The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book (Full View)

Idan Dershowitz

Moses Wilhelm Shapira’s infamous Deuteronomy fragments – long believed to be forgeries – are authentic ancient manuscripts, and they are of far greater significance than ever imagined. The literary work that these manuscripts preserve – which Idan Dershowitz calls “The Valediction of Moses” or “V” – is not based on the book of Deuteronomy. On the contrary, V is a much earlier version of Deuteronomy. In other words, V is a proto-biblical book, the likes of which has never before been seen. This conclusion is supported by a series of philological analyses, as well as previously unknown archival documents, which undermine the consensus on these manuscripts. An excursus co-authored with Na’ama Pat-El assesses V’s linguistic profile, finding it to be consistent with Iron Age epigraphic Hebrew. V contains early versions of passages whose biblical counterparts reflect substantial post-Priestly updating. Moreover, unlike the canonical narratives of Deuteronomy, this ancient work shows no signs of influence from the Deuteronomic law code. Indeed, V preserves an earlier, and dramatically different, literary structure for the entire work – one that lacks the Deuteronomic law code altogether. These findings have significant consequences for the composition history of the Bible, historical linguistics, the history of religion, paleography, archaeology, and more. The volume includes a full critical edition and English translation of V.

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard) 145 Idan Dershowitz The Valediction of Moses A Proto-Biblical Book Mohr Siebeck Idan Dershowitz: born 1982; undergraduate and graduate training at the Hebrew University, following several years of yeshiva study; 2017 elected to the Harvard Society of Fellows; currently Chair of Hebrew Bible and Its Exegesis at the University of Potsdam. orcid.org/0000-0002-5310-8504 Open access sponsored by the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at the Harvard Law School. ISBN 978-3-16-160644-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-160645-8 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-160645-8 ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This work is licensed under the license “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International” (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). A complete Version of the license text can be found at: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Any use not covered by the above license is prohibited and illegal without the permission of the publisher. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany. Acknowledgments This work would not have been possible without the generosity of my friends, family, and colleagues. The Harvard Society of Fellows provided the ideal environment for this venture. At a time in which academia is becoming increasingly risk averse, the Society remains devoted to supporting its fellows’ passion projects. In particular, I’d like to thank the Society’s indefatigable chair during my time there, Walter Gilbert, and its phenomenal administrators, Kelly Katz and Ana Novak. I would also like to acknowledge the William F. Milton Fund and the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at the Harvard Law School, both of which provided crucial financial support. Few things have been as gratifying and stimulating as discussing ideas with the friends I made at the Harvard Society of Fellows, including Alexander Bevilacqua, Sivan Goren-Arzony, Kevin Holden, Abhishek Kaicker, Abram Kaplan, Marika Knowles, Robert Lee, Jed Lewinsohn, Alexandru Lupsasca, Tara Menon, Tamara Morsel-Eisenberg, Matthew Spellberg, S. Margaret Spivey-Faulkner, and Moira Weigel. I am very fortunate to have found a welcoming new home at the University of Potsdam’s School of Jewish Theology, and I look forward to furthering my research on the Valediction of Moses within the School’s vibrant academic community. I am grateful to my team members, Daniel Vorpahl and Dorothee Hansel, for their help with the bibliography, proofreading, and indices. The Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at the Harvard Law School, together with the Harvard Society of Fellows, hosted a workshop in June 2019, in which I presented my preliminary findings to a group of extraordinary scholars. This was an incredible opportunity, and I benefited from the input of all the participants: Shaye Cohen, Sidnie White Crawford, Noah Feldman, Shimon Gesundheit, Jay Harris, Jan Joosten, Michael Langlois, Eric Nelson, Na’ama PatEl, Alexander Rofé, Christopher Rollston, Michael Segal, Jeffrey Stackert, David Stern, Andrew Teeter, Shani Tzoref, David Vanderhooft, and Molly Zahn. I’d also like to thank Susan Kahn for organizing this outstanding event. The workshop is where I met Na’ama Pat-El, with whom I went on to co-author the excursus on the linguistic profile of V in chapter 6. Her deep and broad knowledge of Semitic linguistics enriches this work enormously. Collaborating with Na’ama has been enlightening and fun in equal measure, and we are already wrapping up our next joint article. VI Acknowledgments I owe a debt of gratitude to my Doktorvater, Shimon Gesundheit. His early enthusiasm regarding V kept me going in the face of what was then unanimous skepticism, and our conversations on the Sihon pericope were especially helpful. From the moment I walked into his office in summer 2017 – bleary eyed after several sleepless nights and raving about a text that could change everything – Noah Feldman was both my harshest critic and my greatest supporter. That is precisely what I needed, and I could not have done this without him. Noah’s deep expertise in legal theory helped me understand and contextualize the place of law and covenant in the Valediction of Moses, and our regular midnight text exchanges advanced my thinking greatly. My frequent discussions with Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis were incredibly enjoyable, not to mention invaluable. For months, our shmoozing at shul was devoted to V, and we also had a fruitful havruta on the text. Avishay’s insights improved my understanding of several passages in V as well as my reconstructions of the text itself. Konrad Schmid’s penetrating questions and observations helped me shape chapters 3 and 4, and I am thankful for his sage counsel throughout this process. Eric Nelson and David Stern gave me hours upon hours of their time, always offering keen comments and thoughtful advice. I also benefited greatly from my conversations with Mark Brett, Raphael Dascalu, Raanan Eichler, Irving Finkel, Israel Finkelstein, Jan Gertz, Rebecca Goldstein, Jonathan Gould, Mishy Harman, Israel Knohl, Reinhard Kratz, Jon Levenson, Peter Machinist, Adele Reinhartz, Benjamin Sass, Benjamin Sommer, Andrew Teeter, Eibert Tigchelaar, Shani Tzoref, and Yair Zakovitch. Rebekka Luther assisted greatly with the translations of Guthe’s work that appear in this volume. Johannes Müller provided meticulous research assistance with chapter 3. Erga Herzog and Mark Smith read drafts and made several constructive suggestions. Maria Metzler is the best editor I could ever have hoped for. In addition to her deep knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, she has an incredible eye for detail, and her contributions and improvements are too many to count. Ronit Prawer, my wonderful companion, has heard more about V than any reasonable person would want to hear about anything, and yet she remains enthusiastic. Our countless conversations were immensely helpful, and I loved thinking through so many of the ideas in this book together. Early on, Ronit would make me stop working fanatically on this project, so I could attend to more pressing matters, such as my then-unfinished dissertation. (Thank goodness.) At the same time, her faith in me and in my work kept me going, as has always been the case. Ronit, I love you. My discussions on the Bible with ‫אמי מורתי‬, Schulamith Chava Halevy, have always been inspiring and instructive. Since childhood, I have learned so much from her maverick empathetic approach to the text and to its subjects. ‫אבי מורי‬, Nachum Dershowitz, was a wonderful study partner throughout this journey. Acknowledgments VII His initial skepticism was motivating, and his many brilliant insights contributed tremendously to this project. In my naïveté, I committed to typesetting this book “myself.” Ultimately, it was my father who invested an unreasonable amount of his time to code and tweak this LATEX template, and to show me the ropes. All credit for the pleasing aesthetics of this volume go to him. This book is dedicated to my parents, with love and gratitude. Potsdam, Germany, 2020 Idan Dershowitz Table of Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1. An Unprecedented Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2. Moabite Pottery Scandal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3. Cut-Margin Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4. Hebrew “Errors” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.5. Paleographic Objections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 9 12 16 18 21 33 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3. Philological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.1. The Character of V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. The Bifurcated Gerizim and Ebal Pericope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. The Conquest of Sihon’s Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The Absence of P in V’s Historical Exposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. The Incipit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. The Injunction against Idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. The Stone Tablets and the Wooden Ark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4. The Rebellion at Kadesh Barnea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 45 45 48 53 54 57 59 63 70 4. Biblical Intertexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.1. The Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Jeremiah 7:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. Jeremiah 29:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 74 76 X Table of Contents 4.1.3. Hosea 4:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4. Psalm 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.5. Proverbs 6:16–35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.6. Leviticus 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.7. Ezekiel 22:6–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.8. Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Gerizim and Ebal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. The Tribal Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. The Location of Gerizim and Ebal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 78 80 82 85 87 87 87 91 93 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6. Excursus: The Linguistic Profile of V, with Na’ama Pat-El . . . . . . . . 96 6.1. Orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1. Diphthongs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Word Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3. Miscellaneous Orthographic Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1. The wəqāṭal Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2. The (wə-)yiqṭōl Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3. ‫( ללחם‬D 3:1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4. Negation of the Jussive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5. Verbal Forms Following ‫“ עד‬Until” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.6. ‫( ונכה עד‬D 1:3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.7. ‫( לתת מפת‬E 1:6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1. ‫( בלתי טפכם‬B 1:5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2. ‫( למאד‬D 3:2; E 1:2–3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3. ‫( בעת הזאת‬E 1:9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4. Plural of ‫“ אב‬Father”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5. Plural of Ethnonyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.6. Disagreement of Suffixed Pronoun with Its Referent . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Lexicon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1. ‫( הון‬E 3:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2. ‫( יבעל עם כל בהמה‬G 5:12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3. ‫( החרתך‬E 2:1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4. ‫לו‬/‫( וכל אשר לך‬E 3:3–4, 4:6–7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.5. ‫( עדת שקר‬E 4:4; H 1:2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.6. ‫( חגהן‬D 2:7–8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.7. ‫( שארתך‬G 5:1 [?]; H 1:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.8. ‫( גם‬E 3:3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.9. ‫( מעלם‬C 1:4, 8; D 1:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 97 100 101 104 104 108 112 113 114 114 115 115 115 116 116 116 117 118 119 119 119 121 122 123 125 126 126 128 Table of Contents XI 6.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 7. Annotated Critical Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 7.1. Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 7.2. Sources and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 7.3. Text and Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 8. English Translation of V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 8.1. Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 8.2. Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 9.1. Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 9.2. Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Index of Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Index of Modern Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 List of Figures and Tables Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22 Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25 Fig. 26 Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Photograph of Moses Wilhelm Shapira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV Map of Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Two photographs of Fragment E, columns 1–2, and one unknown fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Cartoon of Ginsburg apprehending Shapira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Box of linen from Qumran with bituminous substance resulting from leather decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Folded fragment of 4QOtot (4Q319) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fragments of 4QSerekh ha-Yaḥade (4Q259) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1QpHab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4QShirShabbf (4Q405) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11QPsa (11Q5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11QTemplea (11Q19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Brinner 11 (Sutro Library) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Ginsburg’s sketch of Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithography (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithography (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithography (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table by Guthe of letterforms appearing in Fragments D and E (Va ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Drawings of Fragment E (Va ) from The Graphic (1883) . . . . . . . . 27 Drawing of Vb fragment by William Simpson for The Illustrated London News (1883) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Ginsburg’s drawing of Fragment E that was analyzed by Lemaire 28 Different version of Ginsburg’s drawing of the same column . . . 29 Examples of vav in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ) . . . 30 Vav in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . . . . . 30 Examples of qoph in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ) . . 31 Qoph in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . . . 31 Examples of he in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . 32 Illustration of several characters from The Graphic (1883) . . . . . 32 Samaria Ostracon 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 List of Figures and Tables Fig. 29 Fig. 30 Fig. 31 Table 1 Table 2 First page of Shapira’s draft transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second page of Shapira’s draft transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Third page of Shapira’s draft transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of correspondences between Deuteronomy and V . . . . . . . The Decalogue constellation in V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII 35 36 37 41 74 Fig. 1. Photograph of Moses Wilhelm Shapira. 1. Introduction In 1883, more than half a century before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some intriguing manuscripts came to light that were greeted with considerable public excitement.1 Written in Paleo-Hebrew script and consisting of a handful of leather fragments, the text presented a short narrative that had much in common with the biblical book of Deuteronomy. The British Museum was on the verge of purchasing the fragments from their purveyor, the antiquities dealer Moses Wilhelm Shapira. (See fig. 1.) The sale was abruptly called off, however, after the manuscripts were declared to be forgeries, with Shapira himself the immediate suspect. Since that time, the manuscripts have fallen out of circulation; it is unknown whether the fragments still exist, or where they might be. In this introductory chapter, I review the history of the manuscripts and provide a fresh analysis of the reasons they were initially judged forgeries. In light of our current knowledge, none of the original reasons for dismissing the fragments can be considered valid. More recent objections to the authenticity of the manuscripts on paleographic grounds are likewise found to be untenable. In chapter 2, I present overlooked archival material that severely undermines the verdict of Shapira’s guilt. In chapter 3, I show that the literary structure and content of the text itself – which I call the Valediction of Moses, or “V” – constitutes evidence that the manuscript fragments are bona fide ancient documents. Moreover, rather than being a secondary abridgment of Deuteronomy, as has been assumed, V was composed prior to the canonical book of Deuteronomy. Indeed, Deuteronomy evolved out of V itself – or out of a very similar text. As such, V offers a priceless key for illuminating the compositional history of this Pentateuchal text. I explore intertexts between V and various biblical passages in chapter 4. These intertexts suggest that V’s traditions were familiar to several biblical authors. Conclusions and future directions are presented in chapter 5. An excursus coauthored with Na’ama Pat-El (chapter 6) examines V’s linguistic profile, which we find to be consistent with a First Temple–era text. Chapters 7–9 contain an annotated critical edition of V, an English translation, and a reconstruction of the Paleo-Hebrew text. 1 A separate discussion of the material covered in this chapter is published in Idan Dershowitz, “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy Fragments,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133, no. 1 (2021). 2 1. Introduction The Valediction of Moses is an extraordinary textual specimen with farreaching implications for biblical studies, particularly in its capacity to shed light on the development of the book of Deuteronomy. 1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment The prominent antiquities and manuscript dealer Moses Wilhelm Shapira (1830– 84) was born to a Jewish family in the city of Kamianets-Podilskyi, in present-day Ukraine. He converted to Christianity when he was twenty-five years old and moved to Jerusalem, where he would open a shop on Christian Quarter Street in the Old City that offered miscellaneous souvenirs for sale, as well as valuable manuscripts and other antiquities. Shapira traveled extensively to acquire his wares, many of which he sold to prominent international collectors and institutions. According to Shapira, in 1878 he learned about several leather fragments that Bedouins had reportedly found in a cave on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, near Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon; see fig. 2). On a shelf or a ledge in the cave were several linen-wrapped bundles that contained strips of blackened leather. (See fig. 3.) One of the Bedouins took the strips, allegedly because he thought they might bring good luck. These leather strips had a sticky black substance on the back that looked like bitumen, to which the brittle remains of linen fabric were stuck.2 With the assistance of a local sheikh, Shapira managed to procure from a member of the Bedouin Ajayah tribe sixteen leather strips – manuscript fragments of varying length and condition – for a very modest price. Upon further examination, it became clear that the fragments represented three manuscripts of the same text (namely, V ): One of the manuscripts was almost complete and a second was somewhat fragmentary. What little remained of the third manuscript was in very poor condition.3 In the summer of 1883, Shapira traveled to Europe and sought to have the manuscripts evaluated by experts who were best equipped to assess their value and authenticity. Shapira succeeded in gaining an audience for his fragments in Berlin, where a number of eminent scholars gathered to analyze them. As reported in The Times of London: The committee met at the house of its convener, Professor Lepsius, on the 10th of July last; and, while Mr. Shapira, of Jerusalem, was waiting in expectant trepidation in an adjoining room, spent exactly one hour and a half in a close and critical investigation into the character of his goat-skin wares. At the end of the sitting they unanimously pronounced the 2 British Library Ms. Add. 41294, “Papers relative to M. W. Shapira’s forged MS. of Deuteronomy,” 3. 3 Ibid., 29. I refer to the first of these manuscripts as Va , and the second as Vb . 1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment 3 Fig. 2. Map with Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon) marked. From Mitchell’s New General Atlas (Philadelphia: Mitchell, 1874). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. 4 1. Introduction Fig. 3. Two photographs of Fragment E, columns 1–2, and one unknown fragment. In the top image, Fragment E is folded in half, with column 4 (verso) partially visible behind column 1 (recto). The image of the unknown fragment is cropped at the bottom. By permission of the British Library (Ms. Add. 41294). 1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment 5 alleged codex to be a clever and impudent forgery. There was some thought of calling in a chemist… [but they] deemed it unnecessary to call for further proof.4 At around the same time that the Berlin committee conducted their brief evaluation, another biblical scholar, Hermann Guthe, worked to decipher the manuscripts in Leipzig with the historian Eduard Meyer. Guthe and Meyer were able to spend several days with the texts in Shapira’s hotel room, but even this was not sufficient time to undertake a thorough analysis of the manuscripts. The leather fragments were severely blackened and became blacker by the week. Since most of the text, written in black ink, was illegible against this dark background, and infrared photography was not yet in use, Guthe and Meyer resorted to brushing alcohol on the leather to make the ink shine against the light. Guthe described their method as follows: We were only able to read small parts without any kind of aid. Usually, we applied some alcohol (spirit) with a small brush to sections of the manuscript and then tried to identify the letters that glistened from the moisture. Unfortunately, this was not always possible, even with help of a magnifying glass. This explains the various large and small gaps that the reader will encounter when reading the text of the leather manuscript.5 Due to summer thunderstorms, the light was too poor to allow the scholars to confirm their preliminary transcription of certain columns. Guthe nonetheless published his findings the following month.6 Although he initially thought the fragments to be authentic,7 Guthe eventually became persuaded that they were forgeries. Despite the initial unfavorable reception of the manuscripts in Germany, Shapira persisted in his quest. He traveled from Berlin to London, where he reportedly offered to sell his fragments to the British Museum for one million pounds.8 Having already acquired many valuable manuscripts from Shapira,9 the British Museum seriously considered purchasing these fragments from him as well, pending their authentication by the scholar Christian David Ginsburg. Ginsburg devoted several weeks to studying the manuscripts, regularly publishing updates and translations of the text in The Athenæum, a London weekly liter- 4 “The Shapira Manuscripts,” The Times (August 28, 1883), 5. According to the same article, “This committee consisted of Professor Dillmann, of the Hebrew Chair; Professor Sachau, the distinguished Orientalist; Professor Schrader, the celebrated Assyriologist; Professor Ermann, another Hebrew scholar; and Dr. Schneider” (ibid.). 5 Hermann Guthe, Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Rede an die Kinder Israel (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883), 21. (My translation.) 6 Ibid. 7 “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript,” The Times (August 8, 1883), 11. 8 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 24; The Times (August 3, 1883), 9. 9 George Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. 4 (London: The British Museum, 1935), viii–ix. 6 1. Introduction ary magazine.10 While awaiting Ginsburg’s verdict, the British Museum exhibited two of the fragments, which attracted large crowds. Among the curious onlookers was none other than the prime minister, William Gladstone, who also met with Shapira to learn more about the manuscripts.11 Another noteworthy visitor to the British Museum at this time was the French Orientalist and diplomat Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, a longtime nemesis of Shapira’s.12 Clermont-Ganneau arrived in London and requested access to the fragments, which he already believed must be forgeries.13 Ginsburg permitted him a few minutes with “two or three” fragments,14 on the condition that Clermont-Ganneau refrain from publishing anything on the matter until Ginsburg published his own report.15 And yet the very next morning, ClermontGanneau declared his opinion to the press that the fragments were forgeries. Afterward, Clermont-Ganneau was denied further access to the fragments. But this did not prevent him from making further claims regarding Shapira’s manuscripts. As Clermont-Ganneau himself noted: In these circumstances, the object of my mission became extremely difficult to attain, and I almost despaired of it. I did not, however, lose courage. I set to work with the meagre means of information which were at my disposal: – (1) The hasty inspection of two or three pieces which M. Ginsburg had allowed me to handle for a few minutes on my first visit; (2) the examination of two fragments exposed to public view in a glass case in the manuscript department of the British Museum – a case very ill-lighted and difficult of approach, owing to the crowd of the curious pressing round these venerable relics.16 Based solely on “these meagre means of information,” Clermont-Ganneau managed to craft a theory regarding the method by which the forgery was carried out. He argued that the forger had obtained the leather fragments by cutting off the lower margins of Torah scrolls, noting underhandedly that “Mr. Shapira must be well acquainted with [such scrolls], for he deals in them.”17 Soon after ClermontGanneau made his declaration, Ginsburg too announced the results of his assess10 Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2911 (August 11, 1883), 178–79; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2912 (August 18, 1883), 206; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2913 (August 25, 1883), 242–44; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 304–5. 11 “The Shapira Manuscript,” The London Evening Standard (August 14, 1883), 3. 12 See §1.2.2. 13 Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts,” The Times (August 21, 1883), 8: “I will not conceal the fact that I entertained in advance, most serious doubts as to their authenticity, and that I came here in order to settle these doubts. But I thought it my duty to pronounce no opinion until I had seen the originals.” 14 Ibid. 15 “From our London Correspondent (by Private Wire),” The Manchester Guardian (September 6, 1883), 5. 16 Clermont-Ganneau, “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts,” The Times (August 21, 1883), 8. 17 Ibid. 1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment 7 ment,18 which were much the same. Ginsburg highlighted two primary reasons for his forgery verdict: First, in line with the theory that the manuscripts had been cut from the margins of scrolls,19 Ginsburg stated that the fragments were a perfect match for Yemenite Torah scrolls. Second, Ginsburg observed that there were various errors in the Hebrew text, several of which he believed could have been made only by someone of European Jewish extraction.20 Although Ginsburg did not explicitly accuse Shapira of forgery, his statement on the matter left little room for doubt: Not only was Shapira of European Jewish extraction, but it was well known that he was also the primary, if not only, dealer of Yemenite Torah scrolls at the time. A cartoon published in the magazine Punch on September 8, 1883 depicts Shapira as a stereotypical Jew, with the ink of his devious forgery still dripping from his fingers. The dubious character is held in a firm grip by Ginsburg, who is shown valiantly apprehending Shapira in front of the British Museum.21 See fig. 4. In light of Ginsburg’s authoritative ruling, the British Museum declined to buy the fragments, which were apparently abandoned by the devastated Shapira. In a letter to Ginsburg dated August 23, 1883, Shapira expressed his abjection and a sense of betrayal, clinging to his avowed belief that the manuscripts were authentic: Dear Dr. Ginsburg! You have made a fool of me by publishing & exhibiting things that you believe to be false. I do not think I will be able to survive this shame. Although I am yet not Convinced that the M.s. is a forgery unless Ganneau did it! I will leave London in a day or two for Berlin. Yours truly, M W Shapira22 Word of this letter seems to have reached The Times, which published the following statement: “[Shapira] is so disappointed with the results of his bargain that he threatens to commit suicide. This, we venture to think, he will not do.”23 But Shapira never returned to his wife and daughters in Jerusalem. After spending six 18 Ginsburg’s letter to Edward Bond of the British Museum, dated August 22, 1883, was published in The Times (August 27, 1883), 6; Ginsburg then published his final installment on the manuscripts in The Athenæum: “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 304–5. In both publications, Ginsburg designated the manuscripts forgeries. 19 It is possible that Ginsburg initiated this theory rather than Clermont-Ganneau. For the controversy regarding which of these scholars first developed the idea that the manuscripts were excised from the margins of eastern Torah scrolls, see “From our London Correspondent (by Private Wire),” The Manchester Guardian (September 6, 1883), 5. 20 The Times (August 27, 1883), 6. 21 Punch, or the London Charivari (September 8, 1883), 118. 22 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 16. 23 The Times (August 27, 1883), 7. 8 1. Introduction Fig. 4. Cartoon of Ginsburg apprehending Shapira. 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 9 months wandering through Europe, Shapira committed suicide in a hotel room in Rotterdam, Holland, where his body was found on March 9, 1884. Shapira’s manuscripts eventually made their way from the British Museum to Sotheby’s, where they were purchased in July 1885 by the bookseller Bernard Quaritch. (Quaritch’s namesake bookshop still exists in London.) Quaritch went on to sell the fragments in 1898 or 1899 to Philip Brookes Mason, a naturalist, doctor, and avid collector.24 Their subsequent fate is unknown. 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict Beyond the primary reasons given by Ginsburg, which will be discussed at greater length below, why were Shapira’s fragments judged forgeries in 1883? It appears that several factors conspired to seal their fate. First, very simply, the Dead Sea Scrolls had not yet been discovered. The manuscripts that Shapira offered to the scholarly world were thus entirely without precedent. Second, Shapira’s record was tarnished due to a previous scandal involving suspect artifacts. Third, the discipline of biblical studies was very much in its infancy, and little was known about the composition history of Deuteronomy. Other factors, including rampant anti-Jewish (and anti-Arab; see below) sentiments, surely played a part as well. After all, despite having “fair hair and blue eyes; not the least like the ordinary Polish Jew,” Shapira would always remain a Hebrew who “converted to Christianity but not to good works.”25 1.2.1. An Unprecedented Discovery The distinguished philologist Archibald Sayce stated his opinion on Shapira’s fragments in August 1883: It is really demanding too much of Western credulity to ask us to believe that in a damp climate like that of Palestine any sheepskins could have lasted for nearly 3,000 years, either above ground or under ground, even though they may have been abundantly salted with asphalte from the Vale of Siddim itself.26 Another commentary published two years later in the St. James Gazette (January 2, 1885) expresses a similar view on Shapira’s manuscripts: “Every one remembers the announcement of the original copy of Deuteronomy: how people 24 Charles Francis Thornewill, “Obituary Notice of Philip Brookes Mason,” Journal of Conchology 11 (1904): 104–5, at 105. See also Patricia Francis, “Philip Brookes Mason (1842–1903): Surgeon, General Practitioner and Naturalist,” Archives of Natural History 42, no. 1 (2015): 126– 39. 25 Walter Besant, Autobiography of Sir Walter Besant (London: Hutchinson, 1902), 162. 26 Archibald H. Sayce, “Correspondence: The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” The Academy 589 (August 24, 1883), 116–17, at 117. 10 1. Introduction who knew anything about leather and linen, and damp caves, and Arabs, and Jerusalem curiosity-dealers, laughed at the whole thing.” In fact, the details of Shapira’s scorned discovery story were so similar to those of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946–47 that some scholars initially concluded the latter were also a hoax. Like Shapira’s manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls were said to have been accidentally discovered by Bedouins in caves around the Dead Sea, and many were also wrapped in linen and covered with a bituminous substance.27 In 1949, Solomon Zeitlin, an expert on the Second Temple period and editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review, cited Shapira’s manuscripts as evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls must likewise be forgeries: Professor Burrows seems to have forgotten the affair of Shapira, who produced a manuscript of the Book of Deuteronomy, written on parchment in archaic Hebrew script. He stated that he procured it from a Bedouin who told him that he found it in a cave (again a Bedouin and a cave). Scholars and experts of the British Museum were convinced of its authenticity until it was discovered to have been produced by Shapira himself over a period of twenty years. Thus “the Bedouin and the cave” became a myth.28 In retrospect, Zeitlin’s judgment on the matter was incorrect. The Dead Sea Scrolls were soon confirmed to be genuine, and they marked a watershed in the field of biblical studies. Had Shapira’s manuscripts come to light after the verification of the Dead Sea Scrolls, his texts certainly would have been judged differently. Moreover, the details of discovery as reported by Shapira – which are almost identical to the circumstances surrounding the unearthing of the Dead Sea Scrolls – must now be regarded as strong evidence supporting the validity of Shapira’s fragments.29 Indeed, the presence of a bituminous substance on both the Shapira fragments and many Dead Sea Scrolls provides even more support 27 See, e.g., Naama Sukenik, “The Temple Scroll Wrapper from Cave 11. MS 5095/2, MS 5095/4, MS 5095/1,” in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection, ed. Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 339–50; Roland de Vaux, “Post-Scriptum: La Cachette des Manuscrits Hébreux,” Revue Biblique 56, no. 2 (1949): 234–37; Joan E. Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The Qumran Genizah Theory Revisited,” in “Go Out and Study the Land” (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical, and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 269–315, at 280, 314–15. 28 Solomon Zeitlin, “The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls,” Jewish Quarterly Review 40, no. 1 (1949): 57–78, at 67. 29 Several scholars have made a case for the authenticity of Shapira’s manuscripts (as postbiblical Hellenistic documents) in light of their affinity to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but these arguments have not been widely accepted. See, e.g., Jacob L. Teicher, “The Genuineness of the Shapira Manuscripts,” The Times Literary Supplement (London) (March 22, 1957), 184; Menahem Mansoor, “The Case of Shapira’s Dead Sea (Deuteronomy) Scrolls of 1883,” Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 47 (1958): 183–225; John Marco Allegro, The Shapira Affair (New York: Doubleday, 1965); Helen G. Jefferson, “The Shapira Manuscript and the Qumran Scrolls,” Revue de Qumrân 6, no. 3 (1968): 391–99; Shlomo Guil, “The Shapira Scroll Was an Authentic Dead Sea Scroll,” PEQ 149, no. 1 (2017): 6–27; Yoram Sabo, The Scroll Merchant: In Search of Moses Wilhelm Shapira’s Lost Jewish Treasure (Hebrew) (Bnei Brak: Hakib- 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 11 Fig. 5. Box of linen from Qumran with bituminous substance resulting from leather decay. Courtesy of Mireille Bélis, École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem. for antiquity than is apparent at first glance. As it turns out, despite its prevalence in the Dead Sea region, bitumen is a red herring. The black substance found on the Dead Sea Scrolls and their linen wrappings is, in fact, leather that has decomposed over the span of millennia: In the case of certain wads of manuscript material, a complication presented itself in the form of a black bituminous substance which permeated the tissue and prevented the membranes from being separated. […] [T]he black material was tested with solvents. […] Similar tests applied to fragments of the parchment showed that some pieces behaved towards solvents in the same way as the black material itself and, when a fragment of parchment came to light which had clearly decomposed at one edge to this pitch-like material, its origin was no longer it doubt – the black substance was, in fact, the ultimate decomposition product of the animal membrane, in other words, a form of glue.30 Apart from the discovery story, there were other unusual features of Shapira’s manuscripts that caused scholars to doubt their authenticity: The fragments exhibited distinct vertical creases, indicating that the leather had been folded like butz Hameuchad, 2018). Cf. Colette Sirat, “Les Fragments Shapira,” Revue des Études Juives 1–2 (1984): 95–111. 30 Harold J. Plenderleith, “Technical Note on Unwrapping of Dead Sea Scroll Fragments,” in Qumran Cave 1, ed. Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T. Milik, DJD 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 39–40, at 40. See also Mireille Bélis, “The Unpublished Textiles from the Qumran Caves,” in The Caves of Qumran, ed. Marcello Fidanzio (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 123–36. 12 1. Introduction Fig. 6. Folded fragment of 4QOtot (4Q319), as it was discovered. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Najib Anton Albina) an accordion or fold-out postcards, rather than rolled up like a scroll;31 some fragments had one relatively smooth edge, which was considered a tell-tale sign of recent cutting;32 and the scribes largely disregarded the marginal dry-point lines on the manuscripts.33 Today, however, we possess numerous verified ancient manuscripts – from Qumran and elsewhere – that share these exact features.34 Again, the odd details that made Shapira’s manuscripts seem so dubious in the late 1800s have now transformed into evidence substantiating their antiquity. See figs. 5–9. 1.2.2. Moabite Pottery Scandal The second unpropitious point of timing concerns an event in Shapira’s own career. Roughly a decade before the debut of his manuscripts on the world stage, a large collection of Moabite figurines sold by Shapira to the German Oriental Society (DMG) and Royal Museum (Altes Museum) in Berlin were determined to be 31 Sirat (“Les Fragments Shapira,” 110–11) stated that the vertical creases in Shapira’s manuscripts must be an anachronism. 32 Ginsburg, The Times (August 27, 1883), 6 (point III). 33 Ibid. (point II). 34 See discussion of cut-margin theory in §1.2.3. 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 13 Fig. 7. Several fragments of 4QSerekh ha-Yaḥade (4Q259; same manuscript as 4Q319), with fold between columns visible. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Najib Anton Albina) 14 1. Introduction Fig. 8. 1QpHab with one smooth and one ragged edge. Left margins are disregarded. Courtesy of the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum. Fig. 9. 4QShirShabbf (4Q405). Horizontal dry-point lines are disregarded. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi) 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 15 inauthentic. The forgery was announced in 1876 by none other than ClermontGanneau.35 Moreover, a few of Shapira’s associates had confessed to forging the pottery, further implicating Shapira in the scandal. The same associates would later rescind their confessions, which they said had been extracted from them by Clermont-Ganneau, a powerful diplomat, by means of blackmail and bribery.36 Alleged unscrupulous conduct aside, Clermont-Ganneau also did not have a unblemished record when it came to assessing the authenticity of ancient artifacts. For instance, he also declared that the Osorkon Bust, or Eliba’l Inscription (discovered in 1881), was a fake – a judgment that was later shown to be false.37 Today this bust of Pharaoh Osorkon I is housed in the Louvre. Shapira maintained his innocence in the Moabite pottery affair, insisting that he himself had expressed doubts about the authenticity of the figurines but had proceeded to broker the deal under pressure from the Prussian government, which was eager to acquire Moabite artifacts following the sensational discovery of the Moabite Stone in 1868–70. Shapira continued to conduct successful business after this scandal. The British Museum in particular purchased hundreds of important manuscripts from Shapira in the late 1870s and early 1880s.38 Nonetheless, Shapira’s reputation was tarnished by the incident, which caused some to doubt the genuineness of his Deuteronomy manuscripts as well.39 It should be remembered that before the development of technologies such as carbon dating that make it possible to verify the antiquity of certain objects, the risk of inadvertently buying and selling inauthentic material was substantial.40 35 Charles Clermont-Ganneau, Les fraudes archéologiques en Palestine, suivies de quelques monuments phéniciens apocryphes (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1885), 179–81. 36 See “The Shapira Collection,” The Athenæum (March 7, 1874), 326–27. 37 René Dussaud, “L’Origine de l’alphabet et son évolution première d’après les découvertes de Byblos,” Syria 25, no. 1/2 (1946): 36–52, at 48. I thank Benjamin Sass for bringing this point to my attention. 38 Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. 4, viii–ix. 39 See, e.g., Charles Clermont-Ganneau, “Genuine and False Inscriptions in Palestine,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1884): 89–100, at 92. 40 Shapira’s daughter, in a roman à clef, describes the receipt of the Moabite pottery as follows: “On the following morning, when she ran out into the paddock, she found it transformed into a regular caravansary. It was alive with strange men and their beasts, and piled up with bales of stuffs and calabashes filled with roses of Jericho and the balm of Gilead and bitter apples from the Dead Sea. One corner was filled with rows of coal-black sacks which terrified Siona. They were said to contain wheat from the banks of Jordan and barley from the land of Moab. A Bedouin with a long spear was in charge of this particular corner, and Siona thought he looked just like a demon in a fairy tale mounting guard over priceless treasure. Such sacks as these were never opened when her father was not present. He always stood by, whilst Selim, the factotum of the household, plunged his hands into the grain, extracting urns and idols and sundry articles in pottery. These Mr. Benedictus would carry away with the greatest care to that mysterious upper room at the top of the stone steps. But whenever he passed Ouarda, bearing his precious spoils, she would promptly cross herself, whilst Siona’s mother would sigh audibly: ‘Oh, my God, my God, what, more of these Moabitish idols!’” (Myriam Harry, The Little 16 1. Introduction Whether or not Shapira was as blameless in the affair as he claimed, it is clear that his manuscripts were assessed in the light of the Moabite pottery scandal. 1.2.3. Cut-Margin Theory Let us turn now to consider the two points that had convinced Ginsburg the manuscripts were fraudulent. First, both he and Clermont-Ganneau asserted that Shapira’s fragments had been cut from the bottom of Yemenite Torah scrolls.41 The main reason for their suspicion had to do with the edges of the leather strips: Some of Shapira’s fragments – although by no means all of them – had one edge that was relatively smooth, while the other edges were rougher.42 This was taken as proof that the fragments had been recently excised, since it was believed that ancient manuscripts could not have a smooth edge. In Ginsburg’s words, “Now, many of the Shapira slips are only ragged at the bottom, but straight at the top, thus plainly showing that they have been comparatively recently cut off from the scrolls since they have not yet had time to become ragged at the top.”43 However, there is nothing unusual about an ancient manuscript having one smooth and one degraded edge. Indeed, there are abundant such Dead Sea Scrolls. Pictured below are just a few examples. Ginsburg’s confident assertion on this point is thus plainly misguided. See figs. 10–11. Since Clermont-Ganneau himself had been banned from further examining the fragments, he published a call for other scholars to compare Shapira’s leather strips with Torah scrolls, outlining detailed instructions for a test that would prove the corrupt origins of the fragments: Daughter of Jerusalem, trans. Phoebe Allen [New York: E. P. Dutton, 1919], 8–9. “Mr. Benedictus” refers to Shapira.) 41 In his letter to Bond published in The Times, Ginsburg outlined several other claims to support the theory that Shapira’s manuscripts were cut from Yemenite scrolls, noting that “(1), some of them are written on similar rough sheep skins to the material on which the Deuteronomy slips are written; (2), the lower margin of some of these scrolls […] is the same width as the height of the Shapira slips; and (3), one of these scrolls – viz., Oriental, 1457, has actually such a cut off slip fastened to the beginning of Genesis – and this scroll was bought from Mr. Shapira in 1877, the very year in which he declares that he obtained the inscribed slips” (The Times [August 27, 1883], 6). In fact, Shapira stated that he first heard about (and obtained) the manuscripts in 1878. Furthermore, as mentioned below, it was found that the leather of Shapira’s manuscripts differed “very considerably” from such Torah scrolls (The Daily News [August 22, 1883], 3). 42 In his report, Hermann Guthe provides a different account of the fragments’ edges. According to him, “only a few pieces have a better-preserved, let alone well-preserved, edge. […] The long edges exhibit similar differences in their state of preservation; on one strip, the leather has become so brittle that one could easily tear or pinch it off like a decayed piece of cloth” (Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 3; my translation). Guthe’s description of the eroded state of most of the fragments, on their short and long edges alike, appears to be supported by the available photographs and drawings of the fragments. 43 The Times (August 27, 1883), 6. 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 17 Fig. 10. 11QPsa (11Q5) with one smooth and one ragged edge. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Najib Anton Albina) Fig. 11. 11QTemplea (11Q19) with one smooth and one ragged edge. Courtesy of the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum. 18 1. Introduction I advise all the impartial scholars […] to whom may be permitted an examination which is denied to me (I know not, or rather, I know very well why) to take the suspected strips, and to lay them against the lower edge of one of the synagogue rolls preserved at the British Museum. […] (1). To ascertain whether, by chance, there does not remain on the upper portion of the strips traces of the tails of the square Hebrew letters, especially of the final letters which, as we know, descend below the normal line. (2). To see if the back of the leather does not materially differ in appearance from the face of it; and whether it has not been left in the raw state, as on the synagogue rolls. (3). To take the average height of all the strips, in order to obtain from them the greatest height, which will enable us to determine the height of the original margin of the roll (or the rolls) that supplied the forger. I can at once affirm that on this roll the columns of square Hebrew characters were from 10 to 11 cm in breadth, and were separated by blank intervals of about 4½ cm in breadth. (4). To ascertain the description of the leather, and above all of the thread in the seams.44 As it turns out, at least one person accepted this challenge shortly thereafter and published the results, which failed to confirm Clermont-Ganneau’s suspicions: M. Clermont Ganneau […] has published a letter, in which he claims to have discovered that the manuscript is a forgery, and that it was written on slips cut from the margin of a comparatively modern synagogue-roll. […] But the portion of the Deuteronomy manuscript examined by the present writer was written on leather of a thicker character, differing very considerably from that usually employed in synagogue-rolls.45 Furthermore, no traces of letters were found on the top of Shapira’s leather strips. Despite the lack of evidence for the cut-margin theory, it has proved remarkably tenacious. In recent years, the journalist Chanan Tigay has even claimed to have located the exact scroll from which Shapira cut his fragments, since its bottom margin was removed.46 But the scroll identified by Tigay (Brinner 11, in San Francisco’s Sutro Library) shows signs of significant water damage, particularly in the lower portion. It is therefore almost certain that the bottom part of the manuscript was excised in order to stem further rot from the severe water damage in that area, rather than to serve as the medium for a forged text.47 See fig. 12. 1.2.4. Hebrew “Errors” Besides his suspicion that Shapira’s fragments had been cut from the margins of eastern Torah scrolls – a theory for which there is no viable corroborating evidence – Ginsburg also claimed that there were certain errors in the Hebrew 44 Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts,” The Times (August 21, 1883), 8. 45 The Daily News (August 22, 1883), 3; no byline. This is cited in Mansoor, “Shapira’s Dead Sea Scrolls,” 197. 46 Chanan Tigay, The Lost Book of Moses: The Hunt for the World’s Oldest Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 2016), 316–18. 47 For additional details and a more thorough rebuttal of Tigay’s claim, see Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.” 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict Fig. 12. Brinner 11, showing water damage. Courtesy of the Sutro Library, San Francisco. 19 20 1. Introduction that could have only been made by “a Polish, Russian, or German Jew, or one who had learned Hebrew in the north of Europe.”48 For example, Ginsburg surmised that the ostensible mix-up between the Hebrew letters khet and kaph in Fragment D (column 2, line 2) was a phonetic error pointing to a European Jewish compiler who would have pronounced “the undageshed caph and the guttural letter cheth alike.”49 The word in question was initially transcribed by Guthe, Ginsburg, and Shapira as ‫כבל‬, rather than the expected ‫“( חבל‬region,” corresponding to Deut 3:4). In the forgery scheme envisioned by Ginsburg, the compiler of the Hebrew text would have verbally dictated the text to a skilled scribe who then wrote out the words in the archaic Paleo-Hebrew script.50 But in fact, since the kaph of ‫ כבל‬does not follow a vowel, it would have corresponded to the stop /k/, not the fricative /x/. This particular word is thus not a viable candidate for the supposed error identified by Ginsburg.51 In a letter, Shapira would later propose the more probable reading ‫( גבל‬the letters gimel and kaph are rather similar in the script of the Shapira manuscripts), meaning “border/territory.” Another apparent confusion of khet and kaph occurs just a few lines later (Fragment D, column 2, line 8) in the word transcribed by Ginsburg as ‫מנסחהן‬, “from their libations/drink offerings,” but this time a khet appears where a kaph is expected. The orthography indeed appears to be unusual in this case, but again it makes little sense to suppose a phonetic error between the two sounds, since here too the expected kaph does not follow a vowel and so would not be pronounced like khet. Rather than betraying a modern scribal scenario, the substitution of the two letters could well be archaic. The Hebrew word ‫( לתך‬with final kaph) corresponds to Ugaritic ltḥ (with final khet), for instance, and the Dead Sea Scroll 4Q540, which dates to the Hasmonean period, has ‫ כסר‬instead of the expected ‫חסר‬ (fragment 1, line 3). We must also consider the possibility that the word was not accurately transcribed here, since Guthe indicated that he found this particular letter to be completely illegible.52 48 The Times (August 27, 1883), 6. Ibid. 50 Ginsburg thought the person who conceived the Hebrew text could not have also written out the Paleo-Hebrew (i.e., “Phoenician”) script because of certain mistakes in the text that Ginsburg felt sure the author would have corrected had he been able to read the archaic letterforms: “The compiler of the text…could not have been familiar with the Phoenician characters exhibited in these slips, or he would assuredly have read over the transcript and have detected these errors. He would especially have noticed the transposition of the two letters in the predicate applied to God, which, instead of saying He was ‘angry,’ declares that He ‘committed adultery’” (ibid.). 51 For an earlier dismantling of this and other arguments discussed in this section, see Mansoor, “Shapira’s Dead Sea Scrolls,” 214–17. See also footnote 53 in the critical edition of V (chapter 7). 