keraia, with the top of it bending to the right in both the medial and final forms. Samek is fairly large and round in the earliest forms. The letter tends to be written in a more triangular shape through the Hasmonaean period and eventually into a squarer shape in the late Herodian period. Ayin in the Hasmonaean period is usually a smaller letter with a tendency to be erect, the left stroke attaching to the midpoint of the oblique. In the Herodian period, the ayin rotates clockwise so the oblique gradually starts to flatten along the baseline and the beginning of the oblique begins to develop an “elbow.” Pe is not a great indicator for dating. The most prevalent change occurs in the size and shape of the head, which tends to get smaller in the Herodian period. Tsade demonstrates variety in how individual scribes wrote it, making it a difficult indicator of dating. Generally speaking the top part of the letter becomes wider in the Herodian period. From the early period, there is often no distinction between medial and final tsades. The final form develops through the Hasmonaean era. Qof begins as a standard size letter in the Hasmonaean period. In the Herodian period, the loop of the qof begins to narrow and develops a descender. Sometimes, the loop will be closed in early qofs and open in Herodian qofs. Resh in the Hasmonaean era is quite a small letter. In the Herodian period it enlarges to a standardized letter. Early on, dalet and resh tend to resemble each other. Distinction is made over time by the rounding of the crossbar into the downstroke. Early shin/sin is a smaller letter. The left stroke straightens over time to become more erect. The centre stroke gradually slides up to attach to the left stroke as opposed to where the left and right strokes meet. Tav tends to be a larger, more rounded letter in the early Hasmonaean period. Over time, the downstrokes straighten and the transition between the crossbar and the right downstroke becomes a sharp right angle. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 19 (e) Transcription Of the forty fragments found in 1Q63–1Q68, Milik published transcriptions for only fourteen of them in DJD 1 (see Table 1.1 above). Fitzmyer & Harrington published even fewer reproducing ten fragment transcriptions, all of which had already appeared in DJD 1. Beyer has published fourteen transcriptions, four of which had not been published by either Milik or Fitzmyer & Harrington. The editions in this thesis provide transcriptions for all forty. As a general rule, Milik is careful in his transcriptions. Often he prefers the ambiguity of an open circlet to a guess as to the identity of a letter. Fitzmyer & Harrington are likewise careful, again, tending to follow Milik almost verbatim. Beyer’s readings differ most—they are sometimes creative and sometimes outright wrong (at least to my eye)—but the inclusion and difference of another voice are most welcome. Most fragments preserve lettering on their tattered edges. In these cases where one cannot be certain of a letter’s reading, I use the standard symbols employed by the DJD volumes to indicate degrees of certainty: a closed dot over a letter indicates a probable reading with only one or two potential readings (i.e., ‫)א‬. ̇ An open circlet indicates a possible reading (‫)א‬, ֯ while an open circlet in place of a letter indicates that what remains of the pen stroke is too vague to reasonably hazard a guess (◦). In the Notes on Readings sections below the Transcription and Translation sections, I go into some detail to explain why a letter is chosen and the certainty associated with it; determining a letter is often as simple as asking a series of binary “if/then” questions. One may also notice that while I add space in a line where ink strokes could still exist (e.g., [ ] ‫)ל‬, I do not space out lines as a facsimile of where the letters are oriented on the fragment itself. That is, in the transcription, everything is justified to the righthand side of the page, no matter if what remains of one line seems center-justified on the actual fragment. When possible, I have made tried to make decisions on letter choice based primarily on what I see on the leather. That is, letters are chosen based on how the strokes appear to me and how letters are commonly penned. The context of the preceding or following words are still considered, but I try to go by letters alone. This is for two reasons. First, it is an assumption here that we are working with Aramaic fragments. However, because of the commonality of script and lexica between Hebrew and Aramaic, the words on some fragments might actually be Hebrew. Second, I do not want to force a context onto the text that is not necessarily there. (f) Translation In most cases, a translation will not be possible, as there simply is not enough text. In the event where a letter or letters remain but a translation is not possible, I simply mark the space with an ellipsis (. . .). (g) Notes on Readings OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 20 In this section I justify my decisions for my transcription and translation. Two tools that have been of enormous help here are (1) Accordance and (2) the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (CAL), an online lexicon based at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati Ohio that pulls together the words of all existing Aramaic material, from fragments to ostraca and from early to late Aramaic. Each of these resources allows the user to search based on one or two root letters. Accordance allows one to search within the extant words of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls (ADSS), as well as the Targumim and Elephantine material, while CAL endeavors to go beyond this material to include Syriac and modern Aramaic. I more often pull from the ADSS results in Accordance, since they better represent the same family of texts and the same words that capture a culture’s zeitgeist. The CAL result can certainly be helpful in circumstances where the ADSS has no equivalent. (h) Comments The final section is where I essentially make comments about the nature of the text (whether it might be considered “Enochic,” for instance). It is where I make some assertions about the connectedness of the fragments and their possible contexts or designations. Here, I also comment on whether a fragment can be considered unequivocally “Aramaic” or whether it may actually be Hebrew. What follows, then, are six editions of often overlooked texts from Cave 1Q, all originally designated as 1QUnidentified Fragments ar: 1Q63, 1Q64, 1Q65, 1Q66, 1Q67, and 1Q68. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 21 1Q63 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) Bibliography Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-arämaische Wortliste, Register. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B. C. – Second Century A. D.). Biblica Et Orientalia, 34. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1978. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “63–67. Groupes non caractérisé, en araméen.” In Qumran Cave 1. Ed. By Dominique Barthélemy, Józef Tadeusz Milik. Page 147. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Photographs TABLE 2.1 1Q63 Leon Levy Images Fragment PAM Number Leon Levy Collection Number Frg. 1 40.541 B-278277 Apr 1953 1G Frg. 2 40.538 65 B-278274 Apr 1953 4B Frg. 3 40.539 B-278275 Apr 1953 2F Frg. 4 40.539 B-278275 Apr 1953 2G Photograph Date Coordinates on the plate All the IR photographs in the PAM series are clear. FIGURE 2.1 frg. 1 65 frg. 2 1Q63 PAM IR Photographs frg. 3 frg. 4 In Stephen A. Reed’s The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue, frg. 2 is incorrectly listed as appearing on 40.541 (B-278277). See pages 30 and 295. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 22 The Bibliothèque’s Department of Manuscripts currently has 375 Qumran fragments preserved on 8 glass plates, each labelled “Fragments de Qumrân” on the recto side. The fragments have been labelled and numbered according to DJD, but in this case—as will be the case for all of 1Q63–1Q68— the Department of Manuscripts has mislabeled the fragments. A color image of the recto of 1Q63 can be found on “Folio 8r” labelled as “64” (i.e., “[1Q]64”). The fragments’ verso is found on “Folio 8v.” Physical Description 1Q63 is comprised of four copper-brown fragments. The 2013 color images preserve a similar vellum patterning with clearly visible hair follicles across all four. Fragment 1 is 1.5 x 1.8 cm with some darkening along its left, right, and bottom edges. There are three abrasions, one above the vav of l. 2, one a little more than halfway down on the left edge, and a diagonal scratch running down and to the left through the letters of l. 3. The BnF color image captures the trace of a probable dryline on l. 3. A vertical ruling line runs down just to the left of center. PAM 40.541 reveals a crack or cut at the bottom of this vertical line. Not surprisingly, by 2013 the bottom lefthand corner has broken away along these two lines. Fragment 2 is 1.6 x 1.6 cm and matches the hue of the bottom of frg. 1. There is a minor abrasion in the center of the fragment, above and to the right of a dalet. Drylines are preserved on ll. 2–3. Fragment 3 is 1.8 x 1.7 cm, with two angular tears appearing on the left and right sides of the fragment. The upper right-hand corner is lighter in color, similar to frg. 1, with the rest being darker like frg. 2. Fragment 3 preserves the end of one line, but there is additional shading on the skin below the line. The empty space to the left and at the bottom likely indicates the end of a column and perhaps the bottom of the vellum. Fragment 4 is the smallest of the fragments at 1.5 x 1.1 cm. While frgs 1–3 are vertical in orientation, frg. 4 is horizontal. It is slightly lighter in color, similar to frgs 1 and 3, with an area of damage on its upper left-hand edge (this damage may be newer, as the damage is not obvious in the older IR image). Interestingly, this fragment’s recto side is somewhat lighter than the dark brown and nearly black recto of frgs 1–3. TABLE 2.2 1Q63 Summary of Fragment Dimensions Fragment X-axis Y-axis Area Frg. 1 1.56 cm 1.82 cm 1.73 cm2 Frg. 2 1.57 cm 1.60 cm 1.55 cm2 Frg. 3 1.55 cm 1.93 cm 1.76 cm2 Frg. 4 1.42 cm 1.10 cm 1.00 cm2 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 23 Palaeography Milik did not make any comment on the paleography of 1Q63, but as will be the case for many of the MSS in this study, there are some important features of the script which seem to indicate that not all of the fragments belong together as part of the same MS. The sample size of frg. 1 is broader than the rest of 1Q63, preserving twelve complete letters. The hand appears to be skilled, the precision of forms being a priority for the scribe, and the strokes vary in width, suggesting a beveled pen. The well-spaced letters are somewhat erect and sometimes lean, averaging 2.5 mm in height. There is a feel for the baseline, though the letters of l. 2 do not always reach it. The difference in hand between frg. 1 and frgs 2–4 is most easily seen with three letters: alef, dalet, and lamed. The alef of frg. 1, l. 4 is an older form than those of frgs 2 and 4—it is a lean, erect letter, whose left stroke attaches to the middle of the sloping oblique and curves to the baseline. The alefs of frgs 2 and 4 are wide and square, their downstrokes attaching to the top of the straight oblique stroke in a single movement. The dalet of frg. 1, l. 2 does not use a semi-loop into the downstroke, as is the case with the dalets of frgs 2 and 3 (the final kaf of frg. 4 likewise creates a triangular semi-loop). The transverse of the lamed of l. 2 is broader and the turn into its deep oblique more angular than the lamed of frg. 4. It is possible that frgs 2–4 were written by the same scribe, but the sample size is considerably smaller. Pen strokes are more uniform, suggesting a dull nib, while the letters of frg. 4 are more shaded, allowing for a greater variety in letter strokes. Letters are square with an average height of 2.8 mm, 2.1 mm, and 2.1 mm respectively. The hand appears to be skilled and its letters well spaced. The word spacing of frg. 2 is uniquely broad at 3 mm, compared to word spacing of 1.0 mm and 1.7mm in frgs 3 and 4. TABLE 2.3 Fragment Line Spacing Frg. 1, ll. 1–3 5.1 mm ll. 3–4 4.7 mm Frg. 2 7.8 mm Frg. 3 Frg. 4 6.4 mm 1Q63 Summary of Palaeographical Measurements Word Spacing Letter Height Thin Strokes Thick Strokes Margins 1.7 mm 2.5 mm 0.24 mm 0.51 mm L 2.9 mm 2.8 mm 0.36 mm 0.65 mm 0.7 mm 2.1 mm 0.31 mm 0.48 mm 1.03 mm 2.1 mm 0.27 mm 0.47 mm L+B? OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 24 1Q63 frg. 1 Transcription ]◦◦[ 1 ̇‫[ל ̇דגליהון‬ ̇ 2 ‫[י̇ ן‬ 3 ]‫[ת ואמר‬ ֯ 4 IR image: B-278277 (1G). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 4 ]. . .[ ]their signs ]. . . ]. . . and [. . .] said[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦◦[ The ends of two downstrokes remain, the second appearing to come a little lower to the baseline. Single letter possibilities include he and khet, though it could be some combination of yod plus dalet, vav, resh, or tav. The vertical guideline mentioned above runs through the first downstroke and down through l. 3. 2 ̇‫[ל ̇דגליהון‬ ̇ Milik suggested in his DJD transcription ‫בדגליהון‬,֯ and Fitzmyer and Harrington agreed, the latter translating it “in their detachments.” 66 But the preposition is closer to a lamed, particularly when compared to the second lamed of the same line. Beyer on the other hand read the whole as ‫“( ו֯ ֯רגלוהי‬and his feet”),67 but his initial vav is not possible. As for Beyer’s resh, when 6F compared with the resh of l. 4, the oblique stroke at the left end of the crossbar is too acute, the width of the letter is too narrow, and the obliqueness of the downstroke in relation to the crossbar is not pronounced enough. Beyer also omitted the final nun, which suggests he considered the pen stroke too long to be a final nun (cf. the final nun of frg. 1, l. 3), but then the stroke seems too narrow to be the superlinear stroke of a lamed from the line below. 3 ‫ [י̇ ן‬I suggest a yod here because of its height and width, but it may be missing the shading stroke evident in the yod of l. 2, and so better read ‫[ון‬. This would mean an Aramaic morpheme is 66 67 Milik, DJD 1, 147. Fizmyer and Harrington, MPAT, 129–30. Beyer, ATTM:84, 271. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 25 preserved here, the absolute masculine plural case ending. A reddish horizontal dryline runs to the end of this line. 4 ‫[ת‬ ֯ The top of a downstroke remains, straight and without bulge or keraia. Due to its relative height compared to the other letters of the line, I have suggested a tav, though a khet, final kaf or tsade, and (less likely) a bet or a shin could all be possible. Milik, Beyer, and Fitzmyer and Harrington have all noted the presence of a letter.68 67F 1Q63 frg. 2 Transcription ]‫[ ̇ע‬ 1 ]‫[ ̇א די ב‬ 2 ]◦‫[◦ נ֯ ק‬ 3 IR image: B-278274 (4B). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]. . .[ ]the[ . . .] which [is/are] in[ ]. . . . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫[ע‬ ̇ The oblique stroke of an ayin remains. Beyer records ]◦[. 69 2 ‫[א‬ ̇ I have suggested an alef here. The length, angle, and inside tick at the base of the left 68F downstroke is nearly identical to the alefs in frg. 4, and the keraia at the top of the righthand strokes in frg. 4 match the one here in both height and orientation. There is a smaller chance that it is two letters, the second of which would have to be the oblique stroke of a final pe. 70 Beyer records ◦[. 71 70F Milik, DJD 1, 147; Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271; MPAT, 128. Fitzmyer and Harrington record ◦ ◦, but the photographs clearly preserve a trace of only one letter. 69 Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. For the remainder of 1Q63, Milik, Fitzmyer and Harrington, and Beyer are all selective with their transcriptions, not comprehensive. Both Milik and Fitzmyer and Harrington provide transcriptions for only 1Q63 frg. 1, while Beyer provides transcriptions for frgs 1, 2, and 4. 70 Perhaps something like ‫“( ים ס[וף די ב]דרומא‬the R]eed Sea which is in [the south”; cf. 1Q20 21 18). 68 71 Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 2 26 ‫ די‬The yod here appears more like a vav than a yod. In frgs 1 and 3, the yod is formed in a triangular wedge and the downstroke is more oblique. In frgs 1 and 4 the vav is taller, less oblique, and is less shaded. This yod has a vav’s height but lacks the expected angle and shading of a yod. It seems possibly to be a scribal error. 2 ]‫ ב‬Beyer records ]◦.72 This construction, ]‫[א די ב‬, occurs fifteen times in the ADSS. In eight of those occurrences, the bet is the preposition, clarifying the location of what comes before it. But there are two instances where the bet is the beginning of ‫“( בין‬between”; 1Q20 17 9 and 13) and five places where another word is used altogether.73 3 ◦[ A small trace of a sloping downstroke survives on the fragment edge. 74 Beyer records ◦[. 75 3 ]◦‫ נ֯ ק‬Beyer suggested ]‫וק‬, but there is no second lefthand stroke on the first letter to create the 74F peak of a vav.76 Due to the letter’s distance from the following qof and its slope, I have suggested a nun. There is a trace of ink on the left edge of the fragment belonging to another letter following qof. The options here are narrow. ‫“( נק]בה‬female”) occurs nine times in the ADSS: four times it occurs in 1QapGen (1Q201 1; 12 11; and 12 12[x2]), once in ALD (4Q213a 3 12), twice in 4QBook of Giants (4Q531 2+3 9 and 4Q532 1 i 9), and twice in 4QMagical Booklet (4Q560 1 i 3 and 5). ‫נקא‬ (“pure”) occurs twice in 4QEnochc (4Q204 5 29) and 4QTobita (4Q197 4 ii 6). It could also be a verb in the imperfect first common plural, like ‫“( נקבל‬we shall receive”; see 1Q20 0 2), or (‫( נקים)נה‬in 4QTobita as “we shall betroth her”). 1Q63 frg. 3 Transcription ‫[ ̇ה די‬ 1 bottom margin? IR image: B-278275 (2F). Color images: recto; verso. 72 73 Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. See 1Q20 10 1 (‫כולא די בני‬, “all which [belonged to] my sons”); 1Q20 21 1 (‫לאתרא די בנית‬, “where I had built”); 1Q20 21 7 (‫בתורא די בית אל‬, “the mountain of Bethel”); 4Q204 1 xii 24 (‫קניא טביא די בשמא‬, “good reeds of spice”); and 4Q554 1 i 11 (‫מדנחא די בצפונא‬, literally “northeast”). 74 I suspect there is the trace of a second horizontal stroke, as the pen lifts to draw a crossbar. Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. 76 Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. 75 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 27 Translation 1 ]. . . her/the . . . which Notes on Reading 1 ‫[ה די‬ ̇ Only the top half of the he remains, but it is penned similarly to the he of frg. 4, l. 1. It is possible there is no space between the he and the dalet and the whole should read ‫ש[הדי‬, “wit]nesses of” (see a single occurrence in 4Q212 1 iv 12). There is much empty space below and to the left of the line, suggesting the bottom-left corner of the column. 1Q63 frg. 4 Transcription ] ‫[ ֯לך אלה‬ 1 ‫[ ֯ש ולא ̇אי֯ ֯ת]י‬ 2 IR image: B-278275 (2G). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]your . . .[. . .] God of [ ]. . . and there was n[o Notes on Reading 1 ‫[לך‬ ֯ The bottom of a leftward diagonal downstroke remains on the fragment break. Beyer records ‫[◦ך‬. 77 76F 1 ] ‫ אלה‬Beyer records ]‫ אלה‬with no space following ‫אלה‬, but there is enough space that a letter could show following. 78 7F 2 ‫[ש‬ ֯ A rightward diagonal downstroke remains on the fragment break. Other less likely possibilities include samek, qof, or tsade. Beyer records ◦[. 79 78F 77 Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. 79 Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. 