Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of כי and אם in the Temple Scroll” (Co-author: Molly M. Zahn).

The frequent replacement of conditional (ky), “if,” with its semantic equivalent ('im) by the Temple Scroll has been well documented. The replacement occurs in some cases when the redactor incorporates biblical laws that employ yk to mark the
of 52
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  *The authors wish to thank Ms Joyce Levitan for commenting on an earlier ver-sion of this manuscript, Ms Tasha Sanbower (MA, Hebrew University) for assistancein researching Appendix I, and Mr Douglas Dance (MA cand., University of Minne-sota) for patiently editing Appendix II. 1 Two works, in particular, have helped place the study of the orthography, phonol-ogy, morphology, and syntax of Qumran Hebrew on a solid foundation: E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa a ) (ed. E. Qimron;STDJ 6A; Leiden: Brill, 1979 2 ; Hebrew srcinal, 1959); and E. Qimron, The Hebrewof the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). REVELATION REGAINED: THE HERMENEUTICS OFAND IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL*BERNARD M. LEVINSON University of Minnesota andMOLLY M. ZAHN University of Oxford The frequent replacement of conditional , Òif,Ó with its semanticequivalent in the Temple Scroll has been well documented. Thereplacement occurs in some cases when the redactor incorporates bib-lical laws that employ to mark the ÒifÓ clause, or protasis. A clear example is the Temple ScrollÕs reuse of DeuteronomyÕs law against apostasy. Figure 1 shows the substitution of for , which is hereaccompanied by other signs of linguistic updating that characterize thereception of the biblical text in the second temple period (such as theplene spelling of the second person su f x). 1 Deut. 13:2a  If  a prophet or oneiromancer shallarise among you11QT 54:8  If  a prophet or oneiromancer shallarise among youFigure 1: The Replacement in the Temple Scroll © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2002 Dead Sea Discoveries 9, 3Also available online –  I.  Previous Attempts to Provide a Solution:The Problem of Method  The meaning of the two protases in the above example is equiva-lent; at issue is the rationale for the lexical substitution. This problemhas not yet received a satisfactory explanation. In the Temple ScrollÕs editio princeps , Y. Yadin noted the change and attributed it to theredactorÕs attempts to write biblically: the substitution was made toimitate the casuistic style of Leviticus. 2 G. Brin promptly rejected thisexplanation, since no biblical laws (including those of Leviticus) begin with the formula [ + ]. 3 Brin sought an alternative explanationin terms of historical linguistics. By the time the Temple Scroll wasredacted, had fallen out of use, he argued, so the redactor replacedit with , which had emerged as the standard conditional in secondtemple Hebrew. More recently, T. Muraoka has introduced an impor-tant new factor into this discussion, proposing that the replacement responds to the intrinsic ambiguity of the particle itself. Attemptingto gain Òthe maximum e f ciency of communication,Ó Qumran Hebrew will occasionally replace , a conjunction that has a wide range of unrelated meanings, with , which functions solely as a conditional. 4 Muraoka nonetheless correctly points out that the story is more com-plicated, since there was a continuing ÒtolerationÓ of in the DSSdespite its ambiguity. 5 Precisely that recognition, however, points to adi f culty in the explanatory model.Muraoka attempts to identify linguistic ÒisoglossesÓ — features of syntax, orthography, and morphology that distinguish one dialect fromanother  — in order to learn more about the distinctive Ònature of Qum-ran Hebrew.Ó 6 He carefully notes that certain of these features, rather  2 Y. Yadin , (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977) 2.174. TheEnglish translation expands the Hebrew srcinal; see idem, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 2.247 (all subsequent citations are to theEnglish edition). 3 G. Brin, ÒThe Bible as Re  ected in the Temple Scroll,Ó Shnaton: Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies , 4 (ed. M. Weinfeld; Jerusalem: Israel BibleSociety, 1980) 214 – 17 (Hebrew; English abstract). BrinÕs challenge responds toYadinÕs Hebrew srcinal; in the later English edition cited above, Yadin provides abrief response to the challenge ( Temple Scroll , 2.247). 4 T. Muraoka, ÒAn Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,Ó  Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrewof the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (eds T. Muraoka and J. Elwolde; STDJ 36;Leiden: Brill, 2000) 212. 5 Muraoka, ÒMorphosyntax,Ó 213. 6 Muraoka, ÒMorphosyntax,Ó 193. 296 BERNARD M. LEVINSON AND MOLLY M. ZAHN  than indicating a genuine linguistic development, might represent lit-erary phenomena speci  c to a particular copyist, author, or genre. 