52 See Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 30. Another example noted by Ginsburg is the string of letters he reads as ‫ לתתהות‬or ‫ לתתוהת‬in E 1:6, which he takes to be an ignorant corruption of the canonical ‫( לטוטפות‬translated as “frontlets”) – namely, a mix-up between tet and tav, again sup49 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 21 1.2.5. Paleographic Objections Apart from the reasons enumerated by Ginsburg in 1883 and discussed above, the only substantial new arguments that have been leveled against the authenticity of Shapira’s manuscripts in recent years pertain to paleography. But since paleography is a study of ancient writing, and the Shapira manuscripts are unavailable, such analyses must be undertaken with great caution. Without access to the manuscripts themselves or legible photographs, scholars who wish to study the letterforms are forced to rely on renderings of Shapira’s fragments produced by a few artists and scholars in the 1880s. In terms of scriptbearing illustrations, we have the various drawings of Va Fragment E made by or for Ginsburg (figs. 13–16),53 as well as a table of letterforms prepared by Guthe (fig. 17).54 It is only these scholarly renderings that have received any paleographic attention. In addition, drawings were prepared by two or three “naïve” artists, but these have been almost entirely overlooked. They comprise two drawings for The Graphic – one column of a fragment of Va with several legible characters (fig. 18, bottom), and an illustration of the first line of text on Fragment A (fig. 18, top)55 – and one drawing for The Illustrated London News of a column of Vb bearing little legible text (fig. 19).56 Importantly, the representations of the same letterforms by the various artists differ dramatically. Even the different drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing include radical divergences. Furthermore, it is imperative to realize that the scholars, on the one hand, and the naïve artists, on the other, were engaged in altogether different enterprises. The scholars were copying the Paleo-Hebrew text they had deciphered, whereas the naïve artists, who were illiterate in Paleo-Hebrew, were simply drawing the shapes they discerned.57 posedly caused by the particular pronunciation of a European Jew. For a European Jew, however, the two tavs here would correspond to /s/, whereas the tets of ‫ לטוטפות‬would be /t/. Even if this faulty reasoning could explain the tet/tav substitution, it would not account for the subsequent three characters: ‫ הות‬or ‫והת‬, per Ginsburg, rather than the expected ‫( פות‬or rather ‫ פת‬in V’s orthographic scheme). For a detailed analysis of these six letters, which I reconstruct as ‫לתת‬ ‫ ֯מ ֯פת‬, see note 91 in the critical edition. See also §6.2.7. 53 The different versions of Ginsburg’s drawing are shown in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34 (top and bottom), 35 (top and bottom), 36 (top and bottom), 37–38; Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 305. 54 Guthe’s table of letterforms can be found in the appendix to Lederhandschrift, on p. 96. 55 The Graphic (September 1, 1883), 224. 56 The Illustrated London News (August 25, 1883), 181. 57 For a critique of Ginsburg’s renderings and a detailed analysis of the problems involved with applying paleographic tools to this text, see Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.” 22 1. Introduction Fig. 13. Ginsburg’s sketch (above) of Fragment E (Va ) and drawing as it appeared in The Athenæum 2915 (below). Note especially the different representations of the penultimate line of column 3. Sketch by permission of the British Library (Ms. Add. 41294). 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict Fig. 14. Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithography (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg. By permission of the British Library (Ms. Add. 41294). 23 24 1. Introduction Fig. 15. Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithography (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg. By permission of the British Library (Ms. Add. 41294). 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict Fig. 16. Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithography (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg. By permission of the British Library (Ms. Add. 41294). 25 26 1. Introduction Fig. 17. Table by Guthe of letterforms in Fragments D and E (Va ). 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 27 Fig. 18. Drawings of Fragment E (Va ) from The Graphic (1883). Column 3 is shown below. The text on top is from Fragment A, column 1. Fig. 19. Drawing of Vb fragment from The Illustrated London News (1883). 28 1. Introduction Among those who have raised objections to Shapira’s fragments on epigraphic grounds is André Lemaire, who published the following statement in a 1997 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review: Paleographical analysis reveals the work of at least two different scribes. However, the letter shapes do not correspond exactly to any known ancient West Semitic script. It is neither Moabite (although most letters seem like imitations of Moabite writing in the Mesha Stele, which records the ninth-century B.C.E. Moabite king Mesha’s victories over Israel; photo and detail of drawing, below) nor “Canaanite” (West Semitic writing from about the 13th to the 11th century B.C.E.). It is neither the Hebrew script used during the First Temple period nor the archaizing paleo-Hebrew script found on coins of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.) and the Second Jewish Revolt (132–135 C.E.) and in several of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In truth, after a simple look at the facsimile, an experienced paleographer can see it is a forgery.58 Lemaire bases his claim here on an early draft of Fragment E by Ginsburg, which – problematically – is quite different from Ginsburg’s other drawings of the very same fragment, as can be seen, for example, from a comparison of figs. 20 and 21.59 Because this drawing is demonstrably unreliable, the results of Lemaire’s paleographic assessment are immaterial. Fig. 20. Ginsburg’s drawing of Fragment E that was analyzed by Lemaire (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 35). 58 André Lemaire, “Paleography’s Verdict: They’re Fakes!” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, no. 3 (1997): 36–38, at 38 (emphasis mine). 59 For Ginsburg’s various drawings of the manuscript, see BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34 (top and bottom), 35 (top and bottom), 36 (top and bottom), 37–38; Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 305. 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 29 Fig. 21. Different version of Ginsburg’s drawing of the same column (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34). Even an untrained eye can spot numerous differences between these two versions of the same column as drawn by Ginsburg. I will highlight just two sample discrepancies. In line 8 (Va , Fragment E, column 1), the word ‫ בין‬looks quite different in the draft published in Lemaire’s article (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 35) as compared with another drawing of the same column by Ginsburg (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34): The word ‫ הזאת‬in the same column likewise displays noteworthy differences in each of its letters, as well as in the inclination of the line: A comparison of these two drafts calls into question the possibility of conducting any fruitful second-hand paleographic analysis in this case. Furthermore, as I 30 1. Introduction discuss in my article on the Shapira fragments, Ginsburg’s rendering of the Mesha Stele exhibits radically different paleography from the object itself, further calling into question the enterprise of undertaking a paleographic analysis on the basis of his drawings.60 Ginsburg’s drawings also differ considerably from the table of letterforms supplied by Guthe. Again, I cite only two examples here. In Ginsburg’s drafts of Fragment E he consistently represents the letter vav with two diagonal strokes, so that it resembles a lowercase “y.” By contrast, in Guthe’s table of the letterforms in this very fragment, the vav is rendered with what appear to be three strokes, producing a much narrower, more vertical, and more symmetrical letterform. Fig. 22. Examples of vav in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ). Fig. 23. Vav in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ). The differences between Ginsburg’s and Guthe’s renderings of the qoph in Fragment E are no less striking. In Ginsburg’s drawings, the qoph is represented as a circle intersected by a vertical stroke.61 In Guthe’s drawing of the qoph letterforms in this fragment, not only is the vertical stroke substantially longer than in Ginsburg’s drawings, but it also clearly does not intersect the circle. (See figs. 24 and 25.) Indeed, Guthe says as much explicitly in his discussion of the letter, drawing attention to the distinctiveness of this specific feature.62 60 Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.” There is, however, no consistency vis-à-vis stance. 62 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 67. 61 1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 31 Fig. 24. Examples of qoph in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ). Fig. 25. Qoph in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ). While paleographic analysis can be essential for the purposes of authentication and dating, this is not the case for the Shapira manuscripts, considering that the original objects are lost. We do not have a single photograph of the manuscripts in which text is discernible, and we have seen that Ginsburg’s drawings are unreliable and mutually contradictory. This is not to say that paleography has nothing at all to contribute. Guthe’s descriptions and discussion of the letterforms are considerably more useful than Ginsburg’s drawings, for example, although they too cannot be taken at face value. Most valuable of all are the naïve drawings prepared by artists who were not literate in Paleo-Hebrew, which have been overlooked by paleographers. Ginsburg and Guthe were well versed in the paleographic curriculum of their generation, and that knowledge appears to have influenced how they saw and represented the script on the Shapira fragments. Illiterate artists, on the other hand, are largely immune to such pattern-recognition hazards. This brings me to my final example. One paleographic oddity in Ginsburg’s drawings of the Shapira manuscripts is the right-leaning stance of the he.63 63 I thank Christopher Rollston and Michael Langlois for highlighting this apparent paleographic problem with the Shapira manuscripts. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the letterforms drawn by Guthe. 32 1. Introduction Fig. 26. Examples of he in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ). While not without precedent in ancient inscriptions, this stance is nevertheless uncommon. It therefore might be seen as a revealing an error by a forger who was not attuned to stance, given that stance was not a well-understood phenomenon in the nineteenth century. However, in the drawing of Fragment A’s first words, published in The Graphic in 1883 and prepared by a non-specialist artist,64 we can see three very clear he characters. Unlike in Ginsburg’s drawings, where the letter has a right-leaning orientation, here each he leans unmistakably to the left. Fig. 27. Illustration of several characters from first line of Fragment A (or its Vb counterpart) from The Graphic (1883). Another detail in this artist’s rendering that conflicts with those of Ginsburg and Guthe is the flourish, or reflex, on the bottom-right of the two yods (the fourth and fifth letters from the left). This feature is now attested in the epigraphic record, especially among the Samaria ostraca.65 Furthermore, the first of the two yods here is drawn with a single stroke. It is notable that although single-stroke yods are highly uncommon in the epigraphic record, they are, in fact, attested in the Samaria corpus – inscriptions that were unknown in Shapira’s lifetime. As Ivan Kaufman writes: The letter yod in the Harvard Samaria Ostraca is of particular interest because of two main aspects of its cursive development, namely the very common reflex at the end of its tail and the occasional continuous execution of the top and middle horizontals or of the latter with the lower half of the vertical…This manifestation of the reflex, so common at Samaria, leaves no trace in later inscriptions even though the reflex is found in them on other letters such as ’alef, zayin, samek, and ṣade. The further peculiarity with respect to the yod of the 64 The Graphic (September 1, 1883), 224. See Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C.: II. The Murabba’ât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-yam,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962): 34–46, at 36; Ivan Tracy Kaufman, “The Samaria Ostraca: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Palaeography” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966), 45–48. 65 1.3. Summary 33 Samaria Ostraca is the execution of the letter with what looks like a continuous movement of the pen. Reisner noted three examples, according to his facsimiles. We have evidence now for about a dozen such yods.66 Fig. 28. Samaria Ostracon 15, with single-stroke yod. Drawing by George Reisner. Even if a cursory glance at the paleography as reproduced in Ginsburg’s drawings suggests the work of a forger, it must be remembered that no contemporary epigrapher has had an opportunity to analyze the original fragments. Indeed, in a world in which the unquestionably genuine Mesha Stele were lost and only the scholarly “facsimiles” remained – including that of Ginsburg himself 67 – paleographers using the very same reasoning would condemn the Mesha Stele as a forgery. And they would be wrong. 1.3. Summary Under scrutiny, every objection to the authenticity of Shapira’s manuscripts falls flat. Moreover, in light of our expanded comparanda following the many new epigraphic finds since 1883, various features once regarded as proof that the Shapira manuscripts were forgeries now appear to validate their antiquity. In the next chapter, I introduce new evidence that points to the same conclusion. 66 Kaufman, “Ostraca,” 45–46. Cf. George Andrew Reisner, Israelite Ostraca from Samaria (Boston: E. O. Cockayne, 1920), 15 pages from title page (unnumbered). For a possible example in an early inscription from Tel Reḥov, see Amihai Mazar, “Three 10th–9th Century B.C.E. Inscriptions from Tēl Reḥōv,” in Saxa loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels. Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Cornelis G. den Hertog, Ulrich Hübner, and Stefan Münger, AOAT 302 (Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2003), 171–84, at 179. I thank Benjamin Sass for bringing this feature of the Tel Reḥov inscription to my attention. 67 Christian David Ginsburg, The Moabite Stone: A Fac-simile of the Original Inscription, with an English Translation, and a Historical and Critical Commentary, 2nd ed. (London: Reeves and Turner, 1871). For more on this point, see Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.” 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers Several years after Shapira’s suicide, his widow, Anna Magdalena Rosette, donated several of his papers to Hermann Strack, an acquaintance of Shapira’s who was a professor at the University of Berlin (now Humboldt University). Strack transferred the documents to his teacher and colleague, Moritz Steinschneider, who compiled and bound them, depositing them at the Königliche Bibliothek (now the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin), where they remain today. These documents consist primarily of catalogs listing and describing various Jewish manuscripts that Shapira procured in Yemen and Egypt.1 Steinschneider bound several loose sheets together with the catalogs, some of which contain the text of piyyutim in Shapira’s collection, and one of which lists items for sale from the Cairo Genizah, several years before the corpus attracted significant attention. Of especial interest are three untitled pages with Hebrew writing in purple ink, which are scattered throughout the volume in no particular order. Taken together, these sheets constitute roughly the first third of Shapira’s own transcription of the Valediction of Moses. This remarkable document, which has not been previously identified, is of great significance for the question of Shapira’s alleged forgery of the manuscripts, as we will see. The transcription is a preliminary one: There are several question marks, marginal comments, and rejected readings.2 Indeed, Shapira had not yet determined the correct arrangement of the fragments when he was preparing this draft; after transcribing five columns, he corrected himself and wrote that the passage he had identified as the sixth column was, in actual fact, the third one. Notably, the document also contains several transcription errors. Shapira’s difficulty making sense of the text is difficult to reconcile with the idea that he was himself involved in its fabrication. 1 Ms. or. fol. 1342. It is listed today as Eigenhändiges Verzeichnis der von Shapira gesammelten hebr. Handschriften; the handwritten title inside the volume is Shapiras eigenhändiges Verzeichniße der von ihm gesammelten hebraeischen Handschriften. I am grateful for the assistance of Petra Figeac, Nicolé Fürtig, and Sophia Gal at the Staatsbibliothek. 2 That this is an early draft can also be inferred from a comparison with Shapira’s later writings. In a letter from August 1883, Shapira writes that he had previously read a certain string of letters (located in B 1:1 ) as ‫( וינאף‬metathesis of ‫)ויאנף‬, only to realize later that the correct reading is ‫ויחר אף‬. In the draft from the Shapira papers, he first transcribed ‫( וימאר‬apparently a metathesis of ‫)ויאמר‬, then struck it out and wrote instead ‫וינאף‬. Thus, the earlier reading Shapira refers to in his letter is the corrected reading here. See BL Ms. Add. 41294, 21. 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers Fig. 29. First page of Shapira’s draft transcription. 35 36 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers Fig. 30. Second page of Shapira’s draft transcription. 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers Fig. 31. Third page of Shapira’s draft transcription. 37 38 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers One illuminating mistake is Shapira’s reading of the word ‫ וישמ]ד[ם‬below as ‫וישם‬ (The line break is marked with a pilcrow [¶].) ‫]את[ם‬. Deut 2:20b–21 (MT) Shapira’s transcription of Va D 1:8–9 Corrected transcription of Va D 1:8–9 ‫רפאים ישבו בה לפנים‬ ‫]רפ[אם מעלם ישבו בה‬ ‫]רפ[אם מעלם ישבו בה‬ ‫והעמנים יקראו להם זמזמים‬ ‫והעמנם יקראו להם עזמזמם‬ ‫והעמנם יקראו להם עזמזמם‬ ‫עם גדול ורב ורם כענקים‬ ‫וישם¶]את[ם אלהם מפנהם‬ ‫וישמ¶]ד[ם אלהם מפנהם‬ ‫וישמידם יהוה מפניהם‬ · ‫וישבו תחתם‬ · ‫וישבו תחתם‬ ‫ויירשם וישבו תחתם‬ To better understand the cause of this error, consider that this section of the manuscript from which Shapira was reading (Va ) would have looked something like this: Shapira appears to have been thrown off by the scriptio continua (and the associated possibility for lexemes to be broken between lines) and the absence of terminal letterforms in Paleo-Hebrew.3 The last four letters in the upper line form a familiar biblical Hebrew word, ‫( וישם‬placed), and Shapira seemingly overlooked the possibility that the word did not end at the line break. The second of the two lines, like the first, was damaged and illegible on the far-right edge, leading Shapira to seek a short word ending with a mem – the first visible letter on the line – to fit in the small space. ‫( אתם‬them) fit the bill, so he tentatively reconstructed an aleph and tav, marking them with a question mark. The etiology of this error is easy enough to reconstruct, but it raises an obvious question: If Shapira forged the manuscripts – or if he was complicit in their alleged forgery – how can we explain the existence of his middling attempt at 3 For a description of the manuscripts, see §7.1. 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers 39 reading them? If Shapira himself devised or inscribed the text, it goes without saying that he would not have needed to decipher it.4 At the very least, these papers suggest that Shapira believed the manuscripts to be authentic, and that he was unfamiliar with their contents. If the manuscripts are indeed forgeries, Shapira would have to have been the victim of the hoax, not its perpetrator. This, in turn, raises new questions as to the possible motive for the supposed forgery, as well as its feasibility. It is no coincidence that Shapira has always been personally implicated in the forgery of these manuscripts. After all, he had an obvious motive: enormous wealth and prestige. He also had a marred reputation ever since he was found to have sold inauthentic Moabite pottery.5 Furthermore, the text of V allegedly contained errors made by a person of European Jewish extraction, which again seemed to incriminate Shapira.6 Lastly, the manuscripts were said to have been cut from the bottom margins of Oriental Torah scrolls, of which Shapira was a major purveyor.7 As we saw in the previous chapter, none of these arguments is tenable any longer. Had Shapira known the manuscripts to be forgeries, then his tales of discovery and purchase would certainly have been lies. However, considering that Shapira apparently believed the manuscripts to be genuine, it is difficult to explain his account or, indeed, to construct a coherent narrative regarding the supposed forgery. As mentioned above, Shapira said that he purchased the manuscripts from Bedouins who found them in a cave near the Dead Sea, wrapped in linen bundles and covered in a bitumen-like substance. If the discovery story was a ruse to dupe Shapira, what then motivated the mastermind? Are we to believe that a forger invested tremendous time, effort, and funds to create two fraudulent manuscripts (and part of a third), only to sell them to Bedouins who then passed them on to Shapira for a pittance?8 Moreover, an anonymous forger would not 4 Another misunderstanding of V by Shapira has to do with the demarcation of the Decalogue’s ten proclamations. In a letter to Strack, Shapira wrote that the first proclamation in V is “‫ לא תעשה‬your [sic] shall have no other gods” (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 7). Whether Shapira intended ‫לא תעשה‬, as in the Hebrew, or ‫לא יהיה‬, as in his translation, he was incorrect. The layout of the Decalogue in Va , which is preserved in numerous drawings, shows that the first proclamation in V begins with “I am Elohim your god” (cf. Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6: ‫)אנכי יהוה אלהיך‬. Each proclamation starts a new line, and the only pertinent line break in the vicinity appears before ‫אנך‬. Guthe made a similar error and marked “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” as the beginning of the first proclamation (Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 34). Both Guthe and Shapira may have been influenced by traditions that construe ‫ אנכי‬as a preamble. 5 See §1.2.2. 6 See §1.2.4. 7 See §1.2.3. 8 According to Shapira, he paid very little for the fragments: “I confess; that when getting prof. S. [= Schlottmann] letter I begin [sic] to totter in my opinion, not so much for the last reason [that ‫ החרתיך‬is Aramaic, not Hebrew], as for the general reason the prof. gives, that it contradicts our Bible; Of course, my 1st question I had ask [sic] myself was, if it is by all means a forgery who could have been such a learned & artful forger? & for what purpose? as the mony 40 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers have earned a penny from the fortunes that Shapira stood to gain from a successful sale of the manuscripts to the British Museum. Such a forger would also have had no obvious opportunity to gain fame as anything other than a fraud. Lastly, as noted below, the text of V corresponds to no scholarly opinion or theory that existed at the time, ruling out vindication of a particular scholar as a plausible motive. As the author of a Daily News article from 1883 observed: “One considerable argument in favour of the genuineness of the manuscripts results from the fact that it agrees with no school of theological or critical opinion.”9 In the next chapter, I conduct a philological analysis of the text, which establishes its identity as a progenitor – not descendant – of Deuteronomy. Indeed, in many ways it agrees with critical opinions regarding the development of Deuteronomy, but these opinions have emerged only in recent decades. They could hardly have underpinned a nineteenth-century forgery. [sic] I paid for the M.s.s was not worth the speaking of ” (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 5). 9 The Daily News (August 22, 1883), 3. 3. Philological Analysis 3.1. The Character of V The Valediction of Moses (V ) is a relatively short composition, roughly comparable in length to the biblical book of Hosea. Most of V corresponds to portions of Deuteronomy. In the following table, the numbers indicate chapters in the book of Deuteronomy. Each line reflects a correspondence between a Deuteronomic verse and a textual unit in V. Table 1. Table of correspondences between Deuteronomy and V. As is immediately evident, V contains nothing at all corresponding to chapters 12 through 26 of Deuteronomy – that is, the law code. V’s legal corpus indeed comprises only its unique version of the Decalogue.1 The poems of Deuteronomy 32 and 33 are also absent in V, as is the story of Moses’s death in Deuteronomy 34. Several more Deuteronomic texts have no analogues in V, and there are also passages in V with no counterpart in Deuteronomy. Comparing the parallel units to one another brings innumerable variants into focus, and these minute differences sometimes have outsize ramifications. Indeed, very few Deuteronomic 1 The oft repeated assertion that V’s Decalogue contains eleven commandments has no basis in fact. (See, e.g., Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: Being a History of the Text and Its Translations [London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1895], 43; Fred Reiner, “Tracking the Shapira Case: A Biblical Scandal Revisited,” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, no. 3 [1997]: 32–41, at 35.) 42 3. Philological Analysis verses have identical counterparts in V, even after controlling for orthographic variation. Unlike Deuteronomy, in which the narrator intervenes repeatedly, the Valediction of Moses has no narrator except in the introductory and concluding verses.2 Coincidentally, these two brief narrational passages contain the only instances of the Tetragrammaton in V. Moses is the speaker throughout the remainder of the work, and he never utters this divine name; instead we find only “Elohim” (‫)אלהם‬. Given the manifest kinship between Deuteronomy and V, the question of literary dependence naturally arises. Is V a reworked and excerpted Deuteronomy, or is Deuteronomy a reworked and expanded V? A third option must also be considered, namely that V and Deuteronomy have a common ancestor. If this is the case, then one of the texts may be higher in the family tree, but neither would be directly dependent upon the other.3 Describing the text in 1893, Ginsburg wrote: “It will be seen that we have here nearly the whole of Deuteronomy in an abridged form.”4 Of course, if the Valediction of Moses is an abridgment of Deuteronomy, it follows that the former is dependent upon the latter. Many decades later, in 1957, Jacob Teicher argued against the consensus that the fragments were forgeries. Although he deemed the manuscripts authentic, he too saw the text they contained as an abridgment of Deuteronomy, written by someone familiar with the Pentateuch at large. Teicher therefore compared the composition to the Hellenistic Sayings of Moses, which was discovered in Qumran:5 [I]t is, in fact, a skilful compilation of material drawn almost entirely from our Deuteronomy and combined with passages from other books of the Pentateuch. Its theme is Moses’s last speech, and the main stress in it is laid upon the worship and love of one God and the observance of the Decalogue, which is referred to as the torah, the law. (The Qumran fragment entitled The Sayings of Moses in the Oxford edition may perhaps be related to it.)6 2 It is not entirely clear who makes the parenthetical comments on the aboriginal residents of the Transjordan (Va C 1:4–5, 8–9; D 1:8–9). If it is not Moses, these would be additional exceptions. However, unlike their counterparts in Deuteronomy, which reflect a post-Mosaic perspective (Deut 2:12; 3:11), the comments in V refer only to anterior events and are therefore unproblematic as Moses’s own words. 3 There are hybrid options, such as D being descended from proto-V, with V itself reflecting subsequent updates in light of D. 4 Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2913 (1883), 242. 5 This composition is also known as “Dires de Moïse,” “Words of Moses,” and “Divre Moshe.” It is attested in 1Q22, as well as in a small fragment from cave 4 in Qumran. See Eibert Tigchelaar, “A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7–10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14,” DSD 12, no. 3 (2005): 303–12; Ariel Feldman, “Moses’ Farewell Address according to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22),” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23, no. 3 (2014): 201–14. 6 Teicher, “Genuineness of Shapira,” 184. 3.1. The Character of V 43 Menahem Mansoor, who argued vigorously in favor of the manuscripts’ reassessment, wrote similarly: It is clear that Shapira’s Deuteronomy displays a skilfully abridged manual compiled from Deuteronomy with interpolations from other books of the Pentateuch with Moses’ last speech as a theme. It is also probable that the “Dires de Moise” is a similar compilation. In these Qumran Deuteronomic texts we find interpolations from Leviticus, Numbers, just as is the case with Shapira’s text.7 Several years after Mansoor, John Allegro, too, described V as a reworked and abridged Deuteronomy: As will be seen […] what we have here is a shortened narrative, a kind of “vest-pocket” Deuteronomy with excerpts from elsewhere in the Pentateuch inserted where the sequence of events seemed to the compiler defective […] The briefest scanning of these will give some indication of the abridgment and conflation that the compiler allowed himself in his work.8 In accordance with this view, Allegro also suggested that the manuscripts may have been written by Jewish sectarians living in the Transjordan.9 He was followed in this by Helen Jefferson.10 The few suggestions that V is – or, rather, purports to be – something other than a secondary abridgment of Deuteronomy (or the Pentateuch more broadly) have typically been offered rhetorically by those who discount the Shapira manuscripts as forgeries. For example: Every one remembers the announcement of the original copy of Deuteronomy: how people who knew anything about leather and linen, and damp caves, and Arabs, and Jerusalem curiosity-dealers, laughed at the whole thing.11 Notably, though, Shapira himself did not present the text as a protoDeuteronomy. Instead, not unlike Allegro and Jefferson would later do, Shapira portrayed it as a sectarian work of uncertain date, making V an early offshoot of Deuteronomy. In a letter to Hermann Strack, he wrote the following: Shall we suppose that the manuscripts belonged to a sect or school which believed only that the Ten Commandments are from God? Or should we be allowed to say that the 7 Mansoor, “Shapira’s Dead Sea Scrolls,” 223. Allegro, Shapira Affair, 81. 9 Allegro, Shapira Affair, 134–36. 10 Helen G. Jefferson, “The Shapira Manuscript and the Qumran Scrolls,” Revue de Qumrân 6, no. 3 (1968): 391–99, at 395, 397. More recently, Shlomo Guil has argued that the manuscripts are Qumran-like Dead Sea Scrolls, presumably from the Hasmonean period. The closest parallel he sees is 11QpaleoLeva (11Q1), which he dates to the first century BCE. See Shlomo Guil, “The Shapira Scroll Was an Authentic Dead Sea Scroll,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 149, no. 1 (2017): 6–27. 11 “Archæological Frauds in Palestine,” St. James Gazette (January 2, 1885), 7. (Cited above in §1.2.1; my emphasis.) According to Teicher, this was first suggested by Dillmann and Steinschneider, both of whom considered the documents to be forgeries (Teicher, “Genuineness of Shapira,” 184). 8 44 3. Philological Analysis manuscripts belonged to Jews who dwelt in the east of the Jordan where the manuscripts are supposed to have been found, and who believed only in Elohim (although the western Jews must have had long before known and used the word YHWH)? And might that also account for the exactness of the topography, which put Sihon between Moab and Amon, and Amon between Sihon and Og? Also, as the first verse and the last word mention “according to the word of YHWH” and never in the midst of the book, could we suppose that the first and last verse were added by a Yahwistic scribe who copied an Elohistic manuscript (perhaps for a tomb of an Elohistic believer) and put his own heading and closing form? I confess the last suggestion does not well satisfy me. It would be expected that an Elohist would not bury his dead with a manuscript which has the word YHWH even on the title page. You will ask me, dear professor, what I suppose to be the date of our manuscripts? To this, I will say, judging from the format of the letters, one will be inclined to give to this unorthodox manuscript such an early time, as between the date of the Mesha Stone and the Siloam inscription, or about the 6th century B.C. But one must be very cautious. Who knows? May it not be that they used old forms of letters in writing or copying such documents, and especially for using them as a talisman for the dead bodies or as charms, only with very old forms of letters even if such letters are commonly not used at all more? And if so, the date may be very late. The question will of course be for scholars to decide (if they agree to my suggestion). How late may we put a Jewish colony of unorthodox doctrines, as of the ten tribes, or of the Rechabites, etc. etc., before or after Christ?12 In the following sections, I provide evidence that – contrary to the view held by nearly all scholars – V is indeed a proto-Deuteronomic text or closely related to such a text. I make my case by subjecting the Valediction of Moses to a comparative philological analysis. This bears not only on the matter of literary kinship, but also on the question of forgery. The question of forgery is implicated, since the Valediction of Moses resolves problems in the canonical text that had not been identified in the nineteenth – and in some cases, even the twentieth – century. The text of V is first attested in 1878, when Deuteronomy had been subjected to precious little critical analysis.13 The works of Staerk14 and Steuernagel15 – not to mention Noth16 – were all well in the future. As for literary kinship, it can be established that several Pentateuchal passages are derived from V, or from a text very similar to V. Indeed, the narrative, or “historical,” portions of V are conspicuously free of any P or post-P language, even when the corresponding passages in the Pentateuch are replete with it. In addition, 12 Letter from Shapira to Strack dated May 9, 1883. BL Ms. Add. 41294, 8–10. Edited for spelling, grammar, and clarity. 13 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 6–7. The scholar Guthe alludes to there – with whom Shapira shared his text at the time – is Konstantin Schlottmann. 14 Willy Staerk, Das Deuteronomium. Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form. Eine kritische Studie (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1894). 15 Carl Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums. Litterarcritische Untersuchung über seine Zusammensetzung und Entstehung (Halle: J. Krause, 1894). 16 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943). 3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V 45 V not only lacks the Deuteronomic law code of chapters 12–26, but it also lacks any signs of the influence of this legal corpus upon the narratives. This stands in contrast to Deuteronomy itself, which contains several such examples. 3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V As noted above, whereas the Valediction of Moses corresponds rather closely to the narrative portions of Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomic law code has no Valedictoric counterpart. In the following, I address first the absence of the code itself in V, followed by a discussion of the V narrative’s unharmonized nature vis-à-vis nomistic Deuteronomic edits. 3.2.1. The Bifurcated Gerizim and Ebal Pericope One of the more peculiar features of Deuteronomy is the bisection of the instructions concerning the blessings and curses of Gerizim and Ebal between chapters 11 and 27–28. The narrative begins in Deut 11:26 with the proclamation: “Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse” (‫͏וּקלָ לָ ה‬ ְ ‫) ְראֵ ה אָ נ ִֹכי נֹתֵ ן ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה‬. In the following four verses, the criterion for receiving the blessing is stated (keeping the laws), as are the place and time in which the blessings and curses are to be proclaimed (Gerizim and Ebal, once the people of Israel have entered the land). The story then ends abruptly, with no mention of the expected blessings and curses. Instead, the text continues with the Deuteronomic legal code, which comprises some fifteen chapters. It is only after the legal code has been given in its entirety – nearly 40 percent of the book – that the Gerizim and Ebal narrative thread is again picked up. V, for its part, contains a version of the same narrative, which overlaps with that of Deuteronomy almost in its entirety. However, in V, this story appears as a single, cohesive unit, transitioning directly, and logically, from the geographic data (cf. Deut 11:29–30) to specifying which tribes are to stand on which mountain (cf. Deut 27:12–13). Thus, in V, the blessings and curses scheduled for “today” indeed appear in the same oration, as seen in the table below. (Non-orthographic variants are in bold.) ‫‪46‬‬ ‫‪3. Philological Analysis‬‬ ‫) ‪Valediction of Moses (Vb‬‬ ‫)‪Deuteronomy (MT‬‬ ‫ראה אנך נת]ן לפנ[כם היום ברכה‬ ‫ְראֵ ה אָ נ ִֹכי נֹתֵ ן ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה‬ ‫וקללה את הברכה אם תשמעו אל‬ ‫͏וּקלָ לָ ה׃ אֶ ת הַ ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫מצות אלהם והקללה אם לא‬ ‫אֶ ל ִמ ְצוֹת יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי‬ ‫תשמעו וסרתם מהדרך אשר אנך‬ ‫ְמצַ ͏וֶּה אֶ ְתכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם׃ וְ הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ִאם ל ֹא‬ ‫מצוה אתכם היום ]· והיה כי יב[אך‬ ‫ִת ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּ אֶ ל ִמ ְצוֹת יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם‬ ‫אלהם אל הארץ אשר אתה בא‬ ‫וְ סַ ְר͏תֶּ ם ִמן הַ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי ְמצַ ͏וֶּה‬ ‫שמה לרשתה ונתת את הברכה על‬ ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ‫אֶ ְתכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם לָ לֶ כֶ ת אַ ח ֲֵרי א ִ‬ ‫הר ]גרזם[ והקללה על הר עבל ·‬ ‫אֲחֵ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא יְ ַד ְע͏תֶּ ם׃ וְ הָ יָה ִ͏כּי‬ ‫הלא המה בעבר ה]ירד[ן דרך‬ ‫יְ ִביאֲָך יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֶ ל הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫מבא השמש בארץ הכנעני בע]רבה‬ ‫אַ ͏תָּ ה בָ א ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה ְל ִר ְ͏שׁ͏תָּ ͏הּ וְ נָתַ ͏תָּ ה אֶ ת‬ ‫נג[ד הגלגל אצל אלני מרא ·‬ ‫הַ ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה עַ ל הַ ר ͏גְּ ִרזִ ים וְ אֶ ת הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה‬ ‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫‪11:26–30‬‬ ‫‪G 3:5–9‬‬ ‫עַ ל הַ ר עֵ יבָ ל׃ הֲל ֹא הֵ ͏מָּ ה ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר‬ ‫הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן אַ ח ֲֵרי ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שֶּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬ ‫ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י הַ ͏יֹּ ͏שֵׁ ב ͏בָּ ע ֲָרבָ ה מ͏וּל‬ ‫הַ ͏גִּ ְל͏גָּל אֵ צֶ ל אֵ לוֹנֵי מ ֶֹרה׃‬ ‫ִ͏כּי אַ ͏תֶּ ם עֹ ְב ִרים אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן לָ ב ֹא‬ ‫לָ ֶר͏שֶׁ ת אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה‬ ‫יר ְ͏שׁ͏תֶּ ם אֹתָ ͏הּ‬ ‫אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם נֹתֵ ן לָ כֶ ם וִ ִ‬ ‫͏וּ͏שׁמַ ְר͏תֶּ ם לַ עֲ͏שׂוֹת אֵ ת‬ ‫וִ י͏שַׁ ְב͏תֶּ ם ͏בָּ ͏הּ׃ ְ‬ ‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫‪11:31–27:11‬‬ ‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫͏כָּ ל הַ חֻ ִ͏קּים וְ אֶ ת הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ִטים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫אָ נ ִֹכי נֹתֵ ן ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם׃ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה‬ ‫הַ חֻ ִ͏קּים וְ הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ִטים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁ ְמר͏וּן‬ ‫לַ עֲ͏שׂוֹת ͏בָּ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ י‬ ‫אבֹתֶ יָך ְלָך ְל ִר ְ͏שׁ͏תָּ ͏הּ ͏כָּ ל הַ ͏יּ ִָמים‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אַ ͏תֶּ ם חַ ͏יִּ ים עַ ל הָ א ֲָדמָ ה׃‬ ‫]…[‬ ‫וְ ͏שָׁ מַ ְע͏תָּ ְ͏בּקוֹל יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך וְ עָ ִ͏שׂיתָ‬ ‫אֶ ת ִמ ְצוֹתָ ו וְ אֶ ת חֻ ͏קָּ יו אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי‬ ‫ְמצַ ͏וְּ ָך הַ ͏יּוֹם׃ וַיְ צַ ו מֹ͏שֶׁ ה אֶ ת הָ עָ ם‬ ‫͏בַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ה͏וּא לֵ אמֹר׃‬ ‫ואלה י֯]עמדו על הר עבל[ ראובן‬ ‫אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ ְלבָ ֵרְך אֶ ת הָ עָ ם עַ ל הַ ר‬ ‫זבולן וגד אשר ד]ן[ ונ]פתלי[ ·‬ ‫͏גְּ ִרזִ ים ְ͏בּעָ ְב ְרכֶ ם אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן‬ ‫ואלה יעמדו על הר גרזם שמען‬ ‫͏וּבנְ י ִָמן׃‬ ‫יה͏וּדה וְ יִ ͏שָּׂ שכָ ר וְ יוֹסֵ ף ִ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫וְ לֵ וִ י וִ‬ ‫ויהודה וישכר מנשה ואפרם ובנימן‬ ‫וְ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ עַ ל הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ְ͏בּהַ ר‬ ‫· ועמדו הלוים נגד הר גרזם ו]ענ[ו‬ ‫עֵ יבָ ל ְרא͏וּבֵ ן ͏גָּד וְ אָ ͏שֵׁ ר ͏וּזְ ב͏וּלֻ ן ָ͏דּן‬ ‫ואמרו בקל רם‬ ‫וְ נ ְַפ͏תָּ ִלי׃ וְ עָ נ͏וּ הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם וְ אָ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל‬ ‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫‪27:12–14‬‬ ‫‪G 3:9–12‬‬ ‫ִאי͏שׁ יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל קוֹל ָרם׃‬ ‫‪Since the early nineteenth century, especially in the wake of Wilhelm de Wette’s‬‬ ‫‪seminal doctoral dissertation, it has been commonplace to see the legal code of‬‬ ‫‪Deuteronomy, or something similar to it, as the original stratum of the book.17‬‬ ‫‪W. M. L. de Wette, “Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Penta-‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ 3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V 47 J. Philip Hyatt summarized the consensus view in the mid-twentieth century: But what constituted Urdeuteronomium? The general opinion is that the kernel of the book is chapters 12–26, to which chapters 5–11 may have formed an introduction and chapter 28 a conclusion.18 Following the influential publications of Jean L’Hour in 1962,19 Andrew Mayes wrote that the Gerizim and Ebal narrative of Deuteronomy 11 and 27–28 was introduced secondarily to frame Deuteronomy’s legal code: 11:29–30 stand out from their context: their particular geographical concern disrupts the continuity of the context which culminates in the general warning to obey the commandments in the land. The verses have been brought in here to act as a framework, with 27:12– 13, to the deuteronomic law; cf. L’Hour, RB 69 (1962): 166–67.20 In 1991, Moshe Weinfeld similarly wrote: There is a general agreement in regards to Deut 4:44–28:68. It is believed that these chapters constituted the original book, which was later supplemented by an additional introduction (1:6–4:40) and by varied material at the end of the book (chaps. 29–30). […] It should be recognized, however, that chaps. 5–28 are not homogeneous either. The law code that constitutes the main part of the book was originally put into a framework of the ceremony of blessings and curses of Gerizim and Ebal. The theme of this ceremony appears at the opening of the code (11:26–32) and at its conclusion (26:16–27:26). It undoubtedly adds significance to the code of laws.21 The fact that the laws interrupt the Gerizim and Ebal pericope is difficult to reconcile with the orthodoxy that the narrative portions of Deuteronomy are, on the whole, a series of supplements to the original law code – the Urdeuteronomium.22 teuchi Libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur” (PhD diss., University of Jena, 1805). For more on de Wette’s contributions vis-à-vis those of his predecessors and contemporaries, see Paul B. Harvey, Jr. and Baruch Halpern, “W. M. L. de Wette’s ‘Dissertatio Critica …’: Context and Translation,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008): 47–85. For the idea that the Deuteronomic law is the earliest stratum, see already Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), book 3, ch. 33. 18 J. Philip Hyatt, “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1/2 (1942): 156–73, at 158. 19 Jean L’Hour, “L’alliance de Sichem,” Revue Biblique 69, no. 1 (1962): 5–36; Jean L’Hour, “L’alliance de Sichem (suite),” Revue Biblique 69, no. 2 (1962): 161–84. 20 Andrew D. H. Mayes, “Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy,” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 1 (1981): 23–51, at 39n61. 21 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 11. 22 For reconstructions that do not take the law code to be the kernel of Deuteronomy, see Jon D. Levenson, “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” Harvard Theological Review 68, no. 3–4 (1975): 203–33, at 223, et passim; Brian Peckham, “The Composition of Deut. 5–11,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael Patrick O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 227, et passim. 48 3. Philological Analysis If the Gerizim and Ebal passages are supplements, it is not clear why their author would choose to have Moses promise the blessings and curses “today” (Deut 11:26), if intending to only disclose those blessings and curses much later. However, if V reflects the original form of the narrative, and an editor decided to introduce the law code secondarily, then the convoluted literary structure we see in Deuteronomy would be the collateral damage, as it were, of the intervention.23 Such infelicities are often associated with editorial activity; indeed, they are among the most salient clues that a text has undergone redaction. While it may be the case that the book described in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34 was a version of the Deuteronomic code, as suggested by de Wette and others,24 it does not follow that the narratives in Deuteronomy were written to serve as the law’s framework, as most scholars nevertheless believe. In support of the theory that an earlier edition of Deuteronomy lacked the legal code, we will now see how V preserves a pre-canonical incarnation of the Sihon narrative, which reflects an ignorance of, or indifference to, the Deuteronomic law. 3.2.2. The Conquest of Sihon’s Land The Valediction of Moses tells a simple story of the conquest of Sihon’s territory. It can be summarized as follows: Elohim commands Moses to take the land of King Sihon of Heshbon; Moses and the Israelites then attack Sihon at Jahaz, kill everyone, and capture all the king’s cities. It is a short and straightforward narrative. The same cannot be said of the narrative in Deut 2:24–37. There, the commandment to take Sihon’s land is confusingly intermingled with a directive to provoke Sihon to war (2:24bβ). Oddly, Moses does not follow through on the commandment to take possession of the land and instead proceeds to send messengers to the king with “words of peace.” Sihon refuses the peaceful overture, after which Moses, in a resumptive repetition, is once again directed to take Sihon’s land (2:31; cf. 2:24). Remarkably, even this second command is not followed by an Israelite attack. Rather, it is Sihon who attacks Israel at Jahaz – unlike in V, where the reverse is the case. The account of Sihon’s attack and Israel’s counterstrike is followed by a second substantial Deuteronomic sequence not present in V: the taking of spoils in 2:34aβ–35. The final significant divergence between V and Deuteronomy comes at the very end of the unit. Whereas V simply lists Jabbok as one of the boundaries of the conquered territory (cf. Josh 12:2; Judg 11:13, 22), Deut 2:37 goes out of its way to state that Israel “did not encroach on 23 In a future publication, I will elaborate on the motivations for inserting the law code in its present position in Deuteronomy, thereby displacing the Decalogue as the linchpin of the book and the crux of Israel’s pact with YHWH. 24 Cf. Pseudo-Rashi on 2 Chr 34:14. ‫‪49‬‬ ‫‪3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V‬‬ ‫‪the land of the Ammonites, all along the wadi Jabbok and the towns of the hill‬‬ ‫”‪country, just as YHWH our God had commanded.‬‬ ‫‪The following table highlights the differences between the two versions:‬‬ ‫) ‪Valediction of Moses (Va‬‬ ‫)‪Deuteronomy (MT‬‬ ‫ויאמר אלהם אלי לאמר קמו ועברו‬ ‫ק͏וּמ͏וּ ְ͏סּע͏וּ וְ ִע ְבר͏וּ אֶ ת נַחַ ל אַ ְרנֹן ְראֵ ה‬ ‫את נחל ארנן היום החלתי לתת‬ ‫נָתַ ִ͏תּי ְבי ְָדָך אֶ ת ִסיחֹן מֶ לֶ ְך חֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן‬ ‫לפנך את סיחן מלך חשבן האמרי‬ ‫אמ ִֹרי וְ אֶ ת אַ ְרצוֹ‬ ‫הָ ֱ‬ ‫ואת ארצו ·‬ ‫הָ חֵ ל ָר͏שׁ וְ ִה ְת͏גָּר ͏בּוֹ ִמ ְלחָ מָ ה׃ הַ ͏יּוֹם‬ ‫הַ ͏זֶּה אָ חֵ ל ͏תֵּ ת ͏פַּ ְח ְ͏דָּך וְ יִ ְראָ ְתָך עַ ל‬ ‫ְ͏פּנֵי הָ עַ ִ͏מּים ͏תַּ חַ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ͏שָּׁ מָ יִ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫יִ ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּן ִ͏שׁ ְמעֲָך וְ ָרגְ ז͏וּ וְ חָ ל͏וּ ִמ͏פָּ נֶיָך׃‬ ‫‪Deut 2:24a‬‬ ‫‪C 1:10–D 1:2‬‬ ‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫‪2:24b–31‬‬ ‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫וָאֶ ְ͏שׁלַ ח מַ ְלאָ ִכים ִמ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בַּ ר ְק ֵדמוֹת‬ ‫אֶ ל ִסיחוֹן מֶ לֶ ְך חֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי ͏שָׁ לוֹם‬ ‫לֵ אמֹר׃ אֶ ְע ְ͏בּ ָרה ְבאַ ְרצֶ ָך ͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬ ‫͏וּ͏שׂמ ֹאול׃‬ ‫͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֵ לֵ ְך ל ֹא אָ ס͏וּר י ִָמין ְ‬ ‫אֹכֶ ל ͏בַּ ͏כֶּ סֶ ף ͏תַּ ְ͏שׁ ִ͏בּ ֵרנִ י וְ אָ כַ ְל ִ͏תּי ͏וּמַ יִ ם‬ ‫יתי ַרק אֶ ְע ְ͏בּ ָרה‬ ‫͏בַּ ͏כֶּ סֶ ף ִ͏תּ͏תֶּ ן ִלי וְ ͏שָׁ ִת ִ‬ ‫ְב ַרגְ לָ י׃ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ ִלי ְ͏בּנֵי עֵ ͏שָׂ ו‬ ‫הַ ͏יֹּ ְ͏שׁ ִבים ְ͏בּ͏שֵׂ ִעיר וְ הַ ͏מּוֹאָ ִבים הַ ͏יֹּ ְ͏שׁ ִבים‬ ‫עבֹר אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן אֶ ל‬ ‫ְ͏בּעָ ר עַ ד אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אֶ ֱ‬ ‫הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃‬ ‫וְ ל ֹא אָ בָ ה ִסיחֹן מֶ לֶ ְך חֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן הַ ע ֲִב ֵרנ͏וּ‬ ‫͏בּוֹ ִ͏כּי ִה ְק͏שָׁ ה יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֶ ת ר͏וּחוֹ‬ ‫וְ ִא͏מֵּ ץ אֶ ת ְלבָ בוֹ ְלמַ עַ ן ִ͏תּ͏תּוֹ ְבי ְָדָך‬ ‫͏כַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה׃ וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ְראֵ ה‬ ‫رתי ͏תֵּ ת ְלפָ נֶיָך אֶ ת ִסיחֹן וְ אֶ ת‬ ‫הַ ִח ִ‬ ‫אַ ְרצוֹ הָ חֵ ל ָר͏שׁ לָ ֶר͏שֶׁ ת אֶ ת אַ ְרצוֹ׃‬ ‫ונצא לקראת סיחן יהצה ונכה עד‬ ‫ַו͏יֵּצֵ א ִסיחֹן ִל ְק ָראתֵ נ͏וּ ה͏וּא וְ כָ ל עַ ͏מּוֹ‬ ‫לא השאר לו שרד ונלכד את כל‬ ‫לַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה י ְָהצָ ה׃ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏תּנֵה͏וּ יְ הוָה‬ ‫ערו‬ ‫אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ ְלפָ נֵינ͏וּ ַו͏נְַּך אֹתוֹ וְ אֶ ת ͏בָּ נָו וְ אֶ ת‬ ‫͏כָּ ל עַ ͏מּוֹ׃ וַ͏נִּ ְל͏כֹּד אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל עָ ָריו‬ ‫͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא ַו ַ͏נּח ֲֵרם אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל ִעיר ְמ ִתם‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים וְ הַ ͏טָּ ף ל ֹא ִה ְ͏שׁאַ ְרנ͏וּ ͏שָׂ ִריד׃‬ ‫וְ הַ ͏נּ ִ‬ ‫͏וּ͏שׁלַ ל הֶ עָ ִרים‬ ‫ַרק הַ ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה ͏בָּ זַזְ נ͏וּ לָ נ͏וּ ְ‬ ‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לָ כָ ְדנ͏וּ׃‬ ‫מערער אשר על שפת נחל ארנן‬ ‫ערֹעֵ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עַ ל ְ͏שׂפַ ת נַחַ ל אַ ְרנֹן‬ ‫מֵ ֲ‬ ‫עד הגלעד ועד נחל יבק הכל נתן‬ ‫וְ הָ ִעיר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בַּ ͏נַּחַ ל וְ עַ ד הַ ͏גִּ ְלעָ ד ל ֹא‬ ‫אלהם אלהנו לפננו ·‬ ‫הָ יְ תָ ה ִק ְריָה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏שָׂ גְ בָ ה ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ אֶ ת‬ ‫הַ ͏כֹּל נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ ְלפָ נֵינ͏וּ׃‬ ‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫‪2:32–34aα‬‬ ‫‪D 1:2–3‬‬ ‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫‪2:34aβ–35‬‬ ‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫‪Deut 2:36‬‬ ‫‪D 1:3–5‬‬ 50 Deut 2:37 Absent in V 3. Philological Analysis Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Va ) ‫ַרק אֶ ל אֶ ֶרץ ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מּוֹן ל ֹא קָ ָר ְב͏תָּ ͏כָּ ל‬ ‫יַד נַחַ ל ַי͏בֹּק וְ עָ ֵרי הָ הָ ר וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ׃‬ In recent years, scholars have drawn attention to the influences of Deut 20:10– 14 upon Deut 2:24–37.25 This law of warfare dictates that Israel must never go to war without first offering terms of peace. It is only if the adversary rejects the peaceful overture and instead opts to go on the attack that Israel may do battle. Under these specific circumstances, Israel is also granted the right to take spoils. The text of Deut 20:10–14 follows: ‫ִ͏כּי ִת ְק ַרב אֶ ל ִעיר ְל ִה͏לָּ חֵ ם עָ לֶ יהָ וְ קָ ָראתָ אֵ לֶ יהָ ְל͏שָׁ לוֹם׃ וְ הָ יָה ִאם ͏שָׁ לוֹם ͏תַּ עַ נְ ָך ͏וּפָ ְתחָ ה לָ ְך וְ הָ יָה ͏כָּ ל הָ עָ ם הַ ͏נִּ ְמצָ א‬ ‫בָ ͏הּ יִ ְהי͏וּ ְלָך לָ מַ ס ַועֲבָ ד͏וָּך׃ וְ ִאם ל ֹא תַ ְ͏שׁ ִלים ִע͏מָּ ְך וְ עָ ְ͏שׂתָ ה ִע ְ͏מָּך ִמ ְלחָ מָ ה וְ צַ ְר͏תָּ עָ לֶ י͏הָּ ׃ ͏וּנְ תָ נָ͏הּ יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך ְ͏בּי ֶָדָך‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים וְ הַ ͏טַּ ף וְ הַ ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ְהיֶה בָ ִעיר ͏כָּ ל ְ͏שׁלָ לָ ͏הּ ͏תָּ בֹז לָ ְך וְ אָ כַ ְל͏תָּ אֶ ת‬ ִ ‫כ͏וּר͏הּ ְל ִפי חָ ֶרב׃ ַרק הַ ͏נּ‬ ָ ְ‫וְ ִה ִ͏כּיתָ אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל ז‬ ‫ְ͏שׁלַ ל אֹיְ בֶ יָך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לָ ְך׃‬ When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. The subsequent verses, 20:15–18, limit the above to the somewhat nebulous category of “towns that are very far from you.” As numerous scholars have noted, these verses belong to a secondary stratum:26 ‫חקֹת ִמ ְ͏מָּך ְמאֹד אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא מֵ עָ ֵרי הַ ͏גּוֹיִ ם הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה הֵ ͏נָּה׃ ַרק מֵ עָ ֵרי הָ עַ ִ͏מּים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה‬ ֹ ‫͏כֵּ ן ͏תַּ עֲ͏שֶׂ ה ְלכָ ל הֶ עָ ִרים הָ ְר‬ ‫ב͏וּסי‬ ִ ְ‫אמ ִֹרי הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י וְ הַ ְ͏פּ ִר͏זִּ י הַ ִח͏וִּ י וְ הַ י‬ ֱ ָ‫אֱֹלהֶ יָך נֹתֵ ן ְלָך ַנחֲלָ ה ל ֹא ְתחַ ͏יֶּה ͏כָּ ל נְ ͏שָׁ מָ ה׃ ִ͏כּי הַ ח ֲֵרם ͏תַּ ח ֲִרימֵ ם הַ ִח ִ͏תּי וְ ה‬ ‫עבֹתָ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ לֵ אֹלהֵ יהֶ ם ַוחֲטָ אתֶ ם לַ יהוָה‬ ֲ ֹ‫͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וְּ ָך יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך׃ ְלמַ עַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא יְ לַ ְ͏מּד͏וּ אֶ ְתכֶ ם לַ עֲ͏שׂוֹת ְ͏כּכֹל ͏תּו‬ ‫אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃‬ Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them – the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites – just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach 25 That there is a relationship between Deut 2:24–37 and Deut 20:10–14 was already discerned by the midrashists of Deuteronomy Rabbah (Deut. Rab. 1:28, 5:13; cf. Num. Rab. 19:27). For more on these midrashim – and their value for literary-critical analysis – see Shimon Gesundheit, “Midrash-Exegesis in the Service of Literary Criticism,” in The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts, ed. Christoph Berner and Harald Samuel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 73–86. 26 See, e.g., Marc Zvi Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995), 72; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 251. See further below. 