78 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 2 28 ‫ ̇אי֯ ֯ת]י‬Beyer records here ]◦◦◦, but an initial alef seems the obvious choice (especially when compared with the other alefs of the same fragment). As for the following letters, I have suggested ‫ולא ̇אי֯ ֯ת]י‬, “and there was n[o,” since this construction occurs at least five times in the ADSS. 80 79F Comments The only real contextual clues we have in 1Q63 frg. 1 are ‫“( דגל‬banners” or “divisions”) and ‫“( אמר‬to say”), the latter of which is too common to help narrow context. The same can be said for the second set of fragments, with the exception perhaps of ]‫ [א די ב‬in frg. 2 and the possible reading of ‫ ש[הדי‬in frg. 4. Milik included only a single line of commentary when he published his transcription of 1Q63: “Description d’une guerre?” (“[The] description of a war?”). 81 Thus, he likely understood ‫ דגל‬either within the context of 1QM—wherein the Hebrew cognate appears upward of fifteen times to denote a “banner” or “(war) standard”—or within the biblical context (see for example Num 1:52; 2:2–3, 10; and 10:14, 18, 20). This also appears to be the primary sense in at least the Official Aramaic from the fourth and fifth centuries BCE.82 But within the context of the Aramaic Qumran corpus there is no precedent for ‫ דגל‬being used in this militaristic sense. The Aramaic word appears exclusively in Enochic manuscripts as seasonal or heavenly “signs” or “divisions” (see 4Q201 1 ii 2, 3, 6; 4Q205 1 xi 5; 4Q209 28 1). In fact, the same rendering of ‫ לדגליהון‬occurs in 4Q209 28 1: ‫“( ל[מעדיהון לחדשיהונ לדגליהון‬according to] their times, to their new moons, to their signs”). My translation reflects this latter sense. If the word denotes heavenly signs, then this fragment may be something more akin to Astronomical Enoch, a work unattested at Cave 1Q but which would be at home within the same family of texts as 1Q23 (1QEnGiantsa), 1Q24 (1QEnGiantsb), and the Genesis Apocryphon. The reading of ]‫]“( [א די ב‬the [. . .] which is in[”) on frg. 2 is common enough in the 1QapGen, with this “x, which/who is in y” formula occurring at least six times there. 83 Is this fragment related in some way to that work? If the possible reading of ‫“( ש[הדי‬wit]nesses of”) on frg. 3 is correct, are we looking at something else Enochic? Importantly, frg. 1 does not belong to the same MS as the other three fragments, owing to its palaeographical distinctiveness in this grouping. Fragment 4 possibly belongs with frgs 2 and 3 as the same MS on the basis of similarities in both the script and appearance of the parchment of this manuscript. 80 See 4Q213 1 ii–2 4 and 17; 4Q538 1–2 4; 4Q544 1 5; 4Q550 7 + 7a 2; and 11Q10 21 3. Milik, DJD 1, 147. 82 According to CAL, ‫ דגל‬is attested in this sense in fifth-Century Elephantine letters and fourth-Century Bactrian 81 letters. 83 See 1Q20 12 14; 17 13; 21 19; 21 28; and 21 29 (x2). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 29 The question of why a manuscript and its fragment are labelled Aramaic and not Hebrew looms large. In this case, while ‫ דגל‬is a cognate of Hebrew and Aramaic, ‫הון‬- (frg. 1, l. 2) is a distinctive Aramaic morpheme, while ‫ין‬- of the next line is a common Aramaic absolute plural ending. Fragments 2 and 3 preserve the unique Aramaic marker ‫די‬. If ‫ ולא אית]י‬of frg. 4, l.2 is a correct reading, we have another Aramaic indicator. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 30 1Q64 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) Bibliography Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-arämaische Wortliste, Register. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B. C. – Second Century A. D.). Biblica Et Orientalia, 34. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1978. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “63–67. Groupes non caractérisé, en araméen.” In Qumran Cave 1. Ed. By Dominique Barthélemy, Józef Tadeusz Milik. Page 147. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Photographs TABLE 3.1 1Q64 Leon Levy Images Fragment PAM Number Leon Levy Collection Number Frg. 1a–d 40.537 B-278273 Mar 1953 4F Frg. 2 40.537 B-278273 Mar 1953 2F Frg. 3 40.537 B-278273 Mar 1953 4D Frg. 4 40.537 B-278273 Mar 1953 4D Frg. 5 40.537 B-278273 Mar 1953 2L FIGURE 3.1 frg. 1a–d frg. 2 Photograph Date Coordinates on the plate 1Q64 PAM IR Photographs frg. 3 frg. 4 frg. 5 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 31 A 2013 color image of the recto side of 1Q64 can be found on the BnF Gallica website on “Folio 8r” labelled incorrectly as “65” (i.e., “[1Q]65”). The verso image can be seen on “Folio 8v.” Physical Description 1Q64 is comprised of at least five and perhaps as many as nine, light brown, almost orange, fragments, often with discoloration at their edges. What Milik classified as frg. 1 actually appears to be, with its cracks and holes, four small pieces, combined to form a single fragment. Close inspection of the photographs suggests the edges of these smaller pieces do not perfectly align. It is unclear, whether their placement is correct and either (1) the whole is still connected by an underlayer of leather, or (2) they have been placed together based on a pre-fragmented state, known to the handlers before it was damaged; or whether the small pieces are incorrectly joined on the plate, and (3) they have been laid using good guesswork. A photograph of the verso is available for investigation, but it is still impossible to see what is going on due to the layers of celo tape and whatever secondary medium it was originally affixed to. When considered together, frg. 1 measures about 2.6 cm by 2.0 cm. Most complete letters (with the exception of alefs and medial mems) average about 3 mm in height, while their line spacing averages 5 mm. I will, however, treat each small piece individually as follows: FIGURE 3.2 1Q64 Arrangements, Together and Individually frg. 1 as it appears on the plate frg. 1d frg. 1b frg. 1a frg. 1c Fragment 1a measures about 0.9 cm by 1.7 cm. There is a smaller, rectangular piece at the top righthand corner of the fragment measuring 0.4 cm by 0.6 cm. It is difficult to tell if this is connected or a separate piece, but I will treat it as connected. Fragment 1a runs in a diagonal orientation, down and to the left. A superficial crack runs horizontally across the bottom of the fragment, abrading the second of the fragment’s two lines of text. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 32 Fragment 1b is in a diagonal orientation like frg. 1a, measuring 0.35 cm by 1.1 cm. Both frgs 1a and 1b have a reddish discoloration along their top edges, further justifying their alignment together on the plate. But it seems to me that frg. 1b has been rotated anti-clockwise to have it better fit between frgs 1a and 1d (I have corrected it on the individual side of fig. 3.2 above). There is a single line of three letters with some abrasion obscuring the second and third letters. Fragment 1c measures at 0.4 cm by 0.6 cm. It has a shallow crack running down the left side and preserves the remnants of two letters. Where frg. 1c is connected to frg. 1a seems like a fairly plausible join, and one can almost see the downstroke of the first letter, a yod, ligatured to the foot of the medial nun on 1a 2. Fragment 1d is the largest of the small pieces, measuring 1.4 cm by 1.6 cm. It exhibits a dark brown discoloration along 2 or 3 mm of the edge; on the top edge, the top layer of the vellum has flaked away leaving an exposed substrate; the right edge is creased along part of its edge, about a millimeter in; and some of the vellum has flaked away from the bottom edge forming a “peninsula” on the right corner. Furthermore, there is a dark spot between the first and second line of text that may be damage to the top layer or a hole through the vellum. As of the 2013 BnF image, there are two delaminated patches on the left side of frg. 1d, the larger of which damages the text at the end of l. 2. This damage does not appear to be in PAM 40.537. Fragment 1d preserves three lines of text. More interesting is the reddish discoloration that runs along its bottom edge, not at all dissimilar to that which appears along the top edges of frgs 1a and 1b. Fragment 2 is oriented on a right-descending diagonal slant, similar in appearance to a boot. It measures just a little under 0.7 cm by a little less than 1.8 cm. A shallow crack runs perpendicular to the orientation of the fragment, just above the “boot.” The left, right, and bottom edges are dark brown. Fragment 3 is slightly diagonal in orientation. When it was first photographed in 1953, its length was a little under 1.6 cm, but as of its more recent photograph with the BnF, the disintegrating fragment is closer to 1.2 cm by 0.6 cm. In the BnF image, the bits of fragment that flaked away at the extreme ends of the top and bottom have been relocated to an indent on the left side, making it appear wider. There is reddish discoloration on the left and top edges, similar in appearance to the darker edges of frgs 1a– 1d, and a shallow crack has formed horizontally across the fragment. Some abrasion near the top of the fragment has damaged some of the ink. Fragment 4 is a smaller fragment measuring 0.9 cm by 0.8 cm. In the BnF photograph, the tiniest piece appears to have broken off the top of the fragment. The left and right edges appear reddish in color, similar to the fragments above, and there is prominent abrasion on the surface. Fragment 5 is oriented horizontally measuring a little over 1.0 cm by 0.6 cm. Some light abrasion mars the letters, and there is some darkening along the top edge of the fragment, just above the letters. It might be noted that this fragment’s verso is quite dark compared to the verso of the other fragments, appearing almost grey or black as opposed to a reddish brown. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN TABLE 3.2 33 1Q64 Summary of Fragment Dimensions Fragment X-axis Y-axis Area Frg. 1a 1.18 cm 1.56 cm 0.95 cm2 Frg. 1b 0.64 cm 0.88 cm 0.26 cm2 Frg. 1c 0.45 cm 0.56 cm 0.17 cm2 Frg. 1d 1.36 cm 1.73 cm 1.56 cm2 Frg. 2 1.21 cm 1.55 cm 0.85 cm2 Frg. 3 1.43 cm 1.17 cm 0.75 cm2 Frg. 4 0.88 cm 0.80 cm 0.46 cm2 Frg. 5 1.02 cm 0.68 cm 0.44 cm2 Palaeography The fragments of 1Q64 share common traits: the letters are fairly erect and can appear somewhat square with tight letter spacing. None of the fragments really have a feel for the baseline. There is a limited sample size in frgs 2–5 (particularly with frg. 2), making it difficult to say anything meaningful about their scripts. However, frgs 1–3 appear to have been written with a more beveled pen nib allowing for a variation in stroke width, while frgs 4 and 5 appear to have been written with a dull or rounded pen nib, making for uniform strokes. Subtle difference in the formation of alef suggests to me a separation of frgs 1–3 from frgs 4–5. The alefs of frgs 1 and 3 have pronounced bends in their left downstrokes along with erect right downstrokes. The alefs of frgs 4 and 5 have shorter left downstrokes that reach out diagonally rather than bend the downstroke so that it reaches toward the baseline. The average letter height for frgs 1–3 varies between 2.6 mm and 3.4 mm. Fragments 1 and 3 may be related, but there is a problem with the loops on the superlinear strokes of their lameds. The lamed of frg. 3 loops to the left before dropping into the superlinear stroke; the lamed of frg. 1 loops to the right and drops into the superlinear stroke, but without covering the initial stroke so that it protrudes to the left. This latter may speak to a lack of skill on the part of the scribe. Fragments 4 and 5 are possibly related, the average letter height measuring at 3.2 mm for each. The alefs of frgs 4 and 5 and the ayin of frg. 5 appear to be smaller, older forms, with the alef’s left stroke attaching near the midpoint of the oblique, and the ayin being a narrow, erect form: its oblique has not flattened out or developed an elbow according to Herodian tendency. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN TABLE 3.3 34 1Q64 Summary of Palaeographical Measurements Fragment Line Spacing Word Spacing Letter Height Thin Strokes Thick Strokes Frg. 1a 7.7 mm 1.1 mm 3.1 mm 0.47 mm 0.66 mm 2.8 mm 0.41 mm 0.52 mm 2.6 mm 0.49 mm 0.62 mm Frg. 1b Frg. 1c 1.8 mm Margins Frg. 1d 8.0 mm 3.1 mm 0.46 mm 0.63 mm L? Frg. 2 6.9 mm 3.4 mm 0.56 mm 0.86 mm L? Frg. 3 5.0 mm 2.6 mm 0.53 mm 0.86 mm 1.3 mm Frg. 4 Frg. 5 3.2 mm 0.6 mm 3.2 mm 0.74 mm 0.71 mm 0.81 mm 1Q64 frg. 1a Transcription ]‫[ר ][בת ̇מ‬ ֯ 1 ]‫[מנ‬ 2 IR image: B-278273 (4F). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . . [ ]in . . .[ ]from[ Notes on Reading 1 ] ‫[ר‬ ֯ A keraia adorns the left end of a cross stroke, which slopes into a downstroke. I have suggested a resh, but it could perhaps be a tav or a bet (though it would be penned differently from the bet of the same line). Milik et al. record ◦[. 84 1 ]‫ [בת ̇מ‬The third letter is most easily treated as a medial mem—the downstroke bends into a base stroke that drops below the baseline, creating an obtuse angle. But compare it with the medial mem of l. 2 of the same fragment. The scribe’s second mem does not create an angle as it runs from 84 Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer and Harrington, PMAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 35 the downstroke into the lower transverse, but it curves. The mem of l. 2 also has a higher righthand “horn” and its base stroke seems to drop quite below the base line—the base stroke of l. 1’s mem does not have that far a drop. Kaf may be the more satisfying option: ‫בתכיף‬, “suddenly,” appears a few times in the targumim; ‫“( תכונה‬jewelry”) and ‫( תכך‬a species of tree) are also possibilities. Less likely for a number of reasons are tet and pe. Options could include ‫“( תפי‬to set for cooking”) or some form of ‫“( תטושׁה‬pollution”) or ‫“( תטירו‬impurity”) (these latter only occur in the Peshitta). Milik took all four pieces of frgs 1a—d together and transcribed here ‫“( [◦ בתמרי֯ ֯רותא‬. . . by the embitterments”), and Fitzmyer and Harrington followed him translating “in the bitterness.” 85 The fact that this word, ‫תמרירו‬, is unattested across the rest of the Aramaic corpus makes for a dubious reading. Beyond the problem that this word is unattested, it is not immediately clear this reading reflects what is visible of the ink strokes themselves (fig. 3.3 below). The issue is with both reshs. In the case of the first resh, is the first “letter” of frg. 1b meant to be taken as a resh (fig. 3.4)? Or is the first letter of frg. 1b the top of the mem in frg. 1a, while the second “letter” of frg. 1b is to be taken as our resh with abraded keraia and cross stroke (fig. 3.5)? Either way, Milik did not mark his first resh with a dot or circlet. (b) As for the second resh, which appears to be on the break of frg. 1d, it only works if the fragment edge has been severely warped. The issue is the very small trace appearing beneath the lefthand edge of the cross stroke on frg. 1d. The stroke of the resh would have to have been penned quite round. Were I to follow Milik’s lead and treat 1Q64 1a–d as a single fragment, I would suggest that the whole should actually read ‫בתמימותא‬, “in (the) perfection” (fig. 3.6), wherein the second mem has been quite damaged. This is at least a form attested across the broader Aramaic corpus, appearing twice in the Peshitta, twice in the Targumim, and once in 4QTestament of Qahat. 86 The issue here, is that the ink of my second mem is not so obviously a mem. 85F FIGURE 3.3 FIGURE 3.4 85 86 Letters from Combined Pieces Milik’s Reconstruction? Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer and Harrington, PMAT, 130–31. See 4Q252 1 i 13; P Jos 24:14, P Ps 26:1; and TNeofiti Gen 20:5, Tg Esth2 8:13(4). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 36 FIGURE 3.5 FIGURE 3.6 Milik’s Reconstruction? Proposed Reconstruction Beyer also treated the fragments as a whole, but he transcribed ‫“( בתמני ו֯ יתא‬eight. And he will come”). 87 Beyer’s reading assumes a warped nun at the beginning of frg. 1b (without dot or circlet), but his nun would have an obtuse angle compared to the acute angles of the other nuns of 1Q64. 86F 2 ]‫ [מנ‬As mentioned above, there may be some ligaturing at the end of the nun with the downstroke of a yod running into the base line of the nun. Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington record ]‫ [מני אל‬without comment on the breaks between the pieces. 88 Beyer likewise omits breaks, recording ]◦ ‫“( ת[מני‬ei]ght”). 89 8F 1Q64 frg. 1b Transcription ]‫[ ֯גו̇ ֯א‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (4F). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [ ֯גו̇ ֯א‬See my note about Milik's combined reading for frgs 1a—d above. The first letter is likely a gimel. The second letter I have listed as a vav, though it may be a yod. The final letter is difficult. 87 German: “acht. Und er wird kommen.” Beyer, ATTM: 84, 271. Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, PMAT, 130. 89 Beyer, ATTM:84, 271. 88 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 37 There seems to be a slight curving to the right, but this could be because the fragment’s edge is warped. If we treat the bend as intentional, there are a mere two options within the known Aramaic corpus: ‫גועלוך‬, “deposit” and ‫בגושי‬, “Bagoshi.” It may also be possible that, like the alef of frg. 3, l. 1, this letter is the righthand stroke of an alef meeting the oblique very near the bottom of the stroke. That would leave us with the far more common ‫גוא‬, “midst.” 1Q64 frg. 1c Transcription ]◦ ̇‫[י‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (4F). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]. . . . . .[ Notes on Reading Fragment 1c ̇‫ [י‬A yod seems obvious, but the letter may be a vav since it is marked almost exactly as the vav of 1 frg. 1d, l. 2, which begins its righthand stroke with an angle before dropping into a vertical downstroke.. 1 ]◦ A downstroke remains with the end of an oblique or base stroke jutting out the bottom right side. Milik has recorded for 1Q64 1 3 ] ◦ ◦ ‫[מני אל‬, when there is actually a letter-sized break between the lamed and the preceding letter. 90 Beyer has recorded the break accurately: ‫ת[מני‬ ‫◦]◦[ל‬.91 90F 1Q64 frg. 1d Transcription ] ֯‫[◦ ̇ת ֯אנ‬ 1 ] ‫[בותא‬ ֯ 2 ]‫[◦] [לנ֯ ֯ה‬ 3 IR image: B-278273 (4F). Color images: recto; verso. 90 91 Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer and Harrington have followed Milik: PMAT, 130. Beyer, ATTM:84, 271. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 38 Translation 1 2 3 ]. . . I/yo[u ]the . . . [ ]. . .[ ]to . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ‫[◦ת‬ ̇ The horizontal stroke of the second letter matches the “foot” of the tav of l. 2 in width, angle, proximity to the right downstroke, and comparative length. Milik and Fitzmyer and Harrington record ] ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ [, 92 but I would suggest there should only be a space after the second circlet as the tav would likely ligature into the next letter as the other tavs of frgs 1a and 1d do. 1 ] ֯‫ ֯אנ‬I have suggested an alef due to its height above the base of the tav earlier in the line and the space between the alef and nun. On a lexical and syntactical level, -‫ אנ‬is a common morpheme of personal pronouns—‫“( אנה‬I”), ‫“( אנתה‬you,” ms), ‫“( אנון‬they,” mp)—and personal pronouns make sense following ‫ת‬-, the suffix of perfect 1cs, 2ms/fs, and 3f verbs. The appearance of an inflected verb followed by its independent pronoun is a common construction in Aramaic. Only the base of the second letter is preserved, penned higher off the baseline than the preceding tav and similar to the nun of 1a 2. It also matches its shorter width and angle (cf. the bet of frg. 1a, l. 1). 2 ‫[בותא‬ ֯ See my note about Milik’s combined reading for frgs 1a—d above. The first letter is difficult to see clearly on the edge of the fragment. Milik determined it was a resh, but this fails to account for the trace below the cross stroke indicating a base stroke. I have suggested a bet. This opens up options like ‫“( רבותא‬the greatness”) and ‫“( תיבותא‬the ark”). Beyer has recorded ‫“( ו֯ יתא‬and he will come”), but I believe his yod is incorrect and his vav impossible. 