7 Theastute method he employs, building on the prior work of Kutscher andBendavid, of searching for QHÕs divergences from BH as re  ected inthe transmission and reuse of the biblical text, thus entails an inherent ambiguity about whether any given isogloss represents a matter of ÒlanguageÓ or a matter of Òtext.Ó While Muraoka allows for the latter possibility elsewhere in the article, 8 it does not enter into his analysisof the replacement. There, the analytical model remains one-sidedlythat of historical linguistics. Yet it is precisely in this last of his iso-glosses where the ÒtextualÓ nature of the phenomenon is salient. Theexamples that Muraoka himself provides implicitly demonstrate that the replacement of with is text-speci  c. It appears ten times inthe Temple Scroll 9 and once in 4Q158. 10 It appears only in those twomanuscripts. It does not occur in the rest of the Reworked Pentateuch(4Q364 – 367). 11 Nor does it occur in any of the biblical manuscriptsfrom Qumran, as a check of all the published fragments containingmaterial from Exodus through Deuteronomy con  rms. 12 Moreover, 7 Muraoka, ÒMorphosyntax,Ó 193, 214. 8 Muraoka considers it likely, for example, that the mixed use of the waw -conver-sive alongside non-converted forms in a single manuscript indicates a single scribeÕsattempt to negotiate between the di ff  ering syntactic structures of Biblical and MishnaicHebrew. The phenomenon does not, therefore, represent a distinctive characteristic of Qumran Hebrew (ÒMorphosyntax,Ó 212). 9 The replacement occurs at 11QT 43:13; 52:9; 53:12; 54:8, 19; 55:2, 13, 15;58:15; 61:7. Nine of the ten cases are noted by Brin (ÒBible in Temple Scroll,Ó 215)and by Y. Thorion (ÒDie Sprache der Tempelrolle und die ChronikbŸcher,Ó  RevQ 11[1982 – 84] 423). Muraoka lists six of them (ÒMorphosyntax,Ó 213). 10 Thorion, ÒSprache der Tempelrolle,Ó 423; and Muraoka, ÒMorphosyntax,Ó 213. 11 None of the other manuscripts of the Temple Scroll (11Q20 = 11QT b ; 11Q21 =11QT c ?; 4Q524 = 4QRT) provide any relevant evidence. In no case is a portion of thetext preserved that, in the A copy (11Q19), contains an instance of the replacement or of the retention of casuistic . It is thus impossible to determine whether or not thechange occurred in the other copies. For 11Q20 and 11Q21, see F. Garc’a Mart’nez,E.J.C. Tigchelaar, and A.S. Van Der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II (11Q2 – 18, 11Q20 –  31) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 357 – 414. Several cases of changes or retentions are reconstructed in the critical edition of 4Q524, but these reconstructionsare dependent upon 11QT a and, therefore, do not constitute an independent witness.See ƒ. Puech, ÒFragments du plus ancien exemplaire du Roleau du Temple (4Q524),Ó  Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the InternationalOrganization for Qumran Studies (eds M. Bernstein, F. Garc’a Mart’nez, andJ. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 19 – 52 [the preliminary publication]; andidem, Qumr‰n Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hbreux (4Q521 –  528, 4Q576  –  579) (DJD 25; Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1998) 85 – 114. 12 In order to check any biblical manuscripts that might possibly contain casuistic REVELATION REGAINED 297  even in the two manuscripts where the replacement does occur, ismore frequently retained than replaced. In 4Q158 frags 10 – 12, the MT Õs is replaced with in line 4 but preserved in lines 6 and 9. 13 The Temple Scroll retainsfourteen times, while replacing it tentimes. 14 In addition, the change is meaning-speci  c. It only occurs when functions as a conditional to mark the protasis of a casuisticlaw; never, for example, when the particle begins a motive clause, where it would mean Òbecause.ÓThe speci  city of the replacement thus calls into question a strictlylinguistic approach. Historical linguistics can outline the development  whereby would be preferred to , either because was the ver-nacular (Brin) or because its meaning was unambiguous (Muraoka). law, all of the published fragments of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomyhave been examined: 1QExod, 1QpaleoLev, 1QDeut  a , 1QDeut  b (= 1Q2 – 5; see D. Bar-thlemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 [DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955MurExod, MurNum, MurDeut (= Mur1; see P. Benoit, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux,  Lesgrottes de Murabba‰t [DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961 2QExod a – Exod c ,2QpaleoLev, 2QNum a – Num d ?, 2QDeut  a – Deut  c , 5QDeut, 6QpaleoLev, 6QpapDeut?,6QDeut?, 8QPhyl (= 2Q2 – 12, 5Q1, 6Q2 – 3, 20, 8Q3; see M. Baillet, J.T. Milik,and R. de Vaux,  Les Òpetites grottesÓ de Qumran [DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press,1962 4QpaleoGen – Exod l , 4QpaleoExod, 4QpaleoDeut  r  – paleoDeut  s (= 4Q11, 22,45 – 46; see P. Skehan, E. Ulrich, and J. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Paleo-Hebrewand Greek Biblical Manuscripts [DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992 4QGen – Exod a , 4QExod b – Exod k , 4QLev – Num a , 4QLev b – Lev g , 4QNum b (= 4Q1, 13 – 21, 23 – 27;see E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers [DJD 12; Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1994 4QParaphrase of Gen and Exod (= 4Q422; see H. Attridgeet al., Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 [DJD 13; Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1994 4QDeut  a – Deut  q  (= 4Q28 – 44; see E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings [DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 199511QpaleoLev (= 11Q1; see D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews, The Paleo -  Hebrew LeviticusScroll (11QpaleoLev) [Winona Lake, IN: ASOR, 1985 11QLev b , 11QDeut (= 11Q2 – 3; see Garc’a Mart’nez, Tigchelaar, and Van Der Woude, DJD 23); 5/6 ¼evNum a ,X¼ev/SeNum a – Num b , X¼ev/SeDeut, 34ÑeNum (= 5/6¼ev1a, X¼ev/Se1 – 3, 34Ñe2; seeJ. Charlesworth et al.,  Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert [DJD 38; Oxford:Clarendon Press, 2000 XQPhyl1 – 4 (see Y. Yadin, Te   llin from Qumran [Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1969 MasLev a – Lev b ,MasDeut (see S. Talmon and Y. Yadin,  Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations1963 – 1965: Final Reports [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999]). 13 See J.M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158 –  4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1968) 5. The two instances where mt is retained are cited by Muraoka asexamples of the toleration of the Òarchaic useÓ (ÒMorphosyntax,Ó 213, where the sec-ond case of retention, by typo, is cited as line 8). 14 11QT retains the srcinal from its Deuteronomic source text at 56:12; 60:12,16; 61:12; 62:5; 63:10; 64:2, 6, 9; 65:2, 5, 6, 7; 66:8. The priestly casus pendens form() is reproduced at 11QT 45:7; 53:14, 16. 298 BERNARD M. LEVINSON AND MOLLY M. ZAHN  But it cannot account for the distribution of the replacement, which iscon  ned almost entirely to the Temple Scroll. Nor can it account for the Temple ScrollÕs simultaneous retention of , which runs contraryto expectation. The phenomenon of the replacement in the TempleScroll thus challenges the explanatory power of historical linguisticsand mandates a new conceptual model.II.  An Alternative Approach: Rethinking the Problem of  An approach that integrates historical linguistics with literary his-tory and hermeneutics is necessary. Brin and Muraoka are correct topoint out that the conjunction had to have been a problem for anysecond temple reader. With 4,475 attestations, distributed across everygenre and book of the Bible, it is second only to paratactic – as themost frequent clause connector in Biblical Hebrew. 15 Yet, like k  , itscognate in Ugaritic, 16 Hebrew had a wide range of unrelated mean-ings that were not always easily distinguished in particular cases. 17 Itsdiverse uses include introducing (1) a conditional clause (ÒifÓ); or (2)arelative clause (ÒthatÓ); or (3) a temporal clause (ÒwhenÓ); 18 or (4)an explanatory clause (ÒbecauseÓ); or (5) an asseveration (Òtruly,Ó 15 Noted by A. Aejmelaeus, ÒThe Function and Interpretation of in BiblicalHebrew,Ó  JBL 105 (1986) 193 – 209; reprinted, eadem, On the Trail of [the] SeptuagintTranslators: Collected Essays [correcting title-page typo] (Kampen, Netherlands: KokPharos, 1993) 166. For the frequency, see A. Even-Shoshan (ed.),  A New Concordanceof the Old Testament (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1997 2 ) 529 – 33. 16 J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik  (AOAT 273; MŸnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000)801 – 2 ( § 83.24b), 909 ( § 97.91). 17 In his analysis of in the Pentateuch and the Psalms, B.L. Bandstra demon-strates the connection between the semantic value of and its position within the sen-tence. For example, a clause with conditional always precedes the main clause, whereas a clause in which is causative follows the main clause. See idem, TheSyntax of Particle in Hebrew and Ugaritic (New Haven, CT: Yale University Ph.D.Dissertation, 1982) 408. (The authors thank Dr Vincent J. DeCaen for this reference.) 18 Surprisingly, the new  Dictionary of Classical Hebrew fails to distinguish betweenthe conditional (ÒifÓ) and temporal (ÒwhenÓ) functions of ([ed. D.J.A. Clines;She f eld: She f eld Academic Press, 1993 – (1998)] 4.386 – 87). The technical use of to introduce a legal protasis is also omitted. Thus, despite the comprehensive inclusionof data from Biblical, Inscriptional, and Qumran Hebrew, when it comes to analyzingthis material, essential semantic distinctions are overlooked. For an incisive assessment raising other issues, see T. Muraoka, ÒA New Dictionary of Classical Hebrew,Ó Studiesin Ancient Hebrew Semantics (ed. T. Muraoka; AbrNSup 4; Louvain: Peeters, 1995)87 – 101. On the problem of distinguishing the temporal and conditional use of the con- junction, see also n. 38 below. REVELATION REGAINED 299
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!