3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V 51 you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God. Timo Veijola’s influential analysis of the Deuteronomic Sihon narrative, published in 1988, notes the dependence of Deut 2:24–37 upon the law of warfare in Deuteronomy 20: Of course, it was [the Deuteronomistic historian’s] ideological background, the influence of which is discernible even in the introductory chapters, most clearly in the account of the defeat of Sihon and Og. In both cases the theological interpretation was borrowed from the military theory of the Holy War as it was advanced in the Deuteronomic laws of warfare, especially in Deut 20.27 Veijola suggests that the original Sihon narrative comprised Deut 2:16–17, 24aα1, 30a, 31a, 32–36. While this differs somewhat from what we find in V, it has in common with V the absence of both the “words of peace” element in verses 26– 29 and the Jabbok exception in verse 37. In 1995, Marc Zvi Brettler published his analysis of the passage, in which he highlights an additional dependency upon the law of Deuteronomy 20 the taking of spoils in Deut 2:35 (cf. Deut 20:14): Deut 20:10–18 and Deut 2:26ff. are clearly related. There are close verbal similarities between these passages; these include “words of peace” (Deut 2:26), which is similar to “you shall offer it terms of peace” (Deut 20:10), and Deut 2:35, “we only took as spoils the animals and the booty” which is similar to “only…and the animals…you may despoil…and you may eat the booty” (Deut 20:14). It is likely that the author of Deuteronomy 2 knew a form of Deuteronomy 20. This is supported by the general inclination to date Deuteronomy 1–3 later than the original lawbook, which would have included Deuteronomy 20. In addition, literary evidence suggests that Deuteronomy 2 is later than chapter 20. The phrase, “you shall offer terms of peace” (Deut 20:10) is well integrated to Deuteronomy 20, while the comparable “words of peace” (Deut 2:26) is problematic in Deuteronomy 2 because the text later indicates that the Israelites’ intentions were not truly peaceful (vv. 30–1) and suggests Israelite hostility towards the Moabites (v. 24). This suggests that the phrase in Deuteronomy 2 is borrowed from chapter 20, and thus Deuteronomy 2 is the later text.28 Although Brettler speaks of “the author” of Deuteronomy 2, he sees here the work of multiple hands. It is notable that both the poorly integrated “words of peace” in Deut 2:26 and the spoils of Deut 2:35 are nowhere to be found in the V version. Unlike Veijola, Brettler does not posit the secondariness of 2:37. Rüdiger Schmitt brings together the three observations of lateness: The text of Deuteronomy 2:24–37 itself is not of one piece, but shows clear signs of growth. […] Verse 37 also represents a gloss, which originates from the prohibition of war against 27 Timo Veijola, “Principal Observations on the Basic Story in Deuteronomy 1–3,” in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”. Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk (Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1988), 255. 28 Brettler, Creation of History, 72. 52 3. Philological Analysis the Ammonites in Deut 2:17. […] Within the framework of the Deuteronomistic Fortschreibung in verses 26–29* and 30b – the episode regarding the failed peace offer to Sihon of Heshbon – the expansion of the DtrH base layer is clearly derived from the stipulation in Deut 20:10ff to first make a peace offer to an enemy in a foreign city. […] As a term from the context of holy war, ḥrm appears in verse 34 with the meaning “to execute the ban.” With the total execution of the ban against the entire population, including women and children, Deut 2:34f provides here a positive example of obedience to Yahweh, conforming to the demand of the warfare legislation in Deut 20:16–18 and Deut 7:1–2, which is contrasted with the previous failure in the story of the spies in Deut 1:19–46. Since the later Deuteronomistic tradition lacked the peace offer prescribed in Deut 20, this was supplemented in 2:26–29*, 30b to bring [the narrative] into full compliance with the law.29 The comparison of the Sihon episode as relayed in Deuteronomy and V highlights the dependence of the former upon the latter. It is easy to see how the insertion of the Deuteronomic law into V (or a relative thereof ) would have necessitated the updating of a story in which Moses – and indeed YHWH – are in flagrant violation of the law of warfare in Deut 20:10–14. This, in turn, led to various literary incongruities in the expanded version of the story in Deuteronomy, which have made it possible for scholars to tease apart the strata and postulate a protoDeuteronomic version very much like the one recorded in V.30 The inverse scenario, on the other hand, is implausible. An ancient writer is not likely to have rewritten the Sihon narrative to make Moses transgress his own law, certainly not by removing the very elements that contemporary scholars now identify as secondary. This is also true of a modern forger working a century before the composition history of the passage had been untangled. The fact that the canonical version of the Sihon pericope is dependent upon the Deuteronomic law code, while the recension in V is not, supports the view that V is not an abridgment of Deuteronomy in which the law has simply been elided. Rather, V appears to reflect an early stage in the development of the narratives, at which point the Deuteronomic laws had yet to be incorporated into the text.31 29 Rüdiger Schmitt, Der Heilige Krieg im Pentateuch und im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, Studien zur Forschungs-, Rezeptions- und Religionsgeschichte von Krieg und Bann im Alten Testament (Munich: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 68–70. (My translation.) See also Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 451–52. For a recent analysis of this pericope and its supplement, see Gesundheit, “Midrash-Exegesis,” 73–86. 30 The story of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 may reflect V’s version of the Sihon narrative, according to which the Amorites were given no opportunity to peacefully surrender. See especially Josh 9:7, 9–10, 24. 31 That the Deuteronomic law code had no influence on V is evident from other comparisons as well. For instance, while V contains a list detailing those who are cursed due to their transgressions, as in Deut 27–28, the verse regarding intercourse with one’s father (Deut 27:20) is conspicuously absent in V. The cited transgression, of course, is a Deuteronomic law (Deut 23:1). In V, on the other hand, those cursed are specifically the transgressors of (V’s version of ) 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition 53 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition As noted above, Shapira first shared the text of V with scholars in September of 1878. This was well before the publication of the pivotal works of Staerk and Steuernagel on the redaction history of Deuteronomy,32 and the regnant theoretical framework was still the one associated with de Wette.33 Indeed, to this day – and contrary to the implication of V that the law was added secondarily to the narrative – nearly all scholars associate the Urdeuteronomium with the legal code. Most of the narrative portions, on the other hand, are typically seen as later additions. Moreover, according to de Wette and his peers, Deuteronomy was written after the completion of Genesis through Numbers – including the Priestly portions thereof – and with an awareness of those texts: Deuteronomy comes to our hands as a whole, it is the last of the Pentateuch, and of a different design. The earlier books follow one another more along a certain historical thread. We can therefore regard them as a whole and contrast them to it.34 V paints a very different picture. Namely, it suggests that the original Deuteronomic narratives were uninfluenced by Priestly writings. Accordingly, the P-like elements in Deuteronomy would have only been added secondarily, giving rise to the composite texts canonized in the final edition of the book. Most importantly, for our purposes, scholars in 1878 had not yet begun to see the Deuteronomic narratives as the product of gradual accretion, as most scholars of Deuteronomy do today. They therefore did not generally attempt to tease apart layers within a single pericope. For instance, Wellhausen, who was only thirtyfour years old at the time, had just proposed that Deuteronomy was a conflation of two editions, each of which had contained the legal Urdeuteronomium: Deuteronomy 1–4; 12–26; 27 and Deuteronomy 5–11; 12–26; 28–30.35 He viewed these units, however, as essentially atomic, not the product of piecemeal growth. According to Vater’s earlier fragmentary hypothesis, Deuteronomy consists of some twenty fragments, but these too were considered mutually independent, rather the Decalogue. 32 Staerk, Das Deuteronomium (1894); Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums (1894). 33 See Christopher T. Begg, “The Significance of the ‘Numeruswechsel’ in Deuteronomy: The ‘Pre-history’ of the Question,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 55 (1979): 116–24, at 116. 34 W. M. L. de Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 1 (Halle, 1806–7), 266–67. Translation from Harvey and Halpern, 66–67. Karl Graf and, especially, Julius Wellhausen ushered in the idea that P was the latest Pentateuchal source, after which it would make sense to associate the (post-)Priestly material in Deuteronomy with supplements. 35 Julius Wellhausen, “Die Composition des Hexateuchs,” Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie 22 (1877): 407–79, at 464, et passim. 54 3. Philological Analysis than as a series of supplementary additions.36 All of this is very different from contemporary studies of the book, which typically take for granted the presence of innumerable interpolations. It is these most recent conclusions that are reflected in V. I now turn to a literary-critical analysis of several pericopes in V. Each has a counterpart in Deuteronomy, which invariably contains post-Priestly supplements absent in V.37 That V’s narrative portions are free of signs of Priestly influence has not previously been noted. Nevertheless, this observation is crucial for understanding the nature of the text and its relative dating. Indeed, it establishes V as an ancient proto-Deuteronomic work, as we will now see. 3.3.1. The Incipit It has long been recognized that Deut 1:3 is of (post-)Priestly origin. Weinfeld’s comment is typical: “The exact dating by year, month, and day is characteristic of the priestly code, as is the use of ʿšty ʿśr instead of ʾḥd ʿśr (Exod 26:7, 8; Num 7:72; etc.).”38 This verse, however, is not the only element in the book’s incipit that appears to be non-indigenous. Scholars have recently come to view the entirety of 1b–5 as a series of accretions, which collectively interrupt an earlier narrative that had progressed directly from verse 1a to verse 6. Reinhard Kratz summarizes the view commonly held today: [T]here is a consensus in critical scholarship that this heading is not a unity but has in fact grown successively. The core is generally found in Deut 1:1a: ‫אלה הדברים א͏שׁר דבר מ͏שׁה אל כל י͏שׂראל בעבר הירדן‬ These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan. Everything else in Deut 1:1–5 is – for good reason – seen as being a literary supplement. Among the various supplements, first v. 4 and then v. 5, which have the same context in time and place, would have been added to v. 1a. Then vv. 1b–2 were inserted, adding the whole period of the journey through the desert. Verse 3 dates the speech of Moses exactly on the day of the fortieth year of the wandering through the desert and points out that what 36 Johann Severin Vater, Commentar über den Pentateuch (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1802–5). See Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 67–68. 37 It is well established that there are significant correspondences between the Decalogue and Lev 19 (H), as already discussed in Lev. Rab. 24:5. (For a comprehensive review, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, AB 3A [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 1596–1602.) These correspondences run even deeper once V’s version of the Decalogue, together with its concomitant blessings and curses, is taken into view. In chapter 4, I discuss these parallels and their implications. In a future publication, I will address the Sabbath justification, which in V – as in Exod 20 – resembles ideas and language that are typically attributed to Priestly circles. 38 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 128. 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition 55 “Moses addressed to all Israel” is “in accordance with the instructions that the LORD had given him.” After removing the supplements, the introduction of the speech “on the other side of the Jordan” remains.39 It is notable that the version found in V is practically identical to the protoDeuteronomic text reconstructed by scholars in recent years: Deut 1:1a–1bα A 1:1–2 Deut 1:1–5bβ Absent in V Deuteronomy (MT) ‫אֵ ͏לֶּ ה הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר מֹ͏שֶׁ ה אֶ ל‬ Valediction of Moses (Va ) ‫]אלה הדב[רם אשר דבר משה על‬ ‫͏כָּ ל יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ͏בַּ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר‬ ‫פי יהוה אל כל בני ]י[שראל‬ ‫͏בָּ ע ֲָרבָ ה‬ · ‫במ]דב[ר בעבר הירדן ]בע[רבה‬ ‫ארן ͏וּבֵ ין ͏תֹּפֶ ל וְ לָ בָ ן‬ ָ ָ‫מוֹל ס͏וּף ͏בֵּ ין ͏פּ‬ ‫ַוחֲצֵ רֹת וְ ִדי זָהָ ב׃ אַ חַ ד עָ ͏שָׂ ר יוֹם‬ ‫מֵ ח ֵֹרב ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ר ͏שֵׂ ִעיר עַ ד קָ ֵד͏שׁ‬ ‫͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע׃ וַיְ ִהי ְ͏בּאַ ְר͏בָּ ִעים ͏שָׁ נָה ְ͏בּעַ ְ͏שׁ͏תֵּ י‬ ‫עָ ͏שָׂ ר ח ֶֹד͏שׁ ְ͏בּאֶ חָ ד לַ ח ֶֹד͏שׁ ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר מֹ͏שֶׁ ה‬ ‫אֶ ל ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ְ͏כּכֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה‬ ‫אֹתוֹ אֲלֵ הֶ ם׃ אַ ח ֲֵרי הַ ͏כֹּתוֹ אֵ ת ִסיחֹן‬ ‫אמ ִֹרי אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יוֹ͏שֵׁ ב ְ͏בּחֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן‬ ֱ ָ‫מֶ לֶ ְך ה‬ ‫וְ אֵ ת עוֹג מֶ לֶ ְך הַ ͏בָּ ͏שָׁ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יוֹ͏שֵׁ ב‬ ‫ְ͏בּעַ ְ͏שׁ͏תָּ רֹת ְ͏בּאֶ ְד ֶר ִעי׃ ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן‬ ‫הוֹאיל מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ͏בֵּ אֵ ר אֶ ת‬ ִ ‫ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ מוֹאָ ב‬ Deut 1:6 A 1:2–4 ‫͏תּוֹרה הַ ͏זּ ֹאת לֵ אמֹר׃‬ ָ ַ‫ה‬ ‫יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר אֵ לֵ ינ͏וּ ְ͏בּח ֵֹרב‬ ‫אלהם אלהנו דבר אל]נו[ בחרב‬ ‫לֵ אמֹר ַרב לָ כֶ ם ͏שֶׁ בֶ ת ͏בָּ הָ ר הַ ͏זֶּה׃‬ ‫לאמר · רב לכם שבת בהר הזה‬ The only difference between V’s progression and the reconstructed sequence presented by Kratz is that in V, the phrase ‫ בעבר הירדן‬is preceded by the word ‫ במדבר‬and followed by ‫בערבה‬, whereas in Deuteronomy both words follow ‫בעבר‬ ‫ הירדן‬and are not included in the hypothetical original. Every other word of 1b–5 is absent in V. Furthermore, V picks up at the very point that the hypothesized proto-Deuteronomic narrative does: “YHWH/Elohim our God spoke to us at Horeb, saying, ‘You have stayed long enough at this mountain’” (Deut 1:6; Va A 1:2–4). 39 Reinhard Kratz, “The Headings of the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Raymond F. Person, Jr. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 31–46, at 35–36, citing Lothar Perlitt, Deuteronomium, BKAT 5/1–5 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990–2008), 6–7; Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 7–8; and Udo Rüterswörden, Das Buch Deuteronomium, NSK.AT 4 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006), 23. 56 3. Philological Analysis The realization that verses 1b–5 are extrinsic to the original text had not yet been made before 1878, when Shapira first shared the text of V. Only in the following years did scholars begin to suggest similar ideas, but even these did not correspond with the consensus view held today, which is implicit in V. For instance, in 1880, Valeton raised the possibility that verses 1b–4 (but not 5) are secondary.40 Seven years later, Kuenen proposed that verses 3–4, rather, constitute the supplementary element.41 In 1886, Dillmann posited that the interrupting sequence is, in fact, 1b–3, and that there was once continuity from 1a to 4–5, which he attributed to Rd.42 Dillmann’s proposal was quite influential, and though rejected by Driver,43 it was accepted by most scholars, including Bacon (1894),44 Bertholet (1899),45 Steuernagel (1900),46 Puukko (1910),47 and Marti (1922).48 In short, many years passed from the assessment that Shapira’s manuscripts were forgeries before it became known – as it is today – that the section absent in V is indeed secondary. In light of this, it is evident that a forger working in 1878 or earlier would have had no relevant scholarship upon which to base his or her fraudulent text. It would be remarkable indeed if the first known person to identify 1b–5 as secondary was the ill-starred forger of the Shapira manuscripts. A second inference can be drawn from the above evidence. The near perfect alignment between V here and scholars’ proposed proto-Deuteronomy suggests that V is not dependent upon Deuteronomy (or the Pentateuch more broadly), as has been presumed by nearly all scholars, including the few who contemplated, or argued for, the authenticity of the manuscripts.49 It seems unlikely that a Hellenistic writer of a so-called “rewritten” or “excerpted” Deuteronomy would have excised precisely the same passage that scholars two millennia later identified as a series of redactional intrusions. If verses 1b–5 are indeed secondary, it ap- 40 Josua J. P. Valeton, “Deuteronomium,” Studiën: theologisch tijdschrift 6 (1880): 304–5. I thank Tamara Morsel-Eisenberg for her assistance with the Dutch. 41 Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung. Erster Teil, Erstes Stück: Die Entstehung des Hexateuch (Leipzig, 1887), 115–16. 42 August Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KeH 13 (Leipzig, 1886), 231–32. In his view, the original text began with verse 6. 43 Samuel R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 2. 44 Benjamin W. Bacon, Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford, CT: Student Publishing Company, 1894), 255–56. 45 Alfred Bertholet, Deuteronomium, KHC V (Freiburg, 1899), 1. 46 Carl Steuernagel, Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HK 1/3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 1. 47 Antti F. Puukko, Das Deuteronomium. Eine literarkritische Untersuchung, BWAT 5 (Leipzig, 1910), 126–27. 48 Karl Marti, “Das fünfte Buch Mose oder Deuteronomium,” in Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, vol. 1, ed. Alfred Bertholet (Tübingen, 1922), 258–327, at 261. 49 See §3.1. 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition 57 pears that V reflects an earlier incarnation of the text than the one preserved in Deuteronomy. 3.3.2. The Injunction against Idols In Deut 4:16–18, Moses warns the people of Israel against fashioning idols. The first several words, particularly “graven image” (‫ )פסל‬and “likeness” (‫)תמונה‬, evoke the Decalogue’s injunction against idols (Exod 20:4, Deut 5:8): “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness,” etc.50 After the initial phrase, however, there is a sharp stylistic shift to conspicuously Priestly language. Indeed, most scholars now agree that the remainder of the passage, 4:16b–18, is predominantly Priestly or post-Priestly in character.51 Weinfeld, for instance, writes: “The vocabulary in vv 16–18 is characteristic of the priestly literature in the Pentateuch: zkr nqbh, spwr knp, and rmś.”52 More explicitly, Dietrich Knapp has remarked: ˙ The expansion in 4:16b ([beginning] with ‫–סמל‬18 of the exegesis of the Second Commandment [in 4:16a] distinguishes itself from its context especially in its use of different language. In contrast to the surrounding context, which primarily uses terms and phrases from the domain of Dtr/late-Dtr, there are numerous terms and phrases here that are otherwise typical of Priestly usage.53 The observation that 4:16b–18 is of Priestly or post-Priestly origin does not appear to have been made before 1878, when the text of V first became known.54 Only in the following years did scholars begin to note similarities between this passage and P, let alone to argue for the presence of P-related interpolations. In his 1893 commentary on Deuteronomy, Samuel Oettli remarked: 50 Cf. also Deut 4:23, 25. The language shifts back to that of the Decalogue in 18b, at the very end of the section, with the words ‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בַּ ͏מַּ יִ ם ִמ͏תַּ חַ ת לָ אָ ֶרץ‬. See below. 52 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 206. 53 Dietrich Knapp, Deuteronomium 4: literarische Analyse und theologische Interpretation, Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 35 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech, 1987), 88–89. (My translation. Cf. Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1 [Freiburg: Herder, 2012], 534–35.) It is not clear why Knapp begins with ‫סמל‬, which is not attested elsewhere in the Enneateuch. Perhaps this is due to the word’s appearance in Ezekiel 8 (vv. 3 and 5), although it is also found in 2 Chr 33 (vv. 7 and 15). ‫ סמל‬is attested in 8th–7th c. Phoenician (Azatiwada/Karatepe Statue of Storm-God PhSt/C IV 15, 18–19). Cf. CIS i:11, i:88, i:91, and i:93. See George A. Cooke, A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 57, 73, 76–77; Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 2:792–93, s.v. sml1 . 54 Cf., e.g., Friedrich W. Schultz, Das Deuteronomium (Berlin: Schlawitz, 1859), 229–30; Carl F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Erster Theil. Die Bücher Mose’s. Zweiter Band. Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1870), 434; Paul Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker. Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte (Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1872), 49. 51 58 3. Philological Analysis [Deut 4:]18: the expressions are mostly in agreement with P and are partly reminiscent of Gen 1, partly of Exod 20:4.55 One year later, Carl Steuernagel elaborated upon this idea: [Deut 4:16:] ‫סמל‬, appears in the Old Testament only in Ezek 8:3,5; 2 Chr 33:7,15, but it is attested also in Phoenician inscriptions and therefore cannot be used as evidence for the late composition of our section. ‫ זכר או נקבה‬appear together only in P; ‫ נקבה‬alone only in the interpolated passage in Jer 31:22. 17: ‫צפר כנף‬, appears only in exilic and post-exilic passages (Ezek 17:23, 39:4,17; Gen 7:14, Psa 148:10). 18: With LXX, read ‫ כל ֶרמֶ ͏שׂ רֹמֵ ͏שׂ‬and cf. P usage: Gen 1:26, etc.56 Writing at the same time as Steuernagel, Willy Staerk went further still, arguing explicitly that verses 15–18 not only exhibit P-like language but were indeed written by a different author than the surrounding verses. Although he noted that the Priestly terms were concentrated in verses 16–18, he included verses 15–16a in his proposed unit, in contrast to more recent scholars: v. 15ff cannot belong to v. 10ff, due to the peculiar use of language reminiscent of P (see especially verses 16–18), and due to the repetition of “on the day YHWH spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire.”57 This brings us to V, which contains a corresponding pericope in D 3:5–7. Strikingly, the very words that scholars have come to identify as (post-)Priestly are absent in V: Deut 4:16a D 3:5–6 Deut 4:16b–18 D 3:6–7 Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Va ) ‫ֲ͏שׂיתֶ ם לָ כֶ ם ͏פֶּ סֶ ל‬ ִ ‫͏פֶּ ן ͏תַּ ְ͏שׁ ִחת͏וּן ַוע‬ ‫השמרו לכם פן תשכחו ועשתם‬ ‫ְ͏תּמ͏וּנַת ͏כָּ ל סָ מֶ ל‬ ‫לכם פסל ותמנה תבנת כל סמל‬ ‫͏תַּ ְבנִ ית זָכָ ר אוֹ נְ קֵ בָ ה׃ ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל‬ ‫אשר בשמם ממעל ואשר בארץ‬ ‫ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בָּ אָ ֶרץ ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל ִצ͏פּוֹר‬ · ‫מ]תח[ת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ‬ ‫͏כָּ נָף אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏תָּ ע͏וּף ͏בַּ ͏שָּׁ מָ יִ ם׃ ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל‬ ‫רֹמֵ ͏שׂ ͏בָּ א ֲָדמָ ה ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל ָ͏דּגָה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫͏בַּ ͏מַּ יִ ם ִמ͏תַּ חַ ת לָ אָ ֶרץ׃‬ 55 Samuel Oettli, Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Josua und Richter (Munich, 1893), 35. (My translation.) See also Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 17. For more on this passage’s affiliation with Gen 1, see Michael Fishbane, “Varia Deuteronomica,” Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84, no. 3 (1972): 349–52, at 349. In 1886, Dillmann observed that ‫ תבנית‬and ‫ זכר ונקבה‬are characteristic of P (or “A,” in his nomenclature), while noting that other phrases in the passage have parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Dillmann found some of these correspondences to be superficial, arguing that the respective authors used the term ‫ תבנית‬differently. (Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 255–56.) See also Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 17. 56 Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 17. (My translation.) 57 Staerk, Das Deuteronomium, 79n3. (My translation.) 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition 59 While the language in the Deuteronomic version shifts abruptly from Decalogue-like to Priestly after 4:16a, V’s text evokes the Decalogue – and nothing else – throughout.58 As in the previous example, we may draw two inferences from this set of facts – one regarding authenticity, and one regarding V’s relationship to Deuteronomy. As to authenticity, a forger working in 1878 or earlier would not have had any scholarly hypothesis upon which to base a decision to excise Deut 4:16b–18 and replace it with new material. Although we now know these verses to be Priestly or post-Priestly, this was not the case when V first came to light. In addition, our comparison of V and Deuteronomy here supports the priority of the former. The very section that recent scholars have shown to be secondary is absent in V, and the alternative text in V coheres with 4:16a in its Decalogue-like nature.59 The parsimonious explanation is thus that V preserves the pre-supplementation state of the text. 3.3.3. The Stone Tablets and the Wooden Ark In Deut 10:1a, Moses recounts the divine commandments to prepare a second pair of stone tablets and ascend the mountain. This is followed in verses 1b–2 by his report of the command to build a wooden ark and place the tablets inside it. In the next three verses, Moses describes his fulfillment of these commandments and receipt of the divinely inscribed stones, followed by his descent from the mountain and placement of the tablets in his newly fashioned ark. As brief as this pericope may be, it is not free of difficulties. For one, it is not clear why the commandment to build an ark should appear here, alongside the decree to craft the second pair of tablets. According to Deut 9:17 (cf. Exod 32:19), Moses broke the first tablets in a spontaneous act; the divine plan was never for there to be a second pair. Why then does YHWH’s command to build an ark not appear either in Deuteronomy 9, before Moses’s first ascent of the mountain, or at the end of this episode, after he finally returns with intact tablets?60 Even within the context of the pericope itself, this commandment appears at an unusual point, coming after the instruction to climb the mountain, rather than before it. As Reinhard Achenbach has observed: 58 ‫ אשר בשמ)י(ם ממעל‬appears elsewhere only in the Decalogue (Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8) – indeed in the context of the injunction against idols. The same is true for ‫ואשר בארץ מתחת‬. None of the Priestly language found in Deut 4:16b–18 appears in V. Notably, the phrase ‫)ו(אשר במים מתחת‬ ‫ לארץ‬features in both V and Deuteronomy’s P-inflected version; it too appears nowhere else but in the Decalogue. 59 It is worth noting that though the Deuteronomic version contains much language that modern scholars identify as Priestly, there is nothing characteristically Priestly about the subject matter. It is therefore unlikely that V reflects an anti-Priestly revision of Deuteronomy. Likewise, Deut 4:16b–18 is as smooth and unproblematic a text as is V here, ruling out the possibility that the latter is an ancient harmonization of the former. 60 I am grateful to Raanan Eichler for this insight. 60 3. Philological Analysis The command to construct the ark in Deuteronomy 10:1b fits poorly into the logic of the account and probably derives from a deliberate Deuteronomic intervention that sought to combine the ark tradition with the law.61 Similarly, Eckart Otto writes: In Deut 10:1–2 the commandment to construct the ark is inappropriately not tied to the commandment to fashion the tablets, but instead follows the commandment to ascend the mountain.62 These difficulties stem from the secondary insertion of ark-construction elements into an earlier text that lacked them. As noted by several scholars, this passage betrays the influence of Pentateuchal P material. For instance, in his book on the evolution of the biblical ark traditions, Peter Porzig writes: One cannot dispel the suspicion that the author of these verses was familiar with the Sinai episode in its Priestly garb. This is further corroborated by the mention of the building material, acacia wood (‫)עצי שטים‬. Outside of Deut 10:3, this material appears exclusively in P – 23 instances there versus this single instance.63 Since Porzig sees evidence of Priestly influence, on the one hand, but does not identify any internal literary difficulties, on the other, he concludes that the entire unit must be post-P.64 But the internal difficulties noted above are inescapable, as is Achenbach’s conclusion that the post-Priestly elements relating to the ark’s construction are Fortschreibungen. This also explains the absence of the arkconstruction motif in Exodus 34, which otherwise aligns closely with Deut 10:1– 5.65 As Otto has argued, following Achenbach: Rather, in Deut 10:1–5, the Deuteronomistic tablet motif and the [Priestly] ark motif have been brought together only in the post-exilic Fortschreibung […] which in Deut 10:3a is directly connected to acacia-wood ark motif of Exod 25:10 (PS), and was associated with the Levite etiology in Deut 10:8–9, with which the authors of the post-exilic Fortschreibung continue the narrative, together with the etiology of priests and Levites in Deut 10:6–9.66 With these observations in mind, it is worth comparing the Deuteronomic pericope to its counterpart in V: 61 Reinhard Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot. Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5–11 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991), 369. (My translation.) See also idem, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 190–94. 62 Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 949. (My translation.) 63 Peter Porzig, Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 49. (Emphasis in the original; my translation.) 64 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 181. 65 The older consensus, following Driver, was that Exod 34 originally contained an arkconstruction element, as in Deuteronomy 10, but it was subsequently deleted by a redactor. See Driver, Deuteronomy, 117–18. 66 Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 950–51. (My translation.) 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition Deuteronomy (MT) 61 Valediction of Moses (Vb ) Deut 10:1a G 2:3–4 ‫͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא אָ מַ ר יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ְ͏פּסָ ל ְלָך‬ ‫בעת ההוא אמר אלהם אלי ]פסל‬ ‫ְ͏שׁנֵי לֻ וחֹת אֲבָ נִ ים ͏כָּ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים ַועֲלֵ ה‬ ‫ל[ך ש]נ[י לחת אבנם ֯כ ֯רא֯ שנם‬ Deut 10:1b–3a Absent in V ‫אֵ לַ י הָ הָ ָרה‬ ‫ועלה אלי ההרה‬ ֯ ‫וְ עָ ִ͏שׂיתָ ְ͏לָּך אֲרוֹן עֵ ץ׃ וְ אֶ ְכ͏תֹּב עַ ל‬ ‫הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת אֶ ת הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הָ י͏וּ עַ ל‬ ָ‫הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת הָ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏שׁ͏בַּ ְר͏תּ‬ ‫וְ ͏שַׂ ְמ͏תָּ ם ͏בָּ אָ רוֹן׃ וָאַ עַ ͏שׂ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵ י‬ ‫ִ͏שׁ ִ͏טּים וָאֶ ְפסֹל ְ͏שׁנֵי לֻ חֹת אֲבָ נִ ים‬ Deut 10:3b–4 G 2:4–6 Deut 10:5a G 2:6 Deut 10:5b Absent in V ‫͏כָּ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים‬ ‫͏וּ͏שׁנֵי הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת ְ͏בּי ִָדי׃‬ ְ ‫וָאַ עַ ל הָ הָ ָרה‬ · ‫בידי‬ ֯ ‫ואעל ההרה ושני הלחת‬ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְכ͏תֹּב עַ ל הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת ͏כַּ ִ͏מּ ְכ͏תָּ ב הָ ִרא͏שׁוֹן‬ ‫ויכתב אלהם על הלחת א]ת‬ ‫אֵ ת עֲ͏שֶׂ ֶרת הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה‬ ‫עשרת[ הדברם אשר דבר אלכם‬ ‫אֲלֵ יכֶ ם ͏בָּ הָ ר ִמ͏תּוְֹך הָ אֵ ͏שׁ ְ͏בּיוֹם‬ ‫֯ב ֯ה ֯ר ביום הקהל ויתנ]ם[ אלי‬ ‫הַ ͏קָּ הָ ל וַ͏יִּ ְ͏תּנֵם יְ הוָה אֵ לָ י׃‬ ‫וָאֵ פֶ ן וָאֵ ֵרד ִמן הָ הָ ר וָאָ ִ͏שׂם אֶ ת‬ ‫והנם בארן אשר עשתי‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת ͏בָּ אָ רוֹן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ִ͏שׂ‬ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְהי͏וּ ͏שָׁ ם ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וַּנִ י יְ הוָה׃‬ The version of this episode preserved in V is very similar to that of Deut 10. However, V contains neither the command to build an ark nor any fulfillment thereof. The instruction to climb the mountain with stone tablets in hand (V G 2:3–4; cf. Deut 10:1a) is followed immediately – and naturally – by a report of that instruction’s execution by Moses (V G 2:4; cf. Deut 10:3b): “At that time Elohim said to me, ‘Carve out two tablets of stone like the former ones, and come up to me on the mountain.’ So I ascended the mountain with the two tablets in hand.” Likewise, after Moses describes his receipt of the inscribed tablets in V, he simply states: “and they are in the ark that I built.” This stands in contrast with the corresponding passage in Deut 10:5, where Moses places the tablets in the ark that he built “where they remain, as YHWH commanded me.” Since there is no such commandment in V, it is no surprise that there is also no report of its fulfillment. Also, considering that Moses broke the first tablets spontaneously in the non-Priestly narrative, it is natural that in this tradition Moses would have only built an ark after descending with the second pair of tablets, as is implicit in V. The argument that Deut 10:1–5 contains post-Priestly insertions had not been made in Shapira’s lifetime and could not have served as inspiration for forgery. Even the idea that the passage shows signs of Priestly influence had not been proposed before Oettli in 1893. And his argument was not that post-Priestly Fortschreibungen were added to an earlier Deuteronomic text, but rather that 62 3. Philological Analysis Deuteronomy presupposes P.67 The insight that the Priestly language is associated with supplements that were added to an earlier Deuteronomic text does not appear to have been made before Achenbach, who wrote more than a century after the Shapira manuscripts were declared forgeries. The view that this passage contains post-Priestly Fortschreibungen is supported by the presence of insertions in the directly adjacent verses. As Richard Nelson observes: [Deut 10:6–7] A proper priestly succession carries on in spite of Aaron’s death. These supplementary verses relate to the itinerary of Num 33:30–34 (P) and break into the speech of Moses. […] [Deut 10:8–9] The addition of these verses (cf. “at that time”) seems to have been occasioned by the catchword “ark” in v. 5. They seem to presuppose knowledge of the loyalty of Levites reported in Exod 32:25–29. Perhaps the reference of the citation formula is the promise of Num 18:20 (P).68 Like the post-P supplements in verses 1–5, those in verses 6–9 are altogether absent from V: Deut 10:6–9 Absent in V Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Vb ) ‫͏וּבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל נ ְָסע͏וּ ִמ ְ͏בּאֵ רֹת ְ͏בּנֵי ַיעֲקָ ן‬ ְ ‫הרֹן וַ͏יִּ ͏קָּ בֵ ר ͏שָׁ ם‬ ֲ ַ‫מוֹסֵ ָרה ͏שָׁ ם מֵ ת א‬ ‫וַיְ כַ הֵ ן אֶ ְלעָ זָר ְ͏בּנוֹ ͏תַּ ְח͏תָּ יו׃ ִמ͏שָּׁ ם נ ְָסע͏וּ‬ ‫͏וּמן הַ ͏גּ ְֻד͏גּ ָֹדה י ְָטבָ תָ ה אֶ ֶרץ‬ ִ ‫הַ ͏גּ ְֻד͏גּ ָֹדה‬ ‫ַנחֲלֵ י מָ יִ ם׃ ͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא ִה ְב ִ͏דּיל יְ הוָה‬ ‫אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ בֶ ט הַ ͏לֵּ וִ י לָ ͏שֵׂ את אֶ ת אֲרוֹן‬ ‫עמֹד ִל ְפנֵי יְ הוָה‬ ֲ ַ‫ְ͏בּ ִרית יְ הוָה ל‬ ‫͏וּלבָ ֵרְך ִ͏בּ ְ͏שׁמוֹ עַ ד הַ ͏יּוֹם‬ ְ ֹ‫ְל͏שָׁ ְרתו‬ ‫הַ ͏זֶּה׃ עַ ל ͏כֵּ ן ל ֹא הָ יָה ְללֵ וִ י חֵ לֶ ק‬ ֹ‫וְ ַנחֲלָ ה ִעם אֶ חָ יו יְ הוָה ה͏וּא ַנחֲלָ תו‬ Deut 10:10 G 2:6–9 Cf. Deut 9:23–25 ‫͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לוֹ׃‬ ‫וְ אָ נ ִֹכי עָ מַ ְד ִ͏תּי בָ הָ ר ͏כַּ ͏יּ ִָמים הָ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים‬ ‫ובקדש ברנע באמר אלי אלהם‬ ‫אַ ְר͏בָּ ִעים יוֹם וְ אַ ְר͏בָּ ִעים לָ יְ לָ ה וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁמַ ע‬ ‫עלו ורשו את הארץ ממרם היתם‬ ‫יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ͏גַּם ͏בַּ ͏פַּ עַ ם הַ ִהוא ל ֹא אָ בָ ה‬ ‫את אלהכם ולא עלתם ולא שמעתם‬ ‫יְ הוָה הַ ְ͏שׁ ִחיתֶ ָך׃‬ ‫בקלו ֯וי֯א֯ ֯מ ֯ר אלהם להשמד‬ [‫א]תכ[ם ואת]נ[פל בעדכם בעמד]י‬ ‫ל[לה‬ ֯ ‫֯ם ]ואר[בע]ם‬ ֯ ‫בהר ארבעם ֯יו‬ ‫בעדכם וישמע אל]הם גם בפעם‬ · ‫ההוא ולא השחת[ את]כם כ[רגע‬ 67 Oettli, Deuteronomium und Josa und Richter, 49. Cf. Bertholet’s response in Deuteronomium, 32–33. 68 Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 128. See also Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 368. Not all of this post-Priestly material was introduced at the same time; the Fortschreibung of vv. 6–7 was evidently added after that of vv. 8–9. See Porzig, Die Lade, 44–45. 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition 63 V continues with material corresponding to Deut 10:10 and 9:23–25, both of which describe the same event, and neither of which betrays any signs of Priestly influence.69 In summary, it appears that Deuteronomy 10 contains a number of postPriestly supplements, none of which has any parallel in V. As in the previous examples, our comparison of the stone tablet pericope in Deuteronomy and the Valediction of Moses suggests two conclusions. First, the fact that the version in V lacks precisely the elements that scholars have since identified as post-Priestly Fortschreibungen suggests that a forger would not have been able to model his or her fraudulent text upon these insights. Second, this comparison also suggests that V reflects an earlier incarnation of the Deuteronomic text, and not vice versa. 3.3.4. The Rebellion at Kadesh Barnea Deuteronomy 1:19–39 recounts the story of the spies sent from Kadesh Barnea to scout the land of Israel. There are several notable differences between this account and that of the hybrid Priestly/non-Priestly version in Numbers 13–14. First, in Deuteronomy, it is the Israelites who propose sending spies, whereas in Numbers (13:1–15; P), it is YHWH’s initiative. In his commentary on Deuteronomy, Abravanel highlights this discrepancy: But why did our master Moses, in this story, not want to report how blessed God commanded him to send [the spies] by saying (Num 13:2) “Send men…” – instead attributing it to [the people] and to himself by saying (Deut 1:22–23) “All of you came to me […] The plan seemed good to me…”?70 The non-Priestly strand of the account in Numbers 13–14 lacks an introduction, making it difficult to determine to whom the author of that version attributed the initiative of the spies.71 In any event, there is no counterpart in Numbers for the people’s proposal to send spies and Moses’s consent, as described in Deut 1:22–23. 69 Von Rad, among others, has noted the connection between Deut 10:10 and the narrative at the end of Deut 9 “[10.10–11] Here now at last (removed by several interpolations from its original position immediately after the intercessory prayer in 9.26–29) comes the announcement that Yahweh had granted the prayer. The forgiveness vouchsafed is expressed still more effectively by the order to Moses to prepare for departure and for a journey towards the promised land” (Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, The Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964], 80). 70 My translation. More recently, see, e.g., Abraham Kuenen, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, trans. J. W. Colenso (London: Longman, 1865), 95; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 144. 71 Some scholars have suggested that it likely paralleled the Deuteronomic telling, as it does elsewhere. See, e.g., Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, AB 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 347. 64 3. Philological Analysis Second, in Deut 1:29–33, it is Moses who responds to the Israelites’ faithless complaint, unlike in the non-P section in Numbers, where only Caleb is said to have done so (Num 13:30).72 Notably, several recent scholars have argued that these verses in the Deuteronomic account are part of a post-Priestly interpolation. For example, Otto writes: In contrast to the brief addition of the note about Kadesh (Deut 1:19b), with Deut 1:28–33 we have an extensive text block that was inserted into the base narrative. Moses’s encouragement of the people in verses 29–33 is not a fitting response to their rejection of the commandment (verses 27, 28a), and also YHWH’s reaction after the speech of Moses in verses 34ff comes too late. In Deuteronomy 1:28b–33 we are dealing with an author who has in mind the Deuteronomic law, the exodus and desert wandering narratives in Exodus and Numbers, as well as the post-Priestly Sinai pericope (Exod 19:4).73 More recently, Lothar Perlitt added 28a to this hypothetical supplement, thus expanding its scope to verses 28–33.74 Third, in Deut 1:37 Moses tells the Israelites that YHWH prevented him from entering Canaan on their account. Nothing to this effect appears in the non-P element of Numbers 13–14, however. Rather, this verse appears to be related to the tradition of Meribah (which is, notably, associated with Kadesh) in Num 20:1– 13.75 This verse too has been identified in recent years as a secondary insertion.76 The following table juxtaposes the versions of Deuteronomy and the Valediction of Moses: 72 Notably, it is unclear who is speaking in Num 14:8–9 (non-P). In the final composite text, it is construed as being Joshua and Caleb, but this may not have always been the case. 73 Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch, 21. (My translation.) 74 Lothar Perlitt, Deuteronomium 1–6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 90– 91: “Ultimately, even the casual reader is struck by discrepancies in verses 19–46, which, with proper literary-critical analysis, show that this text was written by several hands. […] But the clear and appropriate connections of 26f to 34f and 35 to 39aβ,b also make verses 28–33 and 36–39aα easily recognizable as supplements […] These supplements are by no means random glosses, but rather, in the case of 28–33, they are theologically substantive and give the entire text a different weight.” (My translation.) 75 This was observed by several medieval scholars. See, e.g., Bekor Shor, Nachmanides, and Gersonides, ad loc. Note that Meribah is associated with Kadesh in Num 20:1b, 27:14; Deut 32:51; and Ezek 47:19; 48:28. Tantalizingly, the sinners of V’s sin at Kadesh are called ‫אנשי המרבה‬ (Va B 1:8–9). (Num 20:1–13 is an amalgam of P and non-P.) 76 See Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 397–98. ‫‪65‬‬ ‫‪3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition‬‬ ‫) ‪Valediction of Moses (Va‬‬ ‫)‪Deuteronomy (MT‬‬ ‫ונסע מחרב ונלך א]ת כ[ל המדבר‬ ‫וַ͏נִּ ͏סַּ ע מֵ ח ֵֹרב ַו͏נֵּלֶ ְך אֵ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר‬ ‫֯ה]גד[ל והנרא הזה אשר ראתם‬ ‫הַ ͏גָּדוֹל וְ הַ ָ‬ ‫͏נּוֹרא הַ ה͏וּא אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְר ִאיתֶ ם‬ ‫ונבא ]עד[ קדש ]ברנע · ו[אמר‬ ‫אמ ִֹרי ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה‬ ‫ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ר הָ ֱ‬ ‫אלכם באתם היום עד הר האמ]רי[‬ ‫אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ אֹתָ נ͏וּ ַו͏נָּב ֹא עַ ד קָ ֵד͏שׁ ͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע׃‬ ‫ע]לו ור[שו את הארץ כאשר דבר‬ ‫אמ ִֹרי‬ ‫ָואֹמַ ר אֲלֵ כֶ ם ͏בָּ אתֶ ם עַ ד הַ ר הָ ֱ‬ ‫אלה ֯ם ]אלהי אבתכם לכם ·[‬ ‫֯‬ ‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃ ְראֵ ה‬ ‫‪Deut 1:19–21‬‬ ‫‪A 1:5–9‬‬ ‫נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך ְלפָ נֶיָך אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ‬ ‫עֲלֵ ה ֵר͏שׁ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ י‬ ‫אבֹתֶ יָך לָ ְך אַ ל ִ͏תּ ָ‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫ירא וְ אַ ל ͏תֵּ חָ ת׃‬ ‫ֹאמר͏וּ‬ ‫ו ִַ͏תּ ְק ְרב͏וּן אֵ לַ י ͏כֻּ ְ͏לּכֶ ם וַ͏תּ ְ‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים ְלפָ נֵינ͏וּ וְ י ְַח ְ͏פּר͏וּ לָ נ͏וּ‬ ‫אנ ִ‬ ‫נִ ְ͏שׁ ְלחָ ה ֲ‬ ‫ָ͏שׁב͏וּ אֹתָ נ͏וּ ָ͏דּבָ ר אֶ ת‬ ‫אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ וְ י ִ‬ ‫‪Deut 1:22–25‬‬ ‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫הַ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ַנעֲלֶ ה ͏בָּ ͏הּ וְ אֵ ת הֶ עָ ִרים‬ ‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָב ֹא אֲלֵ יהֶ ן׃ וַ͏יִּ יטַ ב ְ͏בּעֵ ינַי‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים‬ ‫אנ ִ‬ ‫הַ ָ͏דּבָ ר וָאֶ ͏קַּ ח ִמ͏כֶּ ם ְ͏שׁנֵים עָ ͏שָׂ ר ֲ‬ ‫ִאי͏שׁ אֶ חָ ד לַ ͏שָּׁ בֶ ט׃ וַ͏יִּ ְפנ͏וּ ַו ַ͏יּעֲל͏וּ‬ ‫הָ הָ ָרה ַו ָ͏יּבֹא͏וּ עַ ד נַחַ ל אֶ ְ͏שׁ͏כֹּל וַיְ ַר͏גְּ ל͏וּ‬ ‫אֹתָ ͏הּ׃ וַ͏יִּ ְקח͏וּ ְבי ָָדם ִמ ְ͏פּ ִרי הָ אָ ֶרץ‬ ‫ָ͏שׁב͏וּ אֹתָ נ͏וּ ָדבָ ר‬ ‫ַ͏יּוֹרד͏וּ אֵ לֵ ינ͏וּ ַו͏יּ ִ‬ ‫ו ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר͏וּ טוֹבָ ה הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה‬ ‫וַ͏יּ ְ‬ ‫אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃‬ ‫ותא֯ ֯מרו‬ ‫]ולא[ א֯ ֯ב ֯ת ֯ם לעלת ותרגנו ֯‬ ‫וְ ל ֹא א ֲִביתֶ ם לַ עֲֹלת וַ͏תַּ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ת ִ͏פּי‬ ‫בש]נאת אלהם אתנו נתן אתנו ביד‬ ‫יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ וַ͏תֵּ ָרגְ נ͏וּ ְבאָ הֳלֵ יכֶ ם‬ ‫האמרי[ לאבדנו‬ ‫הוֹציאָ נ͏וּ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר͏וּ ְ͏בּ ִ͏שׂנְ אַ ת יְ הוָה אֹתָ נ͏וּ‬ ‫וַ͏תּ ְ‬ ‫‪Deut 1:26–27‬‬ ‫‪A 1:9–B 1:1‬‬ ‫מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם לָ תֵ ת אֹתָ נ͏וּ ְ͏בּיַד‬ ‫ידנ͏וּ׃‬ ‫אמ ִֹרי ְלהַ ְ͏שׁ ִמ ֵ‬ ‫הָ ֱ‬ ‫אנ ְַחנ͏וּ עֹ ִלים אַ חֵ ינ͏וּ הֵ מַ ͏סּ͏וּ אֶ ת‬ ‫אָ נָה ֲ‬ ‫ְלבָ בֵ נ͏וּ לֵ אמֹר עַ ם ͏גָּדוֹל ו ָָרם ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ‬ ‫͏וּבצ͏וּרֹת ͏בַּ ͏שָּׁ מָ יִ ם וְ גַם‬ ‫עָ ִרים ͏גְּ דֹֹלת ְ‬ ‫ענ ִָקים ָר ִאינ͏וּ ͏שָׁ ם׃ ָואֹמַ ר אֲלֵ כֶ ם‬ ‫ְ͏בּנֵי ֲ‬ ‫ירא͏וּן מֵ הֶ ם׃ יְ הוָה‬ ‫ל ֹא תַ עַ ְרצ͏וּן וְ ל ֹא ִת ְ‬ ‫אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם הַ הֹלֵ ְך ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם ה͏וּא יִ ͏לָּ חֵ ם‬ ‫לָ כֶ ם ְ͏כּכֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שָׂ ה ִא ְ͏תּכֶ ם‬ ‫ְ͏בּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ְלעֵ ינֵיכֶ ם׃ ͏וּבַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫ָר ִאיתָ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נְ ͏שָׂ אֲָך יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך‬ ‫͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ͏שָׂ א ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת ְ͏בּנוֹ ְ͏בּכָ ל הַ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬ ‫͏בּאֲכֶ ם עַ ד הַ ͏מָּ קוֹם‬ ‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הֲלַ ְכ͏תֶּ ם עַ ד ֹ‬ ‫הַ ͏זֶּה׃ ͏וּבַ ָ͏דּבָ ר הַ ͏זֶּה אֵ ינְ כֶ ם מַ א ֲִמינִ ם‬ ‫͏בַּ יהוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ הַ הֹלֵ ְך ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם‬ ‫חנ ְֹתכֶ ם‬ ‫͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך לָ ת͏וּר לָ כֶ ם מָ קוֹם לַ ֲ‬ ‫͏בָּ אֵ ͏שׁ לַ יְ לָ ה לַ ְרא ְֹתכֶ ם ͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫͏תֵּ ְלכ͏וּ בָ ͏הּ ͏וּבֶ עָ נָן יוֹמָ ם׃‬ ‫‪Deut 1:28–33‬‬ ‫‪Absent in V‬‬ 66 Deut 1:34–40 B 1:1–8 Cf. Num 14:21–25 3. Philological Analysis Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Va ) ‫וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁמַ ע יְ הוָה אֶ ת קוֹל ִ͏דּ ְב ֵריכֶ ם‬ ‫וי]חר[ אף אלהם וי]שבע[ לאמר חי‬ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְקצֹף וַ͏יִּ ͏שָּׁ בַ ע לֵ אמֹר׃ ִאם יִ ְראֶ ה ִאי͏שׁ‬ ‫]אני[ כי כל העם הראם את אתתי‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה הַ ͏דּוֹר הָ ָרע הַ ͏זֶּה אֵ ת‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ ָ‫͏בּ‬ ‫ואת מפתי אשר עשתי זה עשר‬ ‫הָ אָ ֶרץ הַ ͏טּוֹבָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נִ ְ͏שׁ͏בַּ ְע ִ͏תּי לָ תֵ ת‬ ‫פעמם ולא ֯הא֯ ֯מ ֯נ ֯ו ולא שמעו בקלי‬ ‫אבֹתֵ יכֶ ם׃ ז͏וּלָ ִתי ͏כָּ לֵ ב ͏בֶּ ן יְ פֻ ͏נֶּה ה͏וּא‬ ֲ ַ‫ל‬ ‫אם יראו את הארץ הטב]ה א[שר‬ ‫יִ ְראֶ ͏נָּה וְ לוֹ אֶ ͏תֵּ ן אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫נשבעתי לתת לאבתהם בלתי‬ ‫͏וּלבָ נָיו יַעַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִמ͏לֵּ א‬ ְ ‫ָ͏דּ ַרְך ͏בָּ ͏הּ‬ ‫]עבדי כלב[ בן יפנה ויהשע בן נן‬ ‫אַ ח ֲֵרי יְ הוָה׃ ͏גַּם ִ͏בּי ִה ְתאַ ͏נַּף יְ הוָה‬ ‫֯בא֯ ֯ו שמה ולהם‬ ֯ ‫העמד לפנך המה י‬ ‫ִ͏בּגְ לַ ְלכֶ ם לֵ אמֹר ͏גַּם אַ ͏תָּ ה ל ֹא תָ ב ֹא‬ ‫אתננה · ואתם פנו ]ל[כם וסעו‬ ‫͏שָׁ ם׃ יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע ִ͏בּן נ͏וּן הָ עֹ מֵ ד ְלפָ נֶיָך‬ ‫המ]דברה[ דרך ים סף עד תם כל‬ ‫ה͏וּא יָב ֹא ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה אֹתוֹ חַ ͏זֵּק ִ͏כּי ה͏וּא‬ ‫הדר א]נ[שי המרבה מק]ר[ב‬ ‫יַנְ ִחלֶ ͏נָּה אֶ ת יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל׃ וְ טַ ְ͏פּכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫המחנה‬ ‫͏וּבנֵיכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא‬ ְ ‫אֲמַ ְר͏תֶּ ם לָ בַ ז יִ ְהיֶה‬ ‫י ְָדע͏וּ הַ ͏יּוֹם טוֹב ו ָָרע הֵ ͏מָּ ה ָיבֹא͏וּ ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה‬ ָ ִ‫וְ לָ הֶ ם אֶ ְ͏תּ ֶנ͏נָּה וְ הֵ ם י‬ ‫יר͏שׁ͏וּ͏הָּ ׃ וְ אַ ͏תֶּ ם ְ͏פּנ͏וּ‬ ‫͏וּסע͏וּ הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ָרה ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך יַם ס͏וּף׃‬ ְ ‫לָ כֶ ם‬ V contains little of significance that is absent in Deuteronomy, and it substantially parallels the Deuteronomic pericope. Nevertheless, there are two short passages that appear in Deuteronomy but not in V – verses 22–25 and 28–33 – and these have a transformative impact on the story. Together, they encompass the spies motif in its entirety. Without them, the Israelites’ faithless response follows immediately and spontaneously upon Moses’s command to enter the land, rather than coming after the spies’ report. As noted above, the second of the two passages has been identified as a postPriestly interpolation in Deuteronomy, and like the previous examples, this is difficult to reconcile with V being post-Pentateuchal, whether ancient or modern. But what about the first passage? If it too is late, this would mean that the entire spies motif is a secondary expansion – a breathtaking case of literary revision. By the same token, a Hellenistic writer seeking to excerpt Deuteronomy or smooth over its infelicities would not have been likely to remove these two passages, since doing so would have upended the story and eliminated its central theme: the spies themselves. Suggestively, it appears that a verse in Deuteronomy 9 reflects V’s narrative, rather than that of Deuteronomy. Deut 9:23 reads: ‫͏וּר͏שׁ͏וּ אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ִ͏תּי לָ כֶ ם וַ͏תַּ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ת ִ͏פּי יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם וְ ל ֹא‬ ְ ‫ֹלח יְ הוָה אֶ ְתכֶ ם ִמ͏קָּ ֵד͏שׁ ͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע לֵ אמֹר עֲל͏וּ‬ ַ ‫͏וּב ְ͏שׁ‬ ִ ‫הֶ אֱמַ נְ ͏תֶּ ם לוֹ וְ ל ֹא ְ͏שׁמַ ְע͏תֶּ ם ְ͏בּקֹלוֹ׃‬ When YHWH sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, “Go up and possess the land that I have given you,” you rebelled against the command of YHWH your God, neither trusting him nor obeying him. In this verse, Moses recalls the Israelites being commanded to enter the promised land from Kadesh, and the people’s summary refusal to do so. It is certainly curi- 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition 67 ous that this synopsis of the spies episode neglects to mention the spies. Scholars have, naturally, been troubled by Deut 9:23. For example, Weinfeld writes: And when YHWH sent you on from Kadesh-Barnea. The verb “send” here looks peculiar, but the author wants to allude to the spies who were sent to explore the land (cf. 1:22; Num 13:2), and it was the spies who “have taken the heart out of ” the Israelites (1:28). The whole verse looks like an epitome of the episode of the spies in Deut 1:19b–32.77 In a radical departure from the plain meaning of the text, Weinfeld is compelled to suggest here that Moses saying to the people “YHWH sent you” in fact suggests that YHWH sent spies. This is further complicated by the fact that Deut 9:23 states that the people in question were commanded to “go up and possess the land” (‫עֲל͏וּ‬ ‫͏וּר͏שׁ͏וּ אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ‬ ְ ). Clearly, territorial possession applies to the people of Israel, and not to the spies. No such contortions are necessary if we acknowledge that this verse is a vestige of V’s spy-less narrative of rebellion at Kadesh.78 Shortly before this book was set to go to press, I encountered the following discussion of the Deuteronomic spies narrative by David Frankel: The key to restoring the original Deuteronomic text lies in a careful reading of Dt. 9:23, ‫ובשלח ה׳ אתכם מקדש ברנע לאמר עלו ]ורשו[ את הארץ אשר נתתי לכם ]ותמרו[ את פי ה׳ אלהיכם ולא‬ ‫האמנתם לו ולא שמעתם בקלו‬. It is striking that this verse makes no mention whatsoever of the sending of the scouts. God is here said to have sent the entire nation from Kadesh Barnea, calling upon it to go up and conquer the land (‫)רשו‬, not to go up and look at the land (‫ ;ראו‬cf. Num. 13:17b–18). The Israelites, lacking trust in God, are said to have refused to comply with this command. Thus, the sin of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea was the refusal to comply with the divine command to take up the conquest. This portrayal of events is highly laconic and at first look, inaccurate. The Israelites did not immediately refuse to conquer the land. Rather, it was only after the fearful report of the scouts that they refused to attack. How are we to explain this verse? It seems that Dt. 9:23 reflects the earliest form of the Deuteronomic tradition, reflected also in Dt. 1. The Israelites did not need to hear a fearful report from scouts in order to fear taking up the conquest. The task was sufficiently daunting without any official scouts report. Thus, the early Deuteronomic tradition was unaware of any scouting mission. This contention is affirmed when we return to examine Dt. 1 in light of 9:23. We have already noted that Dt. 1:22–25 betrays awareness of late priestly material. These verses belong to the section that deals with the scouts. If we 77 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 414. Ps 95:8–11 may preserve a similar vestige of V’s spy-less tradition. This sequence is quite distinct from its surroundings and may be a fragment of an acrostic, each of its four verses beginning with an aleph. Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler remark: “[These four verses are] an unusual case where divine speech, perhaps spoken through a religious official, is quoted in psalms. […] This psalm connects the forty years of wandering to rebellion at [Meribah and Massah], in contrast to Num. 14.33–34; 32.13, which connect the forty years to the sin of the spies” (Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, “Psalms,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014], 1375). V too connects the period of wandering to the rebellion of the people, ‫אנשי המרבה‬, at Kadesh (the locus of Meribah) – not to the sin of the spies. 