93 92F 3 ]‫ [לנ֯ ֯ה‬The superlinear stroke of the lamed remains. It is tempting to read this as ‫ לוא‬but based on the scribe’s tendency for ligaturing and grouping his letters fairly tightly, the spacing does not work. The second letter is likely a nun—the scribe pens the downstroke of his nuns in an exaggerated way, bending strongly to the right (see the nun of frg. 1a, l. 2). This would allow for the ligaturing between the lamed and the nun we would expect. Beyer agrees with the reading, transcribing ]◦ ֯‫[לנ‬.94 As for the final letter, I have suggested a he: there appears to be a downstroke 93F and evidence of a cross stroke. Some abrasion or warping of the fragment edge would have to have disconnected the first stroke from the horizontal strokes (fig. 3.7). What I see as the first downstroke of a he may actually be a vav or yod, but the downstroke begins too straight compared 92 Milik, DJD 1, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, PMAT, 130. Beyer, ATTM:84, 271. 94 Beyer, ATTM:84, 271. 93 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 39 to the angular downstrokes of the other vavs and yods. There seem to be, then, two possibilities: ‫“( נהור‬light”) or ‫“( נהר‬river”). FIGURE 3.7 Fragment 1d Line 3 Reconstruction 1Q64 frg. 2 Transcription ] ‫[כה‬ ֯ 1 ]◦‫הפ‬ ֯ ‫[ ̇ל‬ 2 ] ‫[◦ ֯ל‬ 3 IR image: B-278273 (2F). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]your [ ]to . . .[ ]. . . [ Notes on Reading 1 ] ‫ [ ֯כה‬Only the base stroke of the first letter remains. It is possibly a nun, but the curve of the base seems more consistent with kaf. 95 94F 2 ]◦‫הפ‬ ֯ ‫[ל‬ ̇ The PAM 40.537 image captures the superlinear stroke of a lamed. The letter following the he is formed in a single diagonal stroke curving into a straight downstroke. The top of the letter looks rounded, rather than peaked, like the vavs and yods of frgs 1c and 1d, suggesting to me a pe or a tet. The -‫ לה‬prefix is likely the haphel infinitive construct marker. Both ‫“( פטר‬to depart”) and ‫“( פלח‬to work/serve”) occur once in the (h)aphel stem in Qumran Aramaic: ‫“( לאפטרותני‬to let me depart”; 4Q196 6 8) and ‫“( להפלח‬to cause to serve”; 4Q570 17 2). Two less likely possibilities are that it is ‫“( נפק‬to go out”) with an assimilated nun (though the one example in the ADSS does not 95 Neither Milik, Fitzmyer & Harrington, nor Beyer provide transcriptions for 1Q64 frgs 2–4 (with the exception of Beyer with frg. 4). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 40 assimilate the nun: ‫[ להנפקה‬11Q10 31 5]) or it is ‫“( הפך‬to turn”) in the pael infinitive construct (“to overthrow”), but the latter appears only once in the Targum in 1 Chronicles 19:3, and not at all in the ADSS. Finally, if the third letter is actually a vav, the reading could simply be ‫להון‬, “to them.” 3 ‫[◦ל‬ ֯ This is a bizarre cluster of ink strokes, made all the more confusing by shorter line spacing between lines 2 and 3. There is also some dark spotting on the break in the IR image that seems to run along a crack. I am unable to discern if this is darkness of the skin, if it is ink that was part of l. 3, or if something has been ablated by the scribe. Only a barely discernable trace remains of the first letter. As for the second letter, it is most probably an oversized lamed that is positioned unusually high on the line. 1Q64 frg. 3 Transcription ‫[ ֯כ ̇מאנ̇ ]י‬ 1 ]‫[ ֯אל ̇ד‬ 2 IR image: B-278273 (4D) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]like (the) vessels[ of ]. . . . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ‫[כ ̇מאנ̇ ]י‬ ֯ If ‫ מאן‬is correct, the remains of the first letter must be the base of a kaf, sloping well below the baseline. The low and curved base stroke of the next letter marks it for a mem, while the final letter is a strongly curved downstroke into an acute angle penned above the baseline, like the nun of frg. 1d. 2 ‫[אל‬ ֯ A single vertical stroke precedes the lamed. There may be a break in that vertical stroke, suggesting an alef, though this occurs where the fragment edge cuts in so it may just be a damaged vertical stroke. 2 ]‫ ̇ד‬The beginning of a downstroke and cross stroke with keraia remains. This could possibly be a khet, but traces more closely align to dalet. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 41 1Q64 frg. 4 Transcription ] ‫ ע[למא‬1 IR image: B-278273 (4D) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 et]ernity [ Notes on Reading 1 ] ‫ ע[למא‬It might seem more obvious to translate “why.” But in terms of word frequency, there is a higher chance it is either ‫“( עלמא‬eternity”) or ‫“( חלמא‬the dream”), the former occurring at least twenty-eight times and the latter nine times in the ADSS—‫למא‬/‫“( למה‬why”) only occurs six times. The alef is less sinuous than those of frgs 1d and 3, with thicker strokes and appearing like an “x” (the same is true of the alef of frg. 5). Beyer incorrectly adds a space before his transcription: ] ‫[ למא‬. 96 95F 1Q64 frg. 5 Transcription ] ֯‫[◦ ̇א ב ̇עי‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (2L) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]the . . . . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ] ֯‫[◦א ב ̇עי‬ ̇ A faint trace of the first letter can be seen next to the oblique of the alef. The bet has a strange keraia forming almost a horn over the downstroke. The base of the bet is broad, making it seem like it is part of the next letter, which is already obscured by delamination. That 96 Beyer, ATTM:84, 271. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 42 delamination has removed the midsection of both strokes of the ayin. The final letter is a tall stroke, curving to the left at its base. I am tempted to suggest ‫“( בעיר‬animal[s]”) over a participial form of ‫“( בעי‬to request, look for”) since the latter often occurs with a vav and even though the verb occurs with more frequency in the ADSS (about 27 times). A third option may be ‫בעו‬ (“petition”). Comments As stated in the Palaeography section above, I would suggest frgs 1–3 and frgs 4 and 5 should be treated as belonging to different scrolls. Regarding the first set, Milik’s reading of frg. 1 has been pulled apart without a satisfying replacement. In their place I have suggested the following new readings for frgs 1– 3: • ‫“( מאן‬vessel”; frg. 3, l. 1). This is the only reading I would not consider controversial, though it • appears on a fragment break. The idea of “vessels” occurs in two contexts in the ADSS: (1) 4QAstronomical Enochb–c, wherein the visionary is shown the “vessels of heaven” in the east (4Q209 23 7; 4Q210 1 ii 17); and (2) a broken context in 4QpapVisione (4Q558 53 2). ‫נהור‬/‫“( נהר‬light”/“river”; frg. 1d, l. 3). The first option, ‫“( נהור‬light”), appears in a number of ADSS contexts: (1) 4QEnochc (4Q204 1 i 19); (2) 4QAstronomical Enocha–c (upward of 12 times in 4Q208–210); (3) 4QBook of Giantsc (4Q531 14 1); (4) 4QVisions of Amrama (4Q544 2 16; 4Q548 1 ii–2 13, 16); (5) 11QTargum of Job (11Q10 23 7; 29 6); and (6) two testamental texts (as ‫ ;נהיר‬4Q541 24 ii 6; 4Q542 1 i 1). The second option, ‫“( נהר‬river”), makes for an even narrower context, appearing in only (1) the Genesis Apocryphon (upward of fourteen times); and (2) 1QEnoch Giantsa–b? and 4QBook of Giantsc (1Q23 13 2; 1Q24 1 3; 4Q531 7 6). These elements, if indeed preserved on our fragments, suggest something like an Enochic text. In fact, even if we were to take Milik’s ‫“( תמרירו‬embitterment”), it would fit well within the context of the Enochic corpus. Is this part of a work related to 1Q Enoch Giantsa–b?? Or are these fragments of the mysterious missing Cave 1Q Enoch? The only new reading for the second group of fragments, frgs 4 and 5, is ‫“( בעיר‬animal[s]”) or ‫“( בעין‬requesting/seeking”). The former occurs in only two places: (1) in the Genesis Apocryphon where it seems that giants may have destroyed ‫ולחי֯ ו֯ ̇ת ̇א ̇לופא‬ ̇ ‫לב ̇עי̇ ̇רא‬ ̇ ̇‫ ̇לאנשא ו‬, “humanity, cattle, wild animals, and birds” (1Q20 6 26); and (2) in a fragmentary context in 4QBook of Giantsc (4Q531 2+3 6). Some form of ‫בעי‬, on the other hand, could work too. This word occurs upwards of 21 times in the ADSS, eight times of which are in Cave 1Q: five times in 1QapGen (1Q20 19 15 and 19; 20 9, 12, and 21) and three times in 1QTLevi (1Q21 7 i 3; 11 2; 30 3). A third option, ‫“( בעו‬petition”), occurs in three places in the ADSS: (1) once in 4QEnochc (4Q204 1 vi 13), (2) once in 4QEnGiantsb (4Q530 7 ii 3), and (3) once in 4QVisAmd (4Q546 9 5). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 43 There is only one obviously Aramaic element among all the fragments: the definitive ending of frg. 1d: ‫[בותא‬. ֯ One could say frgs 4 and 5 each have the characteristic Aramaic determinative ending, but there is nothing here saying it could not be Hebrew either. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 44 1Q65 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) Bibliography Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-arämaische Wortliste, Register. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B. C. – Second Century A. D.). Biblica Et Orientalia, 34. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1978. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “63–67. Groupes non caractérisé, en araméen.” In Qumran Cave 1. Ed. By Dominique Barthélemy, Józef Tadeusz Milik. Page 147. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Photographs TABLE 4.1 1Q65 Leon Levy Images Fragment PAM Number Leon Levy Collection Number Frg. 1 40.441 B-277258 Apr 1953 1E Frg. 2 40.481 B-278231 Apr 1953 1A FIGURE 4.1 Frg. 1 Photograph Date Coordinates on the plate 1Q65 PAM IR Photographs Frg. 2 A 2013 color image of the recto side of 1Q65 appears on the BnF photograph “Folio 8r,” labelled incorrectly as “66” (i.e., “[1Q]66”). The verso image can be seen on “Folio 8v.” OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 45 Physical Description 1Q65 is comprised of two fragments that are dark brown in color. Fragment 1 is a trapezoid with rounded corners, measuring 1.6 cm by 2.0 cm. The fragment gets quite dark around its edges, appearing almost black. In the PAM image, cracks have begun to form on its upper left side, and by the time the BnF rephotographed them in 2013 those parts had broken away, along with part of the bottom, taking some lettering with it. Fragment 2 is mostly uninscribed and in the shape of a letter “J.” It measures just over 1.6 cm by 1.8 cm. The fragment is similar in color to the edges of frg. 1. 97 The color image appears to preserve some damage over the left side of most of the fragment, with a more significant line of abrasion appearing at the base of the “J.” Physically speaking, the two appear to be related simply by the consistency of their color. TABLE 4.2 1Q65 Summary of Fragment Dimensions Fragment X-axis Y-axis Area Frg. 1 1.78 cm 1.98 cm 2.02 cm2 Frg. 2 1.63 cm 1.87 cm 1.46 cm2 Palaeography The script of frg. 1 is a fluid Herodian hand, written with a beveled pen and with developed ornamentation. Letters are forward leaning for the most part, square, tightly spaced, and have a feeling for the baseline. Letters measure an average of 2.5 mm in height. Alef is a standard letter size, its left downstroke attaching near the top of the oblique. Yod is well distinguished from vav, the former being wide and shaded, and the latter being narrow. Ayin is a later form, having undergone the clockwise rotation of the oblique and development of an elbow. The keraia of the lamed’s superlinear stroke is a wedge, while the hook has enlarged and nears the baseline. It is possible that frg. 2 belongs with frg. 1, but the former only preserves two letters, a vav and a final kaf. The vav measures 2.6 mm, close to the average letter height of frg. 1. The final kaf has some notable differences from related letters in frg. 1: the descenders of the final nun and qofs of frg. 1 tend to bend to the left while the descender of frg. 2’s final kaf is quite straight. The descender of frg. 1’s final nun also ends in a long taper, while frg. 2’s final kaf does not. The difference in bend might be explained 97 This is true of the verso side as well. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 46 by the fluidity of the script, the scribe anticipating the next letters in frg. 1 (all descenders are followed by another letter), while only the margin follows the kaf of frg. 2. The script of this fragment looks very similar to the script of another unidentified Cave 1Q manuscript, 1Q68, which is written in Hebrew. The hook of the lamed, peaks of the yods, and right strokes of the ayins are a near match. TABLE 4.3 1Q65 Summary of Palaeographical Measurements Fragment Line Spacing Word Spacing Letter Height Thin Strokes Thick Strokes Frg. 1 6.0 mm 0.8 mm 2.5 mm 0.36 mm 0.52 mm Frg. 2 2.6 mm 0.53 mm Margins L + B? 1Q65 frg. 1 Transcription ] ̇‫[ ֯צדקי ועלי‬ 1 ]◦ ‫[ ̇מין זקפין‬ 2 ] ‫י[שראל‬ 3 IR image: B-277258(1E). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]my righteousness, and upon me[ ]. . . erecting/rising . . .[ I]srael [ Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [ ֯צדקי‬A base stroke remains of the first letter whose angle and length at first suggest a bet. Hence, Milik read √‫“( בדק‬to break” or “to search”). 98 His transcription, ‫[בדקו‬ ֯ (“]they broke [through]”), furthermore treats the vav as the 3mp verbal conjugation, 99 likely because he saw it as a narrative pairing with ]‫“( ועלו‬and entered/came[”), and it is a natural fit when the next line preserves the 98 In the Peshitta, a verbal form of ‫ בדק‬appears in 2 Kings 12:7, 8, and 12, meaning “to repair.” Its nominal counterpart, ‫בדקא‬, has two meanings: ‫בדקא‬, “investigation” (P Isa 10:1); and a “place needing repair” (P 2 Kg 12:6). Thus, with ‫ זקף‬of l. 2 in mind, “my repair” or “my investigation” could be suggested. See Sokoloff’s A Syriac Lexicon, s.v. “[bdq]” and “[bdq’].” 99 Milik, DJD I, 147. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 47 word’s potential antonym in ‫זקף‬, “to build up,” “raise,” or “restore.” As for the fourth letter, it is unquestionable a yod. Beyer picked up on this and transcribed ‫[צדקי‬, ֯ “meine Gerechtigkeit” (“]my righteousness”).102 This makes for a long base on the proposed tsade but ‫ צדקי‬makes better sense of things in light of ‫ זקפין‬in l 2, which in the Targumim often relates to the eyes (e.g. “I lift my eyes”) rather than to architecture. ] ̇‫ ועלי‬Milik has transcribed ]‫ועלו‬, again, seeing it as a narrative verbal pair with ‫ בדקו‬which 1 precedes it on the same line. 104 But the letter at the end of the word is curved like the other yods of frg. 1 (we would expect a vav to be straight like its predecessor on l. 1). Beyer saw the same thing, transcribing ‫ועלי‬, “und auf” (“and up”), but without a dot above the letter. I have translated “and above me” or “and upon me” because of the frequency of ‫ עלי‬in the ADSS. However, it could just as easily be ‫ ואלי̇ ]ון‬or ‫“( ועלי̇ ]א‬and [the] Most High”) or ‫“( עלי̇ ]הון‬and upon them”), 105 and in light of the possibly architectural language here, it could further be ‫“( עלי‬upper room”), which appears three times in the ADSS (though not at Cave 1Q).106 105F ‫[מין‬ ̇ The first letter is a single oblique stroke bending up to the right. Milik was less certain, 2 marking his mem with an open circlet; Beyer did not hazard a guess.107 106F ‫ זקףין‬In its entry for ‫זקף‬, the CAL places ‫ זקפין‬in the following context: ‫עד ש[מין זקפין‬, “erecting 2 [unto h]eaven,” without providing a source for the reconstruction. Meanwhile, ‫ זקף‬looks to appear alongside ‫“( עין‬eyes”) some 105 times in the Targumim, while this peal participle mp form, ‫זקפין‬, appears in only one place, again speaking of eyes: Ezekiel 33:25. 102 104 130). 105 Beyer, ATTM: 84, 272. Milik, DJD I, 147. Fitzmyer and Harrington incorrectly added a space after the second word: ] ‫( [בדקו ועלו‬PMAT, ‫ עליא‬occurs five times in the Genesis Apocryphon, and three times elsewhere. For Genesis Apocryphon instances see 1Q20 2 4, 6 9, 6 24, 10 18, and 20 7; for elsewhere, see 4Q550 7+7a 1; 4Q568 1 1; 11Q18 18 2. ‫ עליא‬would also make sense here with the initial vav if the subject is changing to God. If we reconsider Beyer’s reading of ‫צדקי‬, one also wonders if ] ֯‫עלי‬ could have read as its antonym, ‫עלילה‬/‫“( עלילו‬perversity” or “false charge”). The CAL lists these latter as being attested in a Babylonian Talmud Tractate (‫עלילו‬, “perversity”; 88b[2]) and in the Targum Neofiti (‫עלילה‬, “false charge”; Deut. 22:14). 106 See 4Q196 6 2; 4Q558 53 1; 11Q18 9 1; and 11Q18 21 3. It perhaps bears mentioning that ‫ עלית‬is assumed in a reconstruction of 4Q204 1 vi 30, where it could have appeared in close proximity to ‫ברקין‬, “shining”—perhaps ‫ בדקי‬of line one is actually ‫ברקי‬. 107 Milik, DJD I, 147; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 2 48 ]◦ Only the top of a letter remains, appearing to be a leftward descending diagonal line beginning a little below the top line. Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington left it as a circlet, while Beyer apparently did not see it at all. 109 108F 3 ‫ י[שראל‬Milik et al. have also transcribed ‫י[שראל‬. 110 109F 1Q65 frg. 2 Transcription ‫[ ֯דוך‬ 1 bottom margin? IR image: B-278231(1A). Color images: recto; verso.x` Translation 1 ]. . . Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [ ֯דוך‬The remnants of the first letter appear to be a cross stroke with keraia—perhaps a bet, dalet, kaf, or resh. The head of a pe could also be possible, but then we would expect the base stroke to appear below the vav. Milik et al. did not provide transcriptions for this fragment. Comments Interestingly, this is only the second occurrence of the word “Israel” in an Aramaic text of Cave 1Q, the other occurring in 1QTLevi (1Q21 58 1). Recall that Aramaic texts tend to concern themselves with the period before Israel history proper and with the period after it, the Eastern diaspora. If Milik’s reading is partially right, and ‫ בדקי‬is invoking the ideas of “repairs” or “breaking/splitting” (frg. 1, l. 1), we would have an interesting contextual constellation of building, repairing, and raising (restorative language) occurring with a mention of Israel in view. However, the more likely constellation is ‫צדקי‬, “my righteousness,” with “lifting” of the eyes, and Israel. The presence of “Israel” and the first person pronominal suffix still helps to limit context somewhat, though perhaps not satisfactorily. Despite being written in the first person, none of the Genesis Apocryphon, Enochic literature (including Book of Giants), nor the Cave 11 Targum of Job mention Israel at all. Conversely, texts with a first-person narrative and a mention of Israel include Tobit (4Q198 1 7 and 8), 1QLevi (1Q21 58 1), Visions of Amram (4Q543 1 a–c 4, 25 1; 4Q545 1a i 4; 4Q548 1ii–2 6), and 11QNew Jerusalem (11Q18 23 ii 7, 25 1, and 27 1). 109 110 Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, PMAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM: 84, 272. Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer and Harrington, PMAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 49 There are no Tobit or Visions of Amram scrolls at Cave 1Q, while there are copies of Levi (1Q21) and New Jerusalem (1Q32). Perhaps 1Q65 is related then to either of 1QLevi and 1QNJ? The common Aramaic suffix ‫ין‬- occurs twice on 1Q65 1 2, distinguishing at least this fragment as obviously Aramaic. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 50 1Q66 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) Bibliography Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-arämaische Wortliste, Register. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B. C. – Second Century A. D.). Biblica Et Orientalia, 34. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1978. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “63–67. Groupes non caractérisé, en araméen.” In Qumran Cave 1. Ed. By Dominique Barthélemy, Józef Tadeusz Milik. Page 147. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Photographs TABLE 5.1 1Q66 Leon Levy Images Fragment PAM Number Leon Levy Collection Number Frg. 1a 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 1E Frg. 1b 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 1E Frg. 2 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 3G Frg. 3a 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 1K Frg. 3b 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 1K Frg. 3c 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 1K Frg. 4 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 2N Frg. 5 40.544 B-278280 Apr 1953 5E Photograph Date Coordinates on the plate The PAM photographs of frgs 1–4 are clear, while frg. 5 is blurry, making it difficult to work with. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN FIGURE 5.1 frg. 1a–1b frg. 2 51 1Q66 PAM IR Photographs frg. 3a–3c frg. 4 frg. 5 A 2013 color image of the recto side of 1Q66 appears in the BnF image “Folio 8r” labelled incorrectly as “67” (i.e., “[1Q]67”). The verso image can be seen on “Folio 8v.” Physical Description Five brown fragments were assigned to 1Q66, but those five fragments are actually eight smaller pieces. Fragment 1 is comprised of two smaller pieces. The top piece, frg. 1a, is 1.5 cm by 1.3 cm and has some dark brown discoloration along its top-right edge and on its left. Part of the bottom has broken away on the left half of the fragment, leaving behind a protrusion of parchment beside which is a convex curve. Fragment 1b is horizontal in orientation and less than half the size of frg. 1a at 0.9 cm by 0.7 cm. The top right side of the fragment juts out in a half circle, seeming to fit the convex curve of frg. 1a. The head of a lamed on the bottom of frg. 1a seems to further link these two pieces together. Neither of the small pieces appear to have been damaged in the time between the PAM photograph and the BnF image of 2013. Fragment 2 is square and horizontal in orientation, measuring 1.0 cm by 0.20 cm. The top edge has become delaminated, but the fragments appear to have been undamaged between the IR and color photographs. Fragment 3 is formed of three smaller pieces that I have designated frgs 3a, 3b, and 3c. All are of a consistent color, with frg. 3a having a little darkening along its base edge. In the span between when the photographs were taken in 1953 and 2013, all three pieces have lost material: frg. 3a, once measuring 0.7 cm by 0.9 cm, was shaped like a shark fin, but the tip broke away by 2013; frg. 3b, once measured 0.3 cm by 0.2 cm, but this tiny triangle that used to preserve traces of three letters now preserves only two; frg. 3c used to measure 0.7 cm by 0.6 cm, but a delaminated portion on the bottom-left side, visible on the PAM photograph, has since been lost. As of 2013, the lettering of frg. 3c has mostly worn away. The edges of the three seem to align fairly well, but the letter traces do not as clearly correspond to one another. Fragment 4 is a small oblong fragment with dark brown coloring on its top edge. It used to measure 0.8 cm by 0.9 cm, but a triangular section of the top right corner has flaked away. Both 1953 and 2013 images preserve an abrasion on the bottom right corner. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 52 Fragment 5 is a horizontally-oriented fragment measuring 1.2 cm by 0.8 cm, with a straight bottom edge and a tall peak on the top-left edge. The PAM image preserves the fragment before it further disintegrated and lost one of its two lines of text. The fragment appears quite different in the 2013 photograph owing to considerable deterioration. By the 2013 image, (1) the “peak” that preserved l. 1 had broken away, (2) an oblong piece on the right side appears to have broken away, slid down, and rotated by more than 90 degrees anticlockwise, and (3) an abrasion on the bottom-left corner of the fragment has taken out the left-most letter of l. 2. Figure 5.2 below shows its present shape (medium gray) and its previous shape (white gray). Interestingly, a look at the verso side of the image seems to show a segment the same color as the recto side with at least one ink stroke on it. Since the letter aligns with the ink on the recto side, I have suggested that this segment is folded underneath, and the ink traces belong also to the recto (the darker gray of fig. 5.2). FIGURE 5.2 1Q66 Fragment 5 Reconstruction Physically speaking, when we look at the vellum pattern and color, the eight pieces appear possibly to belong to the same manuscript. TABLE 5.2 1Q66 Summary of Fragment Dimensions Fragment X-axis Y-axis Area Frg. 1a 1.46 cm 1.27 cm 1.13 cm2 Frg. 1b 0.85 cm 0.71 cm 0.39 cm2 Frg. 2 0.99 cm 0.89 cm 0.63 cm2 Frg. 3a 0.69 cm 0.86 cm 0.39 cm2 Frg. 3b 0.26 cm 0.21 cm 0.03 cm2 Frg. 3c 0.65 cm 0.55 cm 0.18 cm2 Frg. 4 0.75 cm 0.90 cm 0.48 cm2 Frg. 5 1.23 cm 0.76 cm 0.63 cm2 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 53 Palaeography The scripts across the fragments of 1Q66 do not appear to be related, but we are once again dealing with a paucity of letters. The script of frgs 1a and 1b is very similar, their letters being square and of a standard size with a feel for the baseline. The pen strokes are uniform, suggesting a dull or rounded nib, but frg. 1a has slightly more of a forward lean than frg. 1b, while the keraia on the lameds may vary in their formation. The formation of frg. 1b’s lamed further sets it apart from frgs 2, 3, and 5: the superlinear stroke begins with a simple ornamentation to the right of the superlinear downstroke; at the base of the downstroke there is a curve to the right that does not quite create a true transverse stroke before the final oblique follows the diagonal transverse down. The lameds of frgs 2, 3, and 5 do not have a stroke bulging to the right on their superlinear strokes, while their transverse strokes are long, creating an open hook. The formation of frg. 1b’s lamed and the mem that follows it suggest to me a less skilled hand. The script of frg. 2 is fairly erect and varies in letter size, with less of a feel for the baseline. The strokes vary in width making for more developed ornamentation and suggesting a beveled pen nib. The ornamentation of the superlinear stroke of l. 2’s lamed is a developed leftward wedge (contra the lamed of frg. 1b spoken of above). The base of the mem of frg. 2 curves below the baseline here, while the mem of frg. 1b rests flat on the baseline. The alef of frg. 2 is quite different from that on frgs 3a–3c. Fragment 2’s alef has a fairly shaded oblique with developed keraia on its right and left downstrokes. The alef of frg. 3c is somewhat leaner and has no keraia. The alef of frg. 4 is similar to that of frg. 2 with a developed keraia on its left downstroke (though it more angles to the left rather than descending to the baseline), but with a more shaded oblique. Thus, we may have two groupings of fragments: (1) frgs 1a, 1b, and 3a–3c may be related to one another, while (2) frgs 2 and 4 may be related to one another. Fragment 5 is too sparse to say much about, save that due to the formation of its lamed, it has a better chance of belonging to frgs 4 and 5 than it does belonging with frgs 1a, 1b, and 3a–3c. TABLE 5.3 1Q66 Summary of Palaeographical Measurements Fragment Line Spacing Word Spacing Letter Height Thin Strokes Thick Strokes Frg. 1a 7.4 mm 1.3 mm? 2.2 mm 0.25 mm 0.51 mm 2.2 mm 0.37 mm 0.50 mm 2.1 mm 0.34 mm 0.45 mm 2.1 mm 0.30 mm 0.55 mm Frg. 1b Frg. 2 Frg. 3a Frg. 3b 2.1 mm 0.53 mm Margins OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 54 Frg. 3c 0.5 mm 2.5 mm 0.37 mm 0.49 mm Frg. 4 1.1 mm 2.2 mm 0.40 mm 0.49 mm Frg. 5 2.1 mm 0.37 mm R? 1Q66 frg. 1a Transcription ] ֯‫[ ֯ב ֯בי‬ 1 ] ‫[ זבדתון‬ 2 ]‫[ל] [ל‬ 3 IR image: B-278273 (1E). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]my [he]art[ ] you presented [ ]. . .[ ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ] ֯‫[ב ֯בי‬ ֯ Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington record ]◦ ◦[, but I do not see their space. 111 Line 1 preserves two contiguous basestrokes, the first of which has a vertical crack running through it. In both cases, the basestrokes jut out to the right of their respective downstrokes (compare with the base of bet in l. 2). The third letter appears to merely touch the second basestroke. Because of this letter’s proximity to the preceding letter, I have suggested the first person pronominal suffix—a lamed is still possible, but its rightward angle would not have a lot of space. Thus, it probably read ‫לבבי‬, “my heart.” But other options are available: ‫בבל‬, “Babel,” or perhaps another instance of ‫למפלח‬, “to serve.” 2 ‫ זבדתון‬This is an interesting one, since according to CAL, this verbal root, a hapax legomenon in the ADSS, occurs in only one place—Genesis 30:20, the naming of Zebulun. 112 3 ]‫ [ל] [ל‬The tops of two superlinear strokes of lameds remain on the bottom edge of the fragment. 111 112 Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130. According to CAL, this is only the case in Targum Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, and the Peshitta. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 55 1Q66 frg. 1b Transcription ]‫[למפל ̇ח‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (1E). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]to serve[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫[למפלח‬ ̇ The options for this word are fairly limited. Milik suggested ‫למפלה‬, “to remove,” while Fitzmyer & Harrington and Beyer both read ‫למפלח‬, “to serve.” 113 I have agreed with Fitzmyer & Harrington and Beyer, ‫למפלח‬, “to serve,” the righthand downstroke of the final letter curving in the style of a Herodian khet. 114 Furthermore, ‫“( פלח‬to serve”) appears nine times in the ADSS, while ‫“( פלה‬to remove”) appears only once. Yet ‫פלי‬, “to be removed” is still possible as is, ‫מפלה‬, “a ruin, fall.” 1Q66 frg. 2 Transcription ‫[מלף יא ֯ל]ף‬ 1 ] ‫[ל‬ 2 IR image: B-278273 (3G) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]he shall surely tea[ch ]. . .[ 113 114 Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM: 84, 272. Cross, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” 228. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 56 Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [מלף‬Milik transcribed ‫[ מלף‬, but there is no space preceding the mem; meanwhile, Beyer translates his ‫ ל[מלף‬as “zu lernen” (“to learn”), where the first alef of ‫ מאלף‬has quiesced. 115 ‫מלף‬ does appear in two places in the targumim to mean a “teacher,” 116 but based on the syntax, where an infinitive is immediately followed by an imperfect of the same root, this may be, as far as I can tell, the sole example in the ADSS of an infinitive absolute. 15F 1 ‫ יא ֯ל]ף‬Milik has added an errant space with ]◦ ‫יא‬, while Fitzmyer & Harrinton left out the third letter altogether. 117 Only a curved “elbow” remains of the third letter. Any of lamed, qof, or tsade would seem to work, but in the context of the word that precedes it, the lamed seems a fair choice—‫מלף יאלף‬, “he will surely teach.” 1Q66 frg. 3a Transcription ]‫[ ֯מ ̇כש‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (1K) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [ ֯מ ̇כש‬The first letter is difficult. The thickness and angling of the two remaining strokes are consistent with, though do not so obviously belong to a mem—the left oblique stroke (which would begin relatively low) is thin, and the tick that would drop into the top stroke of a mem is thick. Other options include (a) a vav or yod that has been oddly penned or abraded so as to angle in the wrong direction; (b) a lamed with an obtuse angle, whose superlinear stroke has eroded away, like the upper right part of the kaf that follows it; or (c) a he whose cross strokes angle up rather than down, and whose left downstroke does not quite reach the baseline. The second letter looks to be a kaf, though it could also be a bet. The shin is nearly certain with its two curved oblique strokes. Fragment 3a, then, might read as a participle with ‫“( כשׁב‬to gather”) or ‫“( כשׁר‬to 115 Milik, DJD I, 147; Beyer, ATTM: 84, 272. Fitzmyer & Harrington have rendered it correctly (MPAT, 130). Edward M. Cook has noted that alefs of I-‫ א‬verbs quiesce “immediately before or after another consonant with no vowel intervening.” See Cook, “Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, 375. 116 TgJ Isa 29:10, 30:10; TgPs 119:99. 117 Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130. Beyer has rendered it correctly (ATTM: 84, 272). Milik, Fitzmyer and Harrington, nor Beyer provide any transcriptions for the remaining fragments of 1Q66 (frgs 3–5). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 57 be fit, valid”), or as a preposition or conjunction with ‫ כשׁף‬or ‫“( כשׁפו‬sorcery”), ‫( כשׁת‬a kind of incense), or even ‫“( כשׂדי‬Chaldean”). 1Q66 frg. 3b Transcription ]◦◦◦[ 1 IR image: B-278273 (1K) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦◦◦[ The tops of three letters remain. In aligning 3a –3c as he did, Milik appears to have treated the first letter as the top of a shin’s left downstroke, the second as a zayin, and the third as a yod. Taken on their own, these letters could really be anything. 1Q66 frg. 3c Transcription ]‫[◦יא‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (1K) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [◦יא‬The yod and alef are most likely to be the determinative plural ending of a noun. There is, however, possibly enough space between the yod and alef to perhaps posit a word space. The skin has flaked away entirely from the left side of alef, so this could potentially be the first letter in a new word. 1Q66 frg. 4 Transcription ]◦ ‫[אלה‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (2N) OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 58 Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]of God . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [אלה‬This may be either the construct form of “God” or the absolute form of “these.” Both are fairly rare forms, with the construct ‫ אלה‬occurring twice (4Q542 1 i 2; 4Q570 2 5; though once as the absolute form in 11Q10 34 5) and “these” three times (4Q536 2 ii 12; 4Q565 1 3; 4Q584 i 3). It could further be something in the determinative state like ‫“( אל‬pillar, post”; see 2Q24 10 1) or ‫“( שׁמאלה‬the north”), which occurs in three places (4Q554 1 iii 7, 4Q558 77 2, and 5Q15 1 i 12). 1 ]◦ Only a tiny ink trace remains. 1Q66 frg. 5 Transcription ]‫[לד ֯א‬ 1 ]‫[ ֯ר ֯בן̇ ֯ק‬ 2 IR image: B-278280 (5E) Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . .[ ] a leader[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [לד ֯א‬The space before the first word on frg. 5 l. 2 suggests that this is the beginning of the line though there may be some delamination before it. There may be traces of two letters on the fragment break preceding the lamed, but the blurriness of the photo makes things difficult to decipher. When compared to l. 2, it looks like there is room for two more letters, particularly if one is a vav or yod. Based on available words that include lamed-dalet (the options are surprisingly few), the spacing before them, and the barely discernable base stroke of the first letter, I am tempted to suggest ‫וי[לדא‬ ֯ (“and she bore”). All that remains of the last letter is a small trace of an angled stroke. I have suggested an alef, though admittedly, it could be almost anything. 2 ]‫ [ ֯ר ֯בן̇ ֯ק‬The remains of four letters survive on the bottom edge of this fragment. The word is not preceded by any other ink strokes, indicating that this is likely the righthand margin of the OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 59 column. The first two letters are contiguous, narrow cross strokes, the first flat with a small keraia on its left, the second with a small keraia and a more significant bend in the stroke. As for the third letter, I see it as a final nun (see my conversation about the piece of fragment that has been folded under the fragment under “Physical Description” above). I have suggested ‫רבן‬, “leader, master, teacher,” but ‫תבן‬, “straw,” is another option. The final letter is a mere “hook” or “elbow”— it appears to be the remnants of a damaged qof or lamed. Comments Besides ‫זבדתון‬, “you presented,” little can be said with any confidence of these fragments. I suggested under Palaeography that frgs 1a–1b and 3a–3c may be from the same scribe. If that is the case, ‫זבדתון‬ (“you presented”), ‫“( למפלח‬to make/making”), and one of ‫“( כשׁב‬to gather”), ‫“( כשׁר‬to be valid”), ‫כשׁף‬ (“to perform sorcery”), or even ‫“( כשׂדי‬Chaldean”), makes for interesting constellations of contextual possibilities. I would suggest the unifying characteristic of those constellations might be something like personal holiness, though really it could be anything. Fragments 2, 4, and 5 taken together are equally difficult. But the potential combination of a teacher or teaching in frg. 2 (‫)מלף‬, a birth in frg. 5 (‫לדא‬ ֯ [‫]וי‬, or really any verb with ‫ ילד‬as its root), along with my more difficult reading of a leader in frg. 5 (‫)רבן‬, could seem to describe an anointed individual from the viewpoint of the narrator, perhaps in the vein of 4QBirth of Noaha–c. As for Aramaic markers, ‫תון‬- on frg. 1a is the Aramaic perfect 2mp ending, while -‫ למ‬on frg. 1b is the prefix to the peal infinitive construct. Fragments 2, 3a, and 3b do not have unique Aramaic indicators. If frg. 3c actually reads ‫יא‬-, it could be the determinative plural ending. Fragments 4 and 5 both have the determinative singular ending with a ‫ה‬- and ‫א‬- respectively. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 60 1Q67 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) Bibliography Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-arämaische Wortliste, Register. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B. C. – Second Century A. D.). Biblica Et Orientalia, 34. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1978. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “63–67. Groupes non caractérisé, en araméen.” In Qumran Cave 1. Ed. By Dominique Barthélemy, Józef Tadeusz Milik. Page 147. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Photographs TABLE 6.1 1Q67 Leon Levy Images Fragment PAM Number Leon Levy Collection Number Frg. 1 40.538 B-278274 Apr 1953 3I Frg. 2 40.482 B-278232 Apr 1953 2B Frg. 3 40.479 B-277289 Apr 1953 2C Frg. 4 40.476 B-277286 Apr 1953 3A Frg. 5 40.538 B-278274 Apr 1953 6C Photograph Date Coordinates on the plate Fragments 1 and 2 are fairly blurry in the PAM series photographs, while the image in the Inscriptifact collection is a little clearer. FIGURE 6.1 frg. 1 frg. 2 1Q67 PAM IR Photographs frg. 3 frg. 4 frg. 5 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 61 A 2013 color image of the recto side of 1Q67 can be found on the BnF website on “Folio 8r.” Whereas all of 1Q63–1Q66 are labeled with an incorrect designation label appearing to the right of their respective frg. 1s, there is no label immediately preceding 1Q67’s frg. 1. Instead, the first four fragments of 1Q67 are unlabeled and appear on the same line as 1Q65 and 1Q66. Fragment 5 is then placed on the following line next to a label that reads “68” (i.e., “[1Q]68”). As usual, the verso image can be seen on “Folio 8v.” Physical Description When first photographed in 1953, 1Q67 was comprised of five fragments. As of the 2013 photograph, it has broken up into nine or ten dark, blackish-brown pieces, similar in color to 1Q65. Fragment 1, the largest of the 1Q67 fragments at 2.1 cm by 1.9 cm, is a circular piece with a protrusion on its lower left side. In the 2013 image, the left and right edges are quite dark, while the center is light enough to allow one to see the lettering with the naked eye. In both the blurry 1953 and clear 2013 images, one can see at least two significant wrinkle lines running horizontally and diagonally, and a vertical guideline scraped into the vellum to mark the left margin of a column. There are two relatively large gashes on the fragment’s bottom edge, the rightmost of which runs into a light fragmentwide abrasion. The abrasion ascends along the lefthand side of the margin guideline, begins to loop to the left through the end of l. 2, arcs through the margin, then runs horizontally through the end of l. 1 to the right edge of the fragment. The fragment appears essentially the same in the 2013 BnF image, with only very slight damage occurring along the edges and with some exaggeration of the cracks. The fragment preserves remnants of three lines, with miniature letters, averaging between 1.6 and 2.0 mm, and an interlinear space of about 6.1 mm. Fragment 2 is a dark square 1.3 cm wide and 1.26 cm tall. The 1953 image is quite blurry, making it difficult to work with. Despite the blurriness, hair follicles are still visible on the fragment. In the 2013 image, the fragment has suffered deterioration along the right and top edges, destroying some of the lettering of the first line. This image also shows horizontal cracks that have formed above and below l. 2, though the bottom crack has already begun to form in the 1953 image. The crack has expanded over time resulting in further delamination of the outer layer and so damaged some of the lettering on l. 2. Remnants of three lines remain, with an average letter height of 1.6 mm and a line spacing of 5.7 mm. In its original 1953 photograph, frg. 3, measuring 1.3 cm by 1.3 cm, is long and angular, almost in the shape of an arrowhead. The image preserves two sizable cracks at the top and bottom right as well as vertical wrinkles on the rightmost side. Hair follicles are also visible on the left side. As of the 2013 color image, the piece has broken into two or three small pieces, while the rightmost part of the original fragment has deteriorated. The pieces to the right have been oriented lower on the plate and rotated clockwise. There are light marks of damage at the top edge of the leftmost piece. The fragment preserved remnants of three lines, with letters averaging 1.9 mm with line spacing of 5.0 mm. Fragment 4 is a V- or J-shaped piece, measuring 0.9 cm by 1.0 cm in its 1953 image, with some sort of accretion or abrasion running down its righthand side. In the 2013 BnF image, the whole has OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 62 broken into four small pieces, with much of the original fragment now missing. The accretion or abrasion can still be seen on two of the four pieces as a light discoloration. The fragment preserved the remnants of three lines. The line spacing of the top two lines is 5.5 mm with an average letter height of 1.7 mm. Fragment 5 is a narrow, vertical piece measuring 1.1 cm by 1.6 cm, with a diagonal orientation from right to left. Hair follicles are visible in the 1953 PAM image. Both the 1953 and 2013 images capture a T-shaped crack: the horizontal fissure runs across the whole beneath the second line of text and the vertical fissure runs down to the bottom through the third line of text. The fragment is quite dark like the rest of the fragments of 1Q67 except for a tiny segment at the bottom right, where it has delaminated. Three lines are preserved on the fragment with a line spacing of 5.6 mm between the first two lines and 6.1 mm between the next two. Physically speaking, the five fragments look to be the same color. Similarities in the follicle pattern on frgs 2, 3, and 5 could further connect them, but it is difficult to say anything definitive with the blurred 1953 PAM images. TABLE 6.2 1Q67 Summary of Fragment Dimensions Fragment X-axis Y-axis Area Frg. 1 2.13 cm 1.91 cm 2.46 cm2 Frg. 2 1.30 cm 1.26 cm 1.08 cm2 Frg. 3 1.27 cm 0.81 cm 0.60 cm2 Frg. 4 0.91 cm 1.00 cm 0.55 cm2 Frg. 5 1.09 cm 1.57 cm 0.85 cm2 Palaeography The scripts across the fragments of 1Q67 are not uniform. The script of frg. 1 is well-ornamented with a forward lean. Some of its letters are squarer, while some can be somewhat narrow. For the most part, letters have a feel for the baseline and the use of shading suggests it was written with a beveled nib. Letters are carefully penned with space between them, giving it a formal rather than fluid character. Fragment 5 may have been written by the same hand: on the one hand the reshs of both fragments are narrow and tall, while on the other the yods of frg. 5 are narrower than the yods of frg. 1. These broad yods are quite different from the yods on frgs 2 and 4. The script of frg. 2 is fairly erect, with narrower letters, and with less of a feel for the baseline. Some letters are heavily shaded and vary in width, suggesting a beveled pen. The alefs of frg. 2 differ OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 63 importantly from the alef of frg. 5. On both fragments, their left downstrokes attach near the top of their obliques, but in frg. 2, the alef is taller and its long oblique runs below the baseline, while its right downstroke is unornamented and fairly erect. The alef of frg. 5, is squarer and its oblique terminates on the baseline not below it. The right downstroke has a developed keraia and is more diagonal. Fragments 3 and 4 are smaller pieces. Fragment 3 looks like it was written with a duller, rounded pen, while frg. 4 had a more beveled pen. Some of the letters look to have a forward lean, while some look more erect. Once again, the yods vary significantly between frg. 1 and frg. 4, the former being very broad and angled, the latter being narrow and less angled. In short, frg. 1 looks different from the rest of the fragments, though frg. 5 may possibly belong to the same hand, and frg. 2 is unlike the rest of the fragments. Fragments 3 and 4 look similar but there is so little material that it seems unwise to assign them to either frgs 1 and 5 or frg. 2. TABLE 6.3 Fragment Line Spacing Frg. 1 6.2 mm Frg. 2 5.6 mm Frg. 3 1Q67 Summary of Palaeographical Measurements Word Spacing Letter Height Thin Strokes Thick Strokes Margins 2.1 mm 0.22 mm 0.36 mm L 1.9 mm 1.7 mm 0.21 mm 0.39 mm 5.1 mm 0.8 mm 2.0 mm 0.42 mm 0.57 mm Frg. 4 5.5 mm 0.4 mm 1.7 mm 0.25 mm 0.54 mm Frg. 5 6.3 mm 0.9 mm 2.0 mm 0.24 mm 0.44 mm 1Q67 frg. 1 Transcription ‫[מח ̇עך‬ 1 ‫[ בריחוהי‬ 2 ]‫[ל‬ 3 IR image: B-278274 (3I). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]smiling/laughing ] by his/its scent ] . . .[ OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 64 Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [מח ̇עך‬Milik and Beyer both transcribed ‫“( מחעך‬laughing” or “smiling”), while Fitzmyer & Harrington recorded ‫ מחאך‬and translated it “to laugh.” 118 The ayin is damaged by horizontal and vertical abrasions. This appears to be the only instance of this root in the pael participle form, with its two other Qumran Aramaic instances being peal participles (see 4Q543 5–9 4 and 4Q544 1 14). 2 ‫ [ בריחוהי‬Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington also read ‫בריחוהי‬, with the latter translating it “by its smell.” 119 Beyer, on the other hand, transcribed ‫ ברוחוהי‬and translated “in seinen Himmelscrichtungen” (“in its [four] cardinal directions”).120 But Beyer’s first vav is a yod, its head more exaggerated and its downstroke more angled than a vav’s. In the broader ADSS corpus, ‫ ריח‬is used in the context of burnt offerings (1Q20 10 17; 11Q18 22 5 and 31), warding away demons (4Q196 14 i 12 // Tobit 6:18), and spices or crushed bark (4Q204 1 xii 29). One may also wonder if this could be a passive participle form of ‫“( ברח‬to make clear, shiny”). This latter is attested in one other place in the broader Aramaic corpus latter (though not in the passive). 121 120F 1Q67 frg. 2 Transcription ‫כד]י‬ ̇ ‫[ ֯ת ̇ב ̇לי̇ ̇ליא‬ 1 ]‫וכדי̇ ֯ח‬ ̇ ‫[ ֯ך][ענ֯ א‬ 2 ] ֯‫[ו‬ 3 IR image: B-278232 (2B). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]I[. . .] in the night whe[n ]your[] the flock. And when . . .[ ]. . . [ 118 See Edward M. Cook’s Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic, s.v. “‫חעך‬.” 119 Milik, DJD I, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MoPA, 130–31. It is unclear whether Fitzmyer & Harrington read the damaged letter as an alef or whether this was an editorial mistake when their text was going to print. Interestingly, the CAL treats ‫ חאך‬and ‫ חעך‬as the same root, while Cook does not. But, as Cook has stated elsewhere, there is no indication at this point in Qumranic Aramaic that ayin had weakened, and so alef and ayin would have still been distinct. See Cross’s “Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, 364. 120 Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. 121 TargLamYem 4:21. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 65 Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [ ֯ת‬I have suggested a tav with some reservation but the lower positioning is possibly explained by warping on the fragment edges. With the next word of line 1 reading ‫בליליא‬, it is not difficult to imagine this phrase reading something like ‫“( ואתעירת בליליא‬I awoke in the night”) from 1QapGen(1Q20 19 14). 1 ‫ ̇ב ̇לי̇ ̇ליא‬While Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington offered here no transcription or translation, Beyer suggested ‫◦◦דיא‬. ֯ 122 I believe he combined what I consider the first yod and second lamed. However, the two lameds are apparent—their initial downstrokes have broken away, but their horizontal strokes run right, then turn down into leftward diagonals that do not come near the baseline. As for the bet, it can only be a base stroke damaged by a crack, and this is really the only preposition that makes sense with ‫ליליא‬. 1 ‫כד]י‬ ̇ The blurriness of the 1953 image makes this harder to read, but the second letter appears to be a dalet. There appears to be a dark smudge on the image between the dalet’s two “horns,” making the letter appear as a yod. Beyer was more confident with his transcription, recording ‫כד]י‬ (“when”).123 12F 2 ‫ [ ֯ך‬The reading is difficult. To my eye, a keraia is turning into a horizontal stroke and is low to the baseline. Beyer, on the other read ֯‫[נ֯ י‬. 2 ‫ [ענ֯ א‬The word is quite blurred in the 1953 PAM image. In the 2013 color image, we can see that there has clearly been some abrasion of the fragment, making things worse (see the white in fig. 6.2 below). The first letter looks to be an ayin, though there is a break on the downward stroke. The next letter appears at first to be a yod, the oblique of the third letter, an alef, dropping quite low to confuse the second letter. But having looked at this fragment in the 2008 Inscriptifact photograph, where, granted, the fragment is still somewhat blurry, I am increasingly convinced that the second letter is not a yod, but a nun. That would make the reading ‫ענא‬, “the flock.” FIGURE 6.2 122 123 Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. 1Q67 Fragment 2 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 2 66 ̇‫כדי‬ ̇ ‫ ו‬The dalet seems certain. An abrasion runs through the suggested yod and into the dalet. The yod may actually be a vav so that it would read “and now/at this time.” 2 ]‫ ֯ח‬Two downstrokes and a cross stroke remain. The cross stroke is looping into the righthand downstroke, suggesting a he or khet. Beyer simply transcribed ◦. 124 123F 3 ] ֯‫ [ו‬A single downstroke seems to remain. 1Q67 frg. 3 Transcription ‫[◦] [ו̇ ̇פנ̇ ]ה‬ 1 ]‫[ו֯ ֯משו̇ ע ל‬ 2 IR image: B-277289 (2C). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . . turn[ed ]and plastering . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦[ Traces of a base stroke remains on the fragment break. 1 ̇‫ [ו‬The length and narrow peak suggests a vav, but the lean of the letter and the rounding of the top stroke, as if the scribe tried to shade the peak might suggest a yod. 1 ‫ ̇פנ̇ ]ה‬The upper cross stroke of the first letter slants like that of a pe. The next letter is the bottom right angle of a bet, kaf, nun, and pe. Following a pe it can only be ‫“( פנה‬to turn”). 2 ‫ [ו֯ ֯משו̇ ע‬The first blotches of ink on this line are difficult. The oblique of a mem runs up, steep in angle, before turning into the downstroke of the letter. A triangular keraia is then penned on this oblique stroke. To the right of the mem is a single jot, just on the fragment edge, appearing almost to be an extension of the mem. We might expect it to be a lamed so that we had an infinitive construct ‫“( למשוע‬to plaster; to smear, daub”), but the head of the lamed would be preserved in the triangular expanse of fragment above that letter. If my mem is incorrect, the only other 124 Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 67 options could be a resh (‫רשוע‬, “wicked”) or a tav (‫תשׁיע‬, “ninth”), the latter of which could work with the ‫“( תליתי‬third”) of frg. 5 (though the hands do not appear to me to be related). 1Q67 frg. 4 Transcription ] ֯‫[ ֯ל ̇פנ‬ 1 ] ֯‫[ ̇ל ̇הויה ו‬ 2 ]‫][ה‬ ֯ ‫[ל‬ ֯ 3 IR image: B-277286 (3A). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]to tur[n ]to be and[ ]. . .[]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ] ֯‫[ל ̇פנ‬ ֯ Only the extremity of the base of the lamed remains, its rightward slant still apparent. The tiny trace above the base of the second letter appears to end in a diagonal, possibly indicating the short left oblique of a pe. The downstroke and base stroke of the third letter join at a right angle and following a pe can only be ‫פנה‬. 2 ‫ [ ̇ל ̇הויה‬There is an accretion or abrasion along the right edge of the fragment obscuring anything that comes before it, but part of the lamed’s superlinear stroke is preserved. Of the he, the thickened transverse stroke and extended top of a righthand downstroke remain. This is a difficult form. The word appears to be a pael infinitive construct, though ‫ הוה‬is unattested in the pael in both Qumranic Aramaic and Targumic Aramaic. 2 ] ֯‫ ו‬The strokes make for an odd letter. I have suggested a vav, damaged by the same abrasion that has marred the horizontal stroke of the preceding he. Due to the curvature of the downstroke, however, there is a small chance it is actually the oblique stroke of an alef. Regardless of what letter it is, it seems to be penned high off the baseline. 3 ]‫][ה‬ ֯ ‫[ל‬ ֯ The remains of this line are closer to line 2 than line 2 is to line 1. A dark smudge of ink can be seen below the vav of line 1, probably the thickened beginning of the downstroke of a lamed. A damaged transverse stroke and extended top of a righthand downstroke remain. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 68 1Q67 frg. 5 Transcription ]◦ ‫[ר‬ 1 ] ̇‫[תליתי‬ 2 ] ̇‫[י̇ אנ̇ י̇ ן‬ 3 IR image: B-278274 (6C). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]. . . . . .[ ]third[ ]. . . they [ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦ A slightly obtuse right angle remains, possibly a mem or pe. Here, Milik, Fitzmyer & Harrington, and Beyer all record ]◦. 125 124F 2 ] ̇‫ [תליתי‬The final letter almost appears to be a vav as it is taller than the yod of the same word, but is likely a result of semi-ligaturing as the foot of the yod begins on the base stroke of the tav. All the other editions have likewise transcribed ‫תליתי‬, but all add spaces before and after the word when the fragment edges are too tight to allow for any space or any other letters for that matter. 126 125F 3 ̇‫ [י‬Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington both record this as a vav. 127 I see a wide and shaded peak in the manner of a yod. 3 ] ̇‫ אנ̇ י̇ ן‬The bottom of the second and fourth letters are missing, but the fourth letter is the telltale stroke of a final nun and by context, the second letter must be a nun. Milik et al. read ‫אנון‬, the 3mp personal pronoun. 128 The peak of their vav, however, is triangular and shaded in in the manner of a yod, suggesting the 3fp personal pronoun. 127F 125 Milik, DJD 1, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. Milik, DJD 1, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. 127 Milik, DJD 1, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130. Beyer has not recorded the letter at all (Beyer, ATTM:84, 272). 128 Milik, DJD 1, 147; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. 126 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 69 Comments I will treat the fragments according to the groupings I suggested in the palaeography section: (1) frgs 1 and 5, (2) frg. 2, and (3) frgs 3 and 4. Fragments 1 and 5 have interesting contextual clues. • ‫“( מחעך‬smiling/laughing”; frg. 1, l. 1). The root, ‫חעך‬, appears in the ADSS in two MSS of the same • work, 4QVisions of Amrama and b (4Q543 5–9 4; 4Q544 1 14), wherein is a description of Melchizedek, the king of righteousness. ‫“( בריחוהי‬by his/its scent”; frg. 1, l. 2). The noun occurs in three works in the ADSS: (1) once in • Genesis Apocryphon in reference to a burnt offering (1Q20 14 i 12), (2) once in 4QEnochc in reference to the odor of burning tree bark (4Q204 1 xii 29), and (3) four times in 11QNew Jerusalem, usually in reference to the aroma of offerings (11Q18 13 7; 22 5; 29 6; 33 1). ‫“( תליתי‬third”; frg. 5, l. 2). This word occurs within six works in the ADSS: (1) once in Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 10 15), (2) once in 1QTestament of Levi (1Q21 1 1), (3) once in 4QEnochc (4Q204 1 ii 25), (4) five times in Astronomical Enoch (4Q208 15 3; 4Q209 3 7, 16 2 and 4; 4Q211 1 ii 6), (5) once in 4QFour Kingdomsa (4Q552 1 ii 11), and (6) once in 5QNew Jerusalem (5Q15 1 i 3). Taken together, one wonders if frg. 1’s descriptions of a smiling face and a scent might be the description of an angelic figure like Melchizedek. When taken with frg. 5, one may further wonder if we are looking at another text related to Enoch, New Jerusalem, or 1QapGen, since all mention a ‫“( ריח‬an aroma”) and the ordinal ‫“( תליתי‬third”). As for frg. 2, ‫“( בליליא‬in the night”) is a common narrative marker in Aramaic works, noting when the visionary experiences cryptic revelation from above or revealing divine activity taking place. The phrase occurs across six works in the ADSS: (1) ten times in 1QapGen (1Q20 10 2, 3; 19 17, 21; 20 11, 12, 15, 16; 22 8, 9), (2) once in 4QTobitb (4Q197 4 ii 3), (3) twice in 4QAstronomical Enochb (4Q209 7 iii 1, 5), (4) twice in 4QBook of Giantsb (4Q530 2 ii+6–12[?] 6, 16), (5) once in 4QBook of Noahb (4Q535 3 2), and (6) once in 11QTargum of Job (11Q10 26 6). Note that ‫ כדי‬also appears twice on this fragment, buttressing the narrative feel. If ‫“( ענא‬the flock”) is correct, we have another interesting narrative marker. This word occurs in three ADSS works: (1) five times in 4QEnochc–e (4Q204 4 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8; 4Q205 2 ii 29; and 4Q206 5 1), (2) once in 4QEnGiantsc (4Q531 2 + 3 6), and (3) five times in 11QtgJob (11Q10 7A 1, 9 3, 14 6, 34 2 and 3). These work together in the context of Enoch, Book of Giants, or Targum of Jobc. I have suggested frgs 4 and 5 both preserve ‫“( פנה‬to turn”). It occurs in some form across four works in the ADSS: (1) four times in 1QapGen (1Q20 13 13, 16 18, 17 12, 19 22), (2) once in 4QTobita (4Q196 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 70 17 ii 1), (3) once in 4QBook of Giantsc (4Q531 45 1), and (4) 4QVisiond (4Q558 52 2). 129 The most uncertain of my readings is frg. 3’s ‫“( משוע‬plastering/smearing”) on frg. 3, the peal infinitive construct or pael participle ms of ‫“( שוע‬plastering”). This would make for a hapax legomena in Qumran Aramaic. In the Targumim and Peshitta, the word is used architecturally to mean to plaster over structural damage (TgO Lev 14:42), to plate walls with gold (TgIChr 29:4; note that the same form is used here: ‫ )משוע‬or to make something watertight (Pesh Gen 6:14, PJ Gen 6:14, Pesh Ex 2:3). As for the question of whether we are really looking at Aramaic text, each fragment preserves a distinctive Aramaic word or morpheme: frg. 1 includes the Aramaic 3ms pronominal suffix on ‫בריחוהי‬ (l. 2); frg. 2 preserves the Aramaic mp determinative ending on ‫( בליליא‬l. 1), as well as the Aramaic word ‫כדי‬/‫“( כדן‬when/thus”) (l. 2); frg. 3 preserves the Aramaic peal infinitive construct or pael participle ms prefix -‫ מ‬in ‫“( משׁוע‬plastering”) (line 2); frg. 4 contains the Aramaic infinitive construct form of “to be,” with ‫( להויה‬l. 2); and frg. 5 includes two Aramaic words without a Hebrew homonym, ‫ תליתי‬and ‫( אנין‬ll. 2 and 3). 129 It does occur in one more unidentified fragment in the ADSS: 4Q585 l 2. It might be noted that ‫ פנה‬occurs twice in reconstruction in 4QAstronomical Enochc (4Q210) OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 71 1Q68 (1QUnclassified Fragments ar) Bibliography Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-arämaische Wortliste, Register. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B. C. – Second Century A. D.). Biblica Et Orientalia, 34. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1978. Milik, Józef Tadeusz. “68–69. Fragments non classifiés.” In Qumran Cave 1. Ed. By Dominique Barthélemy, Józef Tadeusz Milik. Page 147. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. A Brief Explanation It can be clearly observed that the vellum of these 19 fragments is not from the same scroll, and it is clear the writing is not from the same scribe. In his treatment of 1Q68, Milik saw four subgroups in frgs 1–3, 6–12, 13–16, and 18–19. It is not clear to me why Milik grouped these four “petits ensembles” into the same “work” (1Q68). For instance, 1Q66 is comprised of two fragments, with seven words and twentyfour letters or letter remnants, but it was not lumped into 1Q68. However, if we take the first of Milik’s 1Q68 subgroup, frgs 1–3, we have three fragments with twelve words and thirty-three letters or letter remnants, making it larger than 1Q66. Meanwhile, Milik’s second 1Q68 subgroup, frgs 6–12, is comprised of seven fragments (more than any of Milik’s 1Q63 through 1Q67), twenty-three words, and fifty-seven letters or letter remnants. Why were these not given their own designation? Furthermore, the numbering of these nineteen fragments is not clear either. Milik divided 1Q68 into seven subsections: (1) frgs 1–3, (2) frg. 4, (3) frg. 5, (4) frgs 6–12, (5) frgs 13–16, (6) frg. 17, and (7) frg. 18 and 19. Why are subgroups 1 through 4 interspersed with isolated singular fragments? I will follow Milik’s grouping of the fragments in the Physical Descriptions and Photographs, but then I will treat them individually in the Palaeography and Transcriptions, Translations, and Notes. I will offer revised groupings in the Palaeography and Comments. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 72 Photographs TABLE 7.1 130 1Q68 Leon Levy Images130 Fragment PAM Number Leon Levy Collection Number Photograph Date Coordinates on the plate Frg. 1 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 4J Frg. 2 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 1J Frg. 3 40.538 B-278274 Apr 1953 2E Frg. 4 40.495 B-277301 Apr 1953 1D Frg. 5 40.478 B-277288 Apr 1953 4A Frg. 6 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 5G Frg. 7 40.535 B-278271 Apr 1953 4G Frg. 8 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 5C Frg. 9 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 1G Frg. 10 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 2B Frg. 11 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 2I Frg. 12 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 3J Frg. 13 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 5E Frg. 14 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 5E Frg. 15 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 5F Frg. 16 40.480 B-277290 Apr 1953 5H Frg. 17 40.544 B-278280 Apr 1953 4H Frg. 18 40.544 B-278280 Apr 1953 2B Frg. 19 40.537 B-278273 Apr 1953 1J Note that nowhere are the PAM plates for frgs 4, 5, and 7 linked to 1Q68 in the reference materials. PAM plates 40.495, 40.478, and 40.535 are not hyperlinked to 1Q68 in the Leon Levy Collection, nor are they listed in either of Reed’s The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue (see p. 465) or Tov’s Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche (p. 25). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 73 Many of the fragments are not especially clear on several of the PAM series photographs and are much better viewed in the University of Southern California’s Inscriptifact collection. FIGURE 7.1 1Q68 PAM IR Photographs frg. 1 frg. 2 frg. 3 frg. 4 frg. 5 frg. 6 frg. 7 frg. 8 frg. 9 frg. 10 frg. 11 frg. 12 frg. 13 frg. 14 frg. 15 frg. 16 frg. 17 frg. 18 frg. 19 A 2013 color image of the recto side of 1Q68 can be found on the BnF website on “Folio 8r.” The verso image can be seen on “Folio 8v.” Note that frgs 1–12 are labelled incorrectly as “63” (i.e., [1Q]63). Then, frgs 13–19 appear where one would expect them beside “68,” albeit preceded by frg. 5 of 1Q67. Note two further errors: (1) frgs 18 and 19 are labelled incorrectly—their labels should be swapped—and (2) a twentieth fragment labelled “20” is at the end of this same line, but Milik does not make any note of a twentieth fragment in his DJD entry for 1Q68. I have been unable to match it to any other Cave 1Q images in DJD 1 or in the PAM photographs. Physical Description In Milik’s first subgroup, frgs 1–3 appear to have suffered no further damage between the 1953 PAM image and the 2013 BnF image. Fragment 1 is a light tan, downward-oriented arrowhead, 1.7 cm tall and 1.0 cm across. The diagonal hair follicle pattern is visible in both the 1953 PAM IR and 2013 BnF color images. The damaged left and top edges are white, while the middle of the fragment is quite light compared to the reddish color nearer the right edge of the fragment. Three lines are preserved with an average line spacing of 5.0 mm with letters that average 1.7 mm in height. Fragment 2 is the smallest of the three at 0.7 cm wide and 0.4 cm tall. It is a dark brown and preserves the remnants of 4 letters. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 74 Fragment 3 is the widest at 1.8 cm wide and 0.9 cm tall. A vertical line runs down the middle of the fragment; the fragment color is a light tan on the right of this abrasion and a darker tan on the left. A horizontal line of what looks like dark ridges can be seen on the left side of the fragment running above the second line of text. It looks like a continuation of the split along which material to the right has flaked away. Fragment 4, the first of Milik’s isolated fragments, is a nearly black, elliptical fragment, 0.7 cm wide and 1.0 cm tall. Between its 1953 and 2013 images, it appears to be undamaged, save for a tiny crack starting to appear in its bottom-right corner and some light points at its top and top left. It preserves remnants of two lines (with perhaps a third at its apex) with an average letter height of 1.3 mm. Fragment 5, the second of Milik’s isolated fragments, is a nearly black, reddish-brown and shaped like a shark tooth. It is a little lighter in color than frg. 4 so that the text can be seen with the naked eye. It is 0.6 cm wide and 0.7 cm tall and also appears to have sustained no further damage in the 2013 BnF photograph. It preserves the text of a single line with letters averaging 1.9 mm in height. Milik’s second subgroup, frgs 6–12, has two color groups: frgs 6–8 are dark and similar in color to the two isolated fragments, frgs 4 and 5, such that their letters are invisible to the naked eye; frgs 9– 12, on the other hand are similar in color to frg. 3. Fragment 6 has suffered significant damage since 1953. Its measurements in the earlier photograph are 0.8 cm by 1.2 cm, with line spacing at 4.6 mm and an average letter height of 1.5 mm. Now its height is closer to its width. Fragment 7 is virtually unchanged. Its dimensions are 1.1 cm by 0.8 cm and preserves two lines with line spacing of 4.3 mm and an average letter height of 1.5 mm. There is enough space to the right that either the right margin of the scroll may be preserved or the line may be preceded by a vacat. Fragment 8 is a triangle with a gash appearing on the left side in 2013. It has a width of 1.1 cm and a height of 0.9 cm and preserves the remnants of two lines with an average letter height of 1.7 mm. Fragment 9 measures 1.1 cm by 0.9 cm with a line spacing of 3.7 mm and average letter height of 1.9mm. Fragment 10 is a vertical rectangle that has suffered some further damage since its publication in 1953. It originally had a width of 0.8 cm and a height of 1.0 cm. It preserved two lines with a line spacing of 5.4 mm and an average letter height 1.9 mm. Fragment 11 is another vertical rectangle that has lost the extremity of its left and right edges and whose bottom has split away. In the 1953 PAM photograph it measured 0.8 cm by 0.9 cm and it preserved two lines of text. Finally, frg. 12, the smallest of this subgroup, measures 0.7 cm by 0.6 cm with an average letter height of 1.9 mm. Milik’s third subgroup, frgs 13–16, all have the same dark brown coloring that makes it impossible to read with the naked eye. Fragment 13 has been quite damaged over the years, but at the time of its publication in 1953 measured 0.8 cm by 0.8 cm, preserving the remains of a single line with letters 1.6 mm tall. Fragment 14 measures 0.5 cm by 0.4 cm. It has developed a horizontal crack, but remains relatively unchanged. Fragment 15 originally had a tall vase-like shape, but is now more like a thin rectangle. Its width was originally 0.5 cm and its height 0.9 cm, with a line spacing of 5.5 mm and average letter height of 1.9 mm. There are three tiny bits of leather set close to the right edge of frg. 15 in OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 75 the 2013 image but which seem too large to have broken off of this piece—they seem more likely to belong to frg. 13. Fragment 16 is the smallest fragment here, 0.4 cm wide and 0.4 cm tall, with a letter height of 1.7 mm. Fragment 17, the third and final of Milik’s isolated fragments, is a copper-brown whose dimensions were originally 0.8 cm wide and 0.7 cm tall and which preserved the remains of a single line. Between 1953 and 2013, it is relatively unchanged having lost only a small part of its bottom-left diagonal edge. A noticeable crack runs diagonally from the top left to the middle right. Milik’s fourth subgroup, frgs 18 and 19, are a light tan color. Fragment 18 is square with a convex top edge, measuring 0.7 cm by 0.6 cm with an average letter height of 1.7 mm. By the time of its photographing in 2013, the bottom edge had broken off, creating a triangle shape. Fragment 19 is a long, horizontally-oriented fragment, largely unchanged between photographs, with a width of 1.3 cm and height of 0.6 cm. It preserves the remnants of two lines. TABLE 7.2 Grouping 1Q68 Summary of Fragment Dimensions Fragment x-axis y-axis Area Frg. 1 0.96 cm 1.67 cm 1.04 cm2 Frg. 2 0.67 cm 0.38 cm 0.20 cm2 Frg. 3 1.84 cm 0.86 cm 0.84 cm2 N/A Frg. 4 0.70 cm 0.99 cm 0.47 cm2 N/A Frg. 5 0.58 cm 0.68 cm 0.26 cm2 Frg. 6 0.78 cm 1.16 cm 0.51 cm2 Frg. 7 1.13 cm 0.75 cm 0.49 cm2 Frg. 8 1.08 cm 0.88 cm 0.56 cm2 Frg. 9 1.11 cm 0.85 cm 0.61 cm2 Frg. 10 0.76 cm 0.96 cm 0.50 cm2 Frg. 11 0.80 cm 0.86 cm 0.43 cm2 Frg.12 0.72 cm 0.57 cm 0.27 cm2 Frg. 13 0.80 cm 0.80 cm 0.42 cm2 Frg. 14 0.53 cm 0.38 cm 0.13 cm2 Frg. 15 0.53 cm 0.86 cm 0.31 cm2 Frg. 16 0.40 cm 0.44 cm 0.12 cm2 Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Subgroup 3 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN N/A Subgroup 4 76 Frg. 17 0.82 cm 0.72 cm 0.38 cm2 Frg. 18 0.70 cm 0.60 cm 0.30 cm2 Frg. 19 1.28 cm 0.57 cm 0.46 cm2 Palaeography Milik suggested frgs 1–3 comprise a first sub-group, but their scripts do not appear to be related. The writing on frg. 1 is quite small, averaging 1.8 mm in height. The orientation of the script appears to have been affected by the diagonal grain of the leather, possibly resulting in some ink bleed. The formal script is fairly erect and square, with a feel for the baseline. The shins of l. 3 are later forms—the left stroke is erect and the middle stroke is beginning to attach higher up on the stroke. The ayin of l. 3 is no longer small, but it has not undergone the clockwise rotation of later forms. The single line of frg. 2 is missing the bottoms of its letters making any comment difficult, save to say that it is not the same script as frg. 1. There is some variation in stroke width, suggested a beveled pen. The script of frg. 3 is also altogether different from frg. 1. The hand is more shaded, suggesting a beveled pen, while the letter spacing is inconsistent. There is a more prominent forward lean and less of a feel for the baseline, while its letters are more narrow than square. The ayin is still fairly small in the older style (contra that of frg. 1), but the final mem is becoming square. Milik suggested frgs 4 and 5 were isolated fragments, but neither preserves enough text to allow for definitive comment. Fragment 4 was perhaps written with a slightly beveled pen. Its letters are square with somewhat of a forward lean. The ayin on the fragment break of l. 2 is Herodian, its oblique having rotated and developed an elbow. As for frg. 5, the strokes of its two letters vary suggesting a beveled pen. Milik suggested frgs 6–12 comprise a second sub-group, but there are again significant differences in the scripts. The script of frg. 6 is written in a fairly fluid hand with shading and a prominent forward lean. The script is fairly square though may not always have a feel for the baseline. Some important differences between individual letters set this script apart from the other fragments: the yod of 6 2 is formed more broadly than the yod of frg. 7; the keraia on the lamed’s superlinear stroke of 6 2 is penned to the right, while the keraia on the lamed of frg. 11 is penned to the left. The script of frg. 8 is quite similar to frg. 6—its shaded script has a similarly prominent forward lean and is missing an obvious feel for the baseline. Their average letter height is similar as well, with frg. 6 measuring 1.6 mm in height and frg. 8 measuring 1.5 mm. The fragment’s bet and final kaf are later forms: the bet is vertically narrow and has the Herodian base, written left to right; the kaf has a prominent semi-loop as the cross bar loops into the descender. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 77 The script of frg. 7 has somewhat of a forward lean (though not as pronounced as frgs 6 and 8), with narrower strokes and some shading, suggesting a beveled pen nib. A feel for the baseline is better seen in l. 2 than l. 1. The script of frg. 9 is a formal hand with square letters and fairly uniform, undecorated strokes, possibly written with a somewhat bevelled pen. The letters appear somewhat erect and there may be something of a feel for the baseline, although the fragment may simply be warped. The alef and mem of the line have later features: the alef is square, its downstroke attaching at the peak of its unshaded oblique; the downstroke and base of the mem form a right angle and its base does not drop below the baseline. The shin, on the other hand, does not have the erect left downstroke of the later form. The script of frg. 10 preserves only one complete word but appears to have been penned in a uniform stroke. The script may be erect and square and may also have a feel for the baseline. Resh is not a small or narrow letter while the qof is narrowing vertically and has a developed descender. In the case of frg. 11, only the bottom of l. 1 and top of l. 2 remain. The stroke width is uniform, while l. 1 may demonstrate a feel for the baseline. Alef and ayin are later forms: the left downstroke of alef is attached to the peak of an unshaded oblique, while the right downstroke is topped with a pronounced keraia; the ayin is of standard letter size, has developed the elbow on its oblique, and has undergone a clockwise rotation. Fragment 12 preserves a formal Herodian hand, written in a fairly uniform stroke. Letters are forward leaning, consistent in size and keraia formation, square, and have a feel for the baseline. The bet and ayin are developed Herodian forms. The script is possibly the same as frg. 11, with frg. 11’s letters measuring 1.7 mm in height and frg. 12’s 1.9 mm. Their ayins are similar in form. Milik grouped frgs 13–16 together in a third subgroup, but they probably do not belong to the same MS. The script of frg. 13 is somewhat shaded and features no ligaturing. The script may be forward leaning and square, and there may be a feel for the baseline, but then the fragment may be warped. The alef is square rather than lean, while the transverse and oblique of the lamed have enlarged to become more standard in size. Not enough script of frg. 14 remains to comment on, but it looks close to that of frg. 13. The formal script of frg. 15 is written in uniform strokes, perhaps with a dull pen nib, the only shading perhaps being on the oblique of an alef on the fragment break of l. 2. Letters are square, have a forward lean, and have a feel for the baseline. Lamed and mem are developed forms: the hook of lamed has opened to be of standard size, though its shorter transverse strokes differentiate it from the lameds of frgs 13 and 14; the downstroke and base of the mem create a right angle, with the base resting on the baseline. Little remains of frg. 16, but the script is shaded and so probably written with a beveled pen. There may be a forward lean, and letters appear standard in size, particularly the mem. But the base of the mem here is not as long or flat as that on frg. 15, suggesting a different hand. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 78 The script of frg. 17 is quite shaded, suggesting a beveled pen. There appears to be a forward lean, with not so obvious a feel for the baseline. The alef is square, its left downstroke attaching to the peak of the broad and diagonal oblique, but the medial kaf is taller and narrower, while the hook of the lamed is perhaps not quite of standard size. The ornaments of the lameds’ superlinear strokes make the hand seem fluid or hurried: the ornaments on the two superlinear strokes are not consistent, with the second one beginning well to the right of the superlinear stroke but looping to the left. Both loops leave an uninked circle in their centre. Little remains of Milik’s final subgroup, frgs 18 and 19. Fragment 18 has a Herodian alef and shin, but the alef is different from the alef of frg. 19, the former’s left downstroke attaching near the top of the oblique, and the latter’s attaching directly to the top of the oblique. Based on the above descriptions, I would suggest frgs 1–3 do not belong together. Milik suggested frgs 4 and 5 were isolated fragments, but they may actually belong together. Of Milik’s second subgroup, frgs 6–12, I would suggest frgs 6 and 8 may belong together and that frgs 11 and 12 possibly belong together. Fragment 10, however, should be considered on its own. The script of frg. 7, on the other hand, may possibly belong to frg. 3. Of Milik’s third subgroup, frgs 13–16, frgs 13 and 14 likely belong together (perhaps with frg. 9 and maybe frg. 19), but frgs 15 and 16 do not belong with each other or with frgs 13 and 14. I would suggest that frgs 17 and 19 may be closer together than Milik’s final sub-group of frgs 18 and 19. TABLE 7.3 Assignment of 1Q68 Fragments Milik’s Groupings Revised Groupings Subgroup 1 frgs 1–3 Isolated frgs frgs 1, 2, 3(?), 10, 15, 16, 18 N/A frg. 4 Subgroup 1 frgs 4–5 N/A frg. 5 Subgroup 2 frgs 6 and 8 Subgroup 2 frgs 6–12 Subgroup 3 frgs 3(?), 7 Subgroup 3 frg. 13–16 Subgroup 4 frgs 9, 13–14, 19(?) N/A frg. 17 Subgroup 5 frgs 11 and 12 Subgroup 4 frgs 18–19 Subgroup 6 frgs 17 and 19(?) OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN TABLE 7.4 79 1Q68 Summary of Palaeographical Measurements Fragment Line Spacing Word Spacing Letter Height Thin Strokes Thick Strokes Frg. 1 5.0 mm 0.6 mm 1.8 mm 0.29 mm 0.50 mm 0.32 mm 0.56 mm Frg. 2 l. 1 0.7 mm l. 2 0.2 mm? 1.4 mm 0.19 mm 0.39 mm Frg. 4 1.2 mm 1.5 mm 0.23 mm 0.38 mm Frg. 5 1.2 mm 2.0 mm 0.22 mm 0.51 mm 1.6 mm 0.24 mm 0.39 mm Frg. 3 5.6 mm Frg. 6 4.6 mm Frg. 7 4.5 mm 1.0 mm 1.6 mm 0.17 mm 0.28 mm Frg. 8 5.1 mm 0.5 mm 1.5 mm 0.28 mm 0.46 mm Frg. 9 3.9 mm 1.1 mm 1.9 mm 0.29 mm 0.59 mm Frg. 10 5.4 mm 0.8 mm 2.1 mm 0.36 mm 0.44 mm Frg. 11 6.6 mm 1.0 mm 1.7 mm 0.28 mm 0.39 mm 1.9 mm 0.38 mm 0.43 mm 1.7 mm 0.30 mm 0.51 mm Frg. 12 Frg. 13 1.2 mm Frg. 14 Frg. 15 1.9 mm 5.3 mm 1.1 mm Frg. 16 2.1 mm Margins R? B? 0.37 mm 0.26 mm 2.1 mm 0.44 mm 0.25 mm Frg. 17 0.9 mm 2.2 mm 0.21 mm 0.35 mm Frg. 18 1.3 mm 2.1 mm 0.26 mm 0.33 mm Frg. 19 1.1 mm 0.31 mm 0.45 mm 1Q68 frg. 1 Transcription ] ֯‫[◦ש ש ֯רי‬ 1 ]‫נפש‬ ̇ ‫[ ̇תתן לה‬ 2 ]◦‫̇ע‬ ‫[ל‬ 3 OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 80 IR image: B-278273 (4J). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]. . . . . .[ ]he gave to him life[ ]. . . . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [◦ש‬Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington recorded ‫[◦ש‬, while Beyer omitted the first letter altogether with ‫[ש‬.131 A straight and unadorned downstroke remains of the first letter. Τhe height and lean of the stroke matches the other shins of the line, and a medial stroke is visible around the midpoint of the downstroke when observed closely with Adobe Photoshop. Thus, I am tempted to suggest ‫שש‬, “marble.” In light of the fact that there is nothing definitively Aramaic on this fragment, it could simply be ‫“—שש‬six” in Hebrew. 1 ] ֯‫ ש ֯רי‬Milik rendered the word ‫“( שיצ]יא‬complet[ed” or “the] destruction”) with Fitzmyer & Harrington following and Beyer leaving it at ]◦‫שי‬. 132 I am unconvinced by their readings. As can be seen in fig. 7.2 below, the second and third letters are tightly spaced. How Milik sees the letter can be seen in fig. 7.3, where I have added more separation to the letters. Initially I suggested this was a narrow qof, resulting in ‫שׁוק‬, “street” (which would pair with ‫“[ שש‬marble”] before it). But I would suggest this is more likely a resh, where a striation has separated the keraia from the crossbar. Our options narrow from there to some form of ‫“( שרי‬to loosen”) or ‫“( שרש‬root”). This is, of course, looking only at Aramaic options—as I stated in the previous note, there is actually nothing on this fragment that makes it definitively Aramaic. FIGURE 7.2 131 132 ‫ שרי‬as it appears on the plate Milik, DJD I, 148; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. Milik, DJD 1, 148; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN FIGURE 7.3 2 81 As ]‫ שׁיצ‬with a tsade for comparison ‫ [ ̇תתן‬Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington wisely do not guess at the first letter, rendering it ‫[◦תן‬. Beyer has transcribed ‫[נתן‬. This first letter can only be a nun or a tav, and the semi-ligaturing makes it difficult to tell. The width of the horizontal strokes of the other nun and tav of this line are likewise unhelpful. I suggest tav merely because the acute angle between its down and horizontal strokes matches the tav of the same line, more so than the right angle of the nun. 2 ]‫נפש‬ ̇ Milik, Fitzmyer & Harrington, and Beyer all record the same thing: ‫נפש‬. ֯ The final letter can only be a shin. The letter is penned with a uniquely angular bend on the rightmost diagonal, very much like the shins of line 1. Oddly, it would appear the first shin of line 1 as well as this shin have done this severe bend in two strokes. 3 ]◦‫̇ע‬ ‫ [ל‬Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington note the lamed, provide a lengthy space without indicating a vacat (though this is much wider than a mere space between words), and transcribe a single open circlet. The first of the open circlets has the appearance of a Latin “v” (fig. 7.4), 133 but can really only be an upright ayin or perhaps an alef. FIGURE 7.4 1Q68 frg. 1, l. 3 1Q68 frg. 2 Transcription ]◦‫[והי̇ ֯מ‬ 1 IR image: B-277290 (1J). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]and . . .[ 133 The more esoteric side of me wonders if the first letter is a number cypher in the style of the “v” at 4Q554a 1 5. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 82 Notes on Reading 1 ]◦‫ [והי̇ ֯מ‬Milik transcribed ]‫[והות‬, while Beyer transcribed the same but with extra spacing, ] ‫[ והות‬, and translated it “und sie war” (“and she was”). 134 But I would suggest that what they have marked for a tav is missing the left downstroke—there is enough space that we should expect to see at least traces of it in the 1953 IR. Instead, I suspect the letter is either a mem or, less likely, a resh. To the left of this letter are traces of ink that may be part of the next letter. If the fourth letter is a mem, it is perhaps either ‫“( והימנו‬and faithfulness/loyalty”) or ‫“( והימן‬and . . . believed”). If the fourth letter is a resh, the third letter would have to be a vav, not a yod. Beyond the options of a I-‫י‬ haphel verb whose first yod has become a vav, we could perhaps render it something like ‫הורי‬, a form of ‫ הרי‬or ‫“( הריון‬conception”) seen in 1QapGen (see ‫ הורתי‬in 1Q20 6 1). 1Q68 frg. 3 Transcription ]◦‫[ ֯להין ו ̇ל ̇חם וק‬ 1 ]◦‫[ ̇דתע‬ 2 IR image: B-278274 (2E). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 G]od/g]ods. And bread and . . .[ ]law . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [ ֯להין‬Milik transcribed ‫[להון‬, ̇ while Fitzmyer & Harrington and Beyer transcribed the same though with a space: ‫[ להון‬, “to them”.135 Only a trace remains of the initial letter (fig. 7.5). I have 134F followed their reading of a lamed, though based on the lamed of the same line, I would expect its “hook” to come down lower. Milik et. al see the third letter as a vav but it seems clearly to be a yod, meaning it is not the 3mp pronominal suffix, but either the absolute mp ending or the rarer form of the 3fp pronominal suffix (this latter form occurs three times: 4Q210 1 ii 2, 11Q10 32 1 and 2). 134 135 Milik, DJD 1, 148; Beyer, ATTM: 84, 272. Fitzmyer & Harrington did not include this fragment in their MPAT. Milik, DJD 1, 148; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM: 84, 272. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN FIGURE 7.5 1 83 1Q68 fragment 3, line 1 ‫ ו ̇ל ̇חם‬Milik transcribed here ‫ולחם‬, ֯ but neither Fitzmyer & Harrington nor Beyer had any reservation on the second letter, transcribing ‫ולחם‬, probably because this is the only word in the ADSS that begins with a lamed and finishes with a mem. 136 The horizontal stroke of the lamed is visible on the top edge of the fragment. The crossbar of a khet is clearly visible, although the letter appears quite small—possibly owing to shrinking or distortion along the fragment edge.137 135F 136F 1 ]◦‫ וק‬The strokes are narrower on this letter than on the rest of the fragment. My reading agrees with Milik, who transcribed ]◦‫ו̇ ק‬, and with Fitzmyer & Harrington who record ]◦‫וק‬. The letter looks like a he or a khet, but -‫ קח‬does not begin any ADSS root, while -‫ קה‬only begins ‫קהת‬ (“Kohath”). 2 ]◦‫[דתע‬ ̇ Milik and Fitzmyer & Harrington have transcribed ]‫ [◦תע‬and Beyer transcribed ]‫[מתע‬. 138 The presence of two “horns” on the first letter read more naturally to me as a dalet. The fourth letter is better seen in the 2008 Inscriptifact photograph—it is a single downstroke whose top starts a bit below the ayin’s. If taken as a single word, ]◦‫[דתע‬ ̇ , is not a known root in Aramaic. As a single word, we would likely have to be looking at the inseparable relative pronoun, ‫“( ד־‬which, who,” etc.) in combination with some other verb or noun, like ‫[דתעב]ד‬, “which you did/made.” 1Q68 frg. 4 Transcription ]◦ [ 1 ]‫[ ֯לבבה ע‬ 2 ]◦ ‫[ ̇ה‬ 3 136 Milik, DJD 1, 148; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. There is a part of me that suspects the lamed and part of the khet are actually a tet whose baseline has disappeared, and that the other part of the khet is an ayin (hence its height off the baseline), making it ‫טעם‬, “decree.” This would work 137 well with ‫דת‬, “law,” of line 2, and the word following ‫ טעם‬could be something like ‫וקרא‬, “and proclaimed [it].” There is no obvious damage however to affirm my tet theory. 138 Milik, DJD 1, 148; Fitzmyer & Harrington, MPAT, 130; Beyer, ATTM:84, 272. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 84 IR image: B-277301 (1D). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]. . .[ ]his heart . . .[ ]. . . . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦[ Only a trace remains of this letter. It is most likely the bottom of a final kaf, pe, or tsade. 2 ‫[לבבה‬ ֯ The letters are much better seen on the 2008 Inscriptifact image. The superlinear stroke remains of the lamed, the bottom of the letter having been abraded away. 3 ]◦ ‫[ה‬ ̇ The first letter looks to be a he with a heavily shaded transverse. A dalet is possible, but less likely. There is only a trace of ink on the left edge, indicating a second letter beginning a new word on the line. 1Q68 frg. 5 Transcription ]‫[◦ פס‬ 1 ]◦ [ 2 IR image: B-277288 (4A). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . . palm[ ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [◦ פס‬The first letter is either a dalet or resh, the extremity of the downward and horizontal strokes remaining. The pe and samek are assured. 2 ]◦[ Only the a faded trace remains at the bottom of the fragment. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 85 1Q68 frg. 6 139 Transcription ]◦‫[י֯ ט‬ 1 ]‫[ו֯ ̇אלוהין‬ 2 ]‫[ו‬ 3 IR image: B-277290 (5G). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 3 ]. . .[ ]and God[ ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦‫ [י֯ ט‬Milik has transcribed here ]‫[◦ט‬, missing the right angle created by two strokes following his tet. 140 The first letter has been penned well below the dryline, and Milik did not hazard a guess, but I would suggest hesitantly that with what strokes remain, it can really only be a yod 139F 2 ]‫ [ו֯ ̇אלוהין‬Milik records here ]‫[◦ליהון‬, an unknown noun followed by the third masculine plural ending. 141 At first blush, what I have marked as ‫ ו֯ ̇א‬looks like a single stroke, with an exaggerated keraia curving into the crossbar of a bet, dalet, or resh, or maybe the warped left downstroke of an ayin (fig. 7.6). Beyond these options having to be based on an unusual stroke, the spacing does not make sense here either as the spacing between the rest of the letters of this word are fairly consistent in how tightly they have been written. Upon closer inspection it looks to me to be an alef whose oblique and left leg have mostly worn away, though one can still see the faint remnants of the left downstroke (reconstructed in fig. 7.7). Unfortunately, the fragment is so blackened and damaged by the time of its 2013 image that it is not possible to verify that this is the case. FIGURE 7.6 139 1Q68 fragment 6, line 2 Awkwardly, in DJD 1 this fragment is labelled “7” in the body proper, while the fragment is labelled “6” in the plate image where it appears unequivocally to be in the sixth position (in what is admittedly an oddly numbered sequence). The BnF has then labelled the fragment “6” on the plate of Folio 8r. 140 Milik, DJD I, 148. 141 Milik, DJD I, 148. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN FIGURE 7.7 86 1Q68 fragment 6, line 2 (reconst.) Milik saw a yod where I see a vav and vice versa, based on the relative size of the upstrokes on both of these letters. 1Q68 frg. 7 Transcription ]◦◦◦[ 1 ]‫[ ֯אתין בא‬ 2 IR image: B-278271 (4G). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . .[ ] signs in . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦◦◦[ This photograph is difficult with the 1953 IR PAM photograph and the 2013 color photograph—the former is blurry and the latter is black, while the fragment looks to be broken in three small pieces. The first letter is the end of a downstroke followed perhaps by any of a bet, nun, kaf, or pe. Or it is the same letter and the first stroke and next stroke are together a tav. A third letter may touch the base stroke of the second letter or be a part of the same letter. There are then traces of two more downstrokes. 2 ‫ [ ֯אתין‬Even in the 2008 Inscriptifact photograph the first letter is difficult since the fragment is broken and there may have been some delamination here (unless this word is preceded by a vacat or the right margin). The final three letters are assured. The first letter, again, is quite damaged, but it may be ‫אתין‬: either the absolute mp of “signs” (see 1Q20 12 1, 4Q535 2 4, and 4Q580 1 ii 12) or “coming,” the peal participle ms of ‫ אתי‬that appears once in 11Q10 38 4. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 87 1Q68 frg. 8 Transcription ]◦ ◦ [ 1 ] ‫[ ֯ה בדרך‬ 2 IR image: B-277290 (5G). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . . . . .[ ]. . . in the way [ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦ ◦[ The base of two strokes remain. The first is angled diagonally, down and to the left. It suggests a lamed, but it could really be anything—an alef, dalet, vav, yod, he, zayin, the foot of a tav. The second is a mere trace. 2 ‫ [ ֯ה‬This looks like the end of the shaded cross stroke of a he. It could possibly be the horizontal strokes of a dalet or yod. 2 ] ‫ ̇בדרך‬The leather on the PAM image appears darkened or even smudged over the first three letters of the word, but in the 2008 Inscriptifact the reading is clear. The bet is still darkened or smudged, but its shorter height, width, and rightward bump on the base make it almost certain. In ADSS, ‫ דרך‬never appears in a nominal form, but in a verbal form. If this is an Aramaic text, there is a small chance the bet may perhaps be a mem, making it a peal infinitive construct or pael participle ms. But as it stands, this is probably a Hebrew word—“in the way.” 1Q68 frg. 9 Transcription ] []‫שח‬ ֯ [ 1 ]‫ קו[ ̇דמי היא‬2 IR image: B-278273 (1G). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . .[] [ ]it/she was [bef]ore me[ OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 88 Notes on Reading 1 ] []‫שח‬ ֯ [ Milik transcribed ]◦ ◦ ‫[ש‬, 142 his spacing differing from my own. I have added a space before the first letter—if the first were preceded by another, that letter would likely be showing in the relatively undamaged space available. The first letter, a shin/sin is clearly visible. Following that are two downstrokes, the remains of one or two letters. The first downstroke follows the underside of the shin and slopes gently left. I have suggested ]‫שח‬ ֯ , which offers some discomforting contexts: ‫“( שׁחט‬to consume”), ‫“( שׁחן‬a boil or inflammation”), ‫“( שׁחף‬to be slack, weakened”), and ‫“( שׁחת‬to mar”). 2 ]‫קו[דמי היא‬ ̇ Milik transcribed ]‫[◦מי היא‬. 143 The top of the dalet remains, with its characteristic keraia, and the following mem is assured. Both yods on this line are clear, and the entire second word is certain. I have translated it “it/she was [bef]ore me.” It is also tempting to read “she is [of] my blood.” But the idea of blood denoting kinship may be anachronistic here, as kinship is usually spoken of in the Hebrew Bible in terms of bone and flesh (Gen 29:14; Jdg 9:12; 2 Sam 5:1). 1Q68 frg. 10 Transcription ]◦‫[◦ ֯צ‬ 1 ]‫[◦קו̇ ר י̇ ֯א‬ 2 IR image: B-277290 (2B). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . . . . .[ ]. . . will . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦‫ [◦ ֯צ‬The end of a base stroke remains of the first letter. For the second letter, the crossbar of a tsade can be seen with its downstroke and base. A trace remains of a third letter 2 ‫ [◦קו̇ ר‬The first letter is a downstroke, with some upper part of the letter ligatured to the qof. The third letter appears to me to be a vav, but I am unable to find any word in the Aramaic that ends with ‫קור‬-. There are a few, however, in Hebrew—‫“( קור‬to dig”), ‫“( קור‬a web”), and ‫“( מקור‬a 142 143 Milik, DJD 1, 148. Milik, DJD 1, 148. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 89 cistern”). It the vav is in fact a yod, it would have to read ‫“( יקיר‬glorious”), which appears in some form in 4QTobita (4Q196 6 7), 4QLevid (4Q214 3 3), and 4QEnGiantsc (4Q531 13 3). 2 ]‫ י̇ ֯א‬The first letter looks to be a yod, with its downstroke terminating above the baseline and shaded upstroke. The second letter looks to have the downstroke and oblique of an alef. 1Q68 frg. 11 Transcription ] ‫נה‬ ֯ ‫[ ֯ק‬ 1 ]‫[ ֯דעא ל‬ 2 IR image: B-278273 (2I). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . . [ ]. . . to[ Notes on Reading 1 ] ‫נה‬ ֯ ‫ [ ֯ק‬There are two ways to read this. The first letter is a long downstroke that tapers from an elbow slight left at the top. Only a few letters have a stroke to the left like this. The length of the downstroke—the bottom of which looks abraded though some ink remains—and the nature of the diagonal stroke at the top more than suggest a qof. The next letter is a nun. The base of two downstrokes remains at the end, which I have suggested are a he, since the words available with a combination of a qof-nun are limited. Based on those suggestions it could only be one of ‫קנה‬ (“reed, rod” for measurement), some form of ‫“( קני‬to acquire”), or, less likely, the definite form of ‫“( קן‬nest”) or ‫“( דקנה‬beard”) or the proper name ‫“( אלקנה‬Elqanah,” father of Samuel). 2 ]‫[דעא ל‬ ֯ For the first letter, I have suggested it is the leftmost diagonal stroke of a dalet, but granted, it could be a resh or bet. If it is a dalet, the only options would be ‫ מנדעא‬or ‫“( מדעא‬the knowledge”) or some infinitival or participial form of ‫“( ידע‬to know”). The options open up considerably if the dalet is a resh or bet. The final letter looks to be a damaged lamed. 1Q68 frg. 12 Transcription ]‫[ו̇ עבד‬ 1 IR image: B-278273 (3J). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 90 Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]and [. . .] made[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [ו̇ עבד‬I have suggested the translation “and [. . .] made” for how often the peal perfect of this word occurs in the ADSS, but the vav may be a yod making it the peal imperfect or jussive: “and he will make” or “let him make.” It could also be a nominal form as either ‫“( עבד‬servant, slave”) or ‫“( עובד‬deed”), the latter of which occurs quite often in this defective form (about nineteen out of thirty-eight times). 1Q68 frg. 13 Transcription ]◦ ̇‫[אל ירו‬ 1 IR image: B-277290 (5E). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]. . . . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]◦ ̇‫ [אל ירו‬The yod and resh of the second word are assured (the latter has a discoloration above it, what almost looks like a dot). The next letter is either a vav or a yod. I have suggested a vav as the letter is taller than the first yod (though it may have a shaded head like a yod). There is a dark spot right on the edge of the fragment break that may be a discoloration of the fragment or a fourth letter. In light of the ‫ אל‬that precedes this word, it is tempting to read ‫“( אל ירוט‬let him not run”) or ‫“( אל ירום‬let him not be exalted”). But ‫ אל‬could be the ending of any number of proper names, while ‫ ירו‬could be the beginning of ‫“( ירושלם‬Jerusalem”) or ‫“( ירותה‬inheritance”); some combination of the two also works: ‫“( אל ירושלם‬the God of Jerusalem”). 1Q68 frg. 14 Transcription ]‫[◦נ֯ ו̇ ן‬ 1 IR image: B-277290 (5E). Color images: recto; verso. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 91 Translation 1 ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ] ‫ [◦נ֯ ו̇ ן‬Only a trace remains of the first letter, while the second appears to be the beginning of a medial nun. I have suggested a vav for the third letter, but it could be a yod. The final nun is assured. The chances are high it is either of ‫“—אנון‬they, them”—which occurs about forty-four times in the ADSS; or ‫שנין‬, which can be the peal participle mp of ‫שני‬, “changing,” or the fp absolute of ‫שנה‬, “years.” 1Q68 frg. 15 Transcription ]‫[למפ ֯ל‬ 1 ]◦ ‫[אל‬ 2 IR image: B-277290 (5F). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . .[ ]. . . . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 144 ]‫[למפל‬ ֯ Milik has transcribed ]‫[למפל‬, ֯ suggesting he might have reconstructed “working” (‫)פלח‬, “falling” (‫נפל‬, where the nun has assimilated into the pe), “escaping” (‫)פלט‬, or “dividing” (‫)פלג‬. The first three letters are assured, the lamed and mem acting as a marker of the infinitive construct. The fourth letter is a straight diagonal line going from right to left. I would suggest ‫למפלח‬, “working,” simply because this exact form shows up in three other places (1Q20 12 13, 4Q570 17 2, and 11Q10 32 8), but the second lamed could also be a shin/sin resulting in ‫“( למפשר‬to interpret”) or ‫“( למפשט‬to extend/stretch”). 