78 68 3. Philological Analysis remove verses 22–25, we find that verses 26–27 follow upon verse 21 perfectly and create a striking parallel to Dt. 9:23.79 Frankel, who published his analysis in 2002, is the first scholar to realize that the spies motif in Deuteronomy 1 is a secondary element. And yet V reflects the very same premise. Frankel proposes deleting verses 22–25, thus creating the following sequence: ‫אמ ִֹרי ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ‬ ֱ ָ‫͏נּוֹרא הַ ה͏וּא אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְר ִאיתֶ ם ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ר ה‬ ָ ַ‫וַ͏נִּ ͏סַּ ע מֵ ח ֵֹרב ַו͏נֵּלֶ ְך אֵ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר הַ ͏גָּדוֹל וְ ה‬ ‫אמ ִֹרי אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃ ְראֵ ה נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך‬ ֱ ָ‫אֹתָ נ͏וּ ַו͏נָּב ֹא עַ ד קָ ֵד͏שׁ ͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע׃ ָואֹמַ ר אֲלֵ כֶ ם ͏בָּ אתֶ ם עַ ד הַ ר ה‬ ‫וְ ל ֹא‬ [omitted material] ‫ְלפָ נֶיָך אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ עֲלֵ ה ֵר͏שׁ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ י ֲאבֹתֶ יָך לָ ְך אַ ל ִ͏תּ ָירא וְ אַ ל ͏תֵּ חָ ת׃‬ ‫הוֹציאָ נ͏וּ מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ִ ‫ֹאמר͏וּ ְ͏בּ ִ͏שׂנְ אַ ת יְ הוָה אֹתָ נ͏וּ‬ ְ ‫א ֲִביתֶ ם לַ עֲֹלת וַ͏תַּ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ת ִ͏פּי יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ וַ͏תֵּ ָרגְ נ͏וּ ְבאָ הֳלֵ יכֶ ם וַ͏תּ‬ ‫ידנ͏וּ׃‬ ֵ ‫אמ ִֹרי ְלהַ ְ͏שׁ ִמ‬ ֱ ָ‫לָ תֵ ת אֹתָ נ͏וּ ְ͏בּיַד ה‬ Minor stylistic variations notwithstanding, Frankel’s reconstructed original is effectively identical to the account in V (A 1:5–10), which lacks the very same content that Frankel omits from his reconstructed original: ‫ונסע מחרב ונלך א]ת כ[ל המדבר ֯ה]גד[ל והנרא הזה אשר ראתם ונבא ]עד[ קדש ]ברנע · ו[אמר אלכם באתם‬ ‫אלה ֯ם ]אלהי אבתכם לכם · ולא[ א֯ ֯ב ֯ת ֯ם לעלת ותרגנו‬ ֯ ‫היום עד הר האמ]רי[ ע]לו ור[שו את הארץ כאשר דבר‬ ‫ותא֯ ֯מרו בש]נאת אלהם אתנו נתן אתנו ביד האמרי[ לאבדנו‬ ֯ Surely no forger working in the 1870s could have anticipated Frankel’s analysis from the 2000s. The Numbers Version It is also worth noting that parts of V’s narrative are more similar to the nonPriestly element in Numbers than to the Deuteronomic version. This is especially true for YHWH’s response to the people’s rebellion. There is, however, a striking difference between the passages in V and in Numbers. In Num 14:21, YHWH’s oath formula is somewhat convoluted. From a survey of the use of ‫ חי אני‬in the Hebrew Bible, we would expect YHWH’s next word to be ‫ אם‬or ‫כי‬. For instance, in Jer 46:18, we find: ‫͏וּככַ ְרמֶ ל ͏בַּ ͏יָּם יָבוֹא‬ ְ ‫חַ י אָ נִ י נְ אֻ ם הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך יְ הוָה ְצבָ אוֹת ְ͏שׁמוֹ ִ͏כּי ְ͏כּתָ בוֹר ͏בֶּ הָ ִרים‬. A ‫ כי‬element does indeed appear in Numbers 14, but it is interrupted by the phrase ‫וְ יִ ͏מָּ לֵ א ְכבוֹד יְ הוָה אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל הָ אָ ֶרץ‬. In V, this phrase is nowhere to be found. V also contains a minor but salient variant in its counterpart to verse 22: Instead of ‫הראים את כבדי‬ ‫ואת אתתי‬, it reads ‫( הראם את אתתי ואת מפתי‬V B 1:2). 79 David Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 147. See also Jaeyoung Jeon, “The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period,” Journal of Biblical Literature 139, no. 2 (2020): 255–74, at 260–63. 3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition Num 14:21aα B 1:1 Num 14:21aβ B 1:1 Num 14:21b Absent in V Num 14:22–23a B 1:2–5 Num 14:23b Absent in V Num 14:24–25a B 1:5–6 Num 14:25b B 1:7 69 Valediction of Moses (Va ) Numbers (MT) ‫וְ א͏וּלָ ם‬ ‫וי]חר[ אף אלהם וי]שבע[ לאמר‬ ‫חַ י אָ נִ י‬ [‫חי ]אני‬ ‫וְ יִ ͏מָּ לֵ א ְכבוֹד יְ הוָה אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל הָ אָ ֶרץ׃‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים הָ ר ִֹאים אֶ ת ְ͏כּב ִֹדי‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ ָ‫ִ͏כּי כָ ל ה‬ ‫כי כל העם הראם את אתתי ואת‬ ‫יתי ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ִ ‫וְ אֶ ת ֹאתֹתַ י אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ִ͏שׂ‬ ‫מפתי אשר עשתי זה עשר פעמם‬ ‫͏וּבַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר וַיְ נַ͏סּ͏וּ א ִֹתי זֶה עֶ ͏שֶׂ ר ְ͏פּעָ ִמים‬ ‫ולא ֯הא֯ ֯מ ֯נ ֯ו ולא שמעו בקלי אם‬ ‫קוֹלי׃ ִאם יִ ְרא͏וּ אֶ ת‬ ִ ‫וְ ל ֹא ͏שָׁ ְמע͏וּ ְ͏בּ‬ ‫יראו את הארץ הטב]ה א[שר‬ ‫אבֹתָ ם‬ ֲ ַ‫הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נִ ְ͏שׁ͏בַּ ְע ִ͏תּי ל‬ ‫נשבעתי לתת לאבתהם‬ ‫וְ כָ ל ְמ ַנאֲצַ י ל ֹא יִ ְרא͏וּהָ ׃‬ ‫ר͏וּח אַ חֶ ֶרת‬ ַ ‫וְ עַ ְב ִ͏דּי כָ לֵ ב עֵ קֶ ב הָ יְ תָ ה‬ ‫בלתי ]עבדי כלב[ בן יפנה ויהשע‬ ‫ֲביא ִֹתיו אֶ ל‬ ִ ‫ִע͏מּוֹ וַיְ מַ ͏לֵּ א אַ ח ֲָרי ַוה‬ ‫֯בא֯ ֯ו שמה‬ ֯ ‫בן נן העמד לפנך המה י‬ ‫יוֹר͏שֶׁ ͏נָּה׃‬ ִ ֹ‫הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בָּ א ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה וְ ז ְַרעו‬ · ‫ולהם אתננה‬ ‫וְ הָ עֲמָ לֵ ִקי וְ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י יוֹ͏שֵׁ ב ͏בָּ עֵ מֶ ק‬ ‫͏וּסע͏וּ לָ כֶ ם הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬ ְ ‫מָ חָ ר ְ͏פּנ͏וּ‬ [‫ואתם פנו ]ל[כם וסעו המ]דברה‬ ‫יַם ס͏וּף‬ ‫דרך ים סף‬ Claus Westermann was the first to identify the ‫ כבוד‬elements in Num 14:21–22 as post-P supplements,80 and his proposal has been met with wide acceptance in recent years.81 Indeed, each of the other twelve instances of ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in the Pentateuch is Priestly.82 Once again, we find that the narrative in the Valediction of Moses lacks any sign of Priestly language, and, as in the earlier examples, scholars in Shapira’s lifetime had not yet identified the post-Priestly interpolations as such.83 80 Westermann refers to these as “nachpriesterliche ‘Weiterbildungen.’ ” Claus Westermann, “‫כבד‬,” Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (1971), 1:808. 81 See, e.g., Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen zur Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch,” Vetus Testamentum 32, no. 2 (1982): 183–84; Olivier Artus, Études sur le livre des Nombres. Récit, Histoire et Loi en Nb 13,1–20,13, OBO 157 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 141, et passim; Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch, 41; Reinhard Achenbach, “Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9 (2003): 115. 82 Exod 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; 40:34, 35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6. 83 For a survey of the various analyses over the years, see the appended table in Norbert Rabe, Vom Gerücht zum Gericht. Revidierte Text- und Literarkritik der Kundschaftererzählung Numeri 13.14 als Neuansatz in der Pentateuchforschung (Tübingen, 1994). 70 3. Philological Analysis 3.4. Summary It is clear from even a cursory reading of the Valediction of Moses that it is intimately related to Deuteronomy. Determining the precise relationship between these two books is paramount for understanding the nature of each, as well as their respective times of composition. The philological analysis above set out to investigate these matters, and it led to a firm conclusion: Not only is the Valediction of Moses authentic, it is indeed more ancient than the book of Deuteronomy.84 From this it follows that V is almost certainly a pre-exilic text.85 It is time to lay to rest the notion that the Shapira manuscripts are forgeries or that they are based on the Pentateuch in its current form.86 The Valediction of Moses lacks the Deuteronomic laws and poems, which were added only later along the path of V’s evolution into Deuteronomy. The secondary incorporation of the law code led not only to the bizarre bifurcation of the Gerizim and Ebal pericope but also to the introduction of new literary tension between narrative and law. It is plainly problematic to have Moses command one thing and do another, as was initially the case with regard to the battle with Sihon, which violated the Mosaic law of Deuteronomy 20. This state of affairs, in turn, led to the editing of the now-problematic narratives, bringing them in line with the newly introduced law code. Similarly, with the introduction of Priestly texts and ideas, it became necessary to update the Valedictoric/Deuteronomic text to create more harmony between it and the Priestly traditions. These nomistic and post-P edits are widespread in the canonical text of Deuteronomy, and scholars have identified numerous examples, none of which is present in V. One can thus characterize the book of Deuteronomy as an updated version of V that has been edited to include a substantial law code and two large poems and then edited to smooth over the resulting unevenness. But Deuteronomy is more than that. It reflects decades or even centuries of literary growth and evolution – some ideolog84 There are many more such comparisons to undertake, with similar implications for both authenticity and the relationship between V and Deuteronomy. I outline two more here. The verses following the Deuteronomic spies episode, Deut 1:41–46, recount the incident of the temerarious people. These verses too are absent in V and have been identified as secondary. See Josef G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (Bonn: Hanstein, 1967), 44. In addition, V’s version of the Beth Pe’or/Phinehas episode (Va D 2:5–D 3:3) is striking in its similarity to the non-Priestly element of Num 25, on the one hand, and the total absence of any of the P language present in the Numbers version, on the other. Indeed, just as V’s version of the spies narrative lacks the spies, its account of the “Phinehas story” lacks the protagonist himself. 85 See excursus in chapter 6 for linguistic evidence supporting this conclusion. 86 The conclusion that V preserves the earlier literary forms of several passages – and indeed of the book in toto – does not mean that V, as we have it, was necessarily created ex nihilo. Indeed, there is little question that the text of V contains interpolations. (See, e.g., the cursed man corresponding to the proclamation regarding adultery in Vb G 5:12–13.) It is therefore worthwhile to subject V itself to source-critical analysis to better ascertain the scope and nature of its own evolution. 3.4. Summary 71 ical, some pragmatic, some aesthetic – and the final result is an elegant tapestry, the artistry of which is now coming into clear view for the first time. The Valediction of Moses is sui generis. Never before has a proto-biblical book been unearthed, and the benefit that scholars can now derive from the availability of such a text is incalculable. 4. Biblical Intertexts There are a great number of intertexts between the Valediction of Moses and the Hebrew Bible. While this topic is too vast to cover in the present book, I will briefly discuss two passages whose biblical intertexts are instructive: the Valedictoric versions of the Decalogue and the Gerizim-Ebal pericope. We will see that the Valediction of Moses, or a text very similar to it, was familiar to several biblical authors. Besides further underscoring V’s authenticity, this conclusion has manifest implications for the the dating of V, as well as for the composition history of the Bible. Considering that there are substantial overlaps between V and Deuteronomy, it is important to distinguish between Deuteronomic intertexts and Valedictoric ones. As we will presently see, in some cases, there are correspondences between biblical passages and features that are unique to V. 4.1. The Decalogue The Decalogue in the Valediction of Moses differs from all known versions, both canonical and otherwise. Beside some differences in order, the primary structural divergence between V’s Decalogue and its biblical counterparts is the appearance of ‫“ אנך אלהם אלהך‬I am Elohim, your god” in V as a refrain after each proclamation; there is nothing comparable in any other known version of the Decalogue.1 Another difference is that in V, all proclamations are spoken in the first person, whereas the familiar versions are primarily in the third person. In terms of content, there are several deviations, of which I will discuss two. First, instead of the canonical proclamation beginning with ‫ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם יְ הוָה‬ ‫“ אֱֹלהֶ יָך לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א‬You shall not take the name of YHWH, your god, in vain” (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11), in V we find ‫“ לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬You shall not swear in my name falsely” (E 4:1). Second, V contains an otherwise unattested proclamation: ‫“ לא תשנא את אחך ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך‬You shall not hate your brother in your he[ar]t” (E 4:8). Before proceeding to explore the biblical intertexts, it is important to realize that in V, the Decalogue is one strand in a threefold cord. In G 3–H 1, V lists those worthy of blessings and curses, in the form of “Blessed/Cursed is the man who X.” Only the maledictive series has a counterpart in Deuteronomy. In the Valediction 1 The first instance of V’s refrain is preserved vestigially in Exod 20:5/Deut 5:9. Compare ‫ ל ֹא ִת ְ͏שׁ͏תַּ ְחוֶה לָ הֶ ם וְ ל ֹא תָ עָ ְב ֵדם ִ͏כּי אָ נ ִֹכי יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֵ ל קַ ͏נָּא וגו׳‬with ‫לא תשתחו · להם · ולא תעבדם · אנך · אלהם‬ · ‫· אלהך‬ (E 2:5–7). 73 4.1. The Decalogue of Moses, on the other hand, both series are straightforward V-Decalogue complements. To illustrate, V’s fourth proclamation (‫“ לא תר]צח[ את נ֯פש אחך‬Do not sl[ay] the soul of your brother” [E 3:6]) finds parallels in the fourth blessed man (‫“ ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו‬Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge or exact retribution for the soul of his brother” [G 4:3]), as well as in the fourth cursed man (‫“ ארר מכה רעהו בסתר‬Cursed is he who strikes down his fellow in secret” [G 5:11]). Similarly, V’s ninth proclamation (‫לא תחמד אשר ]רעך[ עבדו ואמתו‬ ‫“ וכל אשר לו אנך אלהם אלהך‬You shall not desire the wife of [your fellow], his male slave, his female slave, or anything that is his” [E 4:6]) corresponds to the ninth blessed man (‫“ ברך אשר לא נשא עינו אל ]כל נפ[ש רעהו‬Blessed is he who does not lust after an[yone be]longing to his fellow” [G 4:7–8]) and also to the ninth cursed man (‫“ ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא֯ ֯ע ֯נ ֯ו אל אשת רעהו אל בתו ואמת]ו[ ולכל אשר לו‬Cursed is the man who desires and lusts after the wife of his fellow, his daughter, [his] female slave, or anything that is his” [H 1:3–4]). For this reason, we may speak of V’s Decalogical constellation and compare other biblical passages to each of its components as well as to the constellation in toto.2 Cursed Men Blessed Men Decalogue ‫ארר האיש אשר יעשה פסל‬ [‫ברך האיש אשר יה]יה‬ ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך · אשר‬ ‫ומסכה מעשה ידי חרש‬ ‫אלהם אלהו ולו לבדו ישתחו‬ · ‫· החרתך · מארץ · מצרם‬ ‫ואתו לבדו יעבד‬ [· ‫מבת · עבדם · לא יה]יה‬ ‫לכם · אלהם · אחרם · לא‬ · ‫תעש]ו[ · לכם · פסל · וכל‬ · ‫תמנה · אשר · בשמם‬ · ‫ממעל · ואשר · בארץ‬ · ‫מתחת · ואשר · במים‬ · ‫מתחת · לארץ · לא תשתחו‬ · ‫להם · ולא תעבדם · אנך‬ · ‫אלהם · אלהך‬ ‫ארר האיש אשר יעשה‬ ‫ברך הא]יש אשר י[קדש את‬ · ‫קדש · ]את יום · השבעי‬ ‫מלאכה ביום השבעי‬ ‫היום השבעי וישבת בו‬ ‫ושבת · בו · כי · ש[שת · ימם‬ ‫· עשתי · את השמם · ואת‬ · ‫הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם‬ ‫ושבתי · ביום · השבעי · על‬ · ‫· כן · תשבת · גם · אתה‬ · ‫ובהמתך · וכל · אשר · לך‬ · ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ ‫ארר מקלה אבו ואמו‬ ‫]ברך[ מכבד אבו ואמו‬ · ‫כבד · את אבך · ואת אמך‬ · ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ 2 Josh 8:34 may be a reference to this constellation: ‫הַ ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה‬ ‫͏תּוֹרה‬ ָ ַ‫וְ אַ ח ֲֵרי כֵ ן קָ ָרא אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי ה‬ ‫͏תּוֹרה‬ ָ ַ‫“ וְ הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ְ͏כּכָ ל הַ ͏כָּ ת͏וּב ְ͏בּסֵ פֶ ר ה‬Afterward he read all the words (or proclamations) of the teaching, the blessings, and the curses, according to all that is written in the book of the teaching.’ ’ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫‪4. Biblical Intertexts‬‬ ‫‪Decalogue‬‬ ‫לא תר]צח[ · את נ֯פש · אחך‬ ‫‪Cursed Men‬‬ ‫‪Blessed Men‬‬ ‫ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם‬ ‫ארר מכה רעהו בסתר‬ ‫· אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬ ‫ולא יטר את נפש אחו‬ ‫לא תנאף · את אשת · רעך ·‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא יטמא‬ ‫ארר האיש אשר יקרב אל‬ ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬ ‫את אשת רעהו‬ ‫ינאף‬ ‫֯‬ ‫כל שאר בשרו ואשר‬ ‫לא תגנב · את הן · אחך ·‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא י]נ[ה את‬ ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬ ‫רעהו‬ ‫לא תשבע · בשמי · לשקר ·‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא ישבע‬ ‫ארר האיש אשר ישבע בשמי‬ ‫כי · אנך · אקנא · את עון ·‬ ‫בשמי לשקר‬ ‫לשקר‬ ‫]את אש[ת רעהו ואשר יבעל‬ ‫עם כל בהמה‬ ‫ארר מסג גבל רעהו‬ ‫אבת · על · בנם · על ·‬ ‫שלשם · ועל · רבעם ·‬ ‫֯לנשאי · שמי · לשקר · אנך ·‬ ‫אלהם · אלהך ·‬ ‫לא תענו · באחך · עדת ·‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש‬ ‫שקר · אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬ ‫לה]עד[‬ ‫ארר לקח ש]חד[ ֯‬ ‫]י[שקר ברעהו‬ ‫֯‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫֯ע ֯דת שקר בעמת]ו[‬ ‫לא תחמד · אשת · ]רעך[ ·‬ ‫ברך אשר לא נשא עינו אל‬ ‫ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא֯‬ ‫עבדו · ואמתו · וכל · אשר ·‬ ‫]כל נפ[ש רעהו‬ ‫֯ע ֯נ ֯ו אל אשת רעהו אל בתו‬ ‫ואמת]ו[ ולכל אשר לו‬ ‫לו · אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬ ‫לא תשנא · את אחך ·‬ ‫]ברך[ האיש אשר יאהב את‬ ‫ארר האיש אשר ישנא ]א[ת‬ ‫֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך · אנך · אלהם ·‬ ‫רעהו‬ ‫אחו ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב ֯ו‬ ‫אלהך ·‬ ‫‪Table 2. The Decalogue constellation in V.‬‬ ‫‪With this in mind, let us turn to several established Decalogue intertexts in the‬‬ ‫‪Hebrew Bible.‬‬ ‫‪4.1.1. Jeremiah 7:9‬‬ ‫‪It is well established that Jer 7:9 is a Decalogue intertext. It reads as follows:‬‬ ‫ֱֹלהים אֲחֵ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא יְ ַד ְע͏תֶּ ם׃‬ ‫ה ָגנֹב ָרצ ַֹח וְ ָנאֹף וְ ִה͏שָּׁ בֵ ַע לַ ͏שֶּׁ קֶ ר וְ קַ ͏טֵּ ר לַ ͏בָּ עַ ל וְ הָ ֹלְך אַ ח ֲֵרי א ִ‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫‪Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and make offerings to Baal,‬‬ ‫?‪and go after other gods that you have not known‬‬ ‫ֱֹלהים ‪The second part of this verse – from “make offerings” – recalls‬‬ ‫ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶה ְלָך א ִ‬ ‫‪ “you shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3; Deut 5:7) and‬אֲחֵ ִרים עַ ל ͏פָּ נָי‬ ‫‪“and you shall not worship them” (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9), while the‬‬ ‫‪first three sins listed in Jer 7:9 are precise Decalogical matches, as is universally‬‬ ‫”‪ “you shall not steal‬ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב ‪ֲ “will you steal” corresponds to‬ה ָגנֹב ‪acknowledged.3‬‬ ‫וְ ל ֹא תָ עָ ְב ֵדם‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪See, e.g., Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westmin‬‬‫‪ster John Knox, 2008), 96; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, The Anchor Bible (New York: Dou-‬‬ 4.1. The Decalogue 75 (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19), ‫“ ָרצ ַֹח‬kill” to ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּ ְרצָ ח‬you shall not kill” (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17), and ‫“ וְ ָנאֹף‬and commit adultery” to ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּנְ אָ ף‬you shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18). Whereas the first three sins are essentially verbatim Decalogue intertexts, the same cannot be said for the fourth one: ‫“ וְ ִה͏שָּׁ בֵ ַע לַ ͏שֶּׁ קֶ ר‬and swear falsely.” The closest match among the canonical versions is ‫“ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א‬you shall not take the name of YHWH, your god, in vain” (Exod 20:7; 5:11). William Holladay, for instance, grapples with this issue in his commentary on Jeremiah: “Swear falsely” (‫ שבע‬nip‘al + ‫ )לשקר‬has already occurred in 5:2. Beyond these two occurrences in Jer the phrase occurs in Lev 5:24; 19:12; Zech 5:4; and Mal 3:5; it is thus not a Deuteronomistic phrase but appears to come out of priestly rhetoric. It has already been noted that the corresponding expression in Hos 4:2 is a different one, and it must also be pointed out that the Decalogue offers neither expression. Nevertheless there is reason to connect the prohibition here and in Hos 4:2 with the commandment in the Decalogue, “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain” (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11): [The Peshitta] translates the law in the Decalogue with “You shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God,” and this tradition is found in Jewish circles as well and is followed in the NJV. It is difficult to pinpoint the abuse of Yahweh’s name at various periods that gave rise to these contrasting formulations; “swear falsely” (that is, swear an oath insincerely or dishonestly) may have been one center of meaning, but the implication may have broadened later to include “curse someone by a misuse of Yahweh’s name” (so, evidently, the implication of the word in Hos 4:2).4 Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman also draw attention to the fourth sin’s unclear Decalogical correspondence. The fourth sin in Jeremiah’s list (hiššābēaʿ laššeqer) uses a verb not in either Exodus 20 or Hosea 4, although laššeqer is similar to laššāwʾ in the Decalogue, and the phrase could mean swearing by a false god. Jeremiah’s fourth accusation could correspond to either the third or the ninth commandment.5 This hazy picture becomes dramatically clearer when we compare the Jeremiah passage to V’s Decalogue, instead of to the canonical ones. V lacks altogether the familiar ‫ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א‬commandment (the second or third proclamation, depending on bleday, 1999), 465; Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 925; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, ed. Paul D. Hanson, Hermeneia 24A (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), 244–45; Carly L. Crouch, An Introduction to the Study of Jeremiah, T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 15. 4 Holladay, Jeremiah, 244–45. 5 Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 337. 76 4. Biblical Intertexts the counting scheme) and instead includes the following as its seventh proclamation (E 4:1–3): · ‫לא תשבע · בשמי · לשקר · כי · אנך · אקנא · את עון · אבת · על · בנם · על · שלשם · ועל · רבעם · לנ֯שאי‬ · ‫שמי · לשקר · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ You shall not swear in my name falsely, for I shall avenge the transgression of fathers against sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for those who bear my name falsely. I am Elohim, your god. The Valedictoric proclamation is a precise match for Jeremiah’s Decalogue allusion; ‫“ וְ ִה͏שָּׁ בֵ ַע לַ ͏שֶּׁ קֶ ר‬and swear falsely” could hardly be a more explicit transgression of ‫“ לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬you shall not swear in my name falsely.” It thus stands to reason that the prophet was familiar with a version of the Decalogue that resembled that of V – at least with regard to this feature – rather than the recensions of Exodus and Deuteronomy.6 4.1.2. Jeremiah 29:23 [‫͏יּוֹד ַע‬ ֵ ַ‫יתם וְ אָ נ ִֹכי הוידע ]ה‬ ִ ִ‫יַעַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ נְ בָ לָ ה ְ͏בּיִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וַיְ ַנאֲפ͏וּ אֶ ת נְ ͏שֵׁ י ֵרעֵ יהֶ ם וַיְ ַד ְ͏בּר͏וּ ָדבָ ר ִ͏בּ ְ͏שׁ ִמי ͏שֶׁ קֶ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לוֹא ִצ͏וּ‬ ‫וָעֵ ד נְ אֻ ם יְ הוָה׃‬ Because they have perpetrated outrage in Israel and have committed adultery with their fellows’ wives, and have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them; I am the one who knows and bears witness, says YHWH. Again we find a reference to false proclamations said in the name of YHWH, which corresponds to V’s ‫( לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬E 4:1). The other transgression is reminiscent of V as well. Unlike the biblical versions of the Decalogue, where ‫ נאף‬takes no direct or indirect object, here we have ‫“ וַיְ ַנאֲפ͏וּ אֶ ת נְ ͏שֵׁ י ֵרעֵ יהֶ ם‬and have committed adultery with the wives of their fellows,”7 precisely as we find in the Valedictoric proclamation: · ‫לא תנאף · את אשת · רעך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ You shall not commit adultery with the wife of your fellow. I am Elohim, your god. (E 3:7) 6 In a future publication I will discuss Jeremiah’s intimate affiliation with the Valediction of Moses, including a shared perception of the (extremely limited) scope of Mosaic-era lawgiving. 7 The particle ‫ את‬here probably does not mean “with” but is rather the nota accusativi. Cf. Prov 6:32 (discussed in §4.1.5): ‫“ נֹאֵ ף ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬he who ‘adulterates’ a woman,” as it were; “a woman” is clearly the direct object. 4.1. The Decalogue 77 4.1.3. Hosea 4:2 Hosea 4:2 is very reminiscent of Jer 7:9, and it too has obvious Decalogue parallels.8 ‫אָ ֹלה וְ כַ חֵ ͏שׁ וְ ָרצ ַֹח וְ ָגנֹב וְ ָנאֹף ͏פָּ ָרצ͏וּ וְ ָד ִמים ְ͏בּ ָד ִמים ָנגָע͏וּ׃‬ Swearing, deceiving, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out; bloodshed follows bloodshed. However, despite this verse’s clear affinity with the Decalogue, the correspondences are not all clear. As Andersen and Freedman write in their commentary on Hosea: The list of sins in v 2 is in two parts, each of which uses different grammatical forms. The first part uses five infinitive absolutes; in the second part two perfect verbs are used. The first list reads like an excerpt from the Decalogue. The Masoretic placement of zāqēf qāṭōn separates the first two sins from the rest, to reflect the fact that the third, fourth, and fifth transgressions are based directly on Exod 20:13–15 (= Deut 5:17–19), whereas connections between the first two and specific commandments of the tradition are harder to trace.9 Indeed, the Decalogue does not contain a proclamation that straightforwardly addresses either of the first two sins – oaths (‫ )אָ ֹלה‬and deceptions (‫)וְ כַ חֵ ͏שׁ‬. The closest match for the first sin is Exod 20:7/Deut 5:11, which reads: ‫ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א ִ͏כּי ל ֹא יְ נַ͏קֶּ ה יְ הוָה אֵ ת אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ְ͏שׁמוֹ לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א׃‬ You shall not take the name of YHWH, your god, in vain, for YHWH will not acquit anyone who takes his name in vain. As discussed above, V lacks a ‫ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א‬proclamation and instead features ‫לא תשבע‬ ‫ בשמי לשקר‬as its seventh proclamation. This is an unambiguous match for ‫אָ ֹלה‬. Re- garding the second sin (‫“ וְ כַ חֵ ͏שׁ‬deceiving”), V’s eighth blessed man, corresponding to the eighth proclamation (E 4:4–5), reads as follows: · ‫ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש ולא ]י[שקר ברעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן‬ “Blessed is the man who does not deceive or [l]ie to his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” (G 4:6–7) Not only does this match Hosea’s sin of deceit in content, it contains the very same verb: ‫“ כחש‬deceive.” Thus, Hosea’s list of offenses reflects the fourth, fifth, 8 See, e.g., Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, ed. Paul D. Hanson, trans. Gary Stansell, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible 28 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974), 67–68; James Luther Mays, Hosea, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1969), 64; Meir Weiss, “The Decalogue in Prophetic Literature,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi (Magnes: Jerusalem, 1990), 67–81, at 67, 71, et passim. I thank Nachum Dershowitz for first bringing this example to my attention. 9 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 336–37. My emphasis. 78 4. Biblical Intertexts sixth, seventh, and eighth items in V’s Decalogue constellation, and it betrays a closer kinship with the Valediction of Moses than with any canonical text. 4.1.4. Psalm 50 Psalm 50 contains a Decalogue intertext in verses 7–20: ‫אוֹכיחֶ ָך וְ עוֹֹלתֶ יָך ְלנֶגְ ִ͏דּי תָ ִמיד׃ ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫ֱֹלהים אֱֹלהֶ יָך אָ נ ִֹכי׃ ל ֹא עַ ל זְ בָ חֶ יָך‬ ִ ‫ידה ͏בָּ ְך א‬ ָ ‫ִ͏שׁ ְמעָ ה עַ ִ͏מּי ַוא ֲַד͏בֵּ ָרה יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וְ אָ ִע‬ ‫͏תּ͏וּדים׃ ִ͏כּי ִלי כָ ל חַ יְ תוֹ יָעַ ר ְ͏בּהֵ מוֹת ְ͏בּהַ ְר ֵרי אָ לֶ ף׃ י ַָד ְע ִ͏תּי ͏כָּ ל עוֹף הָ ִרים וְ זִ יז ͏שָׂ ַדי‬ ִ ַ‫יתָך פָ ר ִמ ִ͏מּ ְכ ְלאֹתֶ יָך ע‬ ְ ֵ‫אֶ ͏קַּ ח ִמ͏בּ‬ ‫͏תּוֹדה‬ ָ ‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ֵ‫͏תּ͏וּדים אֶ ְ͏שׁ͏תֶּ ה׃ זְ בַ ח ל‬ ִ ַ‫ירים וְ ַדם ע‬ ִ ‫͏וּמֹלאָ ͏הּ׃ הַ אוֹכַ ל ְ͏בּ͏שַׂ ר אַ ִ͏בּ‬ ְ ‫ִע͏מָּ ִדי׃ ִאם אֶ ְרעַ ב ל ֹא אֹמַ ר לָ ְך ִ͏כּי ִלי תֵ בֵ ל‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ֱֹלהים מַ ה ְ͏לָּך ְלסַ ͏פֵּ ר חֻ ͏קָּ י ו ִַ͏תּ͏שָּׂ א ְב ִר‬ ִ ‫͏וּתכַ ְ͏בּ ֵדנִ י׃ וְ לָ ָר͏שָׁ ע אָ מַ ר א‬ ְ ‫͏וּק ָראֵ נִ י ְ͏בּיוֹם צָ ָרה אֲחַ ͏לֶּ ְצָך‬ ְ ‫וְ ͏שַׁ ͏לֵּ ם ְלעֶ ְליוֹן נְ ָד ֶריָך׃‬ ָ‫עֲלֵ י ִפיָך׃ וְ אַ ͏תָּ ה ͏שָׂ נֵאתָ מ͏וּסָ ר וַ͏תַּ ְ͏שׁלֵ ְך ְ͏דּבָ ַרי אַ ח ֲֶריָך׃ ִאם ָר ִאיתָ ַג͏נָּב ו ִַ͏תּ ֶרץ ִע͏מּוֹ וְ ִעם ְמ ָנא ֲִפים חֶ ְלקֶ ָך׃ ִ͏פּיָך ͏שָׁ לַ ְח͏תּ‬ ‫͏וּל͏שׁוֹנְ ָך ͏תַּ ְצ ִמיד ִמ ְרמָ ה׃ ͏תֵּ ͏שֵׁ ב ְ͏בּאָ ִחיָך ְת ַד͏בֵּ ר ְ͏בּבֶ ן ִא ְ͏מָּך ִ͏תּ͏תֶּ ן ͏דּ ִֹפי׃‬ ְ ‫ְב ָרעָ ה‬ Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. Elohim, your god, am I. Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. I will not accept a bull from your house, or goats from your folds. For every wild animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the air and all that moves in the field is mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all that is in it is mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to Elohim a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to Elyon. Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me. But to the wicked Elohim says: What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips? For you hate discipline, and you cast my words behind you. You make friends with a thief when you see one, and you keep company with adulterers. You give your mouth free rein for evil, and your tongue frames deceit. You sit and speak against your kin; you slander your own mother’s child. The connection between this psalm and the Decalogue was identified in the early thirteenth century by David Kimhi: ‫כי קבלת אותי לאלוה כשאמרתי לך תחילה אלהים אלהיך אנכי כ"ש אנכי י"י אלהיך‬ For you accepted me as your god when I first said to you “Elohim, your god, am I” (Ps 50:7), as it says “I am YHWH, your god” (Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6). This correspondence is widely acknowledged today. For instance, Marko Martilla writes: Psalm 50.7 thus comprises a direct address to the people of Israel. […] In Ps. 50.16–21 the psalmist discernibly alludes to the Decalogue. Psalm 50.18a shares the root ‫ גנב‬with the commandment ‘You shall not steal’ (‫)לא תגנב‬, and Ps. 50.18b uses the root ‫ נאף‬precisely as its counterpart in the Decalogue: ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (‫)לא תנאף‬. Furthermore, vv. 19–20 speak of a deceitful tongue that can harm even one’s own kindred. This is rem- 4.1. The Decalogue 79 iniscent of the commandment ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour’, even though verbatim similarities cannot be pointed to.10 While the similarity to the traditional Decalogue is unmistakable, one difference is worth consideration. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler draw attention to the matter of divine names: “the substitution of ‘ʾelohim’ for the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, is especially noticeable.”11 This feature is particularly interesting in light of V’s version, which – unlike the canonical versions – is Elohistic and even contains the same three words (in a different order) that introduce the Decalogue intertext of verses 7–20: ‫“ אנך אלהם אלהך‬I am Elohim, your god” versus ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬ ‫“ אֱֹלהֶ יָך אָ נ ִֹכי‬Elohim, your god, am I.” Psalm 50 belongs to the Elohistic Psalter, whose frequent use of the name Elohim is typically attributed to an editorial endeavor to remove appearances of YHWH.12 I intend to address the composition of the Elohistic Psalter in a future publication. For now I will note only that there is, in fact, good evidence for the reverse editorial phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible: Elohim being replaced with YHWH. This explains the phrase ‫“ אָ כֵ ן יֵ͏שׁ יְ הוָה ͏בַּ ͏מָּ קוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה‬there is indeed YHWH in this place” in Gen 28:16, where the existential particle ‫ יֵ͏שׁ‬refers problematically to a proper name. Clearly ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִ ‫“ יֵ͏שׁ א‬there is a god” would be a better fit not only grammatically but also contextually, considering that this narrative is an etiology for Bethel, not Bethjah. Notably, the only proper name to ever appear in the Hebrew Bible with ‫ יש‬is YHWH (Gen 28:16; Exod 17:7; Judg 6:13). It seems likely that all are hypercorrections resulting from a systematic replacement of ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬ with ‫ – יְ הוָה‬the opposite of the oft-presumed direction of emendation.13 At any 10 Marko Martilla, “The Deuteronomistic Heritage in the Psalms,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37, no. 1 (2012): 67–91, at 77–78. See also Baruch Schwartz, “Psalm 50: Its Subject, Form and Place” (Hebrew), Shnaton 3 (1979): 95–96; Moshe Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place,” in Segal and Levi, Ten Commandments, 1–44, at 21–27. 11 Berlin and Brettler, Jewish Study Bible, 1324. 12 For a discussion of the consensus hypothesis and alternatives, see Laura Joffe, “The Elohistic Psalter: What, How and Why?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 15, no. 1 (2001): 142–69. 13 It has often been asserted that ‫ אלהם אלהך‬is a practical impossibility in an authentic text. For instance: “The expression ‘I am God, thy God,’ is extremely unlikely and would be tautological. ‘Jehovah thy God’ or ‘Chemosh thy God,’ would have a meaning; but this is meaningless” (“Biblical Research: Shapira’s Last Forgery,” The Independent 35 [August 30, 1883], 9). Ginsburg wrongly asserts that “neither does the phrase ‫אלהם אלהך‬, ‘god, thy god,’ occur in the Old Testament” (The Athenæum 2911 [Aug. 11, 1883], 179). Besides being obviated by our psalm and others, this argument confuses the concepts of synonymy and homonymy. ‫“ אלהם‬Elohim” is used here as a proper noun, as in the first chapter of Genesis and countless other biblical passages, while ‫ אלהך‬is the (suffixed) common noun “god.” There is thus nothing tautological about the phrase ‫“ אלהם אלהך‬Elohim, your god.” While one might object to the aesthetics of a sentence such as “She is content with the content,” it is not redundant. Incidentally, parallel arguments have been made for the secondariness of the name Elohim in the Elohistic Psalter, with phrases such as the one in question described as “tautological monstrosities”; these assertions should be similarly dismissed. (See Ziony Zevit, “The Elohistic Psalter,” in The Religions of Ancient Israel: 80 4. Biblical Intertexts rate, the shared Elohistic character of Psalm 50 and V’s Decalogue is striking. 4.1.5. Proverbs 6:16–35 Proverbs 6:16–35 contains parallels with the Shema and the Decalogue, the latter of which is our current focus.14 ‫͏שֶׁ ͏שׁ הֵ ͏נָּה ͏שָׂ נֵא יְ הוָה וְ ͏שֶׁ בַ ע תועבות ]͏תּוֹעֲבַ ת[ נ ְַפ͏שׁוֹ׃ עֵ ינַיִ ם ָרמוֹת ְל͏שׁוֹן ͏שָׁ קֶ ר וְ י ַָדיִ ם ͏שׁ ְֹפכוֹת ָ͏דּם נ ִָקי׃ לֵ ב ח ֵֹר͏שׁ מַ ְח ְ͏שׁבוֹת‬ ‫͏וּמ͏שַׁ ͏לֵּ ַח ְמ ָדנִ ים ͏בֵּ ין אַ ִחים׃ נְ צֹר ְ͏בּנִ י ִמ ְצוַת אָ ִביָך וְ אַ ל ִ͏תּ͏טֹּ͏שׁ‬ ְ ‫יח ְ͏כּז ִָבים עֵ ד ͏שָׁ קֶ ר‬ ַ ‫אָ וֶן ַרגְ לַ יִ ם ְממַ הֲרוֹת לָ ר͏וּץ לָ ָרעָ ה׃ י ִָפ‬ ‫͏תּוֹרת ִא͏מֶּ ָך׃ קָ ְ͏שׁ ֵרם עַ ל ִל ְ͏בָּך תָ ִמיד עָ נְ ֵדם עַ ל ͏גּ ְַר͏גְּ רֹתֶ ָך׃ ְ͏בּ ִה ְתהַ ͏לֶּ ְכָך ͏תַּ נְ חֶ ה אֹתָ ְך ְ͏בּ͏שָׁ ְכ ְ͏בָּך ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁמֹר עָ לֶ יָך ַוה ֲִקיצוֹתָ ִהיא‬ ַ ‫תוֹרה אוֹר וְ ֶד ֶרְך חַ ͏יִּ ים ͏תּ ְֹכחוֹת מ͏וּסָ ר׃ ִל ְ͏שׁמָ ְרָך מֵ אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ָרע מֵ חֶ ְלקַ ת לָ ͏שׁוֹן נ ְָכ ִר͏יָּה׃ אַ ל ͏תַּ ְחמֹד‬ ָ ְ‫ְת ִ͏שׂיחֶ ָך׃ ִ͏כּי נֵר ִמ ְצוָה ו‬ ‫הי ְַח͏תֶּ ה ִאי͏שׁ‬ ֲ ‫י ְָפיָ͏הּ ִ͏בּ ְלבָ בֶ ָך וְ אַ ל ִ͏תּ͏קָּ חֲָך ְ͏בּעַ ְפעַ ͏פֶּ יהָ ׃ ִ͏כּי ְבעַ ד ִא͏שָּׁ ה זוֹנָה עַ ד ִ͏כּ͏כַּ ר לָ חֶ ם וְ אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ִאי͏שׁ נֶפֶ ͏שׁ יְ קָ ָרה תָ צ͏וּד׃‬ ‫͏וּבג ָָדיו ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ ַר ְפנָה׃ ִאם יְ הַ ͏לֵּ ְך ִאי͏שׁ עַ ל הַ ͏גֶּחָ ִלים וְ ַרגְ לָ יו ל ֹא ִת͏כָּ וֶינָה׃ ͏כֵּ ן הַ ͏בָּ א אֶ ל אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ ל ֹא יִ ͏נָּקֶ ה‬ ְ ֹ‫אֵ ͏שׁ ְ͏בּחֵ יקו‬ ‫͏כָּ ל הַ ֹ͏נּג ֵַע ͏בָּ ͏הּ׃ ל ֹא יָב͏וּז͏וּ לַ ַ͏גּ͏נָּב ִ͏כּי יִ גְ נוֹב ְלמַ ͏לֵּ א נ ְַפ͏שׁוֹ ִ͏כּי יִ ְרעָ ב׃ וְ נִ ְמצָ א יְ ͏שַׁ ͏לֵּ ם ִ͏שׁ ְבעָ תָ יִ ם אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל הוֹן ͏בֵּ יתוֹ יִ ͏תֵּ ן׃ נֹאֵ ף ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬ ‫חֲסַ ר לֵ ב מַ ְ͏שׁ ִחית נ ְַפ͏שׁוֹ ה͏וּא ַיעֲ͏שֶׂ ͏נָּה׃ ֶנגַע וְ קָ לוֹן יִ ְמצָ א וְ חֶ ְר͏פָּ תוֹ ל ֹא ִת͏מָּ חֶ ה׃ ִ͏כּי ִקנְ אָ ה חֲמַ ת ͏גָּבֶ ר וְ ל ֹא י ְַחמוֹל ְ͏בּיוֹם נָקָ ם׃‬ ‫ל ֹא יִ ͏שָּׂ א ְ͏פּנֵי כָ ל ͏כֹּפֶ ר וְ ל ֹא י ֹאבֶ ה ִ͏כּי תַ ְר͏בֶּ ה ͏שֹׁחַ ד׃‬ There are six things that YHWH hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that rush to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family. My child, keep your father’s commandment, and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. Bind them upon your heart always; tie them around your neck. When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you from the wife of another, from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes; for a prostitute’s fee is only a loaf of bread, but the wife of another stalks a man’s very life. Can fire be carried in the bosom without burning one’s clothes? Or can one walk on hot coals without scorching the feet? So is he who sleeps with his neighbor’s wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. A thief who steals only to satisfy his appetite when hungry is not not despised. Yet if caught, he pays sevenfold; he forfeits all the wealth of his house. He who commits adultery with a woman has no sense; he who does it destroys himself. He will get wounds and dishonor, and his disgrace will not be wiped away. For jealousy arouses a husband’s fury, and he shows no restraint when he takes revenge. He will accept no compensation, and refuses a bribe no matter how great. This Decalogical intertext includes counterparts to ‫“ ͏כַּ ͏בֵּ ד אֶ ת אָ ִביָך וְ אֶ ת ִא͏מֶּ ָך‬honor your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; cf. Prov 6:20), ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּנְ אָ ף‬you shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18; cf. Prov 6:32), ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב‬you shall not steal” (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19; cf. Prov 6:30–31), and ‫“ ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד‬you shall A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches [London: Continuum, 2001], 668–78, at 675.) Cf. also the Islamic shahada, the beginning of which is commonly translated, “There is no god but God.” 14 See, e.g., Christl Maier, “‘Begehre nicht ihre Schönheit in deinem Herzen’ (Prov 6,25): Eine Aktualisierung des Ehebruchsverbots aus persischer Zeit,” Biblical Interpretation 5, no. 1 (1997): 46–62. 4.1. The Decalogue 81 not covet” (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21; cf. Prov 6:25). This passage is, however, closer to V’s version than the canonical ones in four distinct ways. First, the word ‫“ הון‬wealth” appears here in the context of the sin of theft (6:31), unlike the Decalogues of Exodus or Deuteronomy, but precisely as in V (E 3:8):15 · ‫לא תגנב · את הן · אחך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ You shall not steal the wealth of your brother. I am Elohim, your god. Second, the verb ‫ חמד‬here relates specifically to lusting after a person (6:25), rather than asexual coveting. This stands in contrast to the Exodus version, where ‫ חמד‬applies to inanimate objects (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21 is inconclusive), but it is in perfect consonance with V: · ‫לא תחמד · אשת · ]רעך[ · עבדו · ואמתו · וכל · אשר · לו · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ You shall not desire the wife of [your fellow], his male slave, his female slave, or anything that is his. I am Elohim, your god. (E 4:6–7) · ‫ברך אשר לא נשא עינו אל ]כל נפ[ש רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן‬ “Blessed is he who does not lust after an[yone be]longing to his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” (G 4:7–8) · ‫וישא֯ ֯ענ֯ו אל אשת רעהו אל בתו ואמת]ו[ ולכל אשר לו ]וענו כל העם[ ואמרו אמן‬ ֯ ‫ארר האיש אשר יחמד‬ “Cursed is the man who desires and lusts after the wife of his fellow, his daughter, [his] female slave, or anything that is his.” [And all the people shall call] out “Amen.” (H 1:3–4) The idiom ‫( נשא עיניים אל פלוני‬lit. “cast one’s eyes toward X”) means “lust after.” Cf. Gen 39:7: ‫דנָיו אֶ ת עֵ ינֶיהָ אֶ ל יוֹסֵ ף וַ͏תּ ֹאמֶ ר ִ͏שׁ ְכבָ ה ִע ִ͏מּי׃‬ ֹ ‫א‬ ֲ ‫וַיְ ִהי אַ חַ ר הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה ו ִַ͏תּ͏שָּׂ א אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת‬ After these occurrences, his master’s wife cast her eyes toward Joseph [or lusted after Joseph] and said, “Lie with me.” The phrase is also used figuratively regarding the gods desired by Israel, as in Ezek 18:12: ‫͏לּ͏וּלים נָ͏שָׂ א עֵ ינָיו ͏תּוֹעֵ בָ ה עָ ͏שָׂ ה׃‬ ִ ִ‫ָ͏שׁיב וְ אֶ ל הַ ͏גּ‬ ִ ‫חבֹל ל ֹא י‬ ֲ ‫עָ נִ י וְ אֶ ְביוֹן הוֹנָה ͏גְּ זֵלוֹת ָ͏גּזָל‬ He oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, casts his eyes toward the idols [or lusts after the idols], commits abomination. Third, as is the case in Jer 29:23, discussed above, ‫ נאף‬here takes ‫ אשה‬as its direct object (6:32), as in V but against the canonical versions. Fourth, this unit concludes with: ‫“ ל ֹא יִ ͏שָּׂ א ְ͏פּנֵי כָ ל ͏כֹּפֶ ר וְ ל ֹא י ֹאבֶ ה ִ͏כּי תַ ְר͏בֶּ ה ͏שֹׁחַ ד‬He will accept no compensation, and refuses a bribe no matter how great” (6:35). While this finds a 15 See discussion of this noun in §6.4.1. 82 4. Biblical Intertexts counterpart in neither the Exodic nor the Deuteronomic Decalogue, it has a perfect match in the eighth cursed man listed in V, which corresponds to the eighth proclamation in the Valedictoric Decalogue: · ‫ארר לקח ש]חד[ ֯לה]עד[ ֯עדת שקר בעמת]ו וענו כל הע[ם ואמ]רו[ אמן‬ “Cursed is he who takes a br[ibe] to g[ive] false judgment against his comr[ade.” And all the peo]ple [shall call] o[ut] “Amen.” (H 1:2–3) 4.1.6. Leviticus 19 Leviticus 19 contains perhaps the most famous Decalogue parallel in the Hebrew Bible.16 The correspondences are concentrated in verses 1–4 and 11–18: ‫ֹ͏שׁים ִ͏תּ ְהי͏וּ ִ͏כּי קָ דוֹ͏שׁ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃‬ ִ ‫וַיְ ַד͏בֵּ ר יְ הוָה אֶ ל מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ͏לֵּ אמֹר׃ ַ͏דּ͏בֵּ ר אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ע ֲַדת ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וְ אָ מַ ְר͏תָּ אֲלֵ הֶ ם ְקד‬ ‫ילים וֵאֹלהֵ י מַ ͏סֵּ כָ ה ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ לָ כֶ ם‬ ִ ‫ירא͏וּ וְ אֶ ת ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁמֹר͏וּ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְפנ͏וּ אֶ ל הָ א ֱִל‬ ָ ‫ִאי͏שׁ ִא͏מּוֹ וְ אָ ִביו ִ͏תּ‬ ‫אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ ]…[ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב͏וּ וְ ל ֹא ְתכַ חֲ͏שׁ͏וּ וְ ל ֹא ְת͏שַׁ ְ͏קּר͏וּ ִאי͏שׁ ͏בַּ ע ֲִמיתוֹ׃ וְ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׁ ְבע͏וּ ִב ְ͏שׁ ִמי לַ ͏שָּׁ קֶ ר וְ ִח͏לַּ ְל͏תָּ אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם‬ ‫ע͏שֹׁק אֶ ת ֵרעֲָך וְ ל ֹא ִתגְ זֹל ל ֹא תָ ִלין ְ͏פּעֻ ͏לַּ ת ͏שָׂ ִכיר ִא ְ͏תָּך עַ ד ͏בֹּקֶ ר׃ ל ֹא ְתקַ ͏לֵּ ל חֵ ֵר͏שׁ וְ ִל ְפנֵי ִע͏וֵּר‬ ֲ ַ‫אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃ ל ֹא ת‬ ‫ל ֹא ִת͏תֵּ ן ִמ ְכ͏שֹׁל וְ י ֵָראתָ ͏מֵּ אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃ ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ עָ וֶל ͏בַּ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ט ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א ְפנֵי ָדל וְ ל ֹא תֶ ְה ַ͏דּר ְ͏פּנֵי גָדוֹל ְ͏בּצֶ ֶדק‬ ‫יח‬ ַ ‫͏תּוֹכ‬ ִ ‫עמֹד עַ ל ַ͏דּם ֵרעֶ ָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃ ל ֹא ִת ְ͏שׂנָא אֶ ת אָ ִחיָך ִ͏בּ ְלבָ בֶ ָך הוֹכֵ ַח‬ ֲ ַ‫ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁ͏פֹּט ע ֲִמיתֶ ָך׃ ל ֹא תֵ לֵ ְך ָר ִכיל ְ͏בּעַ ͏מֶּ יָך ל ֹא ת‬ ‫אֶ ת ע ֲִמיתֶ ָך וְ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א עָ לָ יו חֵ ְטא׃ ל ֹא ִת͏קֹּם וְ ל ֹא ִת͏טֹּר אֶ ת ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מֶּ ָך וְ אָ הַ ְב͏תָּ ְל ֵרעֲָך ͏כָּ מוָֹך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃‬ YHWH spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them: You shall be holy, for I YHWH, your god, am holy. Each of you, your mother and father you shall revere, and my sabbaths you shall observe: I am YHWH, your god. Do not turn to idols or make cast images for yourselves: I am YHWH, your god. […] You shall not steal; you shall not deceive; and you shall not lie to one another. And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your god: I am YHWH. You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind; you shall fear your god: I am YHWH. You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand upon the blood of your neighbor: I am YHWH. You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not avenge or bear a grudge [alternatively: exact retribution] against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am YHWH. (Lev 19:1–4, 11–18) This intertext was recognized at least as early as R. Levi in Lev. Rab. 24:5, who listed a long series of parallels. Since R. Levi, many attempts have been made to find all the correspondences between this chapter and the Decalogue. These 16 See, e.g., Sigmund Mowinckel, “Zur Geschichte der Dekaloge,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 55, no. 3–4 (1937): 218–35; Julian Morgenstern, “The Decalogue of the Holiness Code,” Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955): 1–27; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1596–1602; Moshe Kline, “‘The Editor Was Nodding’: A Reading of Leviticus 19 in Memory of Mary Douglas,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8, no. 17 (2008): 1–59; Esias E. Meyer, “The Reinterpretation of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19 and the Centrality of Cult,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 30, no. 2 (2016): 198–214. 4.1. The Decalogue 83 proposals are all similar; they are also similarly incomplete. Nevertheless, the Decalogical nature of this chapter is inescapable. Parallels include: ‫͏שָׁ מוֹר אֶ ת‬/‫זָכוֹר‬ ‫“ יוֹם הַ ͏שַּׁ ͏בָּ ת‬Remember/observe the sabbath day” (Exod 20:8; Deut 5:12) vs. ‫וְ אֶ ת‬ ‫“ ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁמֹר͏וּ‬and my sabbaths you shall observe” (Lev 19:3aβ); ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב‬you shall not steal” (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19) vs. ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב͏וּ‬you shall not steal” (Lev 19:11); ‫“ ͏כַּ ͏בֵּ ד אֶ ת אָ ִביָך וְ אֶ ת ִא͏מֶּ ָך‬honor your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16) vs. ‫“ ִאי͏שׁ ִא͏מּוֹ וְ אָ ִביו ִ͏תּ ָירא͏וּ‬each of you, your mother and father you shall revere” (Lev 19:3aα); ‫͏כָּ ל ְ͏תּמ͏וּנָה‬/‫“ ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שֶׂ ה ְלָך פֶ סֶ ל וְ כָ ל‬you shall not fashion for yourself any statue or image/of any image” (Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8) vs. ‫ילים וֵאֹלהֵ י‬ ִ ‫אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְפנ͏וּ אֶ ל הָ א ֱִל‬ ‫“ מַ ͏סֵּ כָ ה ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ לָ כֶ ם‬do not turn to idols or make cast images for yourselves” (Lev 19:4). Moshe Kline summarizes the current state of affairs: The reason that others have explored the relationship between the Decalogue and Leviticus 19 is that Leviticus 19 contains word for word fragments of some components of the Decalogue, as well as some less literal allusions. Milgrom lists no less than six different “attempts to find the Decalogue in this chapter…both ancient and modern.” While the number of near repetitions has caused Schwartz to pose at least a common source, there is still no satisfying explanation for the parallels.17 Baruch Schwartz argues that the case for Leviticus 19 being a Decalogue intertext is often overstated, noting, for example, that there is no parallel for either ‫ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶה‬ ‫ֱֹלהים אֲחֵ ִרים עַ ל ͏פָּ נָי‬ ִ ‫“ ְלָך א‬you shall have no other gods before me” (Gen 20:3; Deut 5:7) or ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּ ְרצָ ח‬you shall not kill” (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).18 Indeed, this is true if one compares Leviticus 19 to the received text and follows the traditional rabbinic division of proclamations, but it is not the case if we instead juxtapose the Valediction of Moses. In V there is no independent ‫ ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶה‬proclamation — it is part of the first proclamation, which begins with ‫“ אנך אלהם אלהך‬I am Elohim, your god” — meaning that even a comprehensive Decalogue intertext need not contain a correspondence to that particular sentence. Meanwhile, ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּ ְרצָ ח‬you shall not kill” does indeed have a parallel in ‫“ ל ֹא ִת͏קֹּם וְ ל ֹא ִת͏טֹּר אֶ ת ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מֶּ ָך‬You shall not avenge or bear a grudge [alternatively: exact retribution] against any of your people” (Lev 19:18aα), as is evident from V’s fourth blessed man: · ‫ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו וענו אמן‬ “Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge or exact retribution for the soul of his brother.” And they shall respond “Amen.” (G 4:3–4) As impressive as Leviticus 19 may be as a Decalogue intertext, a comparison of the chapter to V’s Decalogue constellation dramatically increases the number of correspondences. I count at least eight additional connections: 17 Kline, “The Editor Was Nodding,” 42. Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 372–74. 18 84 4. Biblical Intertexts 1. ‫“ ל ֹא ִת ְ͏שׂנָא אֶ ת אָ ִחיָך ִ͏בּ ְלבָ בֶ ָך‬you shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Lev 19:17a) appears verbatim in V as its tenth proclamation (E 4:8). 2. “love your fellow as yourself ” (Lev 19:18aβ) has a counterpart in V’s tenth blessed man, corresponding to the tenth proclamation: ‫[“ ]ברך[ האיש אשר יאהב את רעהו‬Blessed] is the man who loves his fellow” (G 4:8–9). 3. ‫“ וְ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׁ ְבע͏וּ ִב ְ͏שׁ ִמי לַ ͏שָּׁ קֶ ר‬and you shall not swear in my name falsely” (Lev 19:12a) is practically identical to V’s seventh proclamation: ‫לא תשבע · בשמי‬ · ‫“ · לשקר‬you shall not swear in my name falsely” (E 4:1). ‫וְ אָ הַ ְב͏תָּ ְל ֵרעֲָך ͏כָּ מוָֹך‬ 4. As noted above, ‫“ ל ֹא ִת͏קֹּם וְ ל ֹא ִת͏טֹּר אֶ ת ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מֶּ ָך‬You shall not avenge or bear a grudge [alternatively: exact retribution] against any of your people” (Lev 19:18aα) corresponds to the fourth blessed man in V: ‫ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא‬ ‫“ יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו‬Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge or exact retribution for the soul of his brother” (G 4:3). 5. The Levitical injunction, ֹ‫“ וְ ל ֹא ְתכַ חֲ͏שׁ͏וּ וְ ל ֹא ְת͏שַׁ ְ͏קּר͏וּ ִאי͏שׁ ͏בַּ ע ֲִמיתו‬you shall not deceive; and you shall not lie to one another” (Lev 19:11b), is a perfect match ֯ ‫“ ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש ולא‬Blessed for V’s eighth blessed man: ‫]י[שקר ברעהו‬ is the man who does not deceive or [l]ie to his fellow” (G 4:6–7). 6. The commandment not to mistreat the alien, ‫וְ ִכי יָג͏וּר ִא ְ͏תָּך ͏גֵּר ְ͏בּאַ ְר ְצכֶ ם ל ֹא תוֹנ͏וּ‬ ֹ‫“ אֹתו‬should an alien reside with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien” (Lev 19:33), is reminiscent of V’s sixth blessed man: ‫ברך האיש אשר לא‬ ‫“ י]נ[ה את רעהו‬Blessed is the man who does not ch[ea]t his fellow” (G 4:5). 7. A Yahwistic version of the refrain that appears after each proclamation in V – · ‫“ אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬I am Elohim, your god” – features prominently in Leviticus 19, e.g., ‫ילים וֵאֹלהֵ י מַ ͏סֵּ כָ ה ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ לָ כֶ ם אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם‬ ִ ‫אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְפנ͏וּ אֶ ל הָ א ֱִל‬ “Do not turn to idols or make cast images for yourselves. I am YHWH, your god” (Lev 19:4). In some cases, the abbreviated refrain ‫“ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬I am YHWH” appears, as in ‫“ ל ֹא תֵ לֵ ְך ָר ִכיל ְ͏בּעַ ͏מֶּ יָך ל ֹא תַ ֲעמֹד עַ ל ַ͏דּם ֵרעֶ ָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand upon the blood of your neighbor: I am YHWH” (Lev 19:16). 8. Like V’s Decalogue, but unlike the canonical versions, the Decalogical parts of Leviticus 19 are predominantly spoken by the deity in the first person. Schwartz goes on to suggest that Leviticus 19 and the canonical Decalogues share a common ancestor.19 I hereby submit V as candidate for said ancestor. 19 Schwartz, Holiness, 377. 4.1. The Decalogue 85 4.1.7. Ezekiel 22:6–12 Chapter 22 of Ezekiel contains a passage that evokes the Decalogue and its counterpart in Leviticus 19: ‫ִה͏נֵּה נְ ִ͏שׂיאֵ י יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ִאי͏שׁ ִלזְ רֹעוֹ הָ י͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם׃ אָ ב וָאֵ ם הֵ קַ ͏לּ͏וּ בָ ְך לַ ͏גֵּר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ בַ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק ְ͏בּתוֹכֵ ְך יָתוֹם וְ אַ ְלמָ נָה‬ ‫הוֹנ͏וּ בָ ְך׃ קָ ָד͏שַׁ י ͏בָּ זִ ית וְ אֶ ת ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִח͏לָּ ְל ְ͏תּ׃ אַ נְ ͏שֵׁ י ָר ִכיל הָ י͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם וְ אֶ ל הֶ הָ ִרים אָ ְכל͏וּ בָ ְך זִ ͏מָּ ה עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ‬ ‫ְבתוֹכֵ ְך׃ עֶ ְרוַת אָ ב ͏גִּ ͏לָּ ה בָ ְך ְטמֵ אַ ת הַ ͏נִּ ָ͏דּה ִע͏נּ͏וּ בָ ְך׃ וְ ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ עָ ͏שָׂ ה ͏תּוֹעֵ בָ ה וְ ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת ͏כַּ ͏לָּ תוֹ ִט͏מֵּ א ְבזִ ͏מָּ ה‬ ‫אחֹתוֹ בַ ת אָ ִביו ִע͏נָּה בָ ְך׃ ͏שֹׁחַ ד לָ ְקח͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם נֶ͏שֶׁ ְך וְ תַ ְר ִ͏בּית לָ קַ חַ ְ͏תּ ו ְַ͏תּבַ ְ͏צּ ִעי ֵרעַ יִ ְך ͏בַּ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק וְ א ִֹתי‬ ֲ ‫וְ ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת‬ ‫דנָי יְ הוִ ה׃‬ ֹ ‫א‬ ֲ ‫͏שָׁ כַ חַ ְ͏תּ נְ אֻ ם‬ The princes of Israel in you, everyone according to his power, have been bent on shedding blood. Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the alien residing within you suffers extortion; the orphan and the widow are wronged in you. You have despised my holy things, and profaned my sabbaths. In you are those who slander to shed blood, those in you who eat upon the mountains, who commit lewdness in your midst. In you they uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women in their menstrual periods. One commits abomination with his neighbor’s wife; another lewdly defiles his daughterin-law; another in you defiles his sister, his father’s daughter. In you, they take bribes to shed blood; you take both advance interest and accrued interest, and make gain of your neighbors by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the lord, YHWH. (Ezek 22:6–12) Moshe Weinfeld lists this pericope’s Decalogical parallels, as well as some lessthan-perfect matches: The Book of Ezekiel also contains, in chapter 22. 6–12, another similar list which resembles the Decalogue even more strongly. That chapter includes the Sabbath and honoring one’s parents (verses 7–8), as well as the prohibition of bloodshed and illicit sex (9–11). But alongside these there is also reference to cheating and bribery (7 and 12) usury (12) and matters relating to ceremonial and sacred things (8 and 9) as well as ritual purity and impurity. Actually all the subjects correspond remarkably to the content of Leviticus 19.20 Let us review the verses cited by Weinfeld as poor complements for the Decalogue: ‫אָ ב וָאֵ ם הֵ קַ ͏לּ͏וּ בָ ְך לַ ͏גֵּר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ בַ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק ְ͏בּתוֹכֵ ְך יָתוֹם וְ אַ ְלמָ נָה הוֹנ͏וּ בָ ְך׃‬ Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the alien residing within you suffers extortion; the orphan and the widow are wronged in you. (Ezek 22:7) As Weinfeld notes, the first part of this verse correlates with ‫͏כַּ ͏בֵּ ד אֶ ת אָ ִביָך וְ אֶ ת ִא͏מֶּ ָך‬ “honor your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). The second part addresses cheating, and it includes the verb ‫הונה‬. This is comparable to the sixth 20 Weinfeld, “Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 17–18. 