2 ]◦ ‫ [אל‬The beginning of the oblique and lefthand downstroke of an alef precede the lamed. The translational options are likely “God,” the beginning of a negative command, or the preposition “to,” but ‫אל‬- could also be the end of any number of proper names. The final letter appears to be a 144 Milik, DJD I, 148. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 92 straight line. It looks to be running diagonally right to left, suggesting a shin, but the angle is not pronounced enough and there is probably some warping going on with this fragment. 1Q68 frg. 16 Transcription ]‫[מה ֯ג‬ 1 IR image: B-277290 (5H). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [מה ֯ג‬The oblique and base stroke of a mem remain, along with a keraia, and are followed by a he. The final letter is a downstroke, fairly straight with a significant lean to the left. I have suggested a gimel, though I would expect a gimel to have more of a bend on the right stroke. That would make this a participial or infinitive form of ‫הגי‬, “to meditate” (see ‫ מהגא‬in 4Q531 39 1). A yod may be possible here, making it perhaps a participial or infinitive form of ‫“( הימן‬to believe”). 1Q68 frg. 17 Transcription ]‫אר‬ ̇ ‫[לכל‬ 1 IR image: B-278280 (4H). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 ]to all . . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫אר‬ ̇ ‫ [לכל‬The first three letters are assured, as is the alef. The cross stroke and downstroke remain of the next letter and appears most likely to be a resh. This likely makes it either ‫“( לכל ארעא‬to the OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 93 whole earth”), which occurs five times in the Genesis Apocryphon, or perhaps some form of ‫לכל‬ (‫“( ארחת)ה‬to all the [their] paths of”), a phrase found in two places at Cave 4Q. 145 14F Notably, the script of this frg. 17 is similar to the script of 1Q21 frg. 39 (1QTLevi): 1Q68 fragment 8 alongside 1Q21 fragment 39 146 FIGURE 7.12 Not only do the scripts share a lean and similar feel for the baseline, but the letters share similar features: kafs are tall, narrow, and share similar angles in their downstrokes and bases; the lameds’ flags appear to the left of their superlinear strokes; and alefs are the same square shape, the right downstroke reaching higher than the oblique. Furthermore, measurements are quite close: TABLE 7.5 1Q68 fragment 8 and 1Q21 fragment 39 measurements 1Q68 1Q21 Word Spacing 0.9 mm 1.2 mm Average Letter Height 2.2 mm 2.1 mm Lamed Height 4.3 mm / 4.7 mm 4.2 mm / 5.2 mm Thus, frg. 17 may well belong with 1QLevi. 1Q68 frg. 18 Transcription ]‫[ ֯תא ̇ש‬ ] ‫[ל‬ 1 2 IR image: B-278280 (2B). Color images: recto; verso. 145 For ‫( כל ארעא‬also spelled ‫)כול‬, see 1Q20 3 17, 1Q20 10 13, 1Q20 17 12, and 1Q20 21 11 and 12. See also ‫ כל ארע‬in 1Q20 16 10 and 4Q537 17 1. For ‫וכל ארחת‬, see 4Q246 1 ii 5 (‫וכל ארחתה בקשוט‬, “and all their paths [will be] righteous”) and 4Q548 1 ii–2 2 (]‫ארחת‬ ֯ ‫וכל‬, “and all the paths of”). 146 The image of 1Q21 frg. 39 can be found on PAM 40.540 (Leon Levy Collection Number B-278276; Coordinates: 3D). OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 94 Translation 1 2 ]. . . . . .[ ]. . . [ Notes on Reading 1 ]‫ [ ֯תא ̇ש‬The first letter may be a tav or nun. The alef’s oblique is quite long, running into the base of this previous letter. As for the shin, part of the right stroke remains along the break, and the bottom of the lefthand stroke remains below that. 2 ] ‫ [ל‬The upper downstroke of lamed remains. There is a temptation to add a vacat to the end of this line since so much blank space remains; however, the remains of the superlinear stroke are very likely well above the dryline, which is missing altogether. 1Q68 frg. 19 Transcription ]◦◦◦ ‫[ ֯ם לנ̇ א‬ 1 ] ‫[ל‬ 2 IR image: B-278273 (1J). Color images: recto; verso. Translation 1 2 ]. . . to you . . .[ ]. . .[ Notes on Reading 1 ‫ [ ֯ם‬The first marks of the line are an angled bottom stroke followed closely by a downstroke. The bottom line of the angle is quite diagonal and when compared to the next word the strokes appear to be quite low. Because of the sharper decline, the proximity of the downstroke, and the probable drop below the baseline, I have suggested a final mem that has not quite closed. 1 ‫ לנ̇ א‬The first letter is the lower stroke of a lamed, based on the angle and height off the baseline, while the final letter is the oblique and lefthand downstroke of an alef with the righthand downstroke partially preserved. The middle letter is most likely a nun: “to us” (‫)לנא‬. 1 ]◦◦◦ The first mark is a straight line that appears to be damaged at its top. It is tempting to read this as a vav, but the spacing between this and the next mark suggests a dalet or a resh. The next OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 95 letter is a downstroke into a base stroke, creating an obtuse angle, suggesting a medial mem, tet, Only a trace of a third letter remains on the fragment edge. 2 ]‫ [ל‬only the top of the upper downstroke remains of a lamed. Comments In most cases there is simply not enough material to say whether two fragments are contextually related. For instance, I had suggested that frgs 4 and 5 (‫לבב‬, “heart”; ‫פס‬, “palm”) and frgs 6 and 8 (‫אלוהין‬, “God”; ‫“ בדרך‬your way”) are related, but when my suggested readings are combined there is little to be excited about. I would suggest there is very little that is meaningful that can be drawn out of these fragments, particularly because any one reading out of 1Q68 has to remain questionable or tentative. As for the question of whether we are really looking at Aramaic texts, not every fragment preserves a distinctive Aramaic word or morpheme: • • fragment 1 is ambiguous with all of its words working in both Hebrew and Aramaic; fragment 2 may preserve the Aramaic word ‫הימנו‬, “faithfulness, loyalty” or ‫“ הימן‬to believe”; • fragment 3 preserves either ‫“( אל‬God”) with the plural absolute ending ‫ין‬- (line 1), or perhaps the rarer Aramaic pronominal suffix ‫הין‬- (“her”); • fragment 4 is ambiguous with the word ‫לבבה‬, which can be “the heart” in Aramaic or “her heart” • in Hebrew; fragment 5 preserves the letters ‫פס‬, which on their own are Aramaic for “palm of the hand”; but the word occurs at the fragment break, meaning it could be any number of incomplete words in Hebrew, including ‫“( פסיל‬graven image”) and ‫“( פסח‬Passover”); • fragment 6 preserves the Aramaic form of ‫ אלהים‬in line 2—‫;אלוהין‬ • fragment 7 may be Aramaic if either reading of ‫ אתון‬or ‫ שנין‬are correct; • fragment 8 preserves ‫בדרך‬, which is more likely the Hebrew nominal than the Aramaic verb; • fragment 9 may be ambiguous since ‫ היא‬of line 2 means “she/it” in both Hebrew and Aramaic; • fragment 10 preserves either ‫ קיר‬or ‫קור‬, with the former possibly being part of the Aramaic ‫יקיר‬ • (“glorious”) and the latter being more at home in Hebrew; fragment 11 preserves ‫דעא‬, perhaps the end of the Aramaic word ‫ מדע‬in the determinative case; • fragment 12 preserves the ambiguous ‫ועבד‬, which is well at home in both languages; • • fragment 13 does not preserve enough letters to make a decision based on lexicon alone; fragment 14 is ambiguous with its ‫ון‬- ending; • fragment 15 preserves the common Aramaic infinitive marker, a lamed and mem prefixed to its root in line 1’s ]‫;למפ ֯ח‬ OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 96 • • fragment 16 does not preserve enough letters to make a decision based on lexicon alone; fragment 17 is ambiguous, with the only complete word ‫לכל‬, “to all,” being common to both; • fragment 18 does not preserve enough letters to make a decision, though the hanging alef of l. 1 makes it tempting to say it is Aramaic; and frg. 19 does not preserve enough letters to make a decision by lexicon alone. • OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 97 Conclusion Findings I hope I have demonstrated with these six editions that we risk missing much if care is not taken to review the myriad unidentified fragments found in the ADSS. Granted, some of the editions, like 1Q66 and 1Q68, have not rendered anything useful in terms of the big picture, but being able to say that there is nothing new or important there is important in itself. Other editions, like 1Q64 and 1Q67 have rendered more substantial readings that may help flesh out a fuller picture of what scrolls were originally in Cave 1Q. I have tried to improve on previous transcriptions in three ways. First and simplest is by being comprehensive in their presentation. Twenty-two of the forty fragments presented here had never had treatment from Milik or from any who came after him. Not only were transcriptions absent, but so were translations, and commentary. This means that some potentially significant readings have been missed, significant readings that can serve as a starting point for important dialogue. Second, I have tried to provide a broader context for the ADSS at Cave 1Q, both for new readings and for readings that are already known. The first word of 1Q63 1 2, ‫“( דגליהון‬their signs”), was treated in the militaristic context of 1QM or Numbers, but in Qumran Aramaic, it is used in an Enochic context to speak of the signs of the heavens. The reading of ‫ ישראל‬in 1Q65 1 3 is known, but it must be appreciated that this is still quite unique in both its rarity in the Cave 1Q Aramaic scrolls and in the often apocalyptic narratives of Aramaic texts. Third, in not assuming that the identifications of the fragments provided by the original editors are correct, I have been able to more carefully separate the fragments by their scripts, meaning we can better scrutinize the associations between fragments and better parse out their contexts. On one hand, this means questioning certain readings like ‫“( בתמרירותא‬in the embitterments”) of 1Q64 1a–1d 2, and questioning associations like 1Q66 frgs 3a–3c. This has not always made for more satisfying readings, of course, but it does help to illustrate how fragile some of our assumptions as editors and readers of this fragmentary material can be in view of more robust scientific data. On the other hand, in questioning the relatedness of fragments within given MSS, we are better able to rethink contextually specific words and phrases like “vessels,” “light,” “smiling,” “their signs,” etc., all hinting at varieties of Aramaic texts that have not necessarily been found at Cave 1Q. In the case of 1Q63, does ‫“( דגליהון‬their signs”; frg. 1, l. 2) when recontextualized against the extant ADSS witness (as opposed to 1QM) suggest the presence of another Enochic scroll at Cave 1Q? Can the same be said for ‫ מען‬of 1Q64 3 1 (“vessel”)? On the two fragments of 1Q65 we have ‫“( זקפין‬lifting”), ‫ צדקי‬or ‫“( בדקי‬my righteousness” or “my breach”) and ‫“( י[שראל‬Israel”)—when considered against the backdrop of the OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 98 Eastern Diaspora, one of the two primary narrative settings of Aramaic literature, is 1Q65 better understood as a text concerning the repentance and restoration of Israel? Is 1Q66’s mention of ‫מלף‬ ‫יאלף‬, one who shall “surely teach” suggest a great figure or a sapiential work? Do we have some sort of physiognomy occurring in 1Q67 with its mention of ‫ מחעך‬in 1Q67 1 1 (“smiling”) and ‫ בריהוהי‬in 1Q67 1 2 (“by his/its scent,” 1Q67 1 2)? Or is it perhaps describing Melchizedek, making it a better fit with works like Visions of Amram or the Hebrew 11QMelchizedek? And is ‫ בליליא‬in 1Q67 2 1 (“in the night”) with a potential mention of ‫“( ענא‬the flock”) in 1Q67 2 2 a narrative marker for a familiar apocalyptic vision occurring in the sleep of a visionary? These are all questions worthy of consideration but which perhaps cannot yet have any satisfying answer. Future Work In my introduction I mentioned unprovenanced fragments that private collectors are willing to pay thousands of dollars for a piece—yet, we have so many more of these fragments under our nose in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection that need to be picked over. The work that needs to be done here is enormous. As I said at the outset, the scope of this initial project was much broader: there are unidentified Aramaic fragments in each of Caves 2Q, 3Q, 4Q, 5Q, 6Q, and 11Q. In an attempt to hedge this thesis, I focused on the Aramaic fragments of Cave 1Q. Yet that is simply the Aramaic. There are still many more Hebrew fragments that are also designated “Unidentified.” According to Tov’s lists, those include all of the following: 147 • • • • • • • • • 1Q41–62; 1Q69–70bis; 2Q27–33; 3Q10–11, 14; 4Q51a; 4Q125–126; 4Q172; 4Q178; 4Q249r–z; 4Q250c–j; 4Q281–282; 4Q311; 4Q313a–b; 4Q332a; 4Q346a; 4Q360b; 4Q361–363; 4Q464b; 4Q468a–c, m–bb, cc–dd; 4Q515–520; 5Q16–23; 5Q25; 6Q22, 24–25; 6Q27–29; 6Q31; 7Q6–18; 9Q1; 11Q22–23; 11Q28; 11Q30 I would further suggest that many of the fragments need new infrared photographs, since often the 1953 PAM images are blurred or corrupted in some way. Even the IR images in the 2008 collection I discovered upon completing this project with USC’s Inscriptifact are blurry at the left and right of the image. I have worked as well as I could with what images are available, but the readings of these editions readings could have been better served with newer and higher quality IR photographs. Furthermore, the extant IR images are not all available in one place. As has been made clear in the Photograph 147 Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 99 sections above, individual fragments can be difficult to locate on the PAM plates, while the single place they have been gathered in their MS designations—on the plates in DJD 1—can be difficult to see since fragments are presented there closer to their original size. A resource or tool that better presents these fragments together would be very helpful. There is more work to be done on unidentified fragments at Qumran. An appreciation of this fact could perhaps curb the appetite of collectors as well as the seller’s market that has developed over ancient manuscripts in the past decade. The assured and provenanced fragments of Qumran could and eventually must be the subject of hundreds and thousands more pages of speculation about the Qumran community and the content and contexts of their literature. The goldrush may have passed over the last decades, but there is still gold in these hills of fragments. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 100 Bibliography “A-propos.” BnF Gallica. Accessed February 28, 2023. https://gallica.bnf.fr/edit/und/a-propos. Barthélemy, Dominique and Józef Tadeusz Milik. Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1, edited by edited by R. de Vaux, G. M. Crowfoot, H. J .Plenderleith, and G. L. Harding. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Bearman, Gregory, Stephan J. Pfann, and Sheila I. Spiro. “Imaging the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Volume 1. Edited by Peter Flint and James C. Vanderkam, 472–95. Boston: Brill, 1998. Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten ; aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, deutscharamäische Wortliste, Register. 3 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Collins, John J. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14, 1979. Cook, Edward M. “The Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Volume 1. Edited by Peter Flint and James C. Vanderkam, 359–78. Boston: Brill, 1998. ———. Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Cross, Frank Moore. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts.” In The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by G. Ernest Wright, 170–264. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961. Davis, Kipp, “Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments,” in Dead Sea Discoveries 24 (2017): 229–270. Dimant, Devorah. “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community.” Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honor of Florentino García Martínez. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, edited by John J. Collins, 197–205. Boston: Brill, 2007. Dorfman, Shuka. “A Note from the IAA Director.” The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library. Accessed February 28, 2023. https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/about-the-project/a-note-fromthe-iaa-director. Elgvin, Torleif, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois. Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection. Library of Second Temple Studies. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. New York: Bloomsbury, T & T Clark, 2016. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 101 Eshel, Esther, Jonas C. Greenfield, and Michael E. Stone. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testimenti Pseudepigrapha 19. Boston: Brill, 2004. Fields, Weston W. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Volume 1. Boston: Brill, 2009. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Daniel J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic. Biblica et Orientalia, No. 34. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. García Martínez, Florentino. “Scribal Practices in the Aramaic Literary Texts from Qumran.” Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, edited by Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper, 327–41. Boston: Brill, 2010. Milik, Józef T. “63.–67. Groupes non caractérisés, en araméen (Pl. xxxv).” In Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1, edited by R. de Vaux, G. M. Crowfoot, H. J .Plenderleith, and G. L. Harding, 147. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. ———. “68–69. Fragments non classifiés, en araméen (Pl. xxxv).” In Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1, edited by R. de Vaux, G. M. Crowfoot, H. J .Plenderleith, and G. L. Harding, 147. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Müller-Kessler, Christa. “The Linguistic Heritage of Qumran Aramaic.” The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, Volume 1, edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, 215–59. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 38. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Pfann, Stephen J. “Chronological List of the Negatives of the PAM, IAA, and Shrine of the Book.” Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche, edited by Emanuel Tov with Stephan J. Pfann, 73–96. New York: Brill, 1993. Reed, Stephen A. The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue: Documents, Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 32. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1994. Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “The Imaginal Context and the Visionary of the Aramaic New Jerusalem.” Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honor of Florentino García Martínez. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, edited by John J. Collins, 257– 70. Boston: Brill, 2007. Tov, Emanuel. Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Boston: Brill, 2010. ———. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Boston: Brill, 2004. OVERLOOKED AND FORGOTTEN 102 ———. “The Texts from the Judean Desert and Their Negative Numbers.” Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche, edited by Emanuel Tov with Stephan J. Pfann, 17–72. New York: Brill, 1993. Vanderkam, James C. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 91–109. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Revised edition. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005. Yardeni, Ada. The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design. New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 1997. Zahn, Molly M. “Parablical Texts/Rewritten Scripture.” T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel, 378–85. London: T & T Clark, 2019.