86 4. Biblical Intertexts blessed man in V (corresponding to the ‫ לא תגנב‬proclamation), which features the same verb: [· ‫ברך האיש אשר לא י]נ[ה את רעהו וענו כל ה]עם ואמרו אמן‬ “Blessed is the man who does not ch[ea]t his fellow.” And all the [people] shall call [out “Amen.” ] (G 4:5) The next verse listed by Weinfeld as containing non-Decalogical elements is 22:12, specifically its references to bribery and usury: ‫דנָי יְ הוִ ה‬ ֹ ‫א‬ ֲ ‫͏שֹׁחַ ד לָ ְקח͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם נֶ͏שֶׁ ְך וְ תַ ְר ִ͏בּית לָ קַ חַ ְ͏תּ ו ְַ͏תּבַ ְ͏צּ ִעי ֵרעַ יִ ְך ͏בַּ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק וְ א ִֹתי ͏שָׁ כַ חַ ְ͏תּ נְ אֻ ם‬ In you, they take bribes to shed blood; you take both advance interest and accrued interest, and make gain of your neighbors by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the lord, YHWH. (Ezek 22:12) Usury would appear to fall under the rubric of ‫עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק‬, which correlates with ‫לא תגנב‬, as noted above. As for the bribery reference, we have seen that it has a close parallel in V’s eighth cursed man: · ‫ארר לקח ש]חד[ ֯לה]עד[ ֯עדת שקר בעמת]ו וענו כל הע[ם ואמ]רו[ אמן‬ “Cursed is he who takes a br[ibe] to g[ive] false judgment against his comr[ade.” And all the peo]ple [shall call] o[ut] “Amen.” (H 1:2–3) Verses 8 and 9, according to Weinfeld, relate to ceremonial matters, sanctity, purity, and impurity. ‫קָ ָד͏שַׁ י ͏בָּ זִ ית וְ אֶ ת ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִח͏לָּ ְל ְ͏תּ׃ אַ נְ ͏שֵׁ י ָר ִכיל הָ י͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם וְ אֶ ל הֶ הָ ִרים אָ ְכל͏וּ בָ ְך זִ ͏מָּ ה עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ ְבתוֹכֵ ְך׃‬ You have despised my holy things, and profaned my sabbaths. In you are those who slander to shed blood, those in you who eat upon the mountains, who commit lewdness in your midst. (Ezek 22:8–9) The first verse, in its entirety, is a good match for V, which frames the observance of the Sabbath in terms of sanctity: · ‫קדש · ]את יום · השבעי · ושבת · בו · כי ש[שת · ימם · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם‬ · ‫ושבתי · ביום · השבעי · על · כן · תשבת · גם · אתה · ובהמתך · וכל · אשר · לך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ Sanctify [the seventh day and rest on it. For in s]ix days I made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and I rested on the seventh day. Therefore you too shall rest, along with your livestock and all that you have. I am Elohim, your god. (E 2:8–3:4) · ‫ברך הא[יש אשר י]קדש את היום השבעי וישבת בו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן‬ “Blessed is the m[an who sa]nctifies the seventh day and rests on it.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” (G 4:1–2) Verse 9 contains slander, bloodshed, and licentiousness, all of which have Decalogical parallels. In V, these would be the fourth, eighth, and ninth proclamations. 4.2. Gerizim and Ebal 87 The last of these is particularly true for V, where ‫ חמד‬has salient sexual connotations, as discussed above. In sum, Ezek 22:6–12 is closer to V’s Decalogue than it is to the other known versions. 4.1.8. Interim Summary We have seen that many biblical passages long recognized as Decalogue intertexts are, in fact, more intimately related to the Valediction of Moses than to any other known text. The common denominator between all these passages is V’s unique Decalogue constellation. The parsimonious explanation is therefore that they are based on V or a close relative thereof; it is hard to reconstruct a coherent scenario in which V is based on any of the biblical Decalogue intertexts. There is one piece of evidence that Leviticus 19 is based upon a post-V (but pre-Deuteronomy) tradition. The Deuteronomic version of the list of cursed men includes a sin relating to the tormenting of the blind that is absent in the Valediction of Moses: ‫‘“ אָ ר͏וּר מַ ְ͏שׁ͏גֶּה ִע͏וֵּר ͏בַּ ָ͏דּ ֶרְך וְ אָ מַ ר ͏כָּ ל הָ עָ ם אָ מֵ ן‬Cursed is he who misleads a blind person on the road.’ And all the people shall say ‘Amen’” (Deut 27:18). Leviticus 19 too lists such a sin: ‫ל ֹא ְתקַ ͏לֵּ ל חֵ ֵר͏שׁ וְ ִל ְפנֵי ִע͏וֵּר ל ֹא ִת͏תֵּ ן ִמ ְכ͏שֹׁל וְ י ֵָראתָ ͏מֵּ אֱֹלהֶ יָך‬ ‫“ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬You shall not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block before a blind person. You shall fear your god; I am YHWH” (Lev 19:14). It appears, therefore, that we can posit an intermediate version of V that still included the “I am Elohim/YHWH, your god” refrain, along with the many other V intertexts found in Leviticus 19, but which had already evolved in at least one way towards the canonical book of Deuteronomy. 4.2. Gerizim and Ebal As discussed in chapter 3, the commandment to proclaim blessings and curses at Gerizim and Ebal appears in V as a single literary unit, whereas it is split in Deuteronomy between chapters 11 and 27–28. Despite the overwhelming similarity between the Deuteronomic and Valedictoric versions – prodigious interruption notwithstanding – there are several notable divergences. I will elaborate here upon two of these: the versions’ respective tribal lists, and the location of Gerizim and Ebal. 4.2.1. The Tribal Lists The Gerizim and Ebal pericopes in V and Deuteronomy differ subtly with regard to the tribes that are instructed to gather upon the two hills. Whereas in Deuteronomy, the familiar twelve sons of Jacob are listed, V mentions neither Joseph nor Levi; instead it lists Ephraim and Manasseh. Thus, the twelve tribes according 88 4. Biblical Intertexts to V are Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin. Deut 27:12–13 G 3:9–11 Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Vb ) ‫אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ ְלבָ ֵרְך אֶ ת הָ עָ ם עַ ל הַ ר‬ ‫ואלה י֯]עמדו על הר עבל[ ראובן‬ ‫͏גְּ ִרזִ ים ְ͏בּעָ ְב ְרכֶ ם אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן‬ ‫זבולן וגד אשר ד]ן[ ונ]פתלי[ ואלה‬ ָ ִ‫וְ לֵ וִ י ו‬ ‫͏וּבנְ י ִָמן׃‬ ִ ‫יה͏וּדה וְ יִ ͏שָּׂ שכָ ר וְ יוֹסֵ ף‬ ‫יעמדו על הר גרזם שמען ויהודה‬ ‫וְ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ עַ ל הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ְ͏בּהַ ר עֵ יבָ ל‬ ‫וישכר מנשה ואפרם ובנימן‬ ‫ְרא͏וּבֵ ן ͏גָּד וְ אָ ͏שֵׁ ר ͏וּזְ ב͏וּלֻ ן ָ͏דּן וְ נ ְַפ͏תָּ ִלי׃‬ While neither Joseph nor Levi is included in the lists of the tribes, the V version does mention the Levites. Unlike the tribes, all of which are presented by their associated proper nouns – Reuben, Simeon, etc. – the Levites are designated as ‫“ הלוים‬the Levites,” a plural nisbe with the definite article. The Levites are present, but they are not a tribe. Although V’s list of tribes differs from that of its Deuteronomic counterpart, it is not entirely unfamiliar.21 For instance, in Num 13:1–15, we find the following: ‫ָ͏שׁים וְ יָתֻ ר͏וּ אֶ ת אֶ ֶרץ ְ͏כּנַעַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אֲנִ י נֹתֵ ן ִל ְבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ִאי͏שׁ אֶ חָ ד ִאי͏שׁ אֶ חָ ד‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ ‫וַיְ ַד͏בֵּ ר יְ הוָה אֶ ל־מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ͏לֵּ אמֹר׃ ְ͏שׁלַ ח ְלָך‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים ָרא͏שֵׁ י ְבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ ‫ארן עַ ל ִ͏פּי יְ הוָה ͏כֻּ ͏לָּ ם‬ ָ ָ‫ָ͏שׂיא בָ הֶ ם׃ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁלַ ח אֹתָ ם מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ִמ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בַּ ר ͏פּ‬ ִ ‫אבֹתָ יו ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁלָ ח͏וּ ͏כֹּל נ‬ ֲ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה‬ ‫הֵ ͏מָּ ה׃ וְ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה ְ͏שׁמוֹתָ ם‬ ‫͏מּ͏וּע ͏בֶּ ן זַ͏כּ͏וּר׃‬ ַ ַ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ְרא͏וּבֵ ן ͏שׁ‬ ‫חוֹרי׃‬ ִ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן ͏שָׁ פָ ט ͏בֶּ ן‬ ‫ה͏וּדה ͏כָּ לֵ ב ͏בֶּ ן יְ פֻ ͏נֶּה׃‬ ָ ְ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה י‬ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה יִ ͏שָּׂ שכָ ר יִ גְ אָ ל ͏בֶּ ן יוֹסֵ ף׃‬ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה אֶ ְפ ָריִ ם הוֹ͏שֵׁ ַע ִ͏בּן נ͏וּן׃‬ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ִבנְ י ִָמן ͏פַּ ְל ִטי ͏בֶּ ן ָרפ͏וּא׃‬ ‫סוֹדי׃‬ ִ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה זְ ב͏וּלֻ ן ͏גּ ִַ͏דּיאֵ ל ͏בֶּ ן‬ ‫ס͏וּסי׃‬ ִ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה יוֹסֵ ף ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ְמנַ͏שֶּׁ ה ͏גּ ִַ͏דּי ͏בֶּ ן‬ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ָדן עַ ִ͏מּיאֵ ל ͏בֶּ ן ͏גְּ מַ ִ͏לּי׃‬ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה אָ ͏שֵׁ ר ְסת͏וּר ͏בֶּ ן ִמיכָ אֵ ל׃‬ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה נ ְַפ͏תָּ ִלי נ ְַח ִ͏בּי ͏בֶּ ן ו ְָפ ִסי׃‬ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה גָד ͏גְּ א͏וּאֵ ל ͏בֶּ ן מָ ִכי׃‬ YHWH said to Moses, “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites; from each of their ancestral tribes you shall send a man, every one a leader among them.” So Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran, according to the command of YHWH, all of them leading men among the Israelites. These were their names: From the tribe of Reuben, Shammua son of Zaccur. From the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat son of Hori. 21 For more on the Hebrew Bible’s tribal schemes and the place of the Levites within them, see Martin Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1930); Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), Mark Leuchter, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); Andrew Tobolowsky, The Sons of Jacob and the Sons of Herakles: The History of the Tribal System and the Organization of Biblical Identity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017). 4.2. Gerizim and Ebal 89 From the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Jephunneh. From the tribe of Issachar, Igal son of Joseph. From the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea son of Nun. From the tribe of Benjamin, Palti son of Raphu. From the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel son of Sodi. From the tribe of Joseph, from the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi son of Susi. From the tribe of Dan, Ammiel son of Gemalli. From the tribe of Asher, Sethur son of Michael. From the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi son of Vophsi. From the tribe of Gad, Geuel son of Machi. Despite the instruction being “from each of their ancestral tribes you shall send a man” (13:2), and despite a total of twelve spies being dispatched, no spy is sent from the tribe of Levi. Instead, we find that Ephraim and Manasseh – quite unexpectedly – each have their own spy. Notably, there is no difference in the presentation of Ephraim, despite it being a “sub-tribe” – the text simply states, “from the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea son of Nun” (13:8). On the other hand, the standard phrase “from the tribe of Manasseh” is prefaced, awkwardly, with “from the tribe of Joseph.” This is evidently an editorial attempt to bring the text in line with the “traditional” tribal scheme, according to which Joseph is a tribe, rather than Ephraim and Manasseh. The same phenomenon can be seen in Num 1:4–15. Again, the list is presented as including one member from every tribe. Again, Levi is absent. Again, Ephraim and Manasseh are present. Again, a secondary insertion reflects an attempt to smooth over the glaring incongruity. The direction of evolution embodied in both of these Numbers texts is clear, and it supports the idea that the tribal scheme that includes Joseph and Levi is the later one, whereas Ephraim and Manasseh belong to the earlier system. (Literary evidence aside, surely the Priestly corpus did not evolve away from the idea that there existed a tribe of Levi.) This corresponds to the evolutionary vector from V to Deuteronomy. It is worth noting that the alternative list matches the territorial landscape: Ephraim and Manasseh are depicted as having separate tribal lands, whereas Levi has none. If not a tribe, though, what were the Levites in the earlier conception? While the answer to this is not certain, it seems plausible that they were originally members of a profession or guild. And if the Levites were not originally a tribe, it should come as no surprise that they lacked tribal territory. This insight may help clarify difficult passages such as Judg 17:7, where we find a Levite paradoxically hailing from the family of Judah: ‫ה͏וּדה וְ ה͏וּא לֵ וִ י וְ ה͏וּא‬ ָ ְ‫ה͏וּדה ִמ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ חַ ת י‬ ָ ְ‫וַיְ ִהי נַעַ ר ִמ͏בֵּ ית לֶ חֶ ם י‬ ‫“ גָר ͏שָׁ ם‬Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite, and he was residing there.”22 22 This apparent oxymoron has perturbed readers for centuries. In his commentary, Rashi writes that the youth was the son of a Judahite man and a Levite woman. Rashi’s contemporary, Joseph Kara, suggested the opposite: He was the son of a Judahite woman and a Levite man. The crux remains unresolved. J. Alberto Soggin sums up the quagmire, ultimately concluding 90 4. Biblical Intertexts It seems that the introduction of Levi into the tribal scheme necessitated a tribal consolidation elsewhere, if the number twelve was to be maintained. Ephraim and Manasseh were therefore subsumed into a new super-tribe – Joseph – which, in turn, required some labyrinthine reasoning to reconcile with the reality on the ground (or a memory of such a reality): ‫יתָך ͏וּנְ תַ ִ͏תּיָך‬ ִ ‫עקֹב אֶ ל יוֹסֵ ף אֵ ל ͏שַׁ ַ͏דּי נִ ְראָ ה אֵ לַ י ְ͏בּל͏וּז ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ ְ͏כּנָעַ ן וַיְ בָ ֶרְך א ִֹתי׃ וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֵ לַ י ִהנְ נִ י מַ ְפ ְרָך וְ ִה ְר ִ͏בּ‬ ֲ ‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר ַי‬ ‫ִל ְקהַ ל עַ ִ͏מּים וְ נָתַ ִ͏תּי אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ הַ ͏זּ ֹאת ְלז ְַרעֲָך אַ ח ֲֶריָך אֲחֻ ͏זַּת עוֹלָ ם׃ וְ עַ ͏תָּ ה ְ͏שׁנֵי בָ נֶיָך הַ ͏נּוֹלָ ִדים ְלָך ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם עַ ד‬ ‫͏וּמנַ͏שֶּׁ ה ִ͏כּ ְרא͏וּבֵ ן וְ ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן יִ ְהי͏וּ ִלי׃ ͏וּמוֹלַ ְד ְ͏תָּך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הוֹלַ ְד͏תָּ אַ ח ֲֵריהֶ ם ְלָך יִ ְהי͏וּ עַ ל‬ ְ ‫͏בּ ִֹאי אֵ לֶ יָך ִמ ְצ ַריְ מָ ה ִלי הֵ ם אֶ ְפ ַריִ ם‬ ‫͏שֵׁ ם אֲחֵ יהֶ ם יִ ͏קָּ ְרא͏וּ ְ͏בּ ַנחֲלָ תָ ם׃‬ And Jacob said to Joseph, “El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and he blessed me, and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers; I will make of you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your offspring after you for a perpetual holding.’ Therefore your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are now mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are. As for the offspring born to you after them, they shall be yours. They shall be recorded under the names of their brothers with regard to their inheritance.” (Gen 48:3–6) This brings us back to the topic of intertexts. The fulfillment of the GerizimEbal commandment in Joshua 8 matches the narrative as told in V better than the canonical version. Whereas in Deuteronomy the Levites are to stand on Gerizim – considering that they are a tribe like any other – in Joshua 8 we find the “Levitical priests” (‫ )הַ ֹ͏כּהֲנִ ים הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם‬in the valley between the hills, with “all of Israel” standing opposite them, on either side: ‫ֹ͏שׂאֵ י אֲרוֹן ְ͏בּ ִרית יְ הוָה ͏כַּ ͏גֵּר ͏כָּ אֶ זְ ָרח‬ ְ ‫͏כּהֲנִ ים הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם נ‬ ֹ ַ‫͏וּמ͏זֶּה לָ אָ רוֹן ֶנגֶד ה‬ ִ ‫ֹט ִרים וְ ͏שׁ ְֹפטָ יו עֹ ְמ ִדים ִמ͏זֶּה‬ ְ ‫וְ כָ ל יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ͏וּזְ קֵ נָיו וְ ͏שׁ‬ ‫͏שׁנָה׃‬ ֹ ‫חֶ ְציוֹ אֶ ל מ͏וּל הַ ר ͏גְּ ִרזִ ים וְ הַ חֶ ְציוֹ אֶ ל מ͏וּל הַ ר עֵ יבָ ל ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה מֹ͏שֶׁ ה עֶ בֶ ד יְ הוָה ְלבָ ֵרְך אֶ ת הָ עָ ם יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ͏בָּ ִרא‬ All of Israel, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the ark opposite the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of YHWH, alien as well as citizen, half of them in front of (alternatively: upon)23 Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of (alternatively: upon) Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of YHWH had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. (Josh 8:33) This is presented explicitly as a fulfillment of Moses’s commandment, and it is indeed precisely the scene dictated by Moses in V. It is not, however, in keeping that the Judahite heritage is an error (although he does not explain how this error might have occurred): “The Hebrew has gār šām, but should we not perhaps read geršōm, the name of Moses’ son, attested later in 18.30 as the ancestor of the priest in question? As well as corresponding with an assured piece of later information, this reading reduces the difficulty presented by the fact that the ‘levite’ was ‘of a Judahite family,’ cf. the commentary; however, the phrase seems improbable from a stylistic point of view (Gunneweg, 20 n. 3, and Cody, 54 n. 56), and all the probabilities are that ‘of a Judahite family’ should be deleted, although it is the lectio difficilior” (J. Alberto Soggin, Judges, ed. G. Ernest Wright et al., The Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981], 266). 23 I intend to address the semantics of ‫ אֶ ל מ͏וּל‬in a future publication. 4.2. Gerizim and Ebal 91 with what we find in the canonical version of Deuteronomy, where the Levites are to stand upon Mount Gerizim, shoulder-to-shoulder with their brethren. 4.2.2. The Location of Gerizim and Ebal Another difference between the Valediction of Moses and Deuteronomy relates to the location of Gerizim and Ebal within Canaan. In V, this pair of hills is nowhere near Nablus: Deut 11:30 G 3:8–9 Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Vb ) ‫הֲל ֹא הֵ ͏מָּ ה ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן אַ ח ֲֵרי ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬ ‫הלא המה בעבר ה]ירד[ן דרך‬ ‫ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שֶּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י הַ ͏יֹּ ͏שֵׁ ב‬ ‫מבא השמש בארץ הכנעני בע]רבה‬ ‫͏בָּ ע ֲָרבָ ה מ͏וּל הַ ͏גִּ ְל͏גָּל אֵ צֶ ל אֵ לוֹנֵי‬ · ‫נג[ד הגלגל אצל אלני מרא‬ ‫מ ֶֹרה׃‬ The differences between the Valedictoric and Deuteronomic versions are extremely subtle, but they make a world of difference. According to V, Gerizim and Ebal are located “across the [Jord]an westward, in the land of the Canaanites, in the A[rabah, oppo]site the stone circle, beside the oaks of Moré.” In other words, near the familiar gilgal in the Jordan Valley.24 Deuteronomy, for its part, places Gerizim and Ebal not ‫“ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שֶּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬westward,”25 but somehow ‫“ אַ ח ֲֵרי‬beyond” there.26 Difficult syntax notwithstanding, “beyond” serves to move their location 24 Indeed, it appears that the Hebrew Bible speaks of only a single gilgal, as Israel Finkelstein writes: “Yet, though the name sounds generic, I suggest that there was only one Gilgal, best depicted in Hosea (4:15; 9:15; 12:12) and Amos (4:4; 5:5), who mention it in relation to Bethel. It is described as a site near Jericho (Josh 4:19; 5:10; 15:7), close to the Jordan (e.g., Josh 4:19; Jud 3:19; 2 Sam 19:16). The reference to what seems to be a different Gilgal (Deut 11:30) is confused” (Israel Finkelstein, “Jeroboam II’s Temples,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 132, no. 2 [2020]: 250–65, at 254). 25 The translation of V’s idiom ‫ עבר הירדן דרך מבא השמש‬as “across the Jordan westward” requires some unpacking. First, ‫ מבוא השמש‬is a (flowery) synonym for ‫מערב‬, just as ‫מזרח השמש‬ is a synonym for ‫מזרח‬. This is evident from many biblical passages, including ‫͏וּמֵ אֶ ֶרץ ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שָּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬ “and from the west country” (Zech 8:7) and ‫ב͏וּלכֶ ם‬ ְ ְ‫“ עַ ד הַ ͏יָּם הַ ͏גָּדוֹל ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שָּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ יִ ְהיֶה ͏גּ‬to the Great Sea in the west shall be your territory” (Josh 1:4). Indeed, ‫ עבר הירדן מזרח השמש‬means “across the Jordan eastward,” as in ‫“ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ן לָ כֶ ם מֹ͏שֶׁ ה עֶ בֶ ד יְ הוָה ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ִמזְ ַרח הַ ͏שָּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬which Moses the servant of YHWH gave you beyond the Jordan eastward” (Josh 1:15; cf. Deut 4:41, 47; Josh 12:1). This leaves ‫דרך‬, which is best translated here as “toward.” While this definition is not well known, it is nevertheless well attested. For example, ‫“ הַ ͏בֵּ ט ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך יָם‬look toward the sea” (1 Kgs 18:43) or ‫“ ַו ָ͏יּנֻס͏וּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר‬and they fled toward the desert” (Josh 8:15). ‫ דרך‬in this context is thus functionally equivalent to the directional he, and like its counterpart, it can be omitted. (Compare ‫[ ַו͏יּ ֵֶרד ִמ ְצ ַריְ מָ ה‬Deut 26:5] and ‫[ ַו͏יּ ְֵרד͏וּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Gen 43:15].) See also 1 Sam 13:18; Ezek 21:2; 40:20, 24, 44; 41:12. 26 “Beyond westward” is not sensible, leading some to harmonistically gloss “some distance to the west” (NRSV ) and others to interpret the phrase as “beyond the west road” (NJPS). Of course, considering that Moses and the Israelites were located to the east of the Jordan when this sentence was spoken, “beyond the west road” is not especially sensible, either, unless Gerizim 92 4. Biblical Intertexts away from the Jordan Valley region. Also, it is the Canaanites who reside in the Arabah – a seeming non sequitur – rather than the hills themselves, again transporting Gerizim and Ebal out of the Arabah. Remarkably, the tradition that Gerizim and Ebal are located in the Arabah, and not near Nablus, is attested in antiquity. In the early fourth century CE, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote the following: It is said that there are two mountains located near Jericho across from each other in close proximity, one being Gerizim and the other Ebal. But the Samaritans show others that are near Neapolis. They are mistaken, because those that are shown stand too far apart from each other, to the extent that it is not possible to hear from one (mountain) the calling from the other (Onomasticon §307).27 It is quite extraordinary that V’s placement of Gerizim and Ebal in the Arabah, which seems so idiosyncratic at first glance, is supported by Eusebius’s early testimony. But what about the biblical evidence? It does not seem likely that the Gerizim–Ebal episode in Joshua 8 occurs anywhere near the Jordan Valley’s gilgal, or else we would have expected the episode to appear earlier in the story, considering that the Israelites had previously camped at that very location (Josh 4:19). As it happens, this is precisely what we find in an intriguing Qumran manuscript of Joshua. Although this manuscript, 4QJosha , is fragmentary, it is nevertheless clear that the fulfillment of the Gerizim/Ebal commandment occurs several chapters earlier in this version than it does in the MT and LXX traditions. As Stefan Schorch writes: “4QJosha most likely originally presented the altar account between the verses 5:1 and 5:2 (according to the numbering of MT) and therefore localized the erection of the altar at Gilgal in the Jordan Valley.”28 Thus, in this ancient manuscript, the intertext between V and Joshua’s Gerizim–Ebal pericope includes an additional feature. While the Masoretic and Greek versions agree with V – against Deuteronomy – on the placement of the Levites, the version of Joshua in 4QJosha also shares V’s unorthodox ideas regarding the location of Gerizim and Ebal themselves. and Ebal were submerged in the Mediterranean Sea. 27 Neapolis is synonymous with Nablus and Shechem. Translation from R. Steven Notley and Ze’ev Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 64. Rabbi Eliezer (or Eleazar) in y. Sot. 7:3 also places Gerizim and Ebal in the Arabah. I thank Nachum Dershowitz for this reference. 28 Stefan Schorch, “Where Is the Altar? Scribal Intervention in the Book of Joshua and Beyond,” in Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions, ed. Benedikt Hensel, Dany Nocquet, and Bartosz Adamczewski (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 231–44, at 239. See also Emanuel Tov, “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha ,” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 65–85; Eugene Ulrich, “Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 48–65. 4.2. Gerizim and Ebal 93 4.2.3. Summary As we saw in the previous section for a series of biblical Decalogue intertexts, Joshua’s story of the fulfillment of the Gerizim–Ebal narrative has less in common with Deuteronomy than it does with V’s previously unknown version of the text. All of the features that make the Valedictoric recension unique – the alternative tribal list, the positioning of the Levites, and the location of the hills – find support in other biblical texts. The last two of these features are present in the Joshua narrative – in one case in the canonical versions, and in another in a fragmentary ancient manuscript from Qumran.29 This thick web of connections – in which V is the central node – is remarkable. Not only does it further establish V as an authentic ancient text, but it sheds a great deal of light on the history of the formation of the Bible itself. The Valediction of Moses had a productive existence in the biblical world in a pre-Deuteronomic form, possibly for centuries – a tantalizing conclusion. 29 I will discuss the relationship between the book of Joshua and V in future publications. 5. Conclusion For the past 140 years, one of the greatest manuscript discoveries in history has been misjudged. The Shapira manuscripts are not forgeries, and the tragedy – human and intellectual – of their hasty dismissal can hardly be overstated. Shapira was disgraced and driven to suicide, and his manuscripts were palmed off as mere curios. The arguments for the manuscripts’ forgery are unconvincing. The story Shapira told of the manuscripts’ discovery – which had been seen as ludicrous by his contemporaries – was so uncannily similar to the subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that some scholars concluded that the latter too must be a hoax. There is no longer any question that the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the mid-twentieth century are authentic. The logical inference must, therefore, be reversed: The remarkable parallels between the discovery accounts support the antiquity of Shapira’s manuscripts, not the fraudulence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Furthermore, we have seen that the more recent paleographic case for forgery is without merit. Indeed, the little reliable paleographic data we have points to the manuscripts’ exceptional antiquity. The widespread belief that Shapira forged the manuscripts, whether alone or with accomplices, is further undercut by his annotated transcription, of which scholars were previously unaware. These papers paint the picture of a man trying to make sense of unfamiliar documents, not a forger planning or admiring his handiwork. Neither are there any plausible alternative culprits; a fraudster working unbeknownst to Shapira would have stood to gain neither fortune nor fame from the production of these manuscripts. The fact that the Valediction of Moses lacks the post-Priestly and nomistic Deuteronomic supplements that recent scholars have identified in Deuteronomy challenges both the notion of forgery and the idea that it is an abridgment of Deuteronomy. For a nineteenth-century forger to have constructed a text on the basis of insights that were first recorded by scholars generations later beggars belief. The same is true of a hypothetical Hellenistic writer working with the canonical Pentateuch. With what tools could an ancient editor have surgically removed post-Priestly insertions from Deuteronomy to create V? Shapira’s singular manuscripts thus have little in common with the so-called “rewritten scripture” of the Qumran corpus. Having determined that V is a proto-Deuteronomic text, it is almost certain that V was composed in the First Temple period. That the Valediction of Moses has intertexts distributed throughout the Bible suggests that this text, or associated literature, was familiar to several biblical authors. Many passages that were believed to be Decalogical or Deuteronomic in- 5. Conclusion 95 tertexts are, in fact, Valedictoric ones. Needless to say, this has far-reaching ramifications. I have focused primarily on matters of authenticity and literary phylogenetics. In an excursus (chapter 6) co-authored by Na’ama Pat-El, we discuss the linguistic profile of V, finding it to be consistent with pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew. The critical edition (chapter 7) includes notes that help situate V from a textual standpoint, while the English translation (chapter 8) reflects my current understanding of the text. I have only touched upon V’s vast importance for our reconstruction of the Pentateuch’s composition history. This text is a treasure trove not only for Deuteronomy scholars, but for students of Numbers and Joshua – and the Pentateuch/Hexateuch more broadly – as well. In future publications I will explore the provenance of V, as well as its implications for textual criticism, geography, and the history of religion. It is my hope that this extraordinary text will soon be appreciated by all, and that scholars of all stripes will work to unlock its mysteries for years to come. 6. Excursus: The Linguistic Profile of V with Na’ama Pat-El One aspect of the Valediction of Moses that has not received substantial attention is its linguistic profile.1 Indeed, the language of V includes a number of peculiar features with the potential to either challenge or substantiate the assessment of the manuscripts’ authenticity and dating as outlined in Dershowitz’s ZAW article2 and above in the present volume. The primary treatment of V’s language, prepared by Adolf Neubauer in 1883, was cursory and is by now quite outdated. Neubauer found the texts to be ungrammatical and to deviate from the biblical standard.3 This assessment proved influential and has since been cited as evidence of the manuscripts’ inauthenticity.4 In this section, we offer an analysis of these dispositive features, and our conclusions are diametrically opposed to those of Neubauer. Objections to any renewed interest in the manuscripts have been based in part on the absence of the objects themselves. The multiple extant copies of the manuscripts, however, provide us with more than enough material to analyze the text’s language and orthography. We find the text of V to reflect a dialect of Hebrew that differs somewhat from Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) prose but is generally consistent with pre-exilic Hebrew, especially as reflected in the epigraphic corpus. Several epigraphic analogues for features found in V were unknown in the nineteenth century and therefore could not have served as models for forgery 1 This chapter benefited from the helpful comments and references provided by Tania Bhattacharyya, Steven Fassberg, Jan Joosten, Geoffrey Khan, Maria Metzler, Tamara MorselEisenberg, Paris Spies-Gans, and Shani Tzoref. 2 Idan Dershowitz, “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy Fragments,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133, no. 1 (2021). 3 Neubauer described V’s constituent passages as “most illogical,” “blunders,” and “an ignorant amalgamation […] as incorrect as only school-boys can make it.” Neubauer concluded: “Let us hope […] that there will soon be an end of the publication of these forged texts and their useless commentaries, unless they are intended as exercises for beginners in Hebrew, for whom practice in the correction of bad grammar may be desirable” (Adolf Neubauer, “The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” The Academy 590 [August 25, 1883], 130). 4 See, for example, Rabinowicz: “It was the voice of Professor Neubauer, and his extensive analysis in the Academy, that sounded the death knell for the Shapira fragments. He proved the unclassical and ungrammatical nature of the Hebrew text as reproduced by Dr. Ginsburg” (Oskar K. Rabinowicz, “The Shapira Forgery Mystery,” Jewish Quarterly Review 47, no. 2 [1956]: 170–83, at 179). 6.1. Orthography 97 at that time. We also find no evidence of Second Temple or modern linguistic features. We conclude that the linguistic evidence does not support either the claims of modern forgery or those of Hellenistic composition. The linguistic evidence, rather, accords with the main thesis of this book, namely that V is a very ancient precursor to Deuteronomy. In what follows, we review V’s orthography, verbal morphosyntax, nominal syntax, and lexicon in the light of comparative linguistics, internal biblical evidence, and the epigraphic record. We address Neubauer’s principal arguments in detail and also discuss features that we or others have identified as potentially diverging from biblical Hebrew norms. We conclude with some methodological comments. 6.1. Orthography The orthography of V differs dramatically from that of the Masoretic Text (MT) and all known Hebrew manuscripts. Instead, it has much in common with epigraphic Hebrew. By Masoretic standards, V’s spelling is extremely defective; final vowels are typically indicated, but medial vowels are far less likely to be marked by matres lectionis in V than in MT. However, just as in many First Temple–era inscriptions, such as the Arad and Lachish ostraca and the Siloam tomb inscription, medial vowels are occasionally indicated with a yod or vav.5 6.1.1. Diphthongs In some cases, V’s defective orthography is not merely conservative but rather reflects possible phonological variants vis-à-vis MT, especially in the realm of monophthongization. James Barr has noted that with very few exceptions *ay > ē in MT is written with a yod, while *i > ē is not.6 For example, the construct forms bēt ‫“ ͏בֵּ ית‬house,” yēn ‫“ יֵין‬wine,” the interrogative ʾēk ‫“ אֵ יְך‬how,” and the negative existential ʾēn ‫אֵ ין‬, among others, are always written with a yod, while ḥēṣ ‫“ חֵ ץ‬arrow,” qēn ‫“ קֵ ן‬nest,” and šēn ‫“ ͏שֵׁ ן‬tooth” are never written with a yod. Many words whose counterparts in MT are typically written with a historical vav or yod lack these matres in V. This is true not only when MT pointing and other evidence suggests monophthongization, such as ‫( עוֹד‬in V: ‫ )עד‬or ֹ‫( מוֹתו‬in V: ‫)מתו‬, but also when MT pointing reflects a shift to hiatus. For example, where MT has ‫ ְ͏דּלָ תַ יִ ם‬, 5 See further in Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. John Elwolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 66. 6 James Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 138ff. 98 6. The Linguistic Profile of V and ‫אֶ ְפ ַריִ ם‬, V has ‫דלתם‬, ‫שמם‬, and ‫אפרם‬.7 In addition, V has ‫ ללה‬against MT’s diphthonged ‫לַ יְ לָ ה‬. Some words show contraction in their inflected forms; ‫ עין‬but ‫( ענך‬cf. Deut 19:13 ‫)עֵ ינְ ָך‬.8 Another example is ‫( בין‬E 1:6, 8) “between,” which is inflected as ‫בנכם‬.9 Variation in the spelling of diphthongs is well attested in the epigraphic record. The word ‫ בית‬is always spelled with a yod in Hebrew inscriptions (although not in Moabite, Phoenician, etc.), but ‫“ יין‬wine” is always spelled ‫ ין‬in the Samaria ostraca.10 Likewise, the Hebrew inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud contain the spelling ‫ תמן‬for ‫“ תימן‬south.”11 ‫͏שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬, -w 3ms Suffix on Plural Nouns (A 1:4 [‫]שכנו‬, et passim) In V, the 3ms pronoun on plural nouns is always spelled -w (e.g., ‫)שכנו‬, whereas the common spelling in MT is -yw (e.g., ‫)שכניו‬. Early scholars thought that ‑yw was the older of the two forms. For example, Bauer and Leander suggested that the glide in the original form *‑ay‑hū was contracted, giving way to a new form, *‑a‑hū > *‑aū > ‑aw.12 They pointed to the nominal base with the 3mp possessive suffix as evidence of the originality of *‑ay‑, e.g., dibrē‑hem. According to this theory, the spelling ‑yw represents the older form, while the Masoretic vocalization (‑aw) and the spelling ‑w – which appears occasionally in MT – represent innovations. The suggestion of a contraction of the glide in this context is, however, ad hoc and is otherwise unattested in Hebrew. As the decades passed and inscriptions featuring the spelling ‑w were discovered, the position that the short form was a late development became increasingly untenable. (See Lachish 3:18, ‫“ אנשו‬his men”; cf. Mhsh 1:13, ‫“ אלו‬to him.” ) Consequently, Cross and Freedman suggested that the singular ending, *a-hū > *aw > 7 ‫מים‬, on the other hand, is written with a yod in V (D 3:7, E 2:5). While this discrepancy may seem unusual at first, Ugaritic presents precisely the same state of affairs: “water” is my in the singular and mym in the plural; heaven is šmm. Since ‫ מים‬is not attested in V in any inflected form, we cannot know if the yod would have been contracted in such a context. 8 Similar to V, in Isa 3:8 a construct plural is spelled ‫עֵ נֵי‬. 9 There are two possible instances of ‫ בין‬without a yod in MT: Job 16:21 (‫ ;͏וּבֶ ן אָ ָדם ְל ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ‬the pointing of ‫ בן‬with a segol reflects an apparent attempt to make sense of the defective spelling) and in some Masoretic manuscripts of Hos 13:15 (‫)͏בֵּ ן אַ ִחים י ְַפ ִריא‬. See James Barr, “Some Notes on bēn ‘between’ in Classical Hebrew,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23, no. 1 (1978): 1–22. Numerous manuscripts, including the Aleppo Codex, have the plene spelling for the Hosea passage; for Job, the plene is attested in Kennicott 1 and 147. 10 The diphthong in construct ‫בית‬, like analogous forms, is contracted in the Masoretic and Samaritan reading traditions but not in the written text. (The absolute form of ‫ בית‬also reflects monophthongization in the Samaritan oral tradition.) In V, the yod is elided. 11 Outside Hebrew, we find variant spellings in, e.g., the Mesha inscription, where “his house” is spelled ‫ בתה‬in line 7 and ‫ ביתה‬in line 25. 12 Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Halle: Niemeyer, 1918–22), §25ℓ. 6.1. Orthography 99 ō, was generalized to the plural.13 According to their analysis, the plene spelling -yw represents a northern variant with a diphthong collapse *‑ayhū > *‑ēhū > ‑ēw, and the MT represents a Judahite variant ‑aw.14 While Cross and Freedman took *‑ay‑hū to be the original form in Northwest Semitic, they emphasized that, given the consistent spelling in the epigraphic material, *-aw must be a very early Judahite form.15 Garr similarly proposed that the original nominal ending before the suffix was ‑ay, and that the 3ms suffixed form developed into -aw already in the second millennium BCE via the following series of changes: *‑ay‑hū > *-aw-hū > *-aw-wū > *-aw-w > -aw [āw].16 In a later work, Cross argued for the existence of an old Semitic plural ending ‑aw, a reflex of which was retained in Hebrew before pronouns: thus, *‑aw‑hū > *‑awhu > *‑aw‑h > ‑aw.17 Wilson-Wright, however, argues that -aw was clipped from the broken plural form of III-weak nouns, like *ʾabaw (< *ʾbw) and reanalyzed as a plural morpheme.18 This innovation took place in West Semitic, since -aw is attested as a plural morpheme in Ge‘ez, Syriac, and Arabic, but not in Akkadian and Eblaite. There is additional evidence for the primacy of the spelling ‑w: on the hundredodd occasions that this spelling appears in the MT ketiv, the marginal qere – which routinely features secondary forms – consistently has -yw. For example, in Lev 16:21, the ketiv is ‫ )שתי( ידו‬while the qere has the expected form, ‫ידיו‬. The common spelling -yw in MT can be explained as a later graphic leveling on analogy to the other forms in the paradigm (e.g., 3fs *ay‑hā > ‑ehā, spelled ‑yh), rather than an improbable proto–Northwest Semitic atavism. It is now clear that the spelling ‑w is very ancient and that ‑yw came to replace it in the Masoretic orthographic tradition. But since nineteenth-century scholars believed -w to be a relatively late innovation, we might have expected a contemporary forger attempting to simulate a First Temple–era text to include the 13 Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1952), 47, 54. 14 Note that Albright treats a final ‑w (yrḥ‑w) in the Gezer calendar as representing ‑ēw (W. F. Albright, “The Gezer Calendar,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92, no. 1 [1943]: 16–26, at 22). He assumed that ‑aw was influenced by Aramaic (ibid., n27). 15 Ibid., 68. 16 Randall W. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 BCE (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 108. The same process accounts for the Byblian form ‫ימו‬, according to Garr (ibid., 106). 17 Frank Moore Cross, “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [‑âw],” in Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy, HSS 51 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 351–56. See also Rebecca Hasselbach, “External Plural Markers in Semitic: A New Assessment,” in Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg, ed. Cynthia L. Miller (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2007), 123– 38. 18 Aren Wilson-Wright, “Father, Brother, and Father-in-Law as III-w Nouns in Semitic,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 79, no. 1 (2016): 23–32. 100 6. The Linguistic Profile of V seemingly historical yod. The fact that V never has these yods is consistent with what we now know to be the CBH convention, but not with what earlier scholars believed that convention to be.19 6.1.2. Word Division Throughout the manuscripts, the text of V is written scriptio continua, with no spaces or marks between words. The only exception is the Decalogue, where words are terminated by dots and statements by paragraph breaks (petuḥot). Therefore, our ability to infer how the scribe perceived word divisions is limited to the lexical repertoire of V’s Decalogue. There we find that two words are consistently treated as prefixes: ‫ לא‬and ‫את‬. Notably, both of these words are attested in the epigraphic record as prefixes. In Ugaritic and Aramaic inscriptions, ‫ לא‬is often written without an aleph and appended to the following word. However, in some cases, the negation appears with the aleph and is nevertheless prefixed, as it is in V.20 In MT, ‫ לא‬is frequently prepended to the following word with a maqqeph, and it has been proposed that the written tradition of MT preserves cases of preformative aphetic ‫לא‬.21 Similarly, in several documents from the Judean desert, the nota accusativi is contracted to a tav and treated as a prefix.22 First Temple–era inscriptions provide some support for the existence of this practice at an even earlier date. For instance, although word-separating dots are quite common in the Arad ostraca, it appears that the nota accusativi and ‫ לא‬are never followed by one.23 In the Mesha Stele, upon which the Shapira manuscripts are often said to have been modeled, the word division scheme differs from both the scriptio continua of most of V and the demarcation scheme found in its Decalogue. In Mesha, ‫את‬ is consistently followed by a word-separating dot,24 and sentences are divided by 19 It is worth noting that the form in V also differs from the Moabite convention attested in the Mesha Stele, which allegedly served as a blueprint for forgery. There we find ‑h in the same context. For instance, ‫“ ימה‬his days” (Mesha 8) and ‫“ רשה‬his commanders” (Mesha 20). 20 See Eleazar L. Sukenik, “An Epitaph of Uzziahu King of Judah” (Hebrew), Tarbiẓ 2 (1931): 288–92, 382, at 290. 21 See, especially, Raphael Weiss, “On the Use of the Negative ‫ לא‬in the Bible” (Hebrew), Eretz-Israel 14 (1978): 148–54. Weiss also notes (148n1) that other short negations are sometimes treated as prefixes in the Hebrew Bible. 22 See Mur22, 5/6Hev44, 5/6Hev46. An analogue may be found in Punic and Neo-Punic, where the nota accusativi is often written as a proclitic tav when followed by a definite article (which is usually, but not always, elided). See Charles R. Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic Grammar (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 281. The same phenomenon is also attested in spoken modern Hebrew. See, e.g., Rina Ben-Shahar, “The Phonetic Representation of Spoken Language in Modern Hebrew Literature,” Traduction, terminologie, rédaction 8, no. 2 (1995): 249–73, at 262. 23 For the nota accusativi, see Arad 5, 12, 16, 24 (the semantics of the ʾet in line 19 are disputed), 40, 111 (?). The one instance of negative ‫ לא‬in the Arad ostraca (16:10) likewise has no visible dot following it. 24 See, e.g., Mesha line 5 (‫מאב‬.‫את‬.‫)ויענו‬, line 6 (‫מאב‬.‫את‬.‫)אענו‬, and line 9 (‫בעלמען‬.‫את‬.‫)ואבן‬. 6.1. Orthography 101 means of vertical strokes. Nevertheless, both schemes found in V are supported by epigraphic and biblical evidence. 6.1.3. Miscellaneous Orthographic Features ‫( ישכר‬G 3:11) The name Issachar appears once in V (G 3:11), where it is spelled with a single sin; in MT, the name is almost always spelled with two sins. V’s orthography is, however, attested in 4Q522, as well as in some Masoretic manuscripts of 1 Chr 2:1.25 It is also reflected in MT’s standard qere perpetuum of the name, in which one sin is unpointed, and in LXX’s transliteration of the name (Ισσαχαρ), which suggests a single elongated consonant in this position, which would ordinarily be represented by a sole Hebrew grapheme.26 ‫( אנך‬E 1:3, et passim) Throughout V, the independent 1cs pronoun is written as ‫אנך‬. This may be contrasted with the Hebrew Bible, where we find either ‫ אָ נ ִֹכי‬or ‫אֲנִ י‬. On the other hand, ‫ אנכי‬with a yod is unattested in Hebrew and Moabite inscriptions27 and is found only in a small minority of Phoenician inscriptions.28 The spelling ‫ אנך‬is, therefore, the standard form throughout the Northwest Semitic epigraphic record. Regarding the pronunciation of Moabite ‫אנך‬, Aḥituv writes: The absence of a final ‫ י‬could mean that the vocalization was ʾanōḵ but the 1 common singular suffix on the qatal verbal pattern suggests that the first common singular independent pronoun may also have been vocalized ʾa nōḵī as in Hebrew. The verbal person marker is probably on analogy with the independent pronoun where the shift took place first: ʾanâḵu > *ʾanōḵu > *ʾanōḵi > ʾanōḵī.29 25 See note in BHS ad loc. Cf., e.g., ‫( ִצ͏לָּ ה‬Σελλα) and ‫( חַ ͏נָּה‬Αννα). 27 In Lachish 6, line 8, the letters ‫ אנכ‬can be made out, but the area to the left of the kaph is not legible. It is therefore unclear whether or not the word was spelled with a yod here. See Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), 80. 28 This does not mean that the Phoenician 1cs pronoun did not end with a high vowel. Poenulus transcribes 1cs perfects with a final -thi (e.g., Poen 940a/930). The change of the perfect ending from *-tū̌ to -tı̄̌ reflects an earlier rounding and raising in the pronoun from ʾanākū̌ to ʾanōkū̌ to ʾanōkı̄̌ (see Na’ama Pat-El and Aren Wilson-Wright, “The Features of Canaanite: A Reevaluation,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 166 [2016]: 41–55, at 42–43). The spelling ‫ אנכי‬is also attested in Samalian alongside ‫( אנך‬KAI 215:19; cf. KAI 214:1; see Josef Tropper, Die Inschriften von Zincirli: Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1993], 189). 29 Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 395. On the Phoenician and Punic pronunciations of the pronoun, see Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Grammar, 38–40. 26 102 6. The Linguistic Profile of V In addition, a-nu-ki is attested in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters.30 ‫ אנך‬in V may therefore be a purely orthographic variant, rather than reflecting a different pronunciation of the pronoun. Be that as it may, this spelling is entirely without parallel in the known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible and is instead in line with the epigraphic norm. ‫( ותשתחו‬D 2:8) In V, we find the plural form ‫ ותשתחו‬where we might expect to find ‫ ותשתחוו‬with two vavs. This anomalous orthography for the plural is, in fact, attested four times in the ketiv of MT: Gen 27:29a, 43:28; 1 Kgs 9:9; Neh 8:6. In each case, the qere reflects the conventional form.31 Similarly, most MT manuscripts of 1 Sam 1:28 have ‫וישתחו‬, even though its antecedent must either be plural or feminine singular. Several Hebrew manuscripts read ‫ וישתחוו‬with two vavs;32 the Syriac, Vulgate, and Lucianic recension of LXX all reflect the plural as well.33 Also notable is the widely attested tendency in biblical Hebrew orthography to avoid two consecutive vavs. For example, the plural of ‫ מצוה‬appears 123 times in MT in its various inflections. Despite the feminine plural suffix almost always being written plene (‫)ות‬, a full 122 occurrences of these 123 are written defectively: ‫מצות‬. The sole exception is found in a decidedly Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) context – the book of Nehemiah (9:14).34 V’s defective spelling of ‫ ותשתח ֻו‬is consistent with this orthographic convention.35 ‫( הוא‬D 2:6, et passim) Throughout V, the independent third-person singular pronoun is written ‫הוא‬. This is true irrespective of the gender of the referent. Notably, this orthography differs from that of V’s supposed model – the Mesha Stele – where the word is 30 Anson F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan, Vol. 1: Orthography, Phonology, Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Pronouns, Nouns, Numerals (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 48. 31 This is hardly an isolated phenomenon. The form ‫ עתה‬appears more than 400 times in MT, whereas the common spelling in the epigraphic record is ‫עת‬. The archaic form is attested twice in the ketiv (Ezek 23:43; Ps 74:6); in both cases, the qere provides the conventional form. For more on the modernizing tendency of the qere, see Maimon Cohen, The Kethib and Qeri System in the Biblical Text (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007), 312–13; Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 67. 32 Kennicott 4, 95, 173. 33 In 4Q51, the word in the position of ‫ וישתחו‬is mostly illegible, while an additional verb, seemingly ‫ותשתחו‬, appears nearby: [‫ותשתח]ו‬ ̇ ‫]…[הו שם‬ ̇ . 34 We thank Geoffrey Khan for bringing this phenomenon to our attention. 35 See also the ketiv ‫( ויצו‬qere ‫ )וַיְ צַ ͏וּו‬in Judg 21:20. In MT, the tendency to avoid dual vavs is even more prominent in medial positions. Compare, for instance, ‫ ְ͏תּצַ ͏וֻּם‬in Deut 32:46 and ‫ְ͏תּצַ ͏וֻּנִ י‬ in Isa 45:11 with ‫ ַו͏יַּ͏כּ͏וּם ַו͏יּ ְַ͏כּת͏וּם‬in Num 14:45. 6.1. Orthography 103 spelled ‫הא‬. The defective spelling is also found in all other known inscriptions prior to the fifth-century BCE Aramaic Elephantine papyri.36 In most of the books of the Hebrew Bible, we find ‫ הוא‬for masculine and ‫היא‬ for feminine, with almost no exceptions. In the Masoretic text of the Pentateuch, on the other hand, the pronoun pointed as hī is spelled with a medial vav 192 times vs. 19 times with a yod. (In SP, these are almost always spelled ‫היא‬.) In a recent article, Steven Fassberg provides new evidence that feminine/common ‫ הוא‬reflects an early dialectal feature. He concludes: Because the 3fs Kethiv ‫ הוא‬is for all intents and purposes limited to the Pentateuch, and because the Pentateuch crystallized earlier than the Prophets and the Writings, one must deduce that the Kethiv ‫ הוא‬is evidence for an early dialectal form that later disappeared in Biblical Hebrew.37 The presence of the form ‫ הוא‬for both male and female in V is consistent with Fassberg’s analysis.38 This spelling is not attested in known Hebrew inscriptions from the First Temple period. However, in the Old Aramaic inscription from Bukân, which Lemaire dates to ca. 700 BCE, we find a single instance of plene ‫ הוא‬alongside three examples of defective ‫הא‬.39 ‫( לקראת‬D 1:2, 2:1, 7; H 1:7) Most scholars believe the preposition ‫ לקראת‬is derived from the root qry.40 The word is attested only once in the epigraphic record, where it is written without an aleph (Siloam 4, ‫)אש לקרת רעו‬. In all known versions of the Hebrew Bible, it is written systematically with an aleph.41 The orthography in V here is thus consistent with that of Biblical Hebrew, but not with the sole attestation of the word in the ancient epigraphic corpus. 36 The spelling in the Elephantine corpus is almost always ‫ הו‬for male and ‫ הי‬for female. Steven E. Fassberg, “The Kethiv/Qere ‫ ִהוא‬, Diachrony, and Dialectology,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, ed. Cynthia L. Miller and Ziony Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 171–80, at 177–78. 38 That ‫ הוא‬was used for both male and female referents in antiquity was suggested at least as early as 1861. See William Henry Green, A Grammar of the Hebrew Language (New York: John Wiley, 1861), 96. For more literature, see the history of research cited in Fassberg, “The Kethiv/Qere ‫ ִהוא‬,” 171–73. 39 See André Lemaire, “Une inscription araméenne du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. trouvée à Bukân (Azerbaïdjan iranien),” Studia Iranica 27, no. 1 (1998): 15–30, at 21, et passim. The plene instance is at the end of a sentence, while the other three are not. 40 See, e.g., BDB and HALOT, ad loc. 41 1QIsaa typically includes the aleph, with Isa 14:9 being the single exception. In the Masoretic vocalization scheme, this aleph is not articulated. 37 104 6. The Linguistic Profile of V 6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax In this section we discuss various verbal morphosyntactic features in V that differ from the norm in the Hebrew Bible. 6.2.1. The wəqāṭal Construction In D 2:6–3:3, V has a series of wəqāṭal forms indicating what appears to be the simple/narrative past tense, which is more commonly indicated by a wayyiqṭōl verb in CBH: ‫וְ י ְָצא͏וּ בעת ההוא בנת מאב ונשי מדין ]…[ וחרה אף אלהם עלכם ויגף בכם בעת ההוא מגפה גדלה · ושלחתי‬ · ‫מכם אנשם ללחם את המדינם והכתם אתם לפי חרב ושבתם מאתם שבי הרבה למאד ותעצר המגפה‬ At that time, the daughters of Moab and women of Midian came out […] Elohim’s anger then burned against you, and he inflicted upon you at that time a great plague. I sent from among you people to fight the Midianites, and you smote them by the sword’s edge, and you took from them a great many captives. The plague then ended. Likewise, in E 3:2, we find the wəqāṭal verb ‫ ושבתי‬in a context in which we might have expected either ‫ ואשבת‬or ‫וביום השבעי שבתי‬:42 · ‫]כי · ש[שת · ימם · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם · ושבתי · ביום · השבעי‬ [For in s]ix days I made the heaven and the earth and all that is in them, and I rested on the seventh day. The use of non-iterative simple past wəqāṭal is very rare in LBH, and nonexistent in postbiblical Hebrew.43 Joosten argues that non-iterative past tense wəqāṭal is an internal Hebrew innovation that concludes in the Hellenistic period, and accordingly wəqāṭal and wayyiqṭōl “must be regarded as free variants representing different, though overlapping, periods of the Hebrew Bible.”44 Therefore, the appearance of wəqāṭal in V to express non-iterative simple past may appear to be late, or even modern.45 The use of wəqāṭal to indicate non-iterative simple past is, however, attested in the Hebrew Bible, as noted by a number of scholars, including Joosten, who 42 Cf. Exod 20:11 (‫ ) ִ͏כּי ͏שֵׁ ͏שֶׁ ת י ִָמים עָ ͏שָׂ ה ]…[ ַו ָ͏יּנַח‬and Exod 31:17 (‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ִ͏כּי ͏שֵׁ ͏שֶׁ ת י ִָמים עָ ͏שָׂ ה ]…[ ͏וּבַ ͏יּוֹם הַ ְ͏שּׁ ִב‬ ‫)͏שָׁ בַ ת וַ͏יִּ נָפַ ͏שׁ‬. The suffix conjugation ‫ ושבתי‬could in fact be a perfect form preceded by a vav, rather than a simple past wəqāṭal. The verbs used in the passages leading up to the Decalogue in Deuteronomy also use the suffix conjugation (‫)͏כָּ ַרת … ִ͏דּ͏בֵּ ר‬. 43 Jan Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose, Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10 (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012); Kasper Siegismund, “Anterior Weqatal in the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran Documents,” Hebrew Studies 58 (2017): 199–220. 44 Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 225. 45 Adolf Neubauer, “The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” The Academy 589 (August 18, 1883), 116; Rabinowicz, “Shapira Forgery Mystery,” 179; Jan Joosten, personal communication. Neubauer also argued (“Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116) that the verb ‫ שבת‬is semantically inapt here: “The root shaboth does not mean ‘to rest’ but ‘to cease from work,’ and in this sense only it is found in the Old Testament. The forger made a blunder in not leaving the root noah 6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax 105 observes that wəqāṭal can indicate a single event in the past.46 The following are examples of wəqāṭal being used for the simple past in biblical narration:47 ַ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ֹ͏שׂאֵ י הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏כָּ ן׃‬ ְ ‫͏וּבנֵי ְמ ָר ִרי נ‬ ְ ‫ה͏וּרד הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏כָּ ן וְ נ ְָסע͏וּ ְבנֵי ג ְֵר͏שׁוֹן‬ And the tabernacle was taken down, and the Gershonites and the Merarites, carriers of the tabernacle, set out. (Num 10:17) ‫ַו͏יָּב ֹא עַ ד הָ אֹהֶ ל ַו͏יַּ͏כֵּ ה͏וּ וַ͏יִּ ͏פֹּל ַו͏יַּהַ ְפכֵ ה͏וּ ְלמַ ְעלָ ה וְ נָפַ ל הָ אֹהֶ ל׃‬ It came to the tent and hit it. It turned it upside down, and the tent collapsed. (Judg 7:13) There is some internal biblical evidence that past-tense wəqāṭal is a comparatively early feature that was displaced in later stages. One such example is found in 2 Kgs 18:36, which has wəqāṭal ‫וְ הֶ ח ֱִרי͏שׁ͏וּ‬: ‫ענֻה͏וּ׃‬ ֲ ַ‫וְ הֶ ח ֱִרי͏שׁ͏וּ הָ עָ ם וְ ל ֹא עָ נ͏וּ אֹתוֹ ָ͏דּבָ ר ִ͏כּי ִמ ְצוַת הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך ִהיא לֵ אמֹר ל ֹא ת‬ And the people kept silent and did not answer a word, for the king’s command was, “Do not answer him.” In the parallel passage in MT Isa 36:21, we find the standard wayyiqṭōl – ‫ַו ַ͏יּח ֲִרי͏שׁ͏וּ‬ – in what is likely an instance of linguistic updating: ‫ענֻה͏וּ׃‬ ֲ ַ‫ַו ַ͏יּח ֲִרי͏שׁ͏וּ וְ ל ֹא עָ נ͏וּ אֹתוֹ ָ͏דּבָ ר ִ͏כּי ִמ ְצוַת הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך ִהיא לֵ אמֹר ל ֹא ת‬ And they kept silent and did not answer a word, for the king’s command was, “Do not answer him.” The ancient editor responsible for this emendation in MT Isaiah may have shared the evaluation of Bernhard Stade, who wrote in 1886: “‫וְ הֶ ח ֱִרי͏שׁ͏וּ הָ עָ ם וְ ל ֹא עָ נ͏וּ‬ as in the received text.” Neubauer may have overlooked Gen 2:2–3 and especially Exod 31:17, in both of which the verb ‫ שבת‬is applied to YHWH/Elohim in precisely the same context. In the latter of these two, ‫ שבת‬takes no complement (e.g., ‫אכ͏תּוֹ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שָׂ ה‬ ְ ַ‫ ) ִמ͏כָּ ל ְמל‬and is fully analogous to V’s version. If the text in Exod 31:17 is not a blunder, then neither is that of V. Furthermore, as noted in all modern lexicons, ‫ שבת‬can indeed mean “rest,” rather than “cease” – especially in relation to the Sabbath. 46 Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 223–25. See also Arie Rubinstein, “The Anomalous Perfect with Waw-Conjunctive in Biblical Hebrew,” Biblica 44, no. 1 (1963): 62–69, at 68n2: “It is difficult to accept Driver’s view that our anomalous construction [wəqāṭal] occurs only on ‘exceedingly rare occasions’ in the early books of the O. T. According to his own enumeration (Tenses, pp. 161–62), the construction occurs 36 times in the early books of the O. T. The two articles by Stade contain at least another 12 certain instances of the anomalous construction in 2 Kings. […] We thus obtain a total of 49 in the early books, which is not by any means a negligible number. Nor is our enumeration exhaustive (cf. GK, loc. cit.).” 47 Other examples are Gen 15:6, 21:25, 31:7, 38:5; Exod 39:3; Num 10:17–18, 21–22, 25; Judg 16:18, 19:8; 1 Sam 1:12, 17:38; 2 Sam 13:18, 12:31, 13:18. 106 6. The Linguistic Profile of V [ist] eine barbarische Construction.”48 1QIsaa , for its part, shows no sign of such updating: ‫והחרישו ולוא ענו אותוה דבר כיא מצות המלך היה לאמור לוא תענוהו׃‬ The version in 2 Kings provides clear precedent for the forms we find in V, and the Isaiah version illustrates how the biblical text undergoes updating. One can only speculate how many early and uncommon biblical Hebrew forms are unknown to us due to this process. Additional support for the existence of anterior wəqāṭal in Hebrew may be found in the epigraphic record. For instance, Arad 16, an early monarchic text, contains a temporal clause referring to a single past event followed by a wəqāṭal verb: · ‫צאת ֗י ֗מביתך · ושלחתי את ֗ספ]ר[ ז֗כה‬ ֗ ‫֗כ‬ When I left your house, I sent a written receipt.49 In biblical Hebrew, when past events are described, the temporal clause is never followed by a past-tense wəqāṭal, as it is in Arad 16:3.50 See the following biblical examples, where the temporal clause is followed by a wayyiqṭōl verb indicating a single event in the past. ‫ִ͏כּ ְ͏שׁמ ַֹע עֵ ͏שָׂ ו אֶ ת ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי אָ ִביו וַ͏יִּ ְצעַ ק ְצעָ קָ ה ͏גְּ דֹלָ ה ͏וּמָ ָרה עַ ד ְמאֹד וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר ְלאָ ִביו ͏בָּ רֲ כֵ נִ י גַם אָ נִ י אָ ִבי׃‬ When Esau heard his father’s words, he cried out a terribly great and bitter cry, and he said to his father, “Bless me too, father!” (Gen 27:34) ‘5 ‫הוֹציאָ ם אֶ ת הַ ְ͏מּלָ ִכים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה אֶ ל יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע וַ͏יִּ ְק ָרא יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ִאי͏שׁ יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֶ ל ְק ִצינֵי אַ נְ ͏שֵׁ י הַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה‬ ִ ‫וַיְ ִהי ְ͏כּ‬ ‫ארי הַ ְ͏מּלָ ִכים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה‬ ֵ ְ‫הֶ הָ ְלכ͏וּא ִא͏תּוֹ ִק ְרב͏וּ ִ͏שׂימ͏וּ אֶ ת ַרגְ לֵ יכֶ ם עַ ל צַ ͏וּ‬ When they brought out these kings to Joshua, Joshua called all the Israelites, and he said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, “Come hither and put your feet on the necks of these kings.” (Josh 10:24a) Another non-biblical example of anterior wəqāṭal is found in the Yavne-Yam ostracon, lines 4–5:51 48 Bernhard Stade, “Miscellen,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1886): 122–89, at 183. 49 Arad 16:3–5. Transcription and translation following Anat Mendel-Geberovich et al., “A Brand New Old Inscription: Arad Ostracon 16 Rediscovered via Multispectral Imaging,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 378 (2017): 113–25, at 114–18. See discussion of tense in ibid., 117. 50 When wəqāṭal is used, it is modal and refers to future actions. See, for example, Jer 51:61: ‫באֲָך בָ בֶ ל וְ ָר ִאיתָ וְ קָ ָראתָ אֵ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה‬ ֹ ‫“ וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר יִ ְר ְמיָה͏וּ אֶ ל ְ͏שׂ ָריָה ְ͏כּ‬And Jeremiah said to Seraiah: When you come to Babylon, see that you read all these words.” 51 Mhsh 1:5. Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 159. 6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax 107 ‫ויקצר עבדך ויכל ואסם כימם · לפני שבת‬ And your servant harvested and finished/measured and stored in the granary as always before the Sabbath. A number of scholars have struggled to explain the form ‫ואסם‬. Naveh proposed that it is a 1cs imperfect form, but the shift from third person (‫ויקצר‬, ‫ )ויכל‬to first makes this interpretation unlikely.52 Dobbs-Allsopp et al.53 suggested that this is either an infinitive absolute54 or a conjunction with the suffix conjugation, namely wəqāṭal for a single past event. Rainey and Aḥituv argue for a different explanation. Rainey takes the verb ‫ ואסם‬to be a third-person suffix conjugation, but he interprets the verbal string as “measure in order to store.”55 According to this understanding, the wəqāṭal does not follow chronologically upon the preceding wayyiqṭōl. Aḥituv elaborates upon this idea: There is no biblical verb from this root [...] The attested form in this present text [...] is most likely third person form [sic] of the suffix conjugation, joined by the simple conjunction to the preceding verb ‫וְ אָ סַ ם‬. By this means the forms represent an action that is coeval with the measuring. One measured in order to store. The storing was not looked upon as a further step in the process but as part of the same process (cf. Gen. 2:6).56 Rainey and Aḥituv both appear to be struggling here with the possibility that wəqāṭal might indicate anteriority, considering the widespread view that this function is reserved exclusively for wayyiqṭōl in Classical Biblical Hebrew. This interpretation is, however, improbable. There is no reason to suggest that the act of storing is coeval with the act of measuring (or with the completion of harvesting). The activities indicated in the inscription are successive actions in the past: “your servant harvested, measured, and stored.” The use of wəqāṭal to indicate simple past is not surprising from a comparative Semitic point of view. Past-tense qāṭal is an innovation of West Semitic57 and is 52 Joseph Naveh, “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C.,” Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960): 129–39. 53 F. W. Dobbs-Allsop et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 361. 54 Following Frank Moore Cross, Jr.,, “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C.: II. The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabnehyam,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962): 34–46, at 44n43. 55 Anson F. Rainey, “Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis in the Hashavyahu Ostracon,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27, no. 1 (2000): 75–79, at 78. 56 Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 161. Rainey (“Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis,” 78) similarly interprets the verbal string as “measure in order to store.” 57 John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El, “Introduction to the Semitic Languages and Their History,” in The Semitic Languages, ed. John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El, 2nd ed. (Milton: Routledge, 2019), 1–21, at 7. 108 6. The Linguistic Profile of V attested in related languages as well as in our earliest Canaanite records,58 and as shown above, it is also found in Classical and epigraphic Hebrew. The use of wəqāṭal for iterative past is likely an internal Hebrew development.59 Past-tense wəqāṭal is, therefore, not necessarily a sign of lateness, but rather it can indicate conservativeness. Neubauer suggested that V’s use of wəqāṭal for past tense was evidence of forgery, writing sarcastically: “Evidently the Moabite writer did not make use of Dr. Driver’s excellent work on the Hebrew tenses.”60 True enough. Neither did the author of Arad 16, for that matter, or those of the other ancient texts in which past-tense wəqāṭal is found. 6.2.2. The (wə-)yiqṭōl Construction V’s use of wəqāṭal where MT would typically have wayyiqṭōl is mirrored in its use of (wə-)yiqṭōl where the Masoretic norm is wəqāṭal. In MT, future events (whether indicative or subjunctive) are typically indicated with wəqāṭal verbs in initial position. For instance, in Gen 13:16 we find: ‫“ וְ ͏שַׂ ְמ ִ͏תּי אֶ ת ז ְַרעֲָך ͏כַּ עֲפַ ר הָ אָ ֶרץ‬I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth,” and in Isa 11:1: ‫וְ יָצָ א חֹטֶ ר ִמ ֵ͏גּזַע‬ ‫“ יִ ͏שָׁ י‬A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse.” This is generally true also for the Hebrew of V, as in the following example: ‫וענו כל הע]ם[ ואמרו אמן‬ And all the peo[ple] shall call out “Amen.” (G 4:1, et passim) Nevertheless, there are several cases in which V instead has (wə-)yiqṭōl for future events: [‫ויספו הלוים ויענו ויאמרו בקל ]רם‬ The Levites shall continue and call out in a [loud] voice.61 (G 4:10–11) 58 In Amarna, statives of transitive verbs are used to mark the past, which is not their function in Akkadian (William L. Moran, “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets” [PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1950], 51). In the Deir ʿAlla inscription, which dates to the ninth or eighth century BCE, we find a series of wəqāṭal verbs that are understood to be preterites: ‫“ אל]ה[ן · אתיחדו ונצבו · שדין · מועד · ואמרו‬The go[d]s congregated; SHDYN stood in assembly. And they said…” 59 See Jan Joosten, “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 135–48, at 136–37 for a possible path. 60 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116. 61 It is not impossible that ‫ ויספו‬is wəqāṭal ‫וְ י ְָספ͏וּ‬, but the other verbs are unambiguously prefix conjugation. Furthermore, in serial verb chains with two finite verbs, such as these, all verbs typically agree in form. It is, therefore, likely that all verbs in this example are in fact prefix conjugation. 109 6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax ‫ויתרך אלהם רק לטבה על האדמה ]הטבה אשר אלהם אלהי א[בתכם נתן לכם‬ Elohim will make you abound only in goodness upon the [good] land [that Elohim, god of your fa]thers, is giving you. (G 5:6–7) ‫ויסבו הלוים את פנהם נגד הר עב]ל[ ויענו ויאמרו בקל רם‬ The Levites shall then turn to stand opposite Mount Eb[al] and call out in a loud voice. (G 5:7–8) ‫ויספו הלוים לקרא בקל רם ויאמרו‬ The Levites shall continue calling out in a loud voice and say… (H 1:7) Fortuitously, these passages have counterparts in Deuteronomy, allowing us to straightforwardly compare the forms. Indeed, where V has (wə-)yiqṭōl, Deuteronomy has wəqāṭal:62 ‫וְ עָ נ͏וּ הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם וְ אָ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ִאי͏שׁ יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל קוֹל ָרם׃‬ The Levites shall then call out in a loud voice to all the Israelites. (Deut 27:14) ‫אבֹתֶ יָך לָ תֶ ת לָ ְך׃‬ ֲ ַ‫͏וּב ְפ ִרי אַ ְדמָ תֶ ָך עַ ל הָ א ֲָדמָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נִ ְ͏שׁ͏בַּ ע יְ הוָה ל‬ ִ ‫͏וּב ְפ ִרי ְבהַ ְמ ְ͏תָּך‬ ִ ‫הוֹת ְרָך יְ הוָה ְלטוֹבָ ה ִ͏בּ ְפ ִרי ִב ְטנְ ָך‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ YHWH shall make you abound in goodness, in the fruit of your womb, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your ground in the land that YHWH swore to your ancestors to give you. (Deut 28:11; cf. Deut 30:9) The functional overlap between wəqāṭal and (wə-)yiqṭōl in MT is well documented. Joosten notes not only the various functions these two forms share, but also the fact that they often co-occur.63 Since the two are never in functional opposition, he concludes that they are allomorphs, occupying different positions in the sentence: “WEQATAL occupies the first position in the clause, YIQTOL in 62 It must be noted that the first in the series of four speech acts by the Levites in V appears with wəqāṭal verbs, unlike the following three. Deuteronomy, which lacks the list of blessed behaviors and puts the blessings and curses themselves in Moses’s mouth, preserves only one of the four Levitical speech acts. 63 Jan Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012), 263. 110 6. The Linguistic Profile of V principle a non-first position.”64 There are, however, examples of initial future (wə‑)yiqṭōl in MT. For instance: ‫וְ ַיעֲ͏שׂ͏וּ ְבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל אֶ ת הַ ͏פָּ סַ ח ְ͏בּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃‬ The Israelites shall keep the passover at its appointed time. (Num 9:2) ‫ֹ͏שׁבֵ י הָ אָ ֶרץ וְ נָסַ ͏בּ͏וּ עָ לֵ ינ͏וּ וְ ִה ְכ ִרית͏וּ אֶ ת ְ͏שׁמֵ נ͏וּ ִמן הָ אָ ֶרץ ͏וּמַ ה ͏תַּ עֲ͏שֵׂ ה ְל ִ͏שׁ ְמָך הַ ͏גָּדוֹל׃‬ ְ ‫וְ יִ ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י וְ כֹל י‬ The Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it, and surround us, and cut off our name from the earth. Then what will you do for your great name? (Josh 7:9) ‫חנֵה יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל יִ ͏תֵּ ן יְ הוָה ְ͏בּיַד ְ͏פּ ִל ְ͏שׁ ִ͏תּים׃‬ ֲ ַ‫וְ יִ ͏תֵּ ן יְ הוָה ͏גַּם אֶ ת יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ִע ְ͏מָּך ְ͏בּיַד ְ͏פּ ִל ְ͏שׁ ִ͏תּים ͏וּמָ חָ ר אַ ͏תָּ ה ͏וּבָ נֶיָך ִע ִ͏מּי ͏גַּם אֶ ת מ‬ YHWH will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; YHWH will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines. (1 Sam 28:19) ‫ָ͏שׂימ͏וּ ַואֲנִ י אֶ עֱ͏שֶׂ ה אֶ ת הַ ͏פָּ ר‬ ִ ‫ָ͏שׂימ͏וּ עַ ל הָ עֵ ִצים וְ אֵ ͏שׁ ל ֹא י‬ ִ ‫וְ יִ ְ͏תּנ͏וּ לָ נ͏וּ ְ͏שׁנַיִ ם ͏פָּ ִרים וְ יִ ְבחֲר͏וּ לָ הֶ ם הַ ͏פָּ ר הָ אֶ חָ ד וִ ינ ְַ͏תּחֻ ה͏וּ וְ י‬ ‫הָ אֶ חָ ד וְ נָתַ ִ͏תּי עַ ל הָ עֵ ִצים וְ אֵ ͏שׁ ל ֹא אָ ִ͏שׂים׃‬ Two bulls shall be given to us; they shall choose one bull for themselves, they shall cut it in pieces, and they shall lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. (1 Kgs 18:23) ‫וְ יָב ֹא ͏שׁ ֵֹדד אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ִעיר וְ ִעיר ל ֹא ִת͏מָּ לֵ ט וְ אָ בַ ד הָ עֵ מֶ ק וְ נִ ְ͏שׁמַ ד הַ ִ͏מּי͏שֹׁר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ מַ ר יְ הוָה׃‬ The destroyer shall come upon every town, and no town shall escape; the valley shall perish, and the plain shall be destroyed, as YHWH has spoken. (Jer 48:8) ‫͏וּלחֶ ְר͏פָּ ה ͏בַּ ͏גּוֹיִ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְס ִביבוֹתָ יִ ְך ְלעֵ ינֵי ͏כָּ ל עוֹבֵ ר׃‬ ְ ‫וְ אֶ ְ͏תּנְֵך ְלחָ ְר͏בָּ ה‬ I will make you a desolation and an object of mocking among the nations around you, in the sight of all that pass by. (Ezek 5:14) That the future/modal semantics of both yiqṭōl and wəqāṭal forms is to be dated to proto-Hebrew is not in question.65 Notarius demonstrates that most occurrences of yiqṭōl in archaic biblical poetry express the “imperfective,” which covers present/immediate future.66 In any case, occurrences of prospective future, and future more generally, are not very common in the MT.67 Like MT, V 64 Ibid., 264. Tania Notarius, “Prospective ‘weqatal’ in Biblical Hebrew: Dubious Cases or Unidentified Category?” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34, no. 1 (2008): 39–55; Bo Isaksson, “The So-called we-qatal Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew Once Again,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19 (2015): 71–117. 66 Tania Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 282. Notarius further argues that the prospective uses of qāṭal in her corpus (e.g., in Deut 32:22) is discourse conditioned, for example, within a prophetic poetic speech (ibid., 268). 67 Notarius, “Prospective ‘weqatal,’” 41. 65 6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax 111 preserves some archaic functions of these forms. And although yiqṭōl is not common in V, it nevertheless appears in contexts where MT would generally have a wəqāṭal verb. Already in LBH, the use of yiqṭōl increases at the expense of wəqāṭal, foreshadowing the disappearance of wəqāṭal in Mishnaic Hebrew. The first semantic feature to be lost was iterative wəqāṭal,68 followed by the decline and subsequent disappearance of modal and prospective wəqāṭal in postbiblical Hebrew.69 In Mishnaic Hebrew, yiqṭōl and qāṭal are in functional opposition; wəqāṭal does not indicate futurity/modality, but rather a combination of the coordinating particle wə- and a following past tense verb.70 The only context in which qāṭal can have non-past reference in Mishnaic Hebrew is in conditional sentences.71 It is worth noting that the use of yiqṭōl for future is attested in the epigraphic record. For example: ‫[ וידקן גבנם‬...] ‫[ וימסן הרם‬...]‫ובזרח אל בר‬ When El rises […] the mountains shall melt […] the peaks shall be crushed. (Kuntillet ʿAjrud 15:1–3) Were this a biblical (MT) text, we would expect to find ‫ונמסו הרים‬, etc., in the wəqāṭal. For instance, Isa 34:2 contains the very same idiom, reading: ‫וְ חַ ְללֵ יהֶ ם‬ ‫͏וּפגְ ֵריהֶ ם ַיעֲלֶ ה בָ ְא͏שָׁ ם וְ נָמַ ͏סּ͏וּ הָ ִרים ִמ ָ͏דּמָ ם‬ ִ ‫ֻ͏שׁלָ כ͏וּ‬ ְ ‫י‬, “Their slain shall be cast out, the stench of their corpses shall rise, and the mountains shall melt from their blood.”72 Since the future semantics of yiqṭōl and verb-first word order are both West Semitic features, it is possible that the prevalence of the non-initial position of yiqṭōl in MT is an innovation of standard Biblical Hebrew. In summary, V’s use of the (wə-)yiqṭōl is somewhat anomalous in an MT context but is plausible for a First Temple–era text. 68 Joosten, “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL,” 135–48. Edward Yechezkel Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), 269; Uri Mor, Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2015), 280–81; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 369–70. 70 Moses H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 150. 71 Moshe Azar, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1995), 7. 72 See also Samaria 111:3. In many cases, V has yiqṭōl + (wə-)yiqṭōl, where the familiar Hebrew Bible manuscripts would have yiqṭōl + wəqāṭal. Compare H 1:3–4 ( ֯‫ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא‬ ‫“ ֯ע ֯נ ֯ו אל אשת רעהו‬Cursed is the man who desires and lusts after the wife of his fellow”) and Josh 6:26 (ֹ‫“ אָ ר͏וּר הָ ִאי͏שׁ ִל ְפנֵי יְ הוָה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יָק͏וּם ͏וּבָ נָה אֶ ת הָ ִעיר הַ ͏זּ ֹאת אֶ ת יְ ִריחו‬Cursed before YHWH is the man who rises and builds this city, Jericho”). Cf. also G 4:1–2 vs. Lev 20:18 and H 2:2 vs. Isa 27:6. There are no conclusive examples of yiqṭōl + wəqāṭal in the epigraphic record. (See Sandra Landis Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 262–63.) 69 112 6. The Linguistic Profile of V 6.2.3. ‫( ללחם‬D 3:1) In V (D 3:1), we find ‫ ללחם‬in the G-stem (qal), not the expected N-stem (niphal) ‫להלחם‬.73 The use of G in the Hebrew Bible for this root (in the sense “to do battle”) is exclusive to BH poetry (Pss 35:1; 56:2, 3). This is consistent with the form being an ancient one, considering that even late poems often preserve archaic forms, due to the conservative nature of the genre.74 More direct evidence is found in the epigraphic record: the G is attested in the ninth-century BCE Phoenician KLMW inscription,75 while the Gt is attested in the ninth-century BCE Mesha Stele76 and apparently also the Aramaic Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the same period.77 In LBH, the root is always in N, with the exception of one or two G forms in Qumran.78 Typically, N has been seen as originally a middle or reflexive stem, which acquired a passive meaning as the G passive became increasingly rare and eventually disappeared. Since the N-stem produces low transitivity verbs,79 the preference for G in V, if it is diachronically meaningful, could be an indication of the early use of this stem.80 73 We thank Peter Machinist for bringing this example to our attention. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 58–59. 75 ‫“ בת אבי · במתכת · מלכם · אדרם · וכל · שלח · יד לל]ח[ם‬My father’s house was in the midst of great kings, and each of them was about to fight” (KLMW 5–6). We find the suggestion that ‫ לחם‬here refers to bread or eating unlikely. (See Terence Collins, “The Kilamuwa Inscription: A Phoenician Poem,” Die Welt des Orients 6, no. 2 [1971]: 183–88, at 184n8.) The KLMW inscription was discovered during the 1888–1902 German expedition to Sam’al, after V was already known in Europe. KLMW shares other features with V: 1cs pronoun ‫אנך‬, contracted diphthong in ‫בית‬, word-separating dots, etc. 76 ‫( ואהלך · בללה · ואלתחם · בה · מבקע · השחרת · עד · הצהרם‬l. 15), “I went by night and fought against it from the crack of dawn till noon.” 77 ‫אבי · יסק ]· עלוה · בה[תלחמה‬, “my father went against him as they did battle” (Tel Dan 2). 78 There is one certain and one potential instance of G among the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q468g f1 2:4–5 ([ -- ]‫הכרכים‬ ֯ ‫ [ לחם את‬-- ]‫פלטת‬ ֯ ‫ )בני קטורא‬and 4Q161 f5 6:10 (‫)בעלותו מבקעת עכו ללחם ב ׄי‬. An elision of the aspirant of the N infinitive may explain the latter example (for more on this phenomenon, see Eric D. Raymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013], 100ff.; Elisha Qimron, A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2018], 178– 80), but the verb ‫( לחם‬4Q468g f1 2:4–5) must be G. While aspirant elision cannot be ruled out for KLMW, this would seem to be uncharacteristic for the period. Such elision would likewise be out of place in V’s orthographic/phonological scheme. Be that as it may, the forms in V and KLMW are identical, against MT’s 43 instances of ‫ להלחם‬and zero instances of ‫ללחם‬. 79 Øyvind Bjøru, “Transitivity and the Binyanim,” in Proceedings of the Oslo-Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, ed. Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014), 48–63, at 55ff. 80 According to Staps’s recent survey of the biblical evidence on ‫( לחם‬Camil Staps, “A Case Study of Reciprocal Middles in Biblical Hebrew: The Niphal of ‫לחם‬,” Orientalia 87, no. 2 [2018]: 159–87), direct objects designating humans are found exclusively with the qal form of the verb (ibid., 163). The same correspondence is evident in V; the qal verb ‫ לחם‬is followed by the direct object marker ‫את‬, rather than the preposition bə- that is found with the N-stem (niphal) verb 74 6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax 113 6.2.4. Negation of the Jussive In V, we find ‫ לא‬negating the jussive, rather than the typical BH ‫אל‬. For example, V has ‫( לא תצרם ולא תתגר בם מלחמה‬D 1:6–7; cf. C 1:2, 6–7), whereas the corresponding Deuteronomic passage has ‫( אַ ל ְ͏תּצֻ ֵרם וְ אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְת͏גָּר ͏בָּ ם‬Deut 2:19; cf. 2:5, 9). Since the jussive is typically negated with ‫אַ ל‬, the use of ‫ ל ֹא‬could be seen as problematic for the claim that V is an ancient Hebrew text.81 The jussive is, however, attested with ‫ לא‬in CBH. See, for example, ‫( ל ֹא תָ ͏שֵׁ ב‬Gen 24:8), ‫( ל ֹא תָ חֹס‬Deut 7:16), and ‫( וְ ל ֹא יָמֵ ר‬Ezek 48:14).82 While some instances of the jussive in MT have been claimed to be a result of reanalysis,83 others – such as the aforementioned three examples – are unlikely to be mispointed indicatives.84 The possible usage of both ‫ אַ ל‬and ‫ ל ֹא‬with the jussive is noted in a number of grammatical works.85 Joosten notes that “there is a certain amount of amalgamation” between the indicative and jussive.86 He mentions the use of the negation ‫ל ֹא‬ with jussive forms, against expectations, as one of the clear signs of this merger. Furthermore, the negation of the volitive jussive in LBH is ‫אַ ל‬, although the syntax is freer: while negated jussives in CBH are overwhelmingly clause-initial, in LBH they are clause-internal in 50 percent of cases.87 This is essentially the only context in which the jussive is kept functionally distinct from the indicative; in other positions they are largely conflated. In that sense, the syntax of the negated volitive subjunctive in V differs from LBH and is more similar to the syntax of CBH. in the Hebrew Bible. It is possible that orthographic ambiguity allowed some qals to be reinterpreted in MT as niphals, e.g., ‫ וילחם את אפרים‬in Judg 12:4 and ‫ וילחמו את יואב‬in 2 Sam 11:17. (Both the verb forms and the ‫ את‬particles in these examples are ambiguous.) 81 Thus Jan Joosten, personal communication. 82 There are significantly more examples than are acknowledged in Ahouva Shulman, “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13, no. 2 (2000): 168–80, at 169n7). Others are found in Gen 4:12; Deut 7:16, 13:1, 9, 18:16; 1 Sam 14:36; 1 Kgs 2:6; Hos 9:15; Ezek 5:11, 48:14; Joel 2:2. Most of these are listed in Gesenius, along with non-negated jussives for which the indicative is expected (§109d). 83 At least some C-stem forms of the root ysp (‫ )יֹסֵ ף‬are assumed to be an original qal imperfect indicative (*yawsup), which through a series of sound changes ended up merging with the Cstem indicative yōsip (Gesenius §109d). 84 All three verbs are written defectively, despite being hollow roots; plene spelling is typical for such roots in the indicative. 85 E.g., Gesenius §109d; Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 567d; Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 156–57; Steven E. Fassberg, An Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2019), 77 (§170). 86 Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 334–35. 87 Jan Joosten, “The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective,” in The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Angelika Berlejung and Pierre van Hecke (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 47–61, at 53. ‫נלחם‬ 114 6. The Linguistic Profile of V 6.2.5. Verbal Forms Following ‫“ עד‬Until” There are a number of instances in V where the particle is followed by a conjugated verb:88 ‫( עד תמו‬B 1:9); ‫( עד אבד יאבד‬G 1:6); and possibly ‫עד לא השאר לו שרד‬ (D 1:3, 2:1–2).89 In CBH, the particle ‫ עד‬is typically followed by an infinitive construct.90 There are, nevertheless, a number of instances of a conjugated verb in this position in CBH, similar to the usage exhibited in V. For example: ‫עַ ד ͏שָׁ ב͏וּ‬ ‫( הָ ר ְֹד ִפים‬Josh 2:22; cf. ‫ עַ ד ͏שׁוֹב הָ ר ְֹד ִפים‬in 2:16) and ‫( עַ ד יָבוֹא‬Hos 10:12).91 Already in BH, and even more so in later Hebrew chronolects, the tendency is for a relative pronoun to follow ‫ עד‬when a conjugated verb is used; the use of ‫ עד‬with a conjugated verb and no relative particle in LBH is very rare. The syntax of the particle in V is thus consistent with CBH usage, but not with Second Temple or later Hebrew.92 6.2.6. ‫( ונכה עד‬D 1:3) The phrase ‫ ונכה עד לא השאר לו שרד‬lacks the expected accusative suffix or ‫ אותו‬and may therefore be seen as problematic. (The corresponding passage in Deut 2:33 has ֹ‫ ַו͏נְַּך אֹתו‬.) The absence of accusative suffixes, however, is well attested in all Semitic languages when the referent is recoverable from context.93 For instance, in 2 Kgs ְ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׂא͏וּ ִמ͏שָּׁ ם ͏כֶּ סֶ ף וְ זָהָ ב‬, where we might have expected 7:8, we find: ‫͏וּבג ִָדים ַו͏יּ ְֵלכ͏וּ ַו͏יּ ְַט ִמנ͏וּ‬ ‫ ַו͏יּ ְַט ִמנ͏וּם‬. See also the ketiv in 1 Sam 7:9: ‫ ;ויעלה עולה‬the qere, ‫ ַו ַ͏יּעֲלֵ ה͏וּ‬, may reflect a “correction.” The same phenomenon is found in the Yavne-Yam ostracon, a First Temple–era text:94 …‫כאשר כל ]ע[בדך את קצר ואסם כימם‬ When your [se]rvant had measured <his> harvest and stored <it> in the granary as always… 88 The form ‫ עד תם‬in B 1:7 is ambiguous due to the defective spelling in V and can be read as either a suffix-conjugation tām or an infinitive tōm. 89 Cf. MT ‫( ִ͏בּ ְל ִ͏תּי ִה ְ͏שׁ ִאיר‬Deut 3:3) but LXX μη καταλιπειν with an aorist infinitive. The orthographic form ‫ השאר‬is ambiguous; it can be read as either hišʾir (hiphil, 3ms pf ) or hašʾēr (hiphil, infAbs). 90 Joüon and Muraoka §166k; Williams §311. 91 See also KAI 224:6: ‫“ והן לי]שב[ן בארקך רקו שם עד אהך אנה וארקהם‬And if they [do] not [dwell] in your land, placate (them) there, until I come and placate them.” (See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995], 136–37. Italics in original; boldface ours.) 92 For more on the antiquity of this construction, see Na’ama Pat-El, “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination,” in Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting, ed. Holger Gzella and M. L. Folmer (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 55–76, at 60. 93 See Kyoji Tsujita, “The Retrospective Pronoun as Direct Object in Relative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew,” in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-fifth Birthday, ed. Alan S. Kaye (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 1577–82. 94 Mhsh 1:5. Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 159–60. 6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax 115 6.2.7. ‫( לתת מפת‬E 1:6) Dershowitz reconstructs ‫ והיו לתת ֯מ ֯פת בין עינך‬in E 1:6 (cf. Deut 6:8, ‫וְ הָ י͏וּ ְלטֹטָ פֹת ͏בֵּ ין‬ ‫)עֵ ינֶיָך‬.95 The position of the infinitive construct directly after the verb ‫ היה‬is unusual. A more typical formulation is found in ‫יְ ִהי ְמ ֹארֹת ִ͏בּ ְר ִק ַיע הַ ͏שָּׁ מַ יִ ם ְלהַ ְב ִ͏דּיל ͏בֵּ ין הַ ͏יּוֹם‬ ‫( ͏וּבֵ ין הַ ͏לָּ יְ לָ ה‬Gen 1:14), for instance, where a noun phrase precedes the infinitive. Similar constructions are, however, found in MT. For example, ‫וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ִל ְהיֹת לָ הֶ ם‬ ‫דרֹתָ ם‬ ֹ ‫( מָ ְ͏שׁחָ תָ ם ִל ְכהֻ ͏נַּת עוֹלָ ם ְל‬Exod 40:15) and ‫עב ַֹדת יְ הוָה‬ ֲ ‫עבֹד אֶ ת‬ ֲ ַ‫( וְ הָ י͏וּ ל‬Num 8:1).96 In addition, Dershowitz’s reading produces a parallel in V between ‫ אות‬and ‫מפת‬: “Tie them as an ‫ אות‬upon your arms, and they shall serve as a ‫ מפת‬between your eyes.” ‫ אוֹת‬and ‫ מוֹפֵ ת‬are a common word-pair in the Hebrew Bible – particularly in Deuteronomy97 – and the pair also appears elsewhere in V (B 1:2). It is noteworthy that ‫ נתן‬is the standard verb in the context of ‫מופת‬. For example, ‫וַ͏יִּ ͏תֵּ ן יְ הוָה אוֹתֹת‬ ‫ֹלים וְ ָר ִעים ְ͏בּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ִ ‫( ͏וּמ ְֹפ ִתים ͏גְּ ד‬Deut 6:22).98 6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax In this section we review features of nominal morphosyntax that are unusual or may reflect an erroneous use of Hebrew. 6.3.1. ‫( בלתי טפכם‬B 1:5) In MT, ‫ בלתי‬may occur with an infinitive as a negation of purpose or result clause (e.g., ‫ ְל ִב ְל ִ͏תּי ͏שַׁ ְ͏לּחָ ם‬in Exod 19:17), in which case it is equivalent to the simple negation, ‫לא‬.99 However, it can also negate nouns directly as a privative negation (e.g., ‫ ִ͏בּ ְל ִ͏תּי ͏כָּ לֵ ב ͏בֶּ ן יְ פֻ ͏נֶּה הַ ְ͏קּנִ ͏זִּ י וִ יהוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע ִ͏בּן נ͏וּן‬in this passage’s analogue in Num 32:11–12). The same usage is also documented in Phoenician (‫בלתי אנך‬, KAI 13:5). This is likely the original function of the preposition; it is neither a late innovation nor is it erroneous.100 95 Previous reconstructions were ‫֯כ ֯ת‬ ֯ ‫( לתתו‬Guthe) and ‫( לתתוהת‬Shapira and Ginsburg). For more, see the note on this phrase in the critical edition in chapter 7, 141n91. 96 See also Num 7:5, 24:22; Deut 19:3; Judg 3:4, etc. 97 Exod 7:3; Deut 4:34, 6:22, 7:19, 13:1–2, 26:8, 28:46, 29:3, 34:11; Isa 8:18, 20:3; Jer 32:20– 21; Pss 78:43, 105:27, 135:9; Neh 9:10. 98 See also Exod 7:9; Deut 13:1; 1 Kgs 13:3, 5; Isa 8:18; Ezek 12:6; Joel 2:30; Neh 9:10; 2 Chr 32:24. Cf. Deut 28:46, where it is said of those who are cursed for not keeping the laws: ‫וְ הָ י͏וּ‬ ‫͏וּלמוֹפֵ ת‬ ְ ‫ ְבָך ְלאוֹת‬. We discuss the semantics of ‫ אות‬and ‫ מ)ו(פת‬in V and the Hebrew Bible in a future article. 99 This is its only function in Deuteronomy. 100 Na’ama Pat-El (“On Negation in Phoenician,” in Linguistic Studies in Phoenician, ed. Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron Schade [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013], 47–67, at 56 and 63, table 2) suggests that ‫ בלתי‬is a derivation from the negation particle bal with a final t, which is resolved in proto-Hebrew as *bilt, and in construct can assume the form biltī. The particle bal is attested in all branches of Semitic as a nominal negation. 116 6. The Linguistic Profile of V 6.3.2. ‫( למאד‬D 3:2; E 1:2–3) This complex adverb occurs only in 2 Chr 16:14, where the preposition lə- is part of the complex preposition ʿad lə- (‫“ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׂ ְרפ͏וּ לוֹ ְ͏שׂ ֵרפָ ה ͏גְּ דוֹלָ ה עַ ד ִל ְמאֹד‬they made a large fire for him”).101 The adverb does not occur in the immediate subsequent Hebrew chronolects.102 While ‫ למאד‬is a hapax legomenon, the combination of the preposition lə- with an adverb is not uncommon in biblical texts from any period. See, for example, ‫“ לָ כֵ ן‬therefore,” ‫“ ְלאַ ט‬gently, slowly,” ‫“ ְלמַ חַ ר‬tomorrow,” ‫“ ְלמַ ͏טָּ ה‬below,” and ‫ִל ְב ִלי‬ “without.” The same phenomenon is attested in Northwest Semitic inscriptions as well.103 The combination of adverbs with prepositions is natural, and the use of ‫ למאד‬in V is not diachronically significant. 6.3.3. ‫( בעת הזאת‬E 1:9) A common biblical phrase for far temporal deixis, whether past or future, is ‫בעת‬ ‫ההוא‬, and this is found several times in V (D 2:6, 10; D 3:3; G 2:2, 3). There is also a single instance of ‫ בעת הזאת‬in V: ‫ואנך עמדת בין אלהם ובנכם בעת הזאת כי פחדת מפני‬ ‫( האש‬E 1:8–9). In the corresponding passage in Deuteronomy, we find ‫אָ נ ִֹכי עֹ מֵ ד‬ ‫( ͏בֵּ ין יְ הוָה ͏וּבֵ ינֵיכֶ ם ͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא‬Deut 5:5; cf. Deut 10:10). Is ‫ בעת הזאת‬then a non-CBH feature? Hardly. Temporal phrases are not referential in the same way that nouns are, and ‫ זה‬and ‫ זאת‬function as both distal and proximal demonstratives almost interchangeably. For example, ‫ היום הזה‬and ‫ היום ההוא‬are used in comparable contexts: ‫( ͏בַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ה͏וּא ͏כָּ ַרת יְ הוָה אֶ ת אַ ְב ָרם ְ͏בּ ִרית‬Gen 15:18) vs. ‫( ͏בַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה ͏בָּ א͏וּ ִמ ְד͏בַּ ר ִסינָי‬Exod 19:1; cf. Gen 7:11). Likewise, for instances such as ‫הוֹציא יְ הוָה אֶ ת‬ ִ ‫וַיְ ִהי ְ͏בּעֶ צֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה‬ ‫( ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Exod 12:51) one might have expected ‫בעצם היום ההוא‬, just as we would have expected ‫ בעת ההוא‬in V E 1:9. Similarly, there is no semantic difference between ‫ בפעם הזאת‬in ‫ַו͏יּ ְַכ͏בֵּ ד ͏פַּ ְרעֹ ה אֶ ת ִל͏בּוֹ ͏גַּם ͏בַּ ͏פַּ עַ ם הַ ͏זּ ֹאת וְ ל ֹא ִ͏שׁ͏לַּ ח אֶ ת הָ עָ ם‬ (Exod 8:28) and ‫ בפעם ההיא‬in ‫( וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁמַ ע יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ͏גַּם ͏בַּ ͏פַּ עַ ם הַ ִהוא‬Deut 9:19, 10:10).104 6.3.4. Plural of ‫“ אב‬Father” According to some reports, the two manuscripts of V diverge on the form the plural of ‫“ אב‬father” takes in E 4:2, with Vb containing the unexpected form ‫אבם‬ 101 The book of Chronicles is replete with the ʿad lə- construction, which is absent in V. Indeed, 21 of 28 examples of ʿad lə- in MT are found in Chronicles. 102 This adverb is attested in the Palestinian piyyut literature (Michael C. Rand, Introduction to the Grammar of Hebrew Poetry in Byzantine Palestine [Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006], 376), but as a verbal modifier, unlike the syntax of the adverb in V. 103 E.g., in Phoenician: ‫“ אל יכן לם שרש למט ופר למעל‬They shall not have a root below nor fruit above” (KAI 14:11–12; early 5th c. BCE). 104 ‫ בעת הזאת‬appears only once in MT, and it is in an LBH text: Esth 4:14. The usage there is not comparable, however. Unlike in V, where the phrase means “then” (far deixis), in Esther it means “now” (near deixis). 6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax 117 ʾăbīm and Va the typical ‫ אבת‬ʾăbōt.105 The latter is the attested plural of this noun in all stages of Hebrew. The noun “father” is marked with a “feminine” plural in many other Semitic languages, including Aramaic (e.g., BibA ʾăbāhātā, Qumran ʾbhtʾ) and Sabaic (ʾbwt “elders” /ʾabawāt/?).106 The only exceptions are Akkadian abbū107 and Syriac, which allows a less common form ʾabāhe – likely a backformation from ʾabāhātā. While it is possible that ‫ אבם‬too is a backformation, it is not unlikely that it is erroneous, either a mistaken reading on the part of modern transcribers108 or possibly an ancient scribal error. 6.3.5. Plural of Ethnonyms In V, we find two plural construct chains in which an ethnonym is pluralized: ‫נשי‬ ‫( המדינם‬D 2:9) and ‫( ערי הפרזם‬D 2:3). For the first example, “Midianite women,” one would expect either ‫ נ ִָ͏שׁים ִמ ְדיָנִ יוֹת‬or ‫( נְ ͏שֵׁ י ִמ ְדיָן‬cf. Num 31:9). The second example requires some unpacking. In MT, the resh is pointed with a qamets, ‫ ְ͏פּ ָרזִ י‬, giving us a phrase meaning “unwalled cities.” However, in all but one of its other 24 occurrences in MT, ‫ פרזי‬unambiguously refers to the Perizzites and is pointed ‫ ְ͏פּ ִר͏זִּ י‬.109 One of these occurrences is particularly instructive; Josh 17:15 includes the phrase “the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaites”: ‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֲלֵ יהֶ ם יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע ִאם עַ ם ַרב אַ ͏תָּ ה עֲלֵ ה ְלָך הַ ͏יּ ְַע ָרה ͏וּבֵ ֵראתָ ְלָך ͏שָׁ ם ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ הַ ְ͏פּ ִר͏זִּ י וְ הָ ְרפָ ִאים ִ͏כּי אָ ץ ְלָך הַ ר‬ ‫אֶ ְפ ָריִ ם׃‬ And Joshua said to them, “If you are indeed a large people, go up to the forest, and clear an area for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaites, since the hill country of Ephraim is too narrow for you.” Compare this with D 2:3–5 in V: ‫לבד מערי הפרזם הרבה מאד וכל ערי המשר וכל הגלעד וכל הבשן עד סלכה ואדרעי · ארץ רפאם י ֯֯ק ֯רא֯ גם‬ ‫הוא כי עג מלך הבשן מיתר הרפאים נשאר‬ Besides the ‫ פרזם‬cities, very many, and all the towns of the tableland, the whole of the Gilead, and all of the Bashan, as far as Salecah and Edrei. (It too is called a land of Rephaites, for Og, King of the Bashan, had been one of the last remaining Rephaites.) 105 See, e.g., Ginsburg, who wrote: “Instead of ‫ ]…[ אבת‬one recension seems to have ‫”אבם‬ (Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2911 [August 11, 1883], 178). For more on the two manuscripts of V, see critical edition of V (chapter 7). 106 The plural is not attested in Ugaritic. 107 For the gemination, see Wilson-Wright, “Father, Brother, and Father-in-Law,” 28. 108 Hermann Guthe (Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Worte an die Kinder Israel, mitgeteilt und geprüft von Hermann Guthe [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883], 79) considers ‫ אבם‬but opts for the reading ‫ אבך‬with a kaph. Shapira wrote in a letter that the genesis of the reading ‫ אבם‬was an erroneous transcription on his part (BL Ms. Add. 41294 [Papers relative to M. W. Shapira’s forged MS. of Deuteronomy], 28r). 109 Gen 13:7, 15:20, 34:30; Exod 3:8, 17, 23:23, 33:2, 34:11; Deut 7:1, 20:17; Josh 3:10, 9:1, 11:3, 12:8, 17:15, 24:11; Judg 1:4–5, 3:5; 1 Kgs 9:20; Ezra 9:1; Neh 9:8; 2 Chr 8:7. The exception is 1 Sam 6:18. For similar forms, see Judg 5:7,11; Ezek 38:11; Zech 2:8; Esth 9:19. 118 6. The Linguistic Profile of V V here places “the cities of the ‫ ”פרזם‬in the list of conquered territories in a “land of the Rephaites.”110 In light of Josh 17:15, it seems likely that ‫ ערי הפרזם‬does not mean “unwalled cities,” but rather “Perizzite cities,” even if the Perizzites may themselves have been associated with unfortified settlements.111 Having determined that the pluralized head nouns in both ‫ ערי הפרזם‬and ‫נשי‬ ‫ המדינם‬are ethnonyms, we may compare them to the biblical Hebrew norm. Since head nouns in such construct chains are typically singular in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., ‫ ְלבַ ד מֵ עָ ֵרי הַ ְ͏פּ ָרזִ י‬in Deut 3:5), V’s pluralized forms may be seen as curious.112 But plural ethnonyms are, in fact, attested in the Bible, including in comparatively early texts. Examples include ‫( אֶ ֶרץ הָ ִע ְב ִרים‬Gen 40:15), ‫( אֶ ֶרץ הַ ִח ִ͏תּים‬Josh 1:4; Judg 1:26), ‫( עָ ֵרי הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם‬Lev 25:32–33; Josh 21:41), and ‫( מַ ְלכֵ י הַ ִח ִ͏תּים‬1 Kgs 10:29; 2 Kgs 7:6; 2 Chr 1:17).113 V’s forms are thus consistent with CBH. 6.3.6. Disagreement of Suffixed Pronoun with Its Referent D 3:5 has ‫ולא תגרעו ממנו לא תספו אל מצות ֯י‬. The expected form is ‫מהן‬, considering that the pronoun refers to the feminine plural ‫מצות ֯י‬. However, in the Hebrew Bible, the suffixed pronoun on ‫ ממנו‬does not always agree with its referent in terms of gender and number. See, for instance: ֹ ‫וְ אֶ ת מַ ְת‬ ‫צע ֲִקים‬ ֹ ‫͏כּנֶת הַ ְ͏לּבֵ נִ ים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הֵ ם עֹ ִ͏שׂים ְ͏תּמוֹל ִ͏שׁ ְל͏שֹׁם ͏תָּ ִ͏שׂימ͏וּ עֲלֵ יהֶ ם ל ֹא ִתגְ ְרע͏וּ ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ ִ͏כּי נִ ְר ִ͏פּים הֵ ם עַ ל ͏כֵּ ן הֵ ם‬ ‫לֵ אמֹר נ ְֵלכָ ה נִ זְ ְ͏בּחָ ה לֵ אֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ׃‬ And their previous quota of bricks [fs] you shall impose upon them; do not lessen it [ms], for they are slackers. This is why they cry, “Let us go sacrifice to our god.” (Exod 5:8) ‫͏כֵּ ן ͏תָּ ִרימ͏וּ גַם אַ ͏תֶּ ם ְ͏תּר͏וּמַ ת יְ הוָה ִמ͏כֹּל מַ ְע ְ͏שׂרֹתֵ יכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏תּ ְקח͏וּ מֵ אֵ ת ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ͏וּנְ תַ ͏תֶּ ם ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ אֶ ת ְ͏תּר͏וּמַ ת יְ הוָה‬ ‫הרֹן הַ ͏כֹּהֵ ן׃‬ ֲ ַ‫ְלא‬ In this way you too shall set apart the gift for YHWH from all your tithes [fp] that you take from the Israelites; from it [ms] you shall give the gift for YHWH to Aaron, the priest.114 (Num 18:28) Although we have seen that the same phenomenon is attested numerous times in MT, the Deuteronomic passages corresponding to this V text (Deut 4:2, 13:1) 110 Gen 15:20 also juxtaposes the Perizzites with the Rephaites. It has been suggested that “Perizzites” originally denoted people living in exposed towns. See, e.g., Tomoo Ishida, “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” Biblica 60, no. 4 (1979): 461–90, at 478–79 and the literature cited therein. 112 Jan Joosten, personal communication. Note that the singular construction is also found in V (‫ נשי מדין‬D 2:7). 113 Note that we are only referring to plural of the ethnonym in a construct. For evidence that the pluralization of head and dependent is attested in other Northwest Semitic languages, see Stanley Gevirtz, “Of Syntax and Style in the ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’ – ‘Old Canaanite’ Connection,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 18 (1986): 25–29, at 28. 114 See also Exod 25:15; Lev 6:7–8; Num 18:28; Josh 1:7, 23:14. The pattern ‫אל … ממנו‬/‫לא‬, which is found in the V passage, is also overrepresented in these biblical examples. We thank Noah Feldman for this observation. 111 6.4. Lexicon 119 have masculine singular ‫דבר‬, rather than the feminine plural ‫ מצות‬found in V. It is possible that these are instances of linguistic updating, bringing the somewhat anomalous text of V in line with the contemporary norm. 6.4. Lexicon In the following we offer comments on possible instances of lexical deviation from normative Classical Biblical Hebrew. 6.4.1. ‫( הון‬E 3:8) ‫“ הון‬wealth” occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in exilic and post-exilic contexts (Ezek 27:12; Prov 1:13). Its appearance in V has thus been cited as evidence that it cannot be a pre-exilic composition.115 However, we have no reason to assume a priori that the word’s attestation in the exilic book of Ezekiel marks its terminus post quem in the Hebrew language. The etymology of this word is unclear; Koehler-Baumgartner’s suggestion that it is related to Aramaic hawn “mind” is unlikely. Despite their superficial consonantal similarity, the lexemes have nothing in common semantically, calling into question the etymological association.116 This lexeme also appears in Qumran Hebrew prose,117 but is not attested in other post-Biblical Hebrew chronolects and the date of its entrance into the lexicon cannot be confidently determined.118 It, therefore, cannot be used as a mark of late texts, as its origin and distribution remain a desideratum. 6.4.2. ‫( יבעל עם כל בהמה‬G 5:12) There are two potential issues with the use of the verb ‫ בעל‬in this phrase. First, the verb is transitive in MT, but in V it occurs with the preposition ‫עם‬. Second, most dictionaries suggest that the primary meaning of the word is “to own,” with a secondary meaning of “to marry, to take possession of a woman.”119 In V, on 115 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116; Jan Joosten, personal communication. See Benjamin J. Noonan (Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Contact [University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019]), who does not list ‫ הוֹן‬as a borrowed lexeme. 117 Joosten (“The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudoclassicisms,” in Miller and Zevit, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 286) lists ‫ הוֹן‬as a poetic biblical lexeme, which alternates with the more common ‫ מָ מוֹן‬in Qumran. 118 ‫ הוֹן‬is not listed as a late term in Avi Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). 119 Koehler-Baumgartner, vol. 1, 142b. 116 120 6. The Linguistic Profile of V the other hand, ‫ בעל‬carries an evident sexual connotation, which is similar to its use in post-biblical Hebrew. Regarding the first matter, free alternation of direct object and the preposition “with” is well attested for a number of Hebrew verbs, such as ‫ ִ͏דּ͏בֵּ ר‬.120 Notably, the same is true for the verb ‫͏שָׁ כַ ב‬, the common biblical verb denoting “to lie with.” This verb can occur with either a direct object (e.g., Gen 34:2; Lev 15:18; Num 5:19, etc.) or the preposition “with” (Gen 39:7; Exod 22:15; Deut 22:22).121 The MT parallel to G 5:12 uses a similar construction to V, but with the expected biblical verb: ‫( אָ ר͏וּר ͏שֹׁכֵ ב ִעם ͏כָּ ל ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה‬Deut 27:20). It is, therefore, likely that the verb ‫ בעל‬could occur with the same syntactic alternates. As for the semantics of the verb, there are several passages in the Hebrew Bible in which ‫ בעל‬likely has a sexual implication, as it clearly does in V. An example is found in the slave laws of Deut 21:10–14: […] ‫ִ͏כּי תֵ צֵ א לַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה ]…[ וְ ָר ִאיתָ ͏בַּ ִ͏שּׁ ְביָה אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת יְ פַ ת ͏תֹּאַ ר וְ חָ ͏שַׁ ְק͏תָּ בָ ͏הּ וְ לָ קַ ְח͏תָּ ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה׃ ַוהֲבֵ אתָ ͏הּ אֶ ל ͏תּוְֹך ͏בֵּ יתֶ ָך‬ ְ ָ‫ָ͏שׁבָ ה ְ͏בּבֵ יתֶ ָך ]…[ י ֶַרח י ִָמים וְ אַ חַ ר ͏כֵּ ן ͏תָּ בוֹא אֵ לֶ יה‬ ְ ‫וְ י‬ ‫͏וּבעַ ְל͏תָּ ͏הּ וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה׃‬ When you go to war […] should you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and desire her and take her to be a wife, you shall bring her to your house […] and she shall stay in your house […] for a month, after which you shall draw near to her and have sex with her; then she shall become your wife. This passage discusses the legal procedure by which an Israelite man could acquire a captive woman for sexual purposes. According to this law, she must first be allowed to mourn her old life for a month, after which the man has sex with her (‫͏וּבעַ ְל͏תָּ ͏הּ‬ ְ ), and she becomes his wife or concubine (‫)וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬.122 It thus appears that ‫͏וּבעַ ְל͏תָּ ה‬ ְ is not synonymous with ‫וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬. Rather than denoting marriage, ‫ בעל‬here suggests the consummation of marriage. Another possible example is found in Deut 22:22–24, where two cases of extramarital sex are discussed. In the first, the man lies with “a ‫ ְבעֻ לַ ת ͏בַּ עַ ל‬woman”; in the second, the woman is defined as ‫“ ַנע ֲָר ְבת͏וּלָ ה ְמא ָֹר͏שָׂ ה ְל ִאי͏שׁ‬a virgin betrothed to a man.” The difference between these cases appears to be that in the first, the woman has already had sex with her husband, while in the second, the marriage 120 Aren Wilson-Wright, “A Reevaluation of the Semitic Direct Object Markers,” Hebrew Studies 57 (2016): 7–15, at 10–11. 121 Mishnaic Hebrew only allows direct objects with this verb. 122 ‫ ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬does not always refer to a legal wife. (See Bernard S. Jackson, “The ‘Institutions’ of Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of Semitic Studies 56, no. 2 [2011]: 221–51, esp. 234–35.) The inferior status of the woman is clear from v. 14, which specifies that if the man decides to end the relationship, he should set the woman free rather than sell her. Relying in part on this passage, Jay Caballero has recently argued that in the Deuteronomic law code, concubinage is possible only for unmarried female slaves, but not for debt slaves (Jay Caballero, “When a Man Wrongs a Woman: Slavery, Concubinage, and Divorce in the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy” [paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, CA, November 2019]). The verb ‫ ִע͏נָּה‬is used elsewhere in Deuteronomy in reference to forced sex (Deut 22:24, 29). 6.4. Lexicon 121 has not yet been consummated, and the woman is still a virgin when she has illicit (but presumed consensual) intercourse.123 That intercourse, rather than marriage, is the distinguishing factor between the cases is inferable from the fact that the second woman, who is said to be ‫“ ְמא ָֹר͏שָׂ ה ְל ִאי͏שׁ‬betrothed to a man,” is also described as ‫“ אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ‬the wife of his fellow” (v. 24). As Tigay writes: “she is considered her fiancé’s wife (v. 24), and sexual relations with another man are considered adulterous.”124 These examples suggest that one need not turn to rabbinic or later literature to find comparanda for V’s usage of the verb ‫בעל‬. 6.4.3. ‫( החרתך‬E 2:1) The root ‫ חרר‬is only attested in nominal forms in MT (1 Kgs 21:8, 11; Isa 34:12; Jer 27:20, 39:6; Eccl 10:17; Neh 2:16, 4:14, 19, 5:7, 6:17, 7:5, 13:17). The absence of any biblical instances of this root in verbal forms has been cited as evidence for the forgery of V.125 There are two objections to this assessment. First, the morphology of the verb in V is what we would expect for a Hebrew geminate root in the C-stem (hiphil). Furthermore, it is likely that verbs derived from this root were in use in Hebrew without being attested in MT, since in Mishnaic Hebrew the root is found as a qal participle (‫“ חרור‬freed slave”; e.g., m. Qidd. 4:1), a pual participle (‫“ מחורר‬free asset”; baraita cited in b. Ketub. 51b), and in various derivations of šif ʿel (e.g., m. Yebam. 11:5). This diverse usage indicates that the root was quite active in some Hebrew dialects with a meaning associated with the nominal forms found in MT.126 Second, the root is productive in other Semitic languages, including Arabic (ḥurrun), Ethiopic (ḥarrāwī), and Aramaic (ḥērē),127 and is therefore likely a shared inheritance. Therefore, the root and its inflection should be considered native Hebrew. 123 Bruce Wells (personal communication) suggests that the verb ‫ בעל‬in Prov 30:23 (‫תַ חַ ת ְ͏שׂנ͏וּאָ ה‬ also means sexual relations. He notes that ‫ שנואה‬typically refers to the lower ranking wife (Gen 29:31; Deut 21:15). Thus, in the upside-down world described in Prov 30:21–23, the detested wife becomes sexually desirable. (Cf. DCH, which includes the definition “take woman as sexual partner.” ) 124 Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 207. Tigay adds that “the same view is found in Mesopotamian law” (ibid.). 125 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116; Rabinowicz, “Shapira Forgery Mystery,” 179. 126 Semantically, V’s version corresponds to Deut 7:8 (‫)וַ͏יִּ ְפ ְ͏דָּך ִמ͏בֵּ ית עֲבָ ִדים‬, Deut 13:6 (‫וְ הַ ͏פּ ְֹדָך‬ ‫) ִמ͏בֵּ ית עֲבָ ִדים‬, and Mic 6:4 (‫יתיָך‬ ִ ‫͏וּמ͏בֵּ ית עֲבָ ִדים ְ͏פּ ִד‬ ִ ). 127 See Carl Brockelmann (“Semitische Analogiebildungen,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 67, no. 1 [1913]: 107–12, at 108) for the Aramaic form, and Chaim Rabin (“The Nature and Origin of the šaf ʿel in Hebrew and Aramaic,” Eretz-Israel 9 [1969]: 148–58, at 149) for ‫ חרר‬in Semitic. ‫) ִ͏כּי ִ͏תּ͏בָּ עֵ ל‬ 122 6. The Linguistic Profile of V 6.4.4. ‫לו‬/‫( וכל אשר לך‬E 3:3–4, 4:6–7) Neubauer, who believed the Shapira manuscripts to be clumsy forgeries, argued as follows: “The expressions ‘and all thou hast’ [‫ ]וכל אשר לך‬and ‘anything that is his’ [‫ ]וכל אשר לו‬are not classical Hebrew.”128 It is unclear what Neubauer found troubling about these ordinary CBH formulations. Both are attested in the Bible with identical forms and syntax, complete with pronominal suffixes and initial vav conjunctions. Some Pentateuchal examples follow: ‫וְ עַ ͏תָּ ה הָ ͏שֵׁ ב אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת הָ ִאי͏שׁ ִ͏כּי נ ִָביא ה͏וּא וְ יִ ְת͏פַּ ͏לֵּ ל ͏בַּ עַ ְדָך ו ְֶחיֵה וְ ִאם אֵ ינְ ָך מֵ ִ͏שׁיב ַ͏דּע ִ͏כּי מוֹת ͏תָּ מ͏וּת אַ ͏תָּ ה וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לָ ְך׃‬ Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet. He will pray for you, and you will live. But if you do not return her, know that you will surely die – you and all that you have. (Gen 20:7) ‫עבֹר אֶ ת הַ ͏נָּהָ ר ַו͏יָּ͏שֶׂ ם אֶ ת ͏פָּ נָיו הַ ר הַ ͏גִּ ְלעָ ד׃‬ ֲ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְב ַרח ה͏וּא וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לוֹ ַו͏יָּקָ ם ַו ַ͏יּ‬ And he fled – he and all that he had. He started and crossed the river, and he set his face toward the hill country of Gilead. (Gen 31:21) ‫יתָך וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לָ ְך׃‬ ְ ֵ‫וְ ִכ ְל͏כַּ ְל ִ͏תּי א ְֹתָך ͏שָׁ ם ִ͏כּי עוֹד חָ מֵ ͏שׁ ͏שָׁ נִ ים ָרעָ ב ͏פֶּ ן ִ͏תּ͏וּ ֵָר͏שׁ אַ ͏תָּ ה ͏וּב‬ I will provide for you there, for there remain five years of famine, so that you, your household, and all that you have will not become destitute. (Gen 45:11) ‫וַ͏יִּ ͏סַּ ע יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לוֹ ַו͏יָּב ֹא ְ͏בּאֵ ָרה ͏שָּׁ בַ ע וַ͏יִּ זְ ͏בַּ ח זְ בָ ִחים לֵ אֹלהֵ י אָ ִביו יִ ְצחָ ק׃‬ Israel set out with all that he had, then he arrived in Beer-sheba, and he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. (Gen 46:1) Indeed, even the canonical Decalogues include the idiom, with only the complement following the lə- preposition differing: ‫חמֹרוֹ וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְל ֵרעֶ ָך׃‬ ֲ ‫ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד ͏בֵּ ית ֵרעֶ ָך ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֶ ָך וְ עַ ְב͏דּוֹ ַואֲמָ תוֹ וְ ͏שׁוֹרוֹ ַו‬ You shall not covet your fellow’s house; you shall not covet your fellow’s wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your fellow’s. (Exod 20:17) ֲ ‫וְ ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֶ ָך וְ ל ֹא ִת ְתאַ ͏וֶּה ͏בֵּ ית ֵרעֶ ָך ͏שָׂ ֵדה͏וּ וְ עַ ְב͏דּוֹ ַואֲמָ תוֹ ͏שׁוֹרוֹ ַו‬ ‫חמֹרוֹ וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְל ֵרעֶ ָך׃‬ And you shall not covet your fellow’s wife, and you shall not desire your fellow’s house, his field, or his male slave, or his female slave, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your fellow’s. (Deut 5:21) More generally, the use of ‫ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬to nominalize a prepositional phrase is very common in Biblical Hebrew (e.g., ‫[ ַואֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִא͏תּוֹ ͏בַּ ͏תֵּ בָ ה‬Gen 7:23], ֹ‫[ וְ אֶ ל כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִע͏מּו‬Gen 128 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116. 6.4. Lexicon 123 35:2]).129 These expressions are attested in many Semitic languages, including Classical Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Arabic.130 6.4.5. ‫( עדת שקר‬E 4:4; H 1:2) In the biblical versions of the Decalogue, we find ‫( ל ֹא תַ ֲענֶה ְב ֵרעֲָך עֵ ד ͏שָׁ קֶ ר‬Exod 20:16) and ‫( וְ ל ֹא תַ ֲענֶה ְב ֵרעֲָך עֵ ד ͏שָׁ וְ א‬Deut 5:20). V, on the other hand, has ‫ עדת שקר‬in this context (E 4:4; H 1:2). The word in question has been parsed by scholars as the abstract noun ‫עֵ ד͏וּת‬. This, in turn, was deemed by Neubauer to be impossible in a pre-rabbinic context.131 Neubauer wrote: “The word eduth, ‫עדות‬, is […] a rabbinical form.”132 This is incorrect; the form ‫ עדות‬appears in the Hebrew Bible, as well as in Sirach (see below). Others have made a more nuanced claim, namely that while the form ‫ עדות‬is attested in the Bible, it never conveys “testimony” in that corpus, as it commonly does in post-biblical Hebrew (e.g., ‫“ פסולי עדות‬unfit for testimony” Ket. 2:3), but rather connotes “covenant,” “law,” etc. Martin Heide, for instance, writes: “‫ עדות‬in the general meaning of ‘evidence’ or ‘testimony’ occurs for the first time in post-biblical Hebrew, such as Sirach utters [sic] the invitation ‫‘ תן עדות למראש מעשיך‬give evidence of your deeds of old’ (Sir 36:15).”133 According to this interpretation, V uses an abstract noun “testimony,” whereas MT prefers the concrete noun “witness.” The ostensible fact that the meaning “testimony” is unattested in early texts has similarly been cited as evidence that the Shapira manuscripts are forged. We suggest that this matter is moot; the word in question should be read as ‫( ע ֲַדת‬construct of ‫“ )עֵ ָדה‬judgment, judicial decision,” and not ‫“ עֵ ד͏וּת‬testimony.”134 The prohibition in V is against perverting court decisions by a presiding judge, not perjury by a witness. There are several internal and external lines of support for this position. 129 That the relative particle can introduce an independent clause is quite well established. See Gesenius §138e. 130 Na’ama Pat-El and Alexander Treiger, “On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and Adverbs in Semitic,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 158, no. 2 (2008): 265–83. 131 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116; Rabinowicz, “Shapira Forgery Mystery,” 179. For a critique of this argument, see also Menahem Mansoor, “The Case of Shapira’s Dead Sea (Deuteronomy) Scrolls of 1883,” Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 47 (1958): 183–225, at 211–12. 132 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116. 133 Martin Heide, “The Moabitica and Their Aftermath,” in New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World, ed. Meir Lubetski (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 193–241, at 226. 134 This noun should be kept distinct from the ‫“ עֵ ָדה‬congregation,” which is derived from the root ‫יעד‬, not ‫עוד‬. The pattern of the proposed noun ‫ עֵ ָדה‬is *qitl > *qīl for II-weak roots > *qil(-at) (cf. ‫ > )גֵר‬Hebrew qēl, fs. qēlā. 124 6. The Linguistic Profile of V First, the cursed man corresponding in V to E 4:4 reads as follows: ‫ארר לקח‬ Courtroom bribery is consistently associated in the Bible with judges, not witnesses.136 This curse also appears to include the same construct noun, ‫עדת‬, but a different verb, the causative of ‫עוד‬.137 Typically, verbs (like nouns) derived from the root ‫ עוד‬are assumed to mean “to be a witness.” The causative stem, however, often describes the acts of judgment or commandment, in the sense of giving law, rather than the act of testifying. See, for example, ‫( ִ͏שׂימ͏וּ ְלבַ ְבכֶ ם ְלכָ ל הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי מֵ ִעיד ͏בָּ כֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם‬Deut 32:46), where ‫ הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים‬refers to the law, which is elaborated in the second part of the verse as ‫͏כָּ ל‬ ‫͏תּוֹרה הַ ͏זּ ֹאת‬ ָ ַ‫ ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי ה‬. Another example is ‫ע͏וּריָך‬ ֶ ְ‫( עַ ל ִ͏כּי יְ הוָה הֵ ִעיד ͏בֵּ ינְ ָך ͏וּבֵ ין אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת נ‬Mal 2:14), where “judge” is a far better fit than the common interpretation “witness,” especially considering that the concomitant preposition is ‫בין‬.138 In Exod 19:23, we find ‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר מֹ͏שֶׁ ה אֶ ל יְ הוָה ל ֹא י͏וּכַ ל הָ עָ ם לַ עֲֹלת אֶ ל הַ ר ִסינָי ִ͏כּי אַ ͏תָּ ה הַ עֵ דֹתָ ה ͏בָּ נ͏וּ לֵ אמֹר הַ גְ ͏בֵּ ל אֶ ת הָ הָ ר‬ ֹ‫וְ ִק ַ͏דּ ְ͏שׁ͏תּו‬, with ‫ הַ עֵ דֹתָ ה‬meaning “commanded.” 2 Kgs 17:15 is clearer still: ‫וַ͏יִּ ְמאֲס͏וּ אֶ ת‬ ‫“ חֻ ͏קָּ יו וְ אֶ ת ְ͏בּ ִריתוֹ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏כָּ ַרת אֶ ת אֲבוֹתָ ם וְ אֵ ת עֵ ְדוֹתָ יו אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הֵ ִעיד ͏בָּ ם‬They despised his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their ancestors, and the commandments that he commanded them.”139 This brings us to the noun ‫ עֵ ָדה‬in the Hebrew Bible. This lexeme is attested in MT only in the plural ‫עֵ דֹת‬/‫עֵ ְדוֹת‬.140 Lexicographers disagree on the form and ‫( שחד לה]עד[ עדת שקר בעמתו‬H 1:2–3).135 135 While V’s blessings and curses (better: lists of blessed and cursed men) clearly correspond to the ten proclamations, it is worth noting that the behaviors listed in the former are not always precise fulfillments/transgressions of the laws included in the latter. For example: ‫לא תשנא את‬ ‫( אחך ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך‬E 4:8) vs. ‫( ]ברך[ האיש אשר יאהב את רעהו‬G 4:8–9); one can refrain from hating his fellow without loving him. Likewise, the blessed man corresponding to ‫( לא תענו באחך עדת שקר‬E 4:4) is ‫]י[שקר ברעהו‬ ֯ ‫( ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש ולא‬G 4:5–7), which is not necessarily an instance of either false testimony or false judgment. 136 Exod 23:6–8, Deut 10:17–18; 16:17–20; 1 Sam 8:1–3; 2 Chr 19:5–7. Similar prohibitions are known from other ancient Near Eastern law codes. In Egyptian sources, judicial corruption was punishable at the same level as conspiracy to assassinate the king. (See Russ VerSteeg, Law in Ancient Egypt [Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2002], 154–55.) In Mesopotamian sources, judges who mishandled cases were penalized with disbarment and a heavy fine. (See Raymond Westbrook, “Judges in the Cuneiform Sources,” Maarav 12, no. 1–2 [2005]: 27–39; Samuel Greengus, Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the Ancient Near East [Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011], 280–81.) 137 Also, within V, the prohibition against false witness may be covered by ‫לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬ (E 4:1) and the corresponding curse ‫( ארר האיש אשר ישבע בשמי לשקר‬H 1:1–2). If court testimony was taken under oath, then the prohibition in E 4:4 is redundant. 138 See also, especially, Gen 43:3; Exod 19:23; Jer 6:10; 11:17; 32:10, 25, 44; Zech 3:6–7. In 1 Sam 8:9 (‫) ִ͏כּי הָ עֵ ד ͏תָּ ִעיד ͏בָּ הֶ ם וְ ִה͏גּ ְַד͏תָּ לָ הֶ ם ִמ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ ט הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ְמֹלְך עֲלֵ יהֶ ם‬, Samuel is instructed to impart the royal decree, i.e., law (‫)משפט‬, rather than bear witness. (The familiar translation “warn” is never as apt as “command.” ) 139 Timo Veijola (“Zu Ableitung und Bedeutung von hēʿîd im Hebräischen: ein Beitrag zur Bundesterminologie,” Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976): 343–51, at 349, et passim) makes a very similar argument. 140 See previous note. A possible instance of singular ‫ עדת‬from the root ‫ עוד‬may be found in Ps 82:1. That psalm is set in a (divine) courtroom, and the counterpart of ‫ בעדת אל‬is the verb 6.4. Lexicon 125 meaning of ‫עֵ דֹת‬: HALOT assumes that it is a variant of ‫ עֵ ֻדת‬and translates “testimony,” accordingly. BDB acknowledges that the underlying form is a singular ‫ עֵ ָדה‬but still translates “testimony.” DCH, on the other hand, offers the meaning “statute.”141 Support for this meaning can be restored from the context in which the lexeme is used. The plural ‫ עֵ דֹת‬occurs with one or both nouns ‫“ חֹק‬statute” and ‫“ ִמ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ ט‬judgment, law.” For example, ‫מָ ה הָ עֵ דֹת וְ הַ חֻ ִ͏קּים וְ הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ִטים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה‬ ‫( אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ אֶ ְתכֶ ם‬Deut 6:20).142 In addition, the repeated use of this noun as the object of verbs such as ‫( ͏שָׁ מַ ר‬e.g., 2 Kgs 23:3) and ‫( נָצַ ר‬e.g., Ps 119:2) is illogical if we assume the lexeme means “testimony.” Note especially the following where the noun is paired with “covenant”: ‫( כָ ל אָ רחוֹת יהוה חֶ סֶ ד וְ אֱמֶ ת ְלנ ְֹצ ֵרי ְב ִריתוֹ וְ עֵ דֹתָ יו‬Ps 25:10). The lexeme should, therefore, be understood in both MT and V as “decree,” which – like the noun ‫ – ִמ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ ט‬refers to a judiciary decision or law, not to the statement of a participant in a legal process.143 The proposed noun ‫“ עֵ ָדה‬decree” is therefore semantically grounded in both MT and V. We thus see that the form ‫ עדת‬in V is appropriate in its context; it simply means something other than what has been presumed. 6.4.6. ‫( חגהן‬D 2:7–8) In D 2:8, sacrifices are referred to using the common term ‫זבח‬, which is inflected as ‫מזבחהן‬. Just a few words earlier, however, we find a partially reconstructed word that may have read ‫מחגהן‬. This reading is uncertain; Shapira and Ginsburg both transcribe ‫ מזבחהן‬there too. Guthe’s reading, ‫מחג֯]*[הן‬ ֯ , has the benefit of being the lectio difficilior. Guthe himself notes in his comments that such usage is unattested.144 It may well be that Guthe’s tentative reconstruction is incorrect. Nevertheless, it should be noted that ‫ חג‬is occasionally used in the Hebrew Bible to mean “sacrificial animal.” See especially Exod 23:18 (‫ל ֹא ִתזְ ͏בַּ ח עַ ל חָ מֵ ץ ַ͏דּם זִ ְב ִחי וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫ישפט‬. 141 See also David Talshir (“‫ אָ חוֹת‬and ‫ עֵ דוֹת‬in Ancient Hebrew,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 15– 16 [2002–3]: 108–23), who argues that the form ‫ עֵ ד͏וּת‬derives secondarily from ‫עֵ דוֹת‬, a plurale tantum, which means “decrees.” Talshir also argues that the change of ‫ עֵ דֹת‬to ‫ עֵ ֻדת‬is late. This is supported by the ancient translations, which do not distinguish between ‫ עֵ דֹת‬and ‫ עֵ ֻדת‬and translate both as ‫עֵ ֻדת‬. Talshir further shows that the original ‫ עֵ דֹת‬was reanalyzed at a later point as ‫עֵ ֻדת‬. 142 Deut 4:45, 6:7; Ps 99:7. 143 See also Ps 119:2, 22, 146, 167, 168; 132:2. David Talshir (“Is the Jehoash Inscription Genuine? A Philological Analysis” [Hebrew], Leshonenu La’am 54, no. 1 [2003]: 3–10, at 8–9) argues that all occurrences of ‫ עדת‬in MT have this meaning, whereas the meaning “testimony” is not biblical. Elisha Qimron (“Waw Denoting a Glide” [Hebrew], in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible [Hebrew], ed. Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001), 362–75, at 375) demonstrates that the /ū/ is more likely to be represented plene, while the opposite is true for /ō/, which is far more likely to be written defectively. He therefore suggests that the spelling ‫ עדת‬should be read ‫עֵ דֹת‬ throughout, and not ‫עֵ ֻדת‬. 144 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 81. 126 6. The Linguistic Profile of V ‫“ י ִָלין חֵ לֶ ב חַ ͏גִּ י עַ ד ͏בֹּקֶ ר‬You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened, or let the fat of my offering remain until the morning;” cf. Exod 34:25), Mal 2:3 (‫יתי פֶ ֶר͏שׁ עַ ל ְ͏פּנֵיכֶ ם ͏פֶּ ֶר͏שׁ חַ ͏גֵּיכֶ ם וְ נָ͏שָׂ א אֶ ְתכֶ ם אֵ לָ יו‬ ִ ‫“ וְ ז ִֵר‬I will strew dung upon your faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be carried out to it”), and Ps 118:27 (‫“ ִא ְסר͏וּ חַ ג ͏בַּ ֲעב ִֹתים עַ ד קַ ְרנוֹת הַ ִ͏מּזְ ͏בֵּ ַח‬bind the offering with cords to the horns of the altar”).145 6.4.7. ‫( שארתך‬G 5:1 [?]; H 1:9) MT uses a nominal derivation with a prefix m-, ‫“ ִמ ְ͏שׁאֶ ֶרת‬kneading trough” (Deut 28:5, 17). The word found in this position in V, ‫ ְ͏שׁאֵ ִרת‬, is common in MT, although the meanings of biblical ‫ ְ͏שׁאֵ ִרית‬and ‫ ִמ ְ͏שׁאֶ ֶרת‬are quite different, raising the distinct possibility that V refers in these verses to something other than vessels. Be that as it may, V’s form is likely a derivation from a nominal pattern without the preformative. Variants with and without preformative m- are well attested in Hebrew, and the noun without the preformative is sometimes older.146 We should note that nominal derivations from II-ʾ roots show reduction of the medial glottal stop in Hellenistic and post-biblical Hebrew,147 and the word ‫שארית‬ is often spelled ‫שרית‬.148 V reflects the earlier orthography. 6.4.8. ‫( גם‬E 3:3) In V, the reasoning for the Sabbath law is given as follows (E 2:8–3:4): ‫]כי · ש[שת · ימם · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם · ושבתי · ביום · השבעי · על · כן · תשבת‬ · ‫· גם · אתה · ובהמתך · וכל · אשר · לך‬ [For in s]ix days I made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and I rested on the seventh day. Therefore you too shall rest, along with your livestock and all that you have.149 Neubauer argued that this is problematic: “The word gam ought to be repeated according to classical Hebrew.”150 That is, Neubauer’s view of correct Hebrew is 145 Cf. Kennicott 131, 133, 681; T-S AS 110.121; BL Or. 5557A.74 – all of which read ‫על‬, rather than MT’s ‫עד‬, rendering: “Bind the ‫ חג‬with cords to the horns of the altar.” 146 One such example is early ‫ ֵדעָ ה‬or ‫ ַדעַ ת‬vs. LBH ‫מַ ָ͏דּע‬. This word is likely a loan from Aramaic or is at least influenced by the Aramaic nominal pattern (Hurvitz, Concise Lexicon, 159–60). Another such example is ‫ חֹ͏שֶׁ ְך‬vs. ‫“ מַ ְח͏שָׁ ְך‬darkness.” The propensity to replace simple nouns and adjectives with m-prefixed ones is also related to the increase in the use of the pual participle in post-biblical Hebrew (e.g., CBH ‫ ַרב‬vs. PBH ‫) ְמ ֻר͏בֶּ ה‬. 147 Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew, 322–33. 148 Viz. ‫ ͏שֵׁ ִרית‬in 1 Chr 12:39 (LBH), ‫ ושריתו‬in 1QIsaa (MT Isa 44:17 ֹ‫͏וּ͏שׁאֵ ִריתו‬ ְ ), and ‫ שרית‬in 1QS, 1QHa , 4Q158, 4Q280, 4Q374, 4Q381, 4Q427, 4Q431, and 4Q496. The other noun in this pair, ‫טֶ נֶא‬, is regularly spelled without the aleph in Rabbinic Hebrew (‫)טני‬. In V the spelling matches MT. 149 The translations in this section render Hebrew ‫ גם‬literally as “also.” 150 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116. 6.4. Lexicon 127 that ‫ גם‬should precede not only ‫ אתה‬but also ‫ בהמתך‬and ‫כל אשר לך‬.151 As proof, he cited Exod 12:31–32:152 ‫͏וּלכ͏וּ ִע ְבד͏וּ אֶ ת יְ הוָה ְ͏כּ ַד͏בֶּ ְרכֶ ם׃‬ ְ ‫הרֹן לַ יְ לָ ה וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר ק͏וּמ͏וּ ְ͏צּא͏וּ ִמ͏תּוְֹך עַ ִ͏מּי ͏גַּם אַ ͏תֶּ ם ͏גַּם ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל‬ ֲ ַ‫͏וּלא‬ ְ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְק ָרא ְלמֹ͏שֶׁ ה‬ ‫͏גַּם צ ֹאנְ כֶ ם ͏גַּם ְ͏בּקַ ְרכֶ ם ְקח͏וּ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בַּ ְר͏תֶּ ם וָלֵ כ͏וּ ͏וּבֵ ַר ְכ͏תֶּ ם ͏גַּם א ִֹתי׃‬ And he summoned Moses and Aaron at night and said, “Get up and withdraw from amidst my people, also you and also the Israelites. Go, worship YHWH, as you said. Take also your flocks and also your herds, as you said, and leave. And bless me too.” But verses where the syntax of ‫ גם‬is similar to V’s are quite frequent in the Bible.153 Contra Neubauer, it is not necessary to repeat the conjunction before each constituent as in Exod 12:31 above. For example: ‫וְ גַם עֵ ֶרב ַרב עָ לָ ה ִא͏תָּ ם וְ צ ֹאן ͏וּבָ קָ ר ִמ ְקנֶה ͏כָּ בֵ ד ְמאֹד׃‬ Also a mixed multitude went up with them, and sheep and cattle, very heavy livestock. (Exod 12:38) ‫ו ִַ͏תּ͏גַּ͏שׁ ͏גַּם לֵ אָ ה וִ ילָ ֶדיהָ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁ͏תַּ חֲו͏וּ וְ אַ חַ ר נִ ͏גַּ͏שׁ יוֹסֵ ף וְ ָרחֵ ל וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁ͏תַּ חֲו͏וּ׃‬ Also Leah and her children drew near and bowed down; finally Joseph and Rachel drew near and bowed down. (Gen 33:7) ‫ֲמוֹרינ͏וּ וְ גַם לֶ חֶ ם ָויַיִ ן יֶ͏שׁ ִלי וְ לַ אֲמָ תֶ ָך וְ לַ ͏נַּעַ ר ִעם עֲבָ ֶדיָך אֵ ין מַ ְחסוֹר ͏כָּ ל ָ͏דּבָ ר׃‬ ֵ ‫וְ גַם ͏תֶּ בֶ ן ͏גַּם ִמ ְס͏פּוֹא יֵ͏שׁ לַ ח‬ We have also straw and also fodder for our donkeys, and also bread and wine for me and your handmaiden and the pageboy with your servants. Nothing is lacking. (Judg 19:19) ‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֵ לָ יו ָ͏דּוִ ד מֶ ה הָ יָה הַ ָ͏דּבָ ר הַ ͏גֶּד נָא ִלי וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָס הָ עָ ם ִמן הַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה וְ גַם הַ ְר͏בֵּ ה נָפַ ל ִמן הָ עָ ם ַו͏יָּמֻ ת͏וּ וְ גַם‬ ‫͏שָׁ א͏וּל וִ יהוֹנָתָ ן ְ͏בּנוֹ מֵ ת͏וּ׃‬ And David said to him, “What happened? Tell me!” And he told him how the people had fled the battle, and also many of the people had fallen and died, and also Saul and his son Jonathan were dead. (2 Sam 1:4) The syntax of ‫ גם‬is altogether more flexible than Neubauer suggests. For instance, ‫ גם‬is not necessarily positioned before the first constituent in a sequence, either: ‫וְ ִאם ͏שׁוֹר ַנ͏גָּח ה͏וּא ִמ ְ͏תּמֹל ִ͏שׁ ְל͏שֹׁם וְ ה͏וּעַ ד ִ͏בּ ְבעָ לָ יו וְ ל ֹא יִ ְ͏שׁ ְמ ֶר͏נּ͏וּ וְ הֵ ִמית ִאי͏שׁ אוֹ ִא͏שָּׁ ה הַ ͏שּׁוֹר יִ ͏סָּ קֵ ל וְ גַם ְ͏בּעָ לָ יו י͏וּמָ ת׃‬ And if it is a goring ox from before, and its owner has been warned but has not guarded it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be executed. (Exod 21:29) The variation highlighted above obscures a contextual factor, which provides additional support for the absence of the word ‫ גם‬before ‫ בהמתך‬and ‫כל אשר לך‬. 151 On Neubauer’s objection to the phrase ‫כל אשר לך‬, see §6.4.4. Erroneously given as Exod 17:31–32. 153 Waltke and O’Connor (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 663) note that the use of ‫ גם‬and other coordinators is much more flexible than the roles typically assigned to them in Hebrew grammars. 152 128 6. The Linguistic Profile of V When ‫ גם‬does appear in biblical texts, it often creates an appositional structure. In the aforementioned example from Gen 33:7, for instance, ‫ גם‬precedes the phrase ָ‫ לֵ אָ ה וִ ילָ ֶדיה‬to indicate that not only the handmaidens and their children (who are mentioned in the previous verse) bowed before Esau, but Leah and her children did as well. The operative units in that passage are [mother-cum-children]. Had a ‫ גם‬appeared before ָ‫יְ לָ ֶדיה‬, it would have changed the emphasis; rather than juxtapose [handmaidens-cum-children] with [Leah-cum-children], it would instead have inaptly juxtaposed [Leah] with [children]. Likewise, the relevant units in V’s Sabbath law are Elohim, on the one hand, and [man-cum-possessions], on the other. Breaking up the latter unit with additional ‫ גם‬particles would therefore have been particularly gratuitous. 6.4.9. ‫( מעלם‬C 1:4, 8; D 1:8) It has been suggested that V’s use of ‫ מעלם‬where Deuteronomy has ‫ לפנים‬is problematic. Thus, Lemaire writes: The text contains variants from the standard Hebrew text known as the Masoretic text that are easily explained as having been made under the influence of the Mesha Stele. For example, in the Shapira strips Deuteronomy 2:12 reads “The Horites lived in Seir from of old (M‘LM),” instead of the Masoretic text’s “at one time (LPNYM).” This is based on line 10 in the Mesha Stela, which reads “The men of Gad lived in the land of Ataroth from of old (M‘LM).”154 There is some circularity to this argument. True, if V is a modern forgery and the forger used the Mesha Stele as a template, he or she might have copied ‫מעלם‬ from that document. But ‫ מעלם‬is an archaic phrase. In addition to the Mesha Stele, the term appears in biblical passages from all periods,155 and it is apparently attested also in eighth-century BCE Aramaic.156 If V is a genuine ancient text, we should not be surprised by the appearance of an attested ancient form in precisely the place context calls for it. The use of the phrase ‫ מעלם‬in V is thus not an aberration. The suggestion that its presence in this text is due to the influence of the Mesha Stele presupposes that the Shapira manuscripts are forgeries; it is not evidence of inauthenticity. 154 André Lemaire, “Paleography’s Verdict: They’re Fakes!” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, no. 3 (1997): 36–39, at 38. See also Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 130. 155 Gen 6:4; Josh 24:2; 1 Sam 27:8; Isa 42:14, 46:9, 57:11, 63:16, 19; 64:3; Jer 2:20, 5:15, 7:7, 25:5; Ezek 26:20; Pss 25:6, 90:2, 93:2, 103:17, 119:52; Prov 8:23; 1 Chr 29:10. 156 KAI 224:23–24. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995), 160. ‫[“ ]ותלאי[ם וכפריה ובעליה וגבלה לאבי ול]ביתה מן[ עלם‬Tal’ay]im, its villages, its lords, and its territory (once belonged) to my father and to [his house from] of old.” The preposition ‫ מן‬is reconstructed. 6.5. Summary 129 6.5. Summary The linguistic evidence discussed here accords with the conclusions of Dershowitz’s literary-critical analysis of the Shapira Deuteronomy manuscripts in this volume and corroborates a monarchic date for V. According to the principle of consilience, as recently laid out by Hendel and Joosten,157 a given claim regarding the date of a text is validated by the convergence of diverse lines of evidence. They write, “Consilience in our scholarly models is the best we can achieve, and it is enough,”158 commenting on their own argument that “the linguistic and historical inferences are consilient, indicating the correctness of the theory.”159 Similarly, the linguistic and literary data in the case of V are convergent, attesting to the likely correctness of the hypothesis that it antedates the biblical Deuteronomy. Furthermore, nothing in the language of the Valediction of Moses is suggestive of either forgery or Hellenistic composition. On the contrary, the language of V is consistent with pre-exilic Hebrew, especially as attested directly in the epigraphic corpus. Moreover, the text includes no obvious late features or Aramaisms, which is especially notable, considering how difficult it would have been for anyone educated in Hebrew in the Hellenistic period (or the nineteenth century) to do so.160 Since the 1960s, research on Late Biblical Hebrew has exposed a large number of lexical, orthographic, and morphosyntactic features that first appear in Persian period texts, and our understanding of the grammar of LBH and post-biblical Hebrew has likewise expanded and changed. These post-exilic features and their relevance for dating biblical texts were largely unknown to scholars in the nineteenth century, yet V contains none of them. This weighs strongly against the possibility of a forgery. The orthography of V is also significant. Almost no Hellenistic period manuscripts are orthographically conservative, and post-biblical texts consistently present fuller and more liberal spelling practices than their MT parallels.161 V, on the other hand, presents an orthography that is considerably more conser157 Ronald S. Hendel and Jan Joosten, How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 98–125. 158 Ibid., 122. 159 Ibid., 125. 160 Aramaic had a significant impact on the lexicon and syntax of LBH (Avi Hurvitz, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, ed. Ian Young, JSOTSup 369 [London: T&T Clark, 2003], 24–37) and postbiblical Hebrew (Frank H. Polak, “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 589– 628; Talya Shitrit, “Aramaic Loanwords and Borrowing,” Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan et al. [2013]). 161 Aaron Hornkohl, “Hebrew Diachrony and the Linguistic Periodisation of Biblical Texts: Observations from the Perspective of Reworked Pentateuchal Material,” Journal for Semitics 25, no. 2 (2016): 1004–63, at 1025. 130 6. The Linguistic Profile of V vative and defective than MT, and it is similar, with only minor variations, to the monarchic epigraphic material. This too constitutes a strong counterargument to claims of a Hellenistic composition. Despite many similarities outlined above, the Hebrew of the Valediction of Moses nevertheless deviates from that of the Masoretic Text in various ways and appears to reflect a dialect other than standard CBH. This is to be expected, especially if the Shapira manuscripts are pre-exilic artifacts, which would leave little opportunity for V to have undergone the sort of linguistic updating that is so prevalent in the texts of later Hellenistic, let alone Masoretic, biblical manuscripts. When the apparent linguistic anomalies in V correspond to attested ancient usage – particularly when this ancient usage was not known to nineteenth-century scholars – it militates against forgery. Furthermore, we should be careful before concluding that a feature is anachronistic just because it is otherwise attested only in later texts. To illustrate, Arad 1:4 and 5:2, both of which date to the First Temple period, contain the noun ‫“ עוד‬surplus.” This noun is never found in the Hebrew Bible, even in LBH texts, but it is attested later in Mishnaic Hebrew (m. Ter. 4:7). Surely our conclusion should not be – and indeed is not – that the Arad ostraca are modern forgeries. Rather, these ancient inscriptions add a new piece of information to the unfolding story of Hebrew. A similar cautionary lesson may be learned from previously unverified texts that have stood the test of time, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1953, Solomon Zeitlin argued on linguistic grounds that a Bar Kokhba letter could not be ancient: The letter begins with the word ‫“ משמעון‬from Simon.” This opening word of address proves beyond any shadow of doubt that this letter was neither written by Simon the leader of the revolt against the Romans, nor by any one of that period. We have a considerable number of letters which have come down to us from antiquity [...] None of them has the prefixal mem to indicate “from.” […] The letter mem prefixed to the author’s name came into use in the Middle Ages. Hence we may say with certainty that the word ‫“ משמעון‬from Simon” shows that this letter was written in the Middle Ages.162 Zeitlin may well have been correct that prefixed mems were unattested in the relevant period, but the conclusion he drew from this fact was dramatically wrong, as we now know. Given the severe paucity of data regarding early Hebrew, countless features that were alive and well at the time – many of which are attested in later Hebrew chronolects – are unknown to us due to accidents of history. Occasionally, we are lucky enough to make discoveries that, if not incautiously disregarded, fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge. The Valediction of Moses – being neither a late forgery nor a Hellenistic composition, but rather a pre-biblical book – is of immense value for establishing the early history of the Hebrew language. The work we have done here on V’s linguistic character is preliminary; we expect that future linguistic studies will shed much light on the both the Valediction of Moses and Classical Biblical Hebrew. 162 Solomon Zeitlin, “The Fiction of the Recent Discoveries near the Dead Sea,” Jewish Quarterly Review 44, no. 2 (1953): 85–115, at 89–90. 7. Annotated Critical Edition 7.1. Manuscripts Among the leather fragments purchased by Moses Wilhelm Shapira were substantial portions of at least two manuscripts containing a literary work affiliated with parts of the Pentateuch, especially the narrative portions of Deuteronomy. I refer to the two known manuscripts of the Valediction of Moses – neither of whose whereabouts are known today – as “Va ” and “Vb .”1 Both are written in PaleoHebrew script, with words routinely broken between lines. With the exception of the Decalogue, the text is written scriptio continua with no spaces and with dots to mark the ends of sentences. The Decalogue (only the version of Va is known to have been transcribed) is presented uniquely; it is written in larger script, with dots between words, and paragraph breaks (petuḥot) before and after each divine proclamation (‫)דבר‬. The spelling throughout is highly defective (ḥaser), although it is not necessarily conservative, per se. Indeed, historically consonantal vav and yod are often elided in the text of V, attesting to an updated orthography following a process of monophthongization (e.g., ‫ללה‬, rather than ‫)לילה‬.2 Although the manuscripts are commonly referred to as the “Shapira scrolls,” neither is, in reality, a scroll. Rather, both manuscripts were consistently described and depicted as folded up like accordions – with creases between the columns – showing no signs of previous rolling.3 Vertical dry-point lines were scored into the leather on either side of the creases. The manuscripts were found with linen backing, with a sticky black substance binding the leather to the fabric.4 In all extant photographs and drawings of Va (Fragment E), the manuscript is substantially warped.5 The 1 Each of the manuscripts appears to have covered most of the text of V. (Hermann Guthe, Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Worte an die Kinder Israel, mitgeteilt und geprüft von Hermann Guthe [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883], 63.) However, in most cases, transcriptions of only one or the other are available. 2 For more on this and other linguistic phenomena in V, see excursus in chapter 6. 3 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 17. 4 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 4, 9; “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript,” The Times (August 8, 1883), 11. Cf. Roland de Vaux, “Post-Scriptum: La Cachette des Manuscrits Hébreux,” Revue Biblique 56, no. 2 (1949): 235. 5 British Library Ms. Add. 41294, “Papers relative to M. W. Shapira’s forged MS. of Deuteronomy,” 33–38; Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 305; idem, “The Shapira Manuscript of Deuteronomy,” The Graphic (September 1, 1883), 224. 132 7. Annotated Critical Edition one known drawing of Vb , on the other hand, shows no signs of such warping.6 The fragments of the two manuscripts range in height between 7.6 cm and 9.7 cm,7 with Va segments at the shorter end and Vb segments at the longer end. The width of columns, from fold to fold, is 15 to 18 cm, with Va fragments again reflecting the lower end of the spectrum. The scribes of the two manuscripts maintained substantially straight margins, although the dry-point lines were ignored, with the exception of the right margin of the first column – the beginning of the manuscript.8 Va contains ten unruled lines per column, barring the Decalogue, which is written in larger script that allows for fewer lines. The columns of Vb typically contain twelve wider unruled lines.9 The two manuscripts differ from one another in terms of handwriting, paleography, and text.10 Care has been taken to reconstruct the layout of each column in the critical edition that follows. In some cases, which are noted below, the exact position of the line break is uncertain. 7.2. Sources and Method In preparing the critical edition below, I made use of several resources. The published transcriptions of Hermann Guthe11 and Christian David Ginsburg12 are the most comprehensive, although neither is complete. I supplemented these with an annotated rough transcription by Moses Wilhelm Shapira, leaves of which I found scattered throughout an unpublished volume consisting primarily of his catalogs of manuscripts for sale.13 I also made use of Ginsburg’s unpublished par6 William Simpson (artist), “Alleged Text of Deuteronomy,” The Illustrated London News (August 25, 1883), 181–82. 7 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 3. 8 Ibid. (Guthe may be referring solely to Va , which is what he transcribes in this section.) Dry-point lines were also ignored in several Dead Sea Scrolls, including all or parts of 1QS, 11Q Templea (11Q19), 1QpHab, 4Q Shirot ʿOlat HaShabbat (4Q405), and 11QPaleoLeva (11Q1). 9 The layout of the Decalogue in Vb is unknown. As discussed in notes 132 and 208, it appears that Vb G 5 contained thirteen lines, rather than the twelve that typify this manuscript. 10 Christian David Ginsburg: “We mentioned on a former occasion that part of the matter is in duplicate, there being two hand-writings of the same archaic script. It now appears that there is also a difference of form between the two copies. In one copy the columns consist of ten lines, in the other of twelve. There are also variations between them” (“Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript,” The Times (August 17, 1883), 8). 11 See note 1. Some parts (F, G 1–2, and H) were transcribed by Eduard Meyer (Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 20–21). 12 Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2911 (August 11, 1883), 178–79; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2912 (August 18, 1883), 206; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2913 (August 25, 1883), 242–44. 13 Staatsbibliothek, Ms. or. fol. 1342, Eigenhändiges Verzeichnis der von Shapira gesammelten hebräischen Handschriften (henceforth Verzeichnis). This handwritten transcription appears to be quite preliminary (see chapter 2). The extant portions include Fragments A–D of Va , as well 7.2. Sources and Method 133 tial transcription,14 Shapira’s letters and notes,15 a drawing of Fragment E (Va ) published by Ginsburg in The Athenæum,16 and multiple drafts of a drawing of the same fragment, which are currently housed at the British Library.17 Lastly, Ginsburg’s and Guthe’s translations, as well as Guthe’s column of biblical correspondences, were useful for detecting occasional editing errors in the transcriptions. I follow the transcribers’ secure and tentative readings but not their bracketed reconstructions – except to assist in ascertaining the letters that were visible to each of them, when that is in doubt. Where available, I generally give preference to the transcriptions of Guthe and Shapira, since both were comparatively diligent about indicating uncertain readings and reconstructions. Ginsburg’s published transcription leaves several reconstructions unmarked; his unpublished partial transcription, however, is meticulous.18 Letters that seem to have been unclear to all the transcribers are marked with a superscript circlet. My reconstructions appear between square brackets, and disagreements with the previous transcribers are noted. Where Guthe, Shapira, or Ginsburg in his unpublished transcription provides a confident reading, I typically refrain from using brackets. In these cases, it is likely that only one of the transcribers was able to make out the black ink against the blackened leather.19 Where the unbracketed reading appears only in Ginsburg’s less detailed Athenæum transcription, I generally follow the others. Exceptions to this heuristic are discussed in the footnotes.20 as a hybrid Va –Vb transcription of E 1:1–4:2. 14 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39–40. This transcription is more detailed than the one published in The Athenæum and follows Vb exclusively. 15 BL Ms. Add. 41294, passim. 16 Ginsburg, Athenæum 2915, 305. 17 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 33–38. 18 It appears that Guthe and Ginsburg were occasionally influenced by Shapira’s readings and transcriptions. Guthe reported (Lederhandschrift, 63) that he had access to two transcriptions by Shapira – one from 1878 and another from 1883 – and Shapira is known to have conversed and corresponded with Ginsburg during the latter’s preparation of his transcription. 19 Guthe describes his method: “We were only able to read small parts without any kind of aid. Usually, we applied some alcohol (spirit) with a small brush to sections of the manuscript and then tried to identify the letters that glistened from the moisture. Unfortunately, this was not always possible, even with help of a magnifying glass. This explains the various large and small gaps that the reader will encounter when reading the text of the leather manuscript” (Lederhandschrift, 21; translation mine). Only a few of the lacunae were due to holes in the manuscripts, and these are noted. 20 Depending on perspective, this edition can be viewed as either diplomatic or eclectic. At any given point, I present a single manuscript in the main body – Va for Fragments A–E; Vb for Fragments F–H – with variants discussed in the notes. However, in the absence of the originals, the nineteenth-century transcriptions may be viewed as quasi-manuscripts, making this an eclectic enterprise. 134 7. Annotated Critical Edition 7.3. Text and Notes Fragment A, column 1 of 1 ( V a )21 ‫]אלה הדב[רם אשר דבר משה על פי יהוה אל כל בני‬ 1 ‫]י[שראל במ]דב[ר בעבר הירדן ]בע[רבה · אלהם אל‬ 2 ‫הנו דבר אל]נו[ בחרב לאמר · רב לכם שבת בהר הז‬ 3 ‫ה פנו וסעו ]לכ[ם ובאו הר האמרי ואל כל שכנו בע‬ 4 ‫ א‬22 ‫רבה בהר וב]שפ[לה ובחף הים · ונסע מחרב ונלך‬ ‫ ראתם ונבא‬24 ‫ כ[ל המדבר ֯ה]גד[ל והנרא הזה אשר‬23 ‫ת‬ 5 6 ‫]עד[ קדש ]ברנע · ו[אמר אלכם באתם היום עד הר‬ 7 ‫אלה ֯ם‬ ֯ ‫האמ]רי[ ע]לו ור[שו את הארץ כאשר דבר‬ 8 ‫ותא֯ ֯מ‬ ֯ ‫ אבתכם לכם · ולא[ א֯ ֯ב ֯ת ֯ם לעלת ותרגנו‬25 ‫]אלהי‬ 26 9 [‫ רו בש]נאת אלהם אתנו נתן אתנו ביד האמרי‬10 Fragment B, column 1 of 1 ( V a )27 [‫ אלהם וי]שבע[ לאמר חי ]אני‬28 ‫לאבדנו וי]חר[ אף‬ 1 21 Sources for transcription: primarily Shapira (Verzeichnis, 213) and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2912, 206). Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 22–23) was able to read very little of this column. All three were reading from Va and do not appear to have consulted Vb . From Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 64–65) and Shapira (Verzeichnis, 207, 213), it appears that the handwriting of Va , Fragments C and D, differs from the remainder of Va . However, Guthe notes that the differences are minute and may be due to different textures of leather, different seating positions, etc. The script of Vb , on the other hand, differs substantially from that of Va . 22 Guthe had difficulty reading this phrase and reconstructs, rather improbably, ‫ונסע ֯כ ֯ל ֯ח ֯ת‬ ‫֯לך‬ ֯ ‫ונ‬. 23 Shapira reconstructs ‫ונלך א]לכ[ל‬. 24 Guthe reconstructs ‫[ ֯האשר‬..] ‫[ל הנרא‬....]‫כל המדבר ֯ה‬, incorrectly assigning the final he of ‫הזה‬ to the following word. 25 Reconstruction based on Deut 1:21. Shapira proposes ‫ ֯ל ֯כ ֯ם‬as the first word of the lacuna, but this would produce an anomalously short line. 26 Reconstruction based on Deut 1:27, accounting for space constraints. Alternative reconstruction: [‫בש]נאת אלהם אתנו הצא אתנו מארץ מצרם‬. 27 Sources for transcription: primarily Shapira (Verzeichnis, 213) and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2912, 206). Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 22–23) could read only line 2 and first two words of line 3. All three read from Va and do not appear to have consulted any other manuscripts. 28 Possibly ‫( וינאף‬metathesis of ‫)ויאנף‬. This is what Shapira settled on in his transcription, and he may have proposed this reading to Ginsburg. The same metathesis in hithpael form, ‫ויתנאף‬, is attested twice in the mss.: once in Kennicott 221, a Samaritan ms. of Deut 9:8 (corresponding in part to this section of V ), and once in Kennicott 96 on 2 Kgs 17:18. Two graphically similar alternatives are ‫ וינאץ‬and ‫ויקצף‬, the latter of which has the benefit of appearing in the corresponding passage in Deut 1:34. The most probable reconstruction, in my view, is ‫ויחר אף‬, which is the final of three readings proposed by Shapira, this one in a letter to Edward Bond, chief librarian of the British Museum, currently found in BL, Ms. Add. 41294, 21, after the manuscripts had been deemed forgeries. Guthe could not read the first line of this fragment at all, and Shapira first considered ‫( וימאר‬metathesis of ‫ויאמר‬, it would seem), before opting for ‫וינאף‬. In multiple letters, Shapira wrote that the nun was a reconstruction, meaning that he could read only ‫[אף‬...]‫וי‬. In his 7.3. Text and Notes 135 ‫ אשר עשתי‬29 ‫כי כל העם הראם את אתתי ואת מפתי‬ ‫ פעמם ולא ֯הא֯ ֯מ ֯נ ֯ו ולא שמעו בקלי‬30 ‫זה עשר‬ 2 3 ‫אם יראו את הארץ הטב]ה א[שר נשבעתי לת‬ 4 · ‫֯בא֯ ֯ו שמה ולהם אתננה‬ ֯ ‫בן נן העמד לפנך המה י‬ 6 ‫ואתם פנו ]ל[כם וסעו המ]דברה[ דרך ים סף עד תם‬ 7 ‫ בן יפנה ויהשע‬32 [‫ בלתי ]עבדי כלב‬31 ‫ת לאבתהם‬ 33 5 [‫כל הדר א]נ[שי המרבה מק]ר[ב המחנה ו]נסע מ‬ 8 ‫קדש ברנע עד תמו אנשי המרבה למת מקרב ה‬ 9 34 [‫ מחנה ]ונפן ונסע קדשה · ויאמר אלהם אלי‬10 Fragment C, column 1 of 1 ( V a )35 ‫אתם עברם היום את גבל בני עשו הישבם‬ 1 ‫]בש[עיר לא תצרם ולא תתגר בם מלחמה כי לא‬ 2 ‫ בה ובני עשו ירשם וישבו תחת‬37 ‫֯ה ֯ח ֯ר ֯ם מעלם ישבה‬ 4 ‫ · כי לבני עשו נתתה ירשה‬36 ‫אתן מארצם לכם ירשה‬ 3 letter to Bond, Shapira wrote that upon careful inspection, he found there to be sufficient space for two damaged letters – there were no spaces or other word dividers here – one of which he thought might be a resh. Shapira therefore proposed reconstructing ‫חר‬. It would indeed seem that ‫ ויחר אף‬is a perfect fit. Cf. Num 32:10–12, where we find the same sequence in the same context: ‫ויחר אף יהוה ביום ההוא וישבע לאמר אם יראו האנשים וגו׳‬. 29 Following Shapira and Ginsburg, neither of whom notes any difficulty reading this section. Guthe reconstructs ‫את אתתי ו ֯֯מ ֯כתי‬. 30 Guthe suggests ‫ עט ֯ן‬and notes that he can read no further in Fragment B. 31 For this form, see, e.g., 1 Kgs 14:15, Jer 19:4. 32 Guthe did not read or reconstruct this section. Ginsburg, who often did not mark reconstructions, has ‫בלתי טפכם וכלב‬. Shapira has the same, but he writes ‫ וכלב‬in pencil and marks ‫טפכם‬ in three distinct ways: a superscript line, a subscript question mark, and parentheses (which he uses nowhere else). This reading seems to be an incorrect reconstruction under the influence of the phrase ‫וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה‬, which appears verbatim in both Num 14:31 (P; cf. Num 14:3) and Deut 1:39 (widely acknowledged as a post-P insertion in Deut; it is absent in LXX). Although ‫ טפכם‬is apt in the biblical passages, both which are spoken (or to be spoken) by Moses to the Israelites, it does not fit the context of V, where these are Elohim’s words to Moses. In V, any reference to the Israelites’ children would be in the third – not second – person. 33 Identical error in the transcriptions of Ginsburg and Shapira: ‫ו]תשבו ב[קדש‬, following Deut 1:46. The commandment was to journey until the people of the conflict had all died off – not to settle in Kadesh. 34 Reconstruction based on Deut 2:1–4. 35 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 207) and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2912, 206), both of whom read from the same manuscript. Guthe was unable to read any of this column. 36 SP (ad loc. and in the corresponding plus in Num 20:13) and Syriac also have ‫ירשה‬, which is absent in MT. 37 ‫ ישבה‬appears to be ungrammatical; ‫ – ישבו‬as in Va C 1:8 and Va D 1:8 – would be expected. This could be a case of proleptic dittography, given that the following two letters – which are not separated with spaces or other dividers – are also ‫בה‬. Alternatively, cf. Deut 21:7: ‫ידינו לא‬ ‫( שפכה‬MT ketiv; the qere, 4Q33, etc. read ‫)שפכו‬. 136 7. Annotated Critical Edition ‫ · ונפן ונעבר את מדבר מאב · ויאמר אלהם אלי אתם‬38 ‫ם‬ 5 ‫עברם היום את גבל מאב לא תצרם ולא תתגר בם מל‬ 6 ‫חמה כי לא אתן מארצם לכם ירשה כי לבני לט נת‬ ‫ והמאבם יקראו‬39 ‫תי ער ירשה · רפאם מעלם ישבו בה‬ 7 ‫להם אמם וישמדם אלהם וישבו תחתם · ונפן‬ 9 8 ‫ ונעבר את נחל זרד ויאמר אלהם אלי לאמר קמו‬10 Fragment D, column 1 of 3 ( V a )40 ‫ועברו את נחל ארנן היום החלתי לתת לפנך את סיחן מ‬ ‫ ואת ארצו · ונצא לקראת סיחן יהצ‬41 ‫לך חשבן האמרי‬ ‫ שרד ונלכד את כל ערו מערער א‬44 ‫ עד לא השאר לו‬43 ‫ ונכה‬42 ‫ה‬ ‫ נחל ארנן עד הגלעד ועד נחל יבק הכל נתן אלה‬45 ‫שר על שפת‬ 1 2 3 4 ‫ם אלהנו לפננו · ונפן ונעבר דרך נחל יבק ויאמר אלהם‬ 5 ‫אלי לאמר אתם עברם היום את גבל ארץ בני עמן לא תצ‬ ‫ כי לבני לט נתתי ארץ בני עמן ירשה‬46 ‫רם ולא תתגר בם מלחמה‬ 6 ‫ יקראו להם עזמזמם וישמ‬47 ‫]רפ[אם מעלם ישבו בה והעמנם‬ ‫ · ויאמר אלהם אלי שלח אנ‬50 ‫ מפנהם וישבו תחתם‬49 ‫ אלהם‬48 ‫]ד[ם‬ 7 8 9 ‫ את יעזר ונלכד את יעזר ונשב בערי האמרי · ויצא‬51 ‫ שם לרגל‬10 38 Shapira transcribes ‫תתחם‬, perhaps reflecting a scribal error in the original. See note 50. SP lacks part of the plus appearing here in MT (viz. ‫)רפאים יחשבו אף הם כענקים‬, bringing SP into closer accord with V. 40 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 213), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 24–29), and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2912, 206; Athenæum 2913, 242–43), all of whom read from the same manuscript. 41 LXX and SP have “king of Heshbon, the Amorite” – contra MT, and with V. 42 Following Shapira for line break; Guthe places it after the he. Given that Guthe marks line breaks with an easily misplaced “|” and keeps the word intact, whereas Shapira breaks the word and places the he at the beginning of the next line, Shapira’s transcription seems more reliable on this point. 43 Shapira’s note: ‫לא יש ואו בסוף ]״ונכה״[ אבל במקומות אחרים יש ואפשר שיש בכאן טעות סופר‬. 44 Various SP mss. have ‫השאיר לו‬, rather than ‫השארנו‬, with V. 45 Guthe read this as ‫ ;שגת‬in the script of these mss., gimel and pe were similar. It is possible that Guthe read correctly and that the error was already present in Va . While ‫ שפת‬is absent in MT here, it is present in SP. LXX has χείλους, which may reflect the same Vorlage. 46 LXX, Neofiti, and Ps-J all reflect ‫מלחמה‬, which is absent in MT. 47 Following Guthe and Ginsburg; Shapira transcribes ‫ והעמנים‬with a yod. 48 Shapira erroneously reconstructs ‫]את[ם‬, thinking ‫ וישמ‬a complete word, due to ‫ וישמדם‬being broken between two lines and there being no terminal letterforms in Paleo-Hebrew script. Ginsburg reconstructs ‫וישמ]ד[ם‬, and Guthe transcribes [...]‫ וישמ‬with a medial mem. 49 Following Guthe and Ginsburg; Shapira read ‫אלהים‬. 50 According to Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 79), this word was misspelled in Va as ‫תתחם‬, with an interlinear correction appearing above the middle two letters. It is possible that Guthe confused this appearance of the word with the one in C 1:4–5, which Shapira transcribes without comment as ‫תתחם‬. See note 38. 51 Guthe and Ginsburg both read ‫לרגל‬. Shapira reconstructs ‫ ֯וי֯רגלו‬, with the first two letters marked as uncertain. 39 7.3. Text and Notes 137 Fragment D, column 2 of 3 ( V a )52 ‫עג מלך הבשן לקראתנו למלחמה ונכהו עד לא השאר לו ש‬ ‫ הארגב בצרת חמה דלת‬53 ‫רד ונלכד מאתם ששם ער כל גבל‬ 1 2 ‫ ערי המשר‬55 ‫ · לבד מערי הפרזם הרבה מאד וכל‬54 ‫ם ובריחם‬ 3 ‫ נשאר · ונפן‬58 ‫גם הוא כי עג מלך הבשן מיתר הרפאם‬ 5 ‫ לאכל מחג‬60 ‫מאב ונשי מדין לקראתכם ותקראן לכם‬ 7 57 ֯‫ סלכה ואדרעי · ארץ רפאם י ֯֯ק ֯רא‬56 ‫וכל הגלעד וכל הבשן עד‬ ‫ בעת ההוא בנת‬59 ‫ונסע נגבה ונשב מול בת פער · ויצאו‬ 4 6 52 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 207), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 28–33), and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–43), all of whom seem to have been reading from Va . 53 This was read as ‫ כבל‬by Ginsburg and Guthe, as well as Shapira in his transcription. In a letter, Shapira later proposed ‫ – גבל‬gimel and kaph being quite similar – and this is a more probable reading. In the notes to his preliminary transcription, Shapira writes: “so [‫ ]כבל‬and not ‫חבל‬.” Despite claims to the contrary, ‫ כבל‬is not a logical misspelling of ‫ חבל‬for a European Jew, since it does not follow a vowel and would therefore have been perceived as reflecting the phoneme /k/. Mansoor wrote that a BM photograph supports the reading ‫גבל‬, but it is not clear what he was referring to. ‫ גבול‬and ‫ חבל ארגב‬appear together in Deut 3:14. Cf. Judg 11:22: ‫ויירשו‬ ‫את כל גבול האמרי‬. 54 Guthe and Shapira – both reading from Va – transcribe ‫ ובריחם‬here, but Ginsburg’s transcription lacks the yod. 55 Kennicott 232 has ‫וכל‬, as here, as opposed to ‫כל‬, as in most MT mss. 56 Shapira has ‫על‬. 57 Shapira transcribes ‫֯ק ֯רא֯ ֯ו‬ ֯ ‫י‬, with the final vav crossed out; Ginsburg and Guthe only note an illegible word. Cf. Deut 3:13. 58 Following Ginsburg; Guthe and Shapira transcribe a yod, but this word never appears elsewhere with a plene spelling in V. Indeed, the masculine plural suffix is never transcribed by all three with a yod; when they disagree, it is likely that one or two inserted the yod out of habit. 59 This verb appears to be wəqāṭal, not wayyiqṭōl. Cf. ‫( וחרה‬Va D 2:10), ‫( ושלחתי‬Va D 3:1), ‫( והכתם‬Va D 3:1–2), etc. See discussion in §6.2.1. 60 MT of Num 25:2 reads ‫לעם‬. However, LXX there reads αὐτοὺς, reflecting a Vorlage of ‫להם‬, in agreement with V (accounting for the requisite alternation in person). 138 7. Annotated Critical Edition ‫ לאלה‬64 ‫ ותשתחו‬63 ‫מנס ֯חהן‬ ֯ ‫ מזבחהן ותשתו‬62 ‫ ותאלו‬61 ‫הן‬ ‫ ותצמדו לבעל פער ביום‬65 ‫הן ותזנו את נשי המדינם‬ 8 9 ‫ ההוא‬66 ‫ ההוא וחרה אף אלהם עלכם ויגף בכם בעת‬10 Fragment D, column 3 of 3 ( V a )67 ‫ את המדינם ו‬68 ‫מגפה גדלה · ושלחתי מכם אנשם ללחם‬ 1 61 Shapira and Ginsburg transcribe ‫מזבחהן‬, which is possible. Guthe’s reading, ‫מחג֯]*[הן‬ ֯ , has the benefit of being the lectio difficilior. Guthe notes in his comments (Lederhandschrift, 81) that such usage is unattested. ‫ חג‬is, however, occasionally used to mean “sacrificial animal,” or something to that effect, in the Hebrew Bible. See, especially, Exod 23:18 (cf. Exod 34:25), Mal 2:3, and Ps 118:27 (cf. Kennicott 131, 133, 681; T-S AS 110.121; BL Or. 5557A.74 – all of which read ‫על‬, rather than MT’s ‫עד‬, rendering: “Bind the ‫ חג‬with cords to the horns of the altar”). See further in §6.4.6. 62 In a comment on his transcription (Verzeichnis, 207), Shapira addresses the apparent scribal error here: “perhaps ‫ ותאכלו‬and only ‫טעות סופר‬.” Guthe transcribes ‫ותא]*[לו‬, possibly indicating, in this case, that ‫ ותאלו‬lacked an expected letter. Alternatively, perhaps Guthe believed that the kaph had been written by the scribe of Va but was illegible due to damage. Ginsburg reads ‫ותאכל‬, which – as the lectio facilior – is likely imprecise. 63 Abnormal orthography: khet replaces kaph in the transcriptions of Shapira (who does not comment on the anomaly) and Ginsburg. Such substitutions are attested in ancient times – ‫ לתך‬corresponds to Ugaritic ltḥ, for instance, and 4Q540 has ‫ כסר‬for ‫ – חסר‬and here we also have ‫מזבחהן‬, which too could have had an influence, given its final three letters (and corresponding phonemes). Perhaps, however, it is an error of transcription, which would explain why Shapira does not note the unusual spelling here, as he does elsewhere. Guthe, working from the same manuscript, transcribes ‫מנת]*[הן‬ ֯ , indicating that the letter in question was entirely illegible to him. (The third letter was damaged and unclear; the top of a samek in the Paleo-Hebrew script of V looks like a tav, which is what Guthe transcribes.) Given that Shapira and Ginsburg are known to have conversed while the latter prepared his transcription, it is possible that an error of Shapira’s was propagated in Ginsburg’s version, as appears to have happened with the seemingly incorrect reconstruction ‫ וי]נ[אף‬in Va B 1:1. 64 This anomalous orthography for the plural is attested four times in the ketiv of MT: Gen 27:29a, 43:28, 1 Kgs 9:9, Neh 8:6. In each case, the qere reflects the conventional form. 1 Sam 1:28 may reflect a similar phenomenon; in most MT mss., the verb there is spelled ‫וישתחו‬, even though its antecedent must either be plural or feminine singular. Indeed, several Hebrew mss. read ‫ וישתחוו‬with two vavs (Kennicott 4, 95, 173); the Syriac, Vulgate, and Lucianic recension of LXX all reflect the plural as well. (In 4Q51, the word in the position of ‫ וישתחו‬is mostly illegible, while an additional verb, apparently ‫ותשתחו‬, appears close by: [‫ותשתח]ו‬ ̇ ‫]…[הו שם‬.) ̇ 65 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribed ‫המדין‬. 66 Shapira could not read past the bet and suggests either ‫ עת‬or ‫יום‬. Neither Guthe nor Ginsburg indicate any uncertainty in their readings, and Guthe – who appears to have been quite precise about marking reconstructions – was reading from the same manuscript (Va ) as Shapira. 67 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 207), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 32–34), and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–43), all of whom were reading from Va . 68 The niphal might have been expected for this verb. The qal is, however, attested in Ps 35:1, 56:2–3, as well as line 6 of the KLMW inscription (KAI 24). 7.3. Text and Notes 139 ‫ ות‬70 ‫ למאד‬69 ‫הכתם אתם לפי חרב ושבתם מאתם שבי הרבה‬ 2 ‫עצר המגפה · ואתי צוה אלהם בעת ההוא ללמד אתכם חקם ומ‬ 3 ‫ · השמרו לכם פן תשכחו ו‬75 ‫ ולא תגרעו ממנו‬74 ‫ מצות ֯י‬73 ‫לא תספו אל‬ 5 ‫ עברם שמה לרשתה · השמרו לכם‬72 ‫ בארץ אשר‬71 ‫שפטם לעשתם‬ ‫ ותמנה תבנת כל סמל אשר בשמם ממעל ואשר באר‬76 ‫עשתם לכם פסל‬ 79 4 6 [‫ בכם וא֯ שמ]ד‬78 ‫ מ]תח[ת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ · וחרה אפ ֯י‬77 ‫ץ‬ 7 ‫ למען יטב לכם ו‬81 ‫]שמ[רת את חקתו ומצותו‬ 9 ‫ הארץ הטבה ֯הזאת · וידעת היום ו‬80 ‫]את[כם מהרה מן‬ 8 ‫ ימם על האדמה אשר אלהם אלהך‬82 ‫ למען תארכו‬10 69 Following Ginsburg. Parsed by Guthe as ‫שביה רבה‬, which is possible. (It is not entirely clear if Shapira writes ‫ שבי הרבה‬or leaves the question open by writing ‫ שביהרבה‬without a space.) 70 ‫ למאד‬appears once more in V (Va E 1:2–3). It is also attested once in MT (2 Chr 16:14). 71 Kennicott 129 has ‫לעשתם‬, as opposed to ‫לעשתכם‬, as in MT mss. Kennicott 81 does not have ‫ אתם‬before ‫בארץ‬, as here. 72 The expected word, ‫אתם‬, is absent. 73 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫על‬. 74 Tentatively following Guthe; Shapira and Ginsburg transcribe ‫מצותו‬, which may indeed be the correct reading here. See notes on ‫ אפ ֯י‬and [‫ וא֯ שמ]ד‬in line 7, below. 75 ‫ ממנו‬does not always agree with its antecedent in terms of gender and number. See, e.g., Exod 5:8, 25:15; Lev 6:7–8; Num 18:28; Josh 1:7. 76 Guthe reads ‫ועשת]**[ כל פסל‬. Given that he counts two letters after the tav and before the kaph, it seems most likely that the letter Guthe takes for a lamed was in fact a mem, as read by Ginsburg. 77 Shapira reconstructs [‫בא¶]רץ‬, with the line breaking one letter before it does in Guthe’s transcription. Since Shapira was unable to read past the aleph, while Guthe indicates no such difficulty, I have followed the latter. It is possible that the first of the two letters that were illegible to Shapira appears at the end of line 6, while the second begins line 7. 78 Following Ginsburg, who transcribes ‫אפי‬, and Shapira, who initially read ‫ אפו‬but then modified the vav to a yod. Guthe transcribes ‫אפ ֯ו‬, with the vav marked as uncertain. 79 Following Shapira, who corrects [...]‫ והשמ‬to [...]‫ואשמ‬. 80 Tentatively following Shapira, who reconstructs ‫ ֯מ ֯ן‬, and Ginsburg, who firmly transcribes the same. Guthe has ‫מעל‬. 81 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫חקו ואת מצותו‬. 82 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫תארכן‬. 140 7. Annotated Critical Edition Fragment E, column 1 of 4 ( V a )83 ‫ · שמע ישראל אלהם אלהנו אלהם אחד‬84 ‫נתן לכם‬ 1 ‫ את אלהם אלהך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך למ‬85 ‫ואהבת‬ 2 89 4 ‫ והיו הדברם האלה אשר אנך מצוך היו‬87 ‫ מאד‬86 ‫אד‬ ‫ בנך ודברת אתם בשבת‬88 ‫ם על לבבך ושננתם לכל‬ ‫ ובקמך וקשרת‬90 ‫ך בבתך ובלכתך בדרך בשכבך‬ 3 5 83 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 3), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 34–35), Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–43), and Ginsburg’s drawings. Both manuscripts for this section were extant. Guthe’s transcription is of Va , as are Ginsburg’s drawings. Shapira’s transcription is a hybrid (and he therefore does not indicate line breaks), and Ginsburg’s appears to be one as well. 84 Guthe transcribes ‫]*[תן ]*[ך‬. Both Shapira and Ginsburg record a mem. 85 Shapira appears to have transcribed ‫ואהבתי‬. 86 ‫ למאד‬appears once more in V (Va D 3:2), and it appears also in 2 Chr 16:14. Whereas ‫מאד‬ as an adverb is attested 298 times in MT, it appears as a noun only in the corresponding verse (Deut 6:5) and in 2 Kgs 23:25, which may well be dependent on the Deuteronomic passage: ‫וכמהו לא היה לפניו מלך אשר שב אל יהוה בכל לבבו ובכל נפשו ובכל מאדו ככל תורת משה ואחריו לא קם כמהו‬. 87 Following Shapira, Ginsburg, and Ginsburg’s drawings; Guthe has ‫[מת‬.....]¶‫למ‬. 88 Guthe parses this as ‫לך לבנך‬, which is not impossible. It seems that Vb lacks ‫( כל‬or ‫ )לך‬and reads ‫ושננתם לבנך‬. Guthe’s transcription and Ginsburg’s drawings have those two letters, while the transcriptions of Shapira and Ginsburg do not. 89 Following what appears to be the final draft of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34) for line break. (The earlier drafts are inconsistent with the final one and with Guthe and appear to be imprecise with regard to layout.) In Guthe’s transcription, the break appears one letter earlier. Shapira’s transcription of this section is a hybrid and therefore does not indicate line breaks. 90 Vb apparently had ‫ובשכבך‬, with the initial vav. The transcriptions of Shapira and Ginsburg have the letter vav, while Guthe’s transcription and the third (lower image) and final drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34) do not. The other versions and earlier drafts, which do not appear to be as accurate (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 35, 37; Athenæum 2915, 305), also have the vav, perhaps under the influence of MT. 7.3. Text and Notes 141 ‫ וכת‬92 ‫ בין ענך‬91 ‫ם אתם לאות על ידך והיו לתת ֯מ ֯פת‬ ‫ כי אלהם כרת עמ‬94 ‫ על מזזת בתך ושערך‬93 ‫בת אתם‬ 91 6 7 Guthe transcribes ‫לתתו ֯֯כ ֯ת‬, marking the three letters after ‫ לתת‬as damaged. Shapira suggests Ginsburg alternates between ‫( לתתוהת‬Athenæum 2913, 242) and ‫( לתתהות‬Athenæum 2915, 304), although the latter may be an editing error. All these options are unintelligible and morphologically suspect. ‫לתת מפת‬, on the other hand, is coherent and aptly fits the context. There are no word dividers in this section, so these six letters could very well have represented two lexemes. The likelihood of this is increased by the prevalence of the infinitive construct verb ‫ לתת‬in V and throughout the Hebrew Bible. All three nineteenth-century transcribers agree on the first three letters, and Guthe does not mark them as damaged, so we may be reasonably confident that this part of the sequence in question was read correctly. This leaves the partially illegible final three letters, which Shapira, Guthe, and Ginsburg transcribe variously as ‫וכת‬, ‫והת‬, or ‫הות‬. These reconstructions all have the final tav in common. The two remaining letters – vav and he, vav and kaph, or mem and pe – have descenders in Paleo-Hebrew and could have been confused if damaged, which Guthe indicates they indeed were. Some of Ginsburg’s drawings supply important data regarding the forms of the letters in question. In particular, the upper image in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 36 indicates that the letters read by Ginsburg as vav and he were somewhat unclear. The top of the putative vav includes a horizontal stroke extending to the left of the descender, and the bottom of the descender curves to the left. In addition, Ginsburg (or the artist he commissioned) could make out only one of two medial horizontal strokes on the presumptive he. These features bring the characters in question into closer alignment with mem and pe, respectively. The transcribers were likely influenced here, as elsewhere, by MT, where only a single word appears in this position, and the presence of two holems in MT may have also impacted their reconstruction of a vav here. ‫ אות‬and ‫ מופת‬are a common word-pair in the Hebrew Bible – especially in Deuteronomy – appearing in Exod 7:3; Deut 4:34, 6:22, 7:19, 13:1–2, 26:8, 28:46, 29:3, 34:11; Isa 8:18, 20:3; Jer 32:20–21; Pss 78:43, 105:27, 135:9; Neh 9:10; and the pair also appears elsewhere in V (Va B 1:2). All this is especially pertinent in light of the parallelistic construction here. Also, it is noteworthy that ‫ נתן‬is the standard verb in the context of ‫מופת‬. (Cf. Exod 7:9; Deut 6:22, 13:1; 1 Kgs 13:3, 5; Isa 8:18; Ezek 12:6; Joel 2:30; Neh 9:10; 2 Chr 32:24.) Cf. especially Deut 28:46, where it is said of those who are cursed for not keeping the laws: ‫והיו בך לאות ולמופת‬. The word ‫ טוטפות‬is difficult and of unclear etymology, and it is attested in the Hebrew Bible only in the corresponding verse (Deut 6:8) and in the parallel passages in Deut 11:18 and Exod 13:16. An additional parallel text reads: ‫והיה לך לאות‬ ‫( על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך‬Exod 13:9). Here, too, the corresponding (singular) noun, ‫זכרון‬, is an attested word-pair together with ‫ – אות‬like ‫מופת‬, but unlike ‫( טוטפות‬cf., e.g., Num 17:3–5; Josh 4:6–7). All of this raises the possibility that the word in question is the consequence of an early scribal error. See further in §6.2.7. 92 Following Guthe and all of Ginsburg’s drawings. Guthe also addresses this word’s defective spelling in his discussion (Lederhandschrift, 74). Ginsburg’s transcription in The Athenæum and Shapira’s handwritten one both have ‫ עינך‬with a yod, probably under the influence of MT or standard orthography. 93 Following Guthe and the third (lower image) and final drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34). (Other versions of his drawing do not contain text in this section.) Ginsburg reconstructs ‫ ;וכתב]תם[ על‬Shapira reconstructs ‫וכתבתם ]אתם[ על‬, although he places the reconstructed aleph beneath the final mem, perhaps indicating that the mem reading was insecure. 94 Kennicott 69 (cf. LXX and Vulgate) reads ‫ושעריך‬, with V. ‫לתתוהת‬. 142 7. Annotated Critical Edition ‫ עמדתי בין אלהם‬97 ‫ בחרב ביום הקהל ואנך‬96 ‫ ֯ב ֯ר ֯ת‬95 ‫ך‬ 8 [vacat] 102 ‫ דבר אלהכם לאמר‬101 ‫ להגד לכם‬100 ‫ההר‬ ֯ 10 [‫ מפני האש ולא ]עלתם‬99 ‫ בעת הזאת כי פחדת‬98 ‫ובנכם‬ 9 Fragment E, column 2 of 4 ( V a )103 ‫ · מא‬104 ‫ אנך · אלהם · אלהך · אשר · החרתך‬1 95 Shapira reads ‫עמנו‬, possibly under the influence of MT. Shapira tentatively reconstructs plene ‫( ברית‬marking either the yod or the entire word with a question mark), again perhaps influenced by MT. 97 Shapira transcribes ‫ ואנכי‬with a yod, possibly under the influence of MT. 4Q41, 4Q129, and 4Q134 read ‫ ואנכי‬with the initial vav, in agreement with V. 4Q134 also has ‫ אלהים‬here, rather than the Tetragrammaton, and it lacks the words: ‫להגיד לכם את דבר יהוה כי יראתם מפני האש ולא עליתם‬ ‫בהר‬. 98 Following Guthe and the third (lower image) and final drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34) for orthography. Earlier drafts leave the beginning of line 9 blank, due to illegibility, and Ginsburg’s transcription reads ‫ ובינכם‬with a yod. Shapira’s transcription reads [...]‫וב‬, and some of Ginsburg’s drawings place those two letters at the end of line 8. Guthe transcribes ‫[בנכם‬...] for the start of line 9. The later versions of Ginsburg’s drawings do not indicate the vav. 99 Following Guthe and the third (lower image) and final drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34). Earlier drafts, as well as his and Shapira’s transcriptions, read ‫פחדתם‬. 100 Following Shapira; Ginsburg’s transcription reads ‫ ההד‬with a dalet. This does not appear to be a printing or editing error, given that several of Ginsburg’s drawings indicate a (PaleoHebrew) dalet as well. It therefore seems most likely that Ginsburg could not make out the descender of the resh. Alternately, a scribal error may be present in Va , in which case Shapira either glosses over it, or else he follows the reading of Vb . (As noted above, Shapira’s transcription of this section is a Va –Vb hybrid.) As discussed below, Guthe appears to have read this letter as a qoph, supporting the case for a (partially damaged) resh, considering the relative similarity of these two letters. For ‫ההר‬, rather than ‫ ההרה‬or ‫בהר‬, cf. Hag 1:8: ‫עלו ההר‬. Cf. also Vb G 3:8: ‫שם‬, according to Guthe; ‫שמה‬, per Ginsburg. 101 Guthe, who had great difficulty reading this section, transcribes [...] ‫[ הקל ]*[גדל‬...], seemingly mistaking the resh of ‫ ההר‬for a qoph, and then parsing accordingly. Guthe may have been influenced by Deut 5:22. Guthe also transcribes a lone tav between here and the end of the line; the rest was illegible to him. 102 Shapira’s transcription and Ginsburg’s drawings end the column here. Ginsburg’s transcription includes an ellipsis after ‫לאמר‬, but this is likely simply to mark the elided Decalogue, which had been published in a previous issue of The Athenæum. 103 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 3), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 34–37), Ginsburg (Athenæum 2911, 178–79). Both manuscripts for this section were extant. The Decalogue appears in larger script than that of the other text, and it features dots after all words, with the notable exception of ‫ את‬and ‫לא‬. Each proclamation begins a new line in Va . 104 This reading – “freed you,” rather than “brought you out” (MT ‫ ;הוצאתיך‬LXX ἐξαγαγών) – is unattested in extant manuscripts. However, the Nash Papyrus – which is damaged in the middle of the corresponding word – could not have read ‫הוצאתיך‬, despite having been reconstructed as such, in accordance with the familiar versions, since Cook in 1903. (Stanley A. Cook, “A PreMassoretic Biblical Papyrus,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 25 [1903], plate 2.) The space between the he and tav there is insufficient for ‫וצא‬, and no corrections above the line are apparent. (A defective spelling such as ‫ הצתיך‬or ‫ הוצתיך‬is unlikely, given the plene or96 7.3. Text and Notes 143 · ‫ לכם‬105 [· ‫רץ · מצרם · מבת · עבדם · לא יה]יה‬ ‫ · תמ‬107 ‫ · לכם · פסל · וכל‬106 [‫אלהם · אחרם · לא תעש]ו‬ ‫נה · אשר · בשמם · ממעל · ואשר · בארץ · מ‬ ‫תחת · ואשר · במים · מתחת · לארץ · לא תש‬ · ‫ · להם · ולא תעבדם · אנך · אלהם‬108 ‫תחו‬ [vacat] · ‫אלהך‬ 110 [‫ · ]את יום · השבעי · ושבת · בו · כי · ש‬109 ‫קדש‬ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fragment E, column 3 of 4 ( V a )111 ‫ · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הא‬112 ‫שת · ימם‬ · ‫ · השבעי‬113 ‫רץ · וכל · אשר · בם · ושבתי · ביום‬ · ‫על · כן · תשבת · גם · אתה · ובהמתך · וכל · אשר‬ [vacat] · ‫לך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ · ‫ · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬114 ‫כבד · את אבך · ואת אמך‬ 1 2 3 4 5 thography that typifies the papyrus – especially considering that the vav and aleph are both historical consonants here.) V’s reading would fit comfortably in the available space. While ‫החר‬ – a cognate of Aramaic (and Mishnaic Hebrew) ‫ – שחרר‬does not appear in MT, it is what would be expected in BH, and the root is well represented throughout the Semitic languages. ‫חר‬, meaning “freeman” or “nobleman,” is widely attested in MT (1 Kgs 21:8, 11; Isa 34:12; Jer 27:20, 39:6; Eccl 10:17; Neh 2:16, 4:14, 19, 5:7, 6:17, 7:5, 13:17). In addition, the passive qal participle ‫חרור‬ and the pual participle ‫ מחורר‬are both attested in Mishnaic Hebrew. Semantically, V’s version corresponds to Deut 7:8 (‫)ויפדך מבית עבדים‬, Deut 13:6 (‫)והפדך מבית עבדים‬, and Mic 6:4 (‫ומבית‬ ‫)עבדים פדיתיך‬. 105 Alternatively: ‫יהיו‬. Guthe notes a hole here, which is also visible in photographs and in Ginsburg’s drawings. 106 Shapira and Ginsburg both reconstruct ‫ תעשה‬in the singular, following MT. However, in MT, this verb agrees with the singular ‫ לך‬that follows it, as opposed to the plural ‫ לכם‬found here. I have opted, provisionally, for an internally consistent reading. Guthe notes a hole here, and damage is also indicated in Ginsburg’s drawings. 107 MT does not have a vav here, but Exod 20:4 and several Dead Sea Scrolls on this verse in Deut (4Q41, 4Q134, 4Q137, XQ3) read ‫ וכל‬with an initial vav. 108 See note 64. 109 This word is recorded in the transcriptions of Shapira and Ginsburg, but not in Ginsburg’s drawings or in Guthe’s transcription. 110 Reconstruction based on parallel in Vb G 4:1–2. 111 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 3), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 36–39), and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2911, 178–79). 112 Following Guthe, Ginsburg, and Ginsburg’s drawings; Shapira transcribes ‫ ימים‬with a yod. 113 Ginsburg’s transcription lacks this word separator, although it appears in Guthe’s edition. Some of Ginsburg’s drawings include it and others do not. 114 Vb : plus · ‫למען · יארכן · ימך‬. The phrase ‫ – ולמען ייטב לך‬which appears in MT Deut 5:16 but is present in neither Va nor Vb – is also absent in the MT Exodus version of the Decalogue and in 4Q134, where the Decalogue appears in a Deuteronomic context. These two phrases appear in reverse order in the LXX versions of Exod 20:12 and Deut 5:16, as well as in the Nash 144 7. Annotated Critical Edition · ‫ · אחך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬115 ‫ לא תר]צח[ · את נ֯פש‬6 [vacat] · ‫ · רעך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬116 ‫ לא תנאף · את אשת‬7 [vacat] · ‫ · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬117 ‫ לא תגנב · את הן · אחך‬8 Fragment E, column 4 of 4 ( V a )118 ‫ לא תשבע · בשמי · לשקר · כי · אנך · אקנא · את‬1 Papyrus. All of this is consonant with ‫ ולמען ייטב לך‬being a secondary (or tertiary) insertion, perhaps under the influence of Va D 3:9–10: ‫למען יטב לכם ולמען תארכן ימם וגו׳‬. 115 Guthe transcribes ‫את‬, and Ginsburg reconstructs it between brackets. The ellipsis in Shapira’s transcription seems to allow enough space to accommodate the word. However, Ginsburg’s drawings lack the word and do not have a sufficiently wide gap for these two letters. Ginsburg’s original transcription reads ‫( נפשי‬Athenæum 2911, 178), but he later writes that a word-separating dot had been erroneously transcribed as a yod (Athenæum 2912, 206). 116 In his final Athenæum installment, Ginsburg writes that he had recently realized that in line 7, an alternate form of ‫ לא תגנב‬was written and crossed out: · ‫[ הן · רעך · אנך‬..]‫[ מן מ‬...] ‫לא‬ ‫( אלהם · אלהך‬Athenæum 2915, 304). (This same reading is reflected in several of his drawings.) Ginsburg apparently mistook a partially illegible fifth proclamation (‫ )לא תנאף‬for an alternate version of the sixth (‫)לא תגנב‬. His early drawings are consonant with Guthe’s transcription of Proclamation 5, and in the illustration that accompanies Ginsburg’s final Athenæum report, the supposedly canceled line takes the place of ‫לא תנאף‬, which is nowhere represented visually, despite being transcribed in the texts of Ginsburg, Shapira, and Guthe. The evidence suggests that there was only ever one version of the ‫ לא תגנב‬injunction in Va . 117 Guthe reads ‫ר]*[ך‬, possibly confusing a partially illegible aleph for a resh. Both Ginsburg and Shapira read ‫אחך‬. 118 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 3, covering the first ten words of the column), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 38–39), and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2911, 178–79). Both manuscripts for this section were extant. Guthe consulted this column’s corresponding section in Vb (Lederhandschrift, 63). 7.3. Text and Notes 145 ‫ · רבעם · ל ֯נ‬120 ‫ · על · בנם · על · שלשם · ועל‬119 ‫עון · אבת‬ [vacat] · ‫ · שמי · לשקר · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬121 ‫שאי‬ ‫ · אנך · אלהם · אל‬124 ‫ · שקר‬123 ‫ · באחך · עדת‬122 ‫לא תענו‬ [vacat] · ‫הך‬ ‫ · ואמתו · וכל · אש‬125 ‫לא תחמד · אשת · ]רעך[ · עבדו‬ [vacat] · ‫ר · לו · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ · ‫לא תשנא · את אחך · ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ 126 [‫את עשרת הדברם הא]ל[ה דבר ]אלהם עמכם בהר מתך האש‬ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fragment F, column 1 of 4 ( V b ?)127 128 ............................................................................... 1 [‫ ]כשמעכם את הקל‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 119 Vb may have read ‫אבם‬, which is an otherwise unattested plural form of ‫אב‬. Cf. ‫͏דּוֹר‬, which is occasionally pluralized as ‫͏דּוֹרים‬ ִ (Isa 51:8; Ps 72:5, 102:24). In both a note on his transcription and a letter to Hermann Strack preserved in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 5, Shapira indicates that while the mem was not altogether clear, it seems that one of the manuscripts indeed read ‫אבם‬. Mem and tav are not especially similar in Paleo-Hebrew. Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 79) suggests the reading ‫אבך‬, although he notes that the final letter could have been a mem. Alternatively, it may be that damage to this section of Vb led both Guthe and Shapira to misread the text (somewhat differently from one another). Shapira’s transcription after this point is not extant. 120 Following Ginsburg and the second, third, and final drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 35, 36, 34); this word-separating dot is not indicated in Guthe’s transcription or in the other versions of Ginsburg’s drawing. 121 Guthe transcribes ‫ לנשאי‬and Ginsburg ‫לנשא‬. However, Ginsburg’s drawings show a large space after the aleph of this word and before the sin of the next, befitting an illegible letter. Cf. MT ‫( לשנאי‬Exod 20:5, Deut 5:9). 122 This may be a case of grammatical disagreement between the verb and the singular suffix of the next word. This phenomenon is attested elsewhere in V, e.g., Vb G 1:9–10: ‫ממרם הית]ם[ את‬ ‫אלהם אלהך‬. Alternatively, the vav of ‫ תענו‬could be a 3ms pronominal suffix, as in Exod 2:6: ‫ותפתח‬ ‫ותראהו את הילד‬. 123 See discussion of this word in §6.4.6. 124 Exod 20:16 in MT and XQ3 have ‫שקר‬, rather than ‫ שוא‬of MT here, and the same is reflected in LXX. 125 Guthe identifies only three illegible letters between ‫ אשת‬and ‫ואמתו‬, but Ginsburg’s drawings clearly indicate a larger lacuna, and he transcribes ‫[ · עבדו · ואמתו‬..] · ‫ אשת‬in that space. Guthe’s reading would produce an anomalously short line. 126 Reconstruction based on Deut 5:22 and Vb G 1:11. 127 Source for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 38–41; transcribed by Eduard Meyer). The scope and position of this fragment are not entirely certain. Only an extremely incomplete transcription by Meyer is available. Guthe and Meyer note that they switched here to the second manuscript (ibid., 38, n. 1) – in other words, Vb . They also write that Fragment F is followed by Fragment G (ibid., 40), suggesting that both belonged to the same manuscript. As discussed in the notes below, Fragments G–H derive from Vb . Presuming Fragment F indeed derives from the second manuscript, this suggests that the illegible columns 2–4 are lost and do not overlap with the transcribed portion of Va . 128 Reconstructions in this fragment are speculative and are based on Exod 20:19–20; Deut 146 7. Annotated Critical Edition [‫ עמ]נו אל‬129 ‫]מתך האש ותאמרו אלי דבר א[תה עמנ]ו ונשמ[ע וא֯ ]ל[ ידבר‬ [‫ ולא נ֯מת · וישמע אלהם את ֯דבר]כם בדברכם אלי בעת ההוא ויא‬130 ‫]ה[ם‬ [‫ · מי י]תן והיה לבבם זה ליראה אתי ולשמר את כל מ‬131 ‫מ]ר הטבו אשר דב[רו‬ 3 4 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[‫]צותי כל ה[ימם ]ל[מען ל]א‬ 6 ............................................................................... 7 ............................................................................... 8 ............................................................................... 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fragment F, column 2 of 4 ( V b ?) ............................................................................... 1 ............................................................................... 2 ............................................................................... 3 ............................................................................... 4 ............................................................................... 5 ............................................................................... 6 ............................................................................... 7 ............................................................................... 8 ............................................................................... 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fragment F, column 3 of 4 ( V b ?) ............................................................................... 1 ............................................................................... 2 ............................................................................... 3 ............................................................................... 4 ............................................................................... 5 ............................................................................... 6 ............................................................................... 7 ............................................................................... 8 ............................................................................... 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5:23–29, 18:16–17. 129 Meyer transcribes ‫וא֯ ידבר‬, without reconstructing the lamed; this is likely an editing error. 130 Meyer reconstructs a provisional kaph where I conjecturally propose a he, based on context. My reconstruction of ‫ אלהם‬here agrees with that in Meyer and Guthe’s translation. 131 Meyer: ‫ ֯דבר]*[רו‬. 7.3. Text and Notes 147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fragment F, column 4 of 4 ( V b ?) ............................................................................... 1 ............................................................................... 2 ............................................................................... 3 ............................................................................... 4 ............................................................................... 5 ............................................................................... 6 ............................................................................... 7 ............................................................................... 8 ............................................................................... 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fragment G, column 1 of 5 ( V b )132 [‫ על ֯הא֯ דמה אשר נשבעתי לתת להם ולבנהם אחרהם · שמע יש]ראל‬133 ‫]מ[ם‬ 1 ‫גדלת ובצ‬ ֯ ‫אתם עברם היום את הירדן לבא לרשת גוים רבם ועצמם ערם‬ 2 ‫ מה‬135 ‫ לא תא֯ מרו בלבבכם ֯רבם המה הגוים האלה לא נכל להרשם לא תירא‬134 ‫רת חמה‬ 4 ‫לפ‬ ֯ ‫אכ ֯לה הוא · הוא ישמדם ויכנעם מהרה‬ ֯ ‫לפנך אש‬ ֯ ‫כי א֯ ֯ל ֯ה ֯ם הוא העבר‬ 5 ‫מלפ‬ ֯ ‫אבד יאבד הנ ֯֯סתרם הנשארם‬ ֯ ‫ עד‬137 ‫ ישלח ]אל[הם בם‬136 ‫נך · גם את ה]צ[רעת‬ 132 3 · ‫ם זכר א֯ ֯ת אשר ֯ע ֯שה אלהם לפרעה ולכל מצרם כן יעשה אלהם לכל איבך‬ 6 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 40–43; transcribed by Eduard Meyer), Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–44), and Ginsburg’s more detailed unpublished alternate transcription in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39–40. As noted above, Fragments G and H (Vb ) are different in form from the others (Va ): rather than ten short lines, they had twelve longer ones. (Vb G 5 may have had thirteen lines; see note 208.) In Ginsburg’s unpublished transcription, this is (by inference; see note on next column) column 3, not 1, and he was clearly reading from Vb in the alternate transcription, given its agreement with that of Guthe and Meyer vis-à-vis line numbers, line breaks, and damage. This is difficult to make sense of and may be an error on the part of Ginsburg or an assistant. Ginsburg’s transcription in The Athenæum may be a conflation of the two manuscripts, considering their occasional agreement regarding damage, on the one hand, and substantial divergence in readings (and disagreement regarding damage), on the other. 133 Meyer marks one illegible letter at the beginning of this line, which I have reconstructed as a mem (‫)ימם‬. Another possibility is he (‫)ימהם‬. 134 Following Ginsburg; Meyer transcribes [...]‫ובצ¶רת ֯כ ֯מ‬. 135 Ginsburg reads ‫ תרא‬here. 136 Ginsburg transcribes ‫צרעת‬..‫ ה‬in his Athenæum transcription, but his alternate transcription has ‫ה]צ[רעת‬, and Meyer transcribes ‫ה]**[עת‬, indicating just two letters between the he and the tsade. MT (Deut 7:20) reads ‫צרעה‬. Ibn Ezra ad loc. (cf. Exod 23:28): “A bodily affliction. From the form ‫( ”צרעת‬my translation). 137 Meyer transcribes a dot, but it is not recorded in either of Ginsburg’s transcriptions. 148 7. Annotated Critical Edition ‫ ומשפטו וחקתו אשר אנך מצוך היום ו‬139 [‫ את מצ]ותו‬138 ‫נך ֯רק אם תשמרו‬ ‫ אלהם אלהך נתן לפנך את הארץ הזאת לרשתה‬142 [‫ כי לא בצדקת]ך‬141 ‫ היום‬140 ‫ידעת‬ 144 150 7 8 ‫כי עם קשה ערף הית מן היום אשר י֯צאת ממצרם עד היום ממרם הית‬ 9 143 ‫ועלה ֯ם‬ ֯ ‫חרב ֯ביום עלתי ההר לקחת את שני לחת האבנם‬ ֯ ‫ ]ם[ את אלהם אלהך · ֯ב‬10 146 ‫ עמכם בהר מתך האש ביום הקהל‬147 ‫אלהם‬ ֯ [‫ ]כל הדברם אשר דבר‬145 ‫ כתבם‬11 ‫ הבער כאש‬149 ‫ ]ואתנפל לפני אלהם ב[הר‬148 ‫ ]ה[קצפתם ]את אלהם ועשתם לכם עגל מ[סכה‬12 138 Meyer transcribes ‫תשמר‬, while Ginsburg’s Athenæum transcription (Athenæum 2913, 242) and unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39) both have ‫תשמרו‬. 139 While Ginsburg does not bracket these letters in his transcription in The Athenæum, they are marked as a reconstruction in his unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39). The same letters are marked as illegible by Meyer. 140 Meyer notes an illegible letter after the tav, but Ginsburg makes no such indication in either transcription. 141 MT lacks the word ‫היום‬, whereas LXX has σήμερον (today), in agreement with V. 142 Ginsburg does not bracket the final letter of this word in his Athenæum transcription, but it is marked as a reconstruction in his unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39). Meyer marks the same letter as illegible. 143 Following Ginsburg; Meyer reads ‫לח]**[בנם‬. If Meyer’s count of illegible letters is correct, this suggests the reading ‫לחת אבנם‬. 144 Meyer indicates that he identified an illegible character following the mem, but given the context, this seems unlikely. 145 Meyer indicates that he identified another illegible character before the the kaph, which seems improbable as well. 146 While Ginsburg does not bracket these four words in his Athenæum transcription, they are marked as a reconstruction in his unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40). Meyer marks the same sequence as illegible, as well as the final mem of ‫כתבם‬. 147 Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40) has ‫ אלהך‬as the first word after the lacuna, but it is absent in the transcription he published in The Athenæum (as well as the translation there). In Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 42), the mem is marked as uncertain. It therefore seems likely that Ginsburg initially misread a damaged mem as a kaph, given their similarity in the Paleo-Hebrew script of V. Alternatively, the text may have read ‫אלהם אלהך‬. Cf. notes 203 and 219. 148 Brackets follow Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40). 149 Brackets follow Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40). 150 Following Ginsburg in both his transcriptions. Meyer, who had great difficulty reading this line, transcribes ‫באש‬, in accordance with MT. Ginsburg has an ellipsis following this word in his Athenæum transcription, but no lacuna is noted in his more detailed alternate transcription, nor is there one in Meyer’s transcription. 7.3. Text and Notes 149 Fragment G, column 2 of 5 ( V b )151 ‫ לע‬154 ‫ ואשבר את שני הלחת‬153 ‫ בידי וארא חטאתכם‬152 ‫ושני לחת‬ 1 ‫ינכם וא֯ תפלל בעדכם בעת ההוא ארבעם יום וארבעם ללה · ובתבערה‬ 2 ‫ובמסה ובקברת התאוה ממרם היתם את אלהכם · בעת ההוא אמר אל‬ 3 ‫ אלי ההרה ואעל ההרה ושני‬155 ‫ועלה‬ ֯ ‫הם אלי ]פסל ל[ך ש]נ[י לחת אבנם ֯כ ֯רא֯ שנם‬ 4 ‫בידי · ויכתב אלהם על הלחת א]ת עשרת[ הדברם אשר דבר אלכם ֯ב ֯ה ֯ר בי‬ ֯ ‫הלחת‬ 5 ‫ עלו ורשו את הארץ ממרם היתם את אלהכם ולא עלתם ולא שמעתם בק‬159 ‫ם‬ 7 158 ‫ בארן אשר עשתי ובקדש ברנע באמר אלי אלה‬157 ‫ הקהל ויתנ]ם[ אלי והנם‬156 ‫ום‬ ‫֯ם‬ ֯ ‫ בהר ארבעם ֯יו‬162 [‫ בעדכם בעמד]י‬161 ‫ ואת]נ[פל‬160 ‫לו ֯וי֯א֯ ֯מ ֯ר אלהם להשמד א]תכ[ם‬ · ‫ אל]הם גם בפעם ההוא ולא השחת[ את]כם כ[רגע‬164 ‫ וישמע‬163 ‫ל[לה בעדכם‬ ֯ ‫]ואר[בע]ם‬ 6 8 9 ‫[ רק ]חשק אלהם[ באב‬.........] 165 ‫ לא בצדקתך אלהך נתן לך כח לעשת חיל‬10 ‫ תכם לאהבה אתם ויבחר ב]זר[עם אחר]הם[ מכל ]העמ[ם · כ]י אלה[ם‬11 151 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 44–47; transcribed by Eduard Meyer), Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–44), and Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40), according to which this is column 4. 152 Meyer notes the presence of a missing letter before ‫לחת‬, which would be a he, but he could not clearly see the two previous letters, so this may be conjectural. Ginsburg has no he. 153 Meyer has a plus here: ‫ואקצף‬. However, this word is absent in Ginsburg’s alternate transcription, which follows Vb . It is also absent in Ginsburg’s Athenæum transcription (which may conflate the two manuscripts) and in his translation. 154 ‫ לחת‬in Ginsburg’s Athenæum transcription, although in his notes (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40), he reconstructs the he. 155 Meyer marks an additional line break after the vav of ‫ועלה‬, likely in error. 156 Meyer reads ‫וביום‬. 157 Meyer transcribes ‫והם‬, although he had difficulty reading this part of the fragment. 158 Precise line break location unknown. Meyer’s transcription is incomplete and does not indicate the line break here, Shapira’s transcription is not extant, drawings are unavailable, and Ginsburg does not record line breaks. 159 Meyer had difficulty reading this section and reconstructs ‫[בראהם‬..] ֯ ֯‫]…[בא‬ ֯ ‫ובקדש ֯ה‬. My reconstruction follows Ginsburg. 160 Ginsburg reads ‫להשמדכם‬, which may be a variant. While Meyer had great difficulty reading this line, Ginsburg reconstructs it almost in its entirety. Alternatively, rather than variants, these may simply be divergent reconstructions. 161 Ginsburg reads ‫ואתפלל‬, possibly a variant. Considering that Meyer was able to read very little from this point till the end of the line, I follow Ginsburg for this section. 162 Only Ginsburg reconstructs this word, and he does not record the expected yod. However, his English translation appears to reflect ‫בעמדי‬. 163 Meyer reads ‫באכם‬ ֯ , and Ginsburg marks the word with a question mark, perhaps due to this word’s redundancy here. 164 Meyer transcribes ‫וישע‬. 165 Following Ginsburg. Meyer had much difficulty reading this section and unintelligibly transcribes [.............]‫[אבשמר‬..]. 150 7. Annotated Critical Edition ‫ והנרא הו]א ת[הלתך‬167 [‫ וא]ד[נ֯]י ה[אדנם ]האל הגבר‬166 ‫ אלהכם הוא אל האלהם‬12 Fragment G, column 3 of 5 ( V b )168 ‫ למצר‬170 ‫ את הגדלת ואת הנראת · בשבעם נפש ירדו אבתך‬169 ‫והוא אשר עשה אתך‬ ‫ ה‬173 ‫ א]ת[ כל ה]מ[צוה אשר אנך צותך‬172 ‫ לעם עצם ורב · כי א֯ ם תשמ]ר[ן‬171 ‫היתם‬ ֯ ‫]ם וע[תה‬ ‫ ללכת בכל דרכו ובכל חקתו · והרש א]ל[הם את כ‬176 ‫ לאהבה את אלהכם‬175 ‫ לעשתה‬174 ‫יום‬ [‫ כי ]פחדכ‬178 ‫בפנכם‬ ֯ ‫ ֯כ ֯ף רגלכם בו · ]ל[א יתיצב איש‬177 ‫]ל אנשי[ המקם כל אשר תדרך‬ ‫תדרכו בו · ראה אנך נת]ן לפנ[כם היום בר‬ ֯ ‫ם ומראכם יהיה על פני כל הארץ אשר‬ ‫ והקללה אם לא תשמעו וסרתם‬179 ‫כה וקללה את הברכה אם תשמעו אל מצות אלהם‬ ‫ את‬180 ‫מהדרך אשר אנך מצוה אתכם היום ]· והיה כי יב[אך אלהם אל הארץ אשר‬ ‫ והקללה על הר עבל · הלא המה‬182 [‫ לרשתה ונתת את הברכה על הר ]גרזם‬181 ‫ה בא שמה‬ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ‫בעבר‬ 166 Following Meyer; Ginsburg reads ‫אלה]?[ אלהם‬, suggesting he was unsure what the correct parsing was. In Guthe’s discussion of this phrase (Lederhandschrift, 71), he too wavers on the parsing of these two words. I have opted for ‫אל האלהם‬, given that it is a closer parallel to ‫ואדני‬ ‫ האדנם‬than ‫ אלה אלהם‬is. The latter phrase is also grammatically atypical. 167 Ginsburg transcribes these two words without brackets; Meyer transcribes ....... ֯‫א‬. 168 Sources for transcription: Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–44) and Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 46–51), which is less complete. Guthe notes (Lederhandschrift, 21) that he was unable to review his transcription of G 3–5 due to poor light during a thunderstorm. 169 Guthe indicates a line break here. This is likely a printing error, given that this would produce two unusually short lines, which together make up the length of a single line. 170 Ginsburg transcribes ‫אבתכם‬, possibly reflecting a variant in Va . 171 Ginsburg transcribes ‫הית‬, possibly reflecting a variant in Va , although Guthe marks the mem as partially illegible. 172 Following Guthe; Ginsburg reconstructs [‫כי אך ]אם[ תשמר]ו‬. 173 Ginsburg reads ‫מצוה‬, perhaps following Va . 174 The word ‫היום‬, which is absent in MT, appears in SP. LXX has σήμερον (=today), likely reflecting the same Vorlage. 175 Ginsburg’s transcription lacks the he. 176 Following Ginsburg; Guthe could not read the end of the word clearly and reconstructs ‫אלהם‬ ֯ . 177 Guthe transcribes ‫ ֯ת ֯קם‬. 178 Following Guthe. Ginsburg reads ‫לפנכם‬, which corresponds to SP, against MT. Cf. Josh 1:5. 179 Ginsburg reconstructs [‫מצות]י וחקתי‬, but Guthe appears to have been able to read both words and transcribes ‫מצות אלהם‬. 180 Following Ginsburg. ‫ אשר‬is absent in Guthe’s transcription, but the word is underlined in his column of biblical correspondences, suggesting that this is an editing error. 181 Guthe transcribes ‫שם‬. 182 Guthe indicates a hole here. 7.3. Text and Notes 151 ‫ · ואלה‬184 ‫ אצל אלני מרא‬183 ‫ה]ירד[ן דרך מבא השמש בארץ הכנעני בע]רבה נג[ד הגלגל‬ 186 9 [‫י֯]עמדו‬ ‫ · ואלה יעמדו על הר גרזם שמ‬185 [‫ ]על הר עבל[ ראובן זבולן וגד אשר ד]ן[ ונ]פתלי‬10 ‫ הלוים נגד הר גרזם ו‬189 ‫ · ועמדו‬188 ‫ מנשה ואפרם ובנימן‬187 ‫ ען ויהודה וישכר‬11 ‫ ולו לבדו ישתחו ואתו‬192 ‫ אלהם אלהו‬191 [‫ ברך האיש אשר יה]יה‬190 ‫ ]ענ[ו ואמרו בקל רם‬12 Fragment G, column 4 of 5 ( V b )193 ‫ אמן · ברך הא]יש אשר י[קדש את היום השבעי‬194 ‫לבדו יעבד וענו כל הע]ם[ ואמרו‬ 183 1 Following primarily Guthe, who transcribes ‫[ הגלגל‬.....]‫בארץ הכנעני בע‬. Ginsburg reconstructs ‫בארץ הכנעני ]נג[ד גלגל‬. I tentatively accept Ginsburg’s ‫ – נגד‬as opposed to ‫מול‬, as in MT, SP, 1QDeuta (1Q4), and 1QDeutb (1Q5) – due to the fact that he saw a dalet there. Unlike Guthe, Ginsburg does not record a he before ‫גלגל‬. The two transcriptions of this passage are not altogether reconcilable. 184 Following Ginsburg. Guthe transcribes ‫ אלן ]*[רא‬with a single asterisk. Given the absence of final forms and word dividers, it seems probable that Ginsburg – who expresses no reservations about his reading here – was able to make out two letters where Guthe saw traces of only one. SP and Kennicott 69 read ‫מרא‬, with V. 185 Structure of V matches LXX and SP, against MT: A, B, ve-C. 186 Precise line break location unknown. Guthe marks a break in this general area, but he is unable to make out the text near the margins. 187 Vb ’s spelling of Issachar is attested in 4Q522 and some mss. of 1 Chr 2:1. It is also reflected in the qere perpetuum of many MT mss., in which one sin is unpointed, and in LXX’s transliteration of the name. 188 Following Ginsburg, who appears to have had little difficulty reading this sentence and transcribes it without brackets. The idiosyncratic orthography of Issachar suggests that Ginsburg was not merely reconstructing from context. Guthe’s less complete reconstruction is in full accordance with Ginsburg’s readings. 189 Following Ginsburg. Guthe tentatively reconstructs ‫֯ע ֯ד ֯ו‬ ֯ ‫ו‬, although his German translation of this word is “anheben,” which corresponds to ‫וענו‬. 190 Following Ginsburg from the beginning of this line. He indicates only two illegible letters, whereas Guthe was unable to read much of the text. 191 Ginsburg has ‫ ;יאהב‬Guthe reads [**]‫יה‬. Guthe’s reading is more plausible, given the absence of the object marker ‫את‬, which would be expected following ‫יאהב‬, and given its correspondence to this blessed man’s counterpart in Va E 2:2. 192 Following Guthe; Ginsburg transcribes ‫אלהנו‬. 193 Sources for transcription: Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 243–44) and Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 50–53), which is less complete. Both manuscripts for this section were extant at the time. Guthe consulted this column’s corresponding section in Va (Lederhandschrift, 63). 194 Following Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫כלה ואמרו‬ ֯ ‫וענו‬. In his discussion, Guthe notes that the sequence ‫כלה‬, rather than ‫כל העם‬, appears three times in this fragment. However, Ginsburg reads ‫ כל ה]ע[ם‬here, and in the other two cases (Vb G 4:2,5), Guthe was unable to read the characters following the he, allowing for the standard idiom to have, in fact, appeared. 152 7. Annotated Critical Edition 197 ‫ ואמרו אמן · ]ברך[ מכבד אבו ואמו וענו כל ה‬196 ‫ כל העם‬195 ‫וישבת בו וענו‬ 2 ‫עם ואמרו אמן · ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו ו‬ 3 ‫ענו אמן · ברך האיש אשר לא יטמא את אשת רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו א‬ 4 198 ‫ את רעהו וענו כל ה]עם ואמרו אמן ·[ ברך האיש‬199 ‫מן · ברך האיש אשר לא י]נ[ה‬ ‫אשר לא ישבע בשמי לשקר וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ברך האיש אשר לא‬ ‫ אשר לא נשא‬200 ‫]י[שקר ברעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ברך‬ ֯ ‫יכחש ולא‬ ‫ רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ]ברך[ האיש אשר יאה‬201 ‫עינו אל ]כל נפ[ש‬ ‫ב את רעהו וענו כל העם ואמ]ר[ו אמן · ברך האיש אשר יקם את כל דב‬ 5 6 7 8 9 ‫ רי התרה הזאת לעשת אתם וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ויספו הלוי‬10 ‫ ם ויענו ויאמרו בקל ]רם[ ראה א]ם[ שמע תשמע בקל אלהך לשמר לעש‬11 ‫ ת את כל מצותו ובאו עלך כל הברכת האלה ברך אתה בער ברך אתה‬12 Fragment G, column 5 of 5 ( V b )202 [‫בשדה ברך טנאך ]ו[שארתך · ברך פרי בטנך ופרי אדמתך שג]ר א‬ 1 [‫לפך ועשתרת צאנך ברך אתה בבאך וברך אתה בצאתך · יתן אלה]ם‬ 2 ‫את איבך נגפם לפנך · יצו אלה]ם[ את הברכה בכל מעשה י]ד[ך · יק‬ 3 [‫מך אלהם לו לעם קדש וראו כל עמי הארץ ]ו[יראו ממך · יפתח אלה]ם‬ 4 203 195 Guthe has ‫ וענו‬here, as appears throughout the lists of blessed and cursed men. Ginsburg has ‫ ויענו‬in his Hebrew transcription, perhaps reflecting a (wə-)yiqṭōl construction, as in ‫ ויספו‬in line 10 of this fragment, et passim. See §6.2.2. 196 Guthe could not read between the he of ‫ העם‬and the end of line 4. The text here is therefore based on Ginsburg’s version, which is the only extant transcription. 197 Precise line break location unknown. 198 Precise line break location unknown. We have only Ginsburg’s transcription here, which lacks the words ‫ כל העם ואמרו‬in both the Hebrew and the translation. 199 Ginsburg reconstructs ‫ ]ינ[ה‬and Guthe transcribes [***]‫י‬, indicating that he perceived traces of a fourth letter. 200 Following Guthe; Ginsburg reconstructs [‫ ]האיש‬after ‫ברך‬, but it is possible that this is a word he thought was intended by the author or scribe, rather than one physically present in the manuscript. Alternately, it may be that Guthe neglects to indicate an illegible four-letter sequence. 201 Guthe reads ‫[כש‬...]‫ ה‬and Ginsburg apparently reconstructs ‫ה]ר[כש‬, although in print, the first letter looks like a khet. (This printing issue occurs elsewhere in Ginsburg’s Athenæum transcriptions.) ‫ הרכש רעהו‬seems implausible, prima facie. I suggest that the he is erroneous, and we should read ‫ כל נפש‬or perhaps ‫כל רכש‬. Cf. the same transcription error with regard to the he of ‫ אלהם‬in Vb F 1:4; pe and kaph are similar in the scripts of the V mss. ‫ כל נפש‬accords with V’s version of the concomitant proclamation and curse: In both the concern appears to be lusting after people belonging to others, not coveting their objects. See note 213. 202 Sources for transcription: Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 243–44) and Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 52–57), which is less complete. Both manuscripts for this section were extant. Ginsburg may have been working from Va . Guthe worked from Vb but consulted this column’s corresponding section in Va (Lederhandschrift, 63). 203 Guthe was unable to read this letter, marking it with an asterisk; Ginsburg transcribes a kaph. However, kaph and mem are very similar in the Paleo-Hebrew script of these manuscripts, and the graphic confusion was perhaps compounded by damage to the letter. ‫ אלהם‬is the expected form. Cf. notes 147 and 219. 7.3. Text and Notes 205 153 ‫בעת ֯ו ו֯הלות גוים רבם ואתה לא תלו‬ ֯ ‫לך את השמם ]ל[תת מטר ארצך‬ [‫ למעלה ]ולא[ תהיה למטה ויתרך אלהם רק לטבה על האדמה ]הטב‬204 ‫ה והית רק‬ ‫ נתן לכם · ויסבו הלוים את פנהם נגד הר עב‬206 ‫]ה אשר אלהם אלהי א[בתכם‬ /////// [‫השבעי וענו‬ /////////‫ביום‬ ///////‫]מלאכה‬ ////////// ‫ ויענו ויאמרו בקל רם ארר האיש אשר יעשה‬207 [‫]ל‬ ‫ פסל ומסכה מעשה ידי חרש וענו כל העם ואמרו‬208///‫אמן‬ [· //////‫ואמרו‬ ////////‫העם‬ //////‫]כל‬ ///// 5 6 7 8 9 [‫ וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ארר מקל]ה‬209 ‫ אמן · ארר האיש אשר יעשה מלאכה ביום השבעי‬10 ‫אבו ואמו ו‬ ‫ ענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ארר מכה רעהו בסתר וענו כל העם ואמ‬11 ‫ינאף‬ ֯ ‫ רו אמן · ארר האיש אשר יקרב אל כל שאר בשרו ואשר‬12 ‫ העם ואמרו אמן · ארר‬210 ‫ ]את אש[ת רעהו ואשר יבעל עם כל בהמה וענו‬13 Fragment H, column 1 of 2 ( V b )211 ‫מסג גבל רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ארר האיש אשר ישבע‬ 1 ‫לה]עד[ ֯ע ֯דת שקר בעמ‬ ֯ [‫בשמי לשקר וענו כל ה]עם[ ו]אמר[ו אמן · ארר לקח ש]חד‬ 2 ‫ אל אשת ר‬213 ‫ וענו כל הע[ם ואמ]רו[ אמן · ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא֯ ֯ע ֯נ ֯ו‬212 ‫ת]ו‬ 204 3 The word ‫ רק‬is absent in Ginsburg’s transcription, perhaps reflecting a variant. Precise line break location unknown; Guthe could not read any text near the margins. 206 Reconstruction based on the correlation of Guthe’s and Ginsburg’s partial readings here. Guthe, working primarily from Vb but consulting Va , reads: ‫למטה ויתרך אלהם רק לטבה על האדמה‬ ‫[ נתן לכם · ויסבו הלוים‬......] ¶ [...]. Ginsburg read ‫[ ]ו[יסבו הל]ו[ים‬....] ‫ א[בתכם‬....]‫[מה‬...] ‫]ל[מטה‬. 207 Guthe has an extended ellipsis after this word, to which only the lamed in Ginsburg’s transcription corresponds. 208 Guthe has an ellipsis here, but there is no corresponding word or ellipsis in Ginsburg’s transcription, nor is there an ellipsis in Guthe’s own translation. Notably, the Hebrew text here runs smoothly, making missing text seem, prima facie, improbable. Guthe also indicates a line break after ‫ יעשה‬on line 8, which produces the two shortest lines in the fragment, as well as an anomalous thirteenth line. These features might be explicable as the product of corrected parablepsis: the scribe of Vb accidentally skipped from the words ‫ ארר האיש אשר יעשה‬in the first curse to the same four words in the second, leading to the omission of the text in between. Upon realizing the error, the scribe scratched out the erroneous text and then continued from the correct word. This accounts for Guthe’s ellipsis, which indicates illegible text, and also for the length of lines 8 and 9, which would otherwise be inexplicably short. One might further speculate that the scribe sought to complete each fragment or column at a particular point in the text, leading him or her to write line 10 – which contains more text than the other lines – in smaller and denser script, so as to not run out of space on account of the error. The fragment’s final three lines are considerably shorter. This supposition may be supported by Fragment D 3 (Va ), where the final two lines are substantially shorter than those that precede it. 209 Ginsburg has a plus here, perhaps reflecting a variant: ‫לחללו‬. 210 Ginsburg has a plus here, perhaps reflecting a variant: ‫כל‬. 211 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 55–61; transcribed by Eduard Meyer) and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 243–44). 212 Guthe indicates that he saw traces of an illegible letter before the tav. 213 Ginsburg, who had some difficulty reading this section, reconstructs ‫ארר האיש אשר י]שא‬ ‫עינ[ו‬. For ‫ נשא עין‬as “lust after,” as it seems to be used here, cf. Gen 39:7. The idiom is also used figuratively regarding the gods desired by Israel. See, e.g., Ezek 18:12. 205 154 7. Annotated Critical Edition ‫ ולכל אשר לו ]וענו כל העם[ ואמרו אמן · ארר האי‬216 [‫ ואמת]ו‬215 ‫ בתו‬214 ‫עהו אל‬ 4 ‫ש אשר ישנא ]א[ת אחו ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב ֯ו וענו כל ]הע[ם ואמרו אמן · ארר האיש אש‬ 5 · ‫ אמן‬218 ‫ דברי התרה ה]ז[את לעשת אתם וענו כל העם ואמרו‬217 ‫ר לא יקם את כל‬ ‫ לש‬219 ‫ויספו הלוים לקרא בקל רם ויאמרו ו]הי[ה אם לא תשמע בקל אלהם‬ 6 7 ‫מר לעשת את כל מצותו ]ו[חקתו ו֯באו עלך כל הקללת האלה ארר אתה בע‬ 8 ‫ר וא]רר[ אתה בש]דה ארר טנאך[ ושארתך ארר פרי בטנך ופרי אדמת‬ 9 ‫ ך שגר אלפך ו]עשתרת צאנ[ך · ארר אתה בב]א[ך וארר אתה בצאתך · ית‬10 ‫ את המארה בכל מעשה י]ד[ך יתנך‬220 ‫ נך אלהם נ]גף לפני[ איבך ישל]ח[ אלהם‬11 ‫הש ֯מ ֯ם‬ ֯ ‫]ל[מ ֯ש ֯ל ולשננה בכל עמי הארץ יעצר אלהם את‬ ֯ ‫ אלהם לשמה‬12 Fragment H, column 2 of 2 ( V b )221 ‫ ילוך‬224 ‫תר ֯ד מטה מטה הוא‬ ֯ ‫ ואתה‬223 ‫ יעלה מעלה מעלה‬222 ‫יש ֯ב בקרבך‬ ֯ ‫אש ֯ר‬ ֯ ‫הגר‬ ‫ אשר אתה בא‬226 ‫]ה[אדמה‬ ֯ ‫ אלהם אתכם מן‬225 ‫ואתה ]לא תלו[נו יאבד וישמד‬ ‫ לצאת ול‬229 [‫ מא֯ ה ועשרם שנה ]א[נך היום לא אכל ע]וד‬228 ‫ בן‬227 [‫שמ ֯ה לרשתה · ]ואמר‬ ֯ 231 214 1 2 3 ‫בא לפנכם ואלהם אמר אלי לא תעבר את הירדן יהשע העמד לפנך‬ 4 ‫ כי אלהם אלהכם הוא הה‬232 ‫תחפ]ז[ו‬ ֯ ‫מה לרשתה · חזקו ואמצו אל תראו ואל‬ 6 ‫ יבא אתכם אל הארץ הטבה אשר ]אתם באם[ ש‬230 ‫]הוא[ יעבר את הירדן והוא‬ 5 Following Meyer; Ginsburg transcribes ‫ואל‬. From context, this appears to mean “his daughter,” not “his house.” 216 Following Meyer; Ginsburg transcribes [‫ואל אמ]תו‬. 217 SP reads ‫ כל‬here, which is absent in MT. LXX reads πᾶσιν, reflecting the same. 218 4Q30 and SP read ‫ואמרו כל העם‬, against MT’s ‫ואמר‬. 219 With Meyer; Ginsburg reads ‫אלהך‬. Cf. notes 147 and 203. 220 ‫ בך‬is absent in Kennicott 75, as in V, against MT mss. 221 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 60–63; transcribed by Eduard Meyer) and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 243–44). Meyer was unable to read much of this column. Ginsburg’s transcription is more complete here and appears to indicate reconstructions consistently. I rely on Ginsburg wherever Meyer’s transcription is lacking. 222 Following Meyer. Ginsburg could not read between the shin of ‫ אשר‬and the second bet of ‫ בקרבך‬and reconstructs ‫הגר אש]ר בקר[בך‬. 223 Following Ginsburg; Meyer reconstructs ‫מא֯ לה‬. 224 Following Meyer; Ginsburg does not transcribe this word. 225 Meyer transcribes [*]‫ ;ו]*[שמ‬Ginsburg reconstructs ‫וי]שמ[ד‬. 226 Ginsburg, who could not read this section clearly, reconstructs ‫את]ך מעל פני הא[דמה‬. 227 Following Meyer, who marks three illegible letters between the dot following ‫ לרשתה‬and the word ‫בן‬. Ginsburg could not read ‫לרשתה‬, but he reconstructs it from context, without indicating signs of additional illegible letters. 228 Following Meyer. Ginsburg transcribes ‫כן‬, although this may be a printing error; his translation accords with ‫בן‬. 229 Or perhaps ‫עד‬. Ginsburg does not transcribe this word, and Meyer reconstructs [**]‫ע‬, indicating two illegible letters following the ayin. 230 Meyer, who had more difficulty reading this section, has ‫ הוא‬without the initial vav. 231 Precise line break location unknown. Meyer was unable to read any text near the margins. 232 Ginsburg reads ‫( תחפדו‬not a known word), and Meyer transcribes [**]‫תח‬ ֯ . Possibilities are ‫( תחתו‬cf., e.g., Josh 10:25) and ‫( תחפזו‬Deut 20:3), both of which appear in precisely this context. Given Ginsburg’s reading, the latter is a better fit here, although Meyer records traces of only two letters. 215 7.3. Text and Notes 233 [‫לך עמכ]ם לא ירפכם ולא יעזבכם · ועתה כתבו לכם את התרה הזאת למ‬ 7 [‫]ען תהיה התרה[ הזאת ]לעד[ לפנכם ]כי לא תשכח מפי זרעכם[ כי ]ידעתי א‬ 8 [vacat] · ‫בני ישראל על פי יהוה בערבת מאב לפני מתו‬ [vacat] [vacat] 10 235 233 155 ‫ משה את כל‬234 ‫]ת יצרכם אשר אתם עשם ·[ אלה הדברם אשר צוה‬ 9 11 12 The conjectural reconstructions in lines 7–9 are based in part on Deut 31:6–21. In the Nash Papyrus, a verse corresponding to Deut 4:45 – which is reminiscent of this verse in V – appears between the Decalogue and the Shema. However, whereas MT there has ‫אלה העדת והחקים והמשפטים אשר דבר משה אל בני ישראל‬, Nash reads ‫]אלה החק[ימ והמשפטים אשר צוה‬ ‫משה את ]בני ישראל[ ֯במדבר בצאתם מארץ מצרימ‬. If there is indeed a genetic relationship between Deut 4:45 (which is otherwise absent in V ) and the present verse in V (which has no direct counterpart in Deuteronomy), the agreement between Nash and V on the words ‫ צוה‬and ‫את‬ (against all other extant versions) may be significant. 235 Following Meyer; Ginsburg transcribes ‫לכל‬, which is also possible. Cf., e.g., Jer 32:23. 234 8. English Translation of V 8.1. Introductory Remarks The translation below occasionally diverges materially from existing interpretations of the corresponding biblical passages. Some of these divergences are considered in chapter 6, and others will be discussed in future publications. 8.2. Translation Fragment A, column 1 of 1 ( V a ) 1 [These are the wor]ds that Moses spoke according to the order of YHWH to all the children of 2 [I]srael in the wil[derne]ss, across the Jordan, [on the p]lain. Elohim, our 3 god, spoke to [us] at Horeb as follows: “You have been settled on this mountain for too long. 4 Turn and journey, going to the Amorite highland, as well as into all the neighboring regions on the pl5 ain, the highland, the [low]land, and the seacoast.” So we set out from Horeb and traveled 6 this [who]le [gre]at and terrible wilderness that you have seen, and we arrived 7 [at] Kadesh[-barnea. And] I said to you, “Today you have arrived at the Amo[rite] 8 highland – g[o up and take poss]ession of the land, as Elohim, 9 [god of your fathers,] promised [you.” But you did not] assent to go up, and you complained, sayi10 ng, “It is [because Elohim hates us that he is handing us over to the Amorites] 8.2. Translation 157 Fragment B, column 1 of 1 ( V a ) 1 to demolish us.” Elohim’s anger then burn[ed], and he [swore] as follows: “As [I] live, 2 all the people who perceived the declarations and affirmations that I made 3 ten times over and did not have faith or heed my voice, 4 shall not see the goo[d] land [t]hat I swore to gi5 ve to their fathers, except [my servant Caleb] son of Jephunneh and Joshua 6 son of Nun who stands before you – they will go there, and to them I shall give it. 7 And you, turn and journey [to] the wil[derness] toward the Sea of Reeds, until the death 8 of the whole generation – the peo[p]le of the conflict – from a[mi]d the camp.” So [we journeyed from] 9 Kadesh-barnea until the people of the conflict had completely died out from amid the 10 camp. [We then turned and journeyed to Kadesh. And Elohim said to me,] Fragment C, column 1 of 1 ( V a ) 1 “Today you cross the border of the children of Esau who are settled 2 [in Se]ir; do not harass them and do not provoke war with them. For I shall not 3 give you any of their land as a possession, since I have given it as a possession to the children of Esau.” 4 (The Horites had once been settled there, but the children of Esau dispossessed them and settled there in their pl5 ace.) So we turned and traversed the wilderness of Moab. And Elohim said to me, 6 “Today you cross the border of Moab; do not harass them and do not provoke war with th7 em. For I shall not give you any of their land as a possession, since I have given Ar as a possession 8 to the children of Lot.” (Rephaites had once been settled there – the Moabites call 9 them Emites – but Elohim eradicated them, and they settled there in their place.) So we turned 10 and crossed Wadi Zered. Then Elohim said to me as follows: “Go up 158 8. English Translation of V Fragment D, column 1 of 3 ( V a ) 1 and cross Wadi Arnon. Today I shall begin to give you Sihon, th2 e Amorite king of Heshbon, and his land.” So we attacked Sihon at Jah3 az, smiting until no survivor was left to him. We then captured all his cities from Aroer o4 n the edge of Wadi Arnon as far as Gilead and as far as Wadi Jabbok. All this Eloh5 im, our god, set before us. So we turned and crossed via Wadi Jabbok. Elohim said 6 to me as follows: “Today you cross the border of the land of the children of Ammon; do not har7 ass them and do not provoke war with them. For I have given the land of the children of Ammon as a possession to the children of Lot.” 8 ([Repha]ites had once been settled there – the Ammonites call them Azamzamim – but Elohim 9 erad[icat]ed them from before them and they settled there in their place.) Then Elohim said to me, “Send peo10 ple to infiltrate Jazer.” So we captured Jazer and settled in the cities of the Amorites. Then Fragment D, column 2 of 3 ( V a ) 1 Og, king of the Bashan, came out against us to do battle, and we smote him until no sur2 vivor was left to him. We captured from them sixty cities – the entire territory of the Argov – fortified with walls, double 3 gates, and bolts. Besides the Perizzite cities, very many, and all the cities of the tableland, 4 the whole of the Gilead, and all of the Bashan, as far as Salecah and Edrei. (It too is called a land of Rephaites, 5 for Og, king of the Bashan, had been one of the last remaining Rephaites.) We turned 6 and journeyed southward and settled opposite Beth-peor. At that time, the daughters 7 of Moab and women of Midian came out toward you and invited you to eat from their offer8 ings. You ate from their sacrifices, drank from their libations, bowed to their go9 ds, and whored with the women of Midian. You yoked yourselves to Baalpeor on that 10 day. Elohim’s anger then burned against you, and he inflicted upon you at that time 8.2. Translation 159 Fragment D, column 3 of 3 ( V a ) 1 a great plague. I sent from among you people to fight the Midianites, and 2 you smote them by the sword’s edge, and you took from them a great many captives. The pl3 ague then ended. I was commanded by Elohim at that time to teach you statutes and ord4 inances to observe in the land that you are crossing into to possess. Be careful, 5 do not add to my laws and do not take away from them. Be careful, lest you forget and 6 make for yourselves a carving or image in the form of any figure that is in the heavens above or upon the ear7 th below or in the waters beneath the earth. For my anger would then burn against you, and I would eradica[te] 8 [y]ou swiftly from upon this good land. Know today and 9 [ke]ep his decrees and commandments, so that it may go well for you and 10 so that you may live long upon the land that Elohim, your god, Fragment E, column 1 of 4 ( V a ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 is giving you. Listen, Israel: Elohim, our god, is a single god. So love Elohim, your god, with all your heart and all your soul, very much, and keep these proclamations that I command you today upon your heart. Teach them to all your children and recite them when you sit at home, when you go on your way, when you lie down, and when you rise. Tie them as a declaration upon your arm, and they shall serve as an affirmation between your eyes. Inscribe them upon the posts of your home and gate. For Elohim made a pact with you at Horeb on the day of the assembly. I stood between Elohim and you at this time – for you were afraid on account of the fire and did not [climb] the mountain – to tell you the word of your god, as follows:[vacat] Fragment E, column 2 of 4 ( V a ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 I am Elohim, your god, who freed you from the land of Egypt, from the slave-house. You shall not ha[ve] any other gods. You shall not mak[e] a carving or any image that is in the heavens above or upon the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth. You shall not prostrate yourselves before them, and you shall not serve them. I am 160 8. English Translation of V Elohim, 7 your god.[vacat] 8 Sanctify [the seventh day and rest on it. For in s] Fragment E, column 3 of 4 ( V a ) 1 ix days I made the heavens and the ea2 rth and all that is in them, and I rested on the seventh day. 3 Therefore you too shall rest, along with your livestock and all that 4 you have. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat] 5 Honor your father and your mother. I am Elohim, your god. 6 You shall not sl[ay] the soul of your brother. I am Elohim, your god. 7 You shall not commit adultery with the wife of your fellow. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat] 8 You shall not steal the wealth of your brother. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat] Fragment E, column 4 of 4 ( V a ) 1 You shall not swear in my name falsely, for I shall avenge 2 the transgression of fathers against sons, grandsons, and greatgrandsons for those who b3 ear my name falsely. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat] 4 You shall not submit against your fellow a false judgment. I am Elohim, your 5 god.[vacat] 6 You shall not desire the wife of [your fellow], his male slave, his female slave, or anything tha7 t is his. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat] 8 You shall not hate your brother in your he[ar]t. I am Elohim, your god. 9 It is th[es]e ten pronouncements that [Elohim] uttered [to you 8.2. Translation 161 upon the mountain from amid the fire.] Fragment F, column 1 of 4 ( V b ?) 1 ..................................................................... 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [When you heard the voice] 3 [from amid the fire, you said to me, “Y ]ou [speak] with u[s and we shall list]en; let [not Elohi]m speak with [us], 4 lest we die.” Elohim heard [what you] said [when you spoke to me at that time and sa-] 5 i[d, “What they sa]id [is good.] Ma[y their hearts always be so, that they fear me and keep all my co-] 6 [mmandments for all] time, [so] that [……] n[ot] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ..................................................................... 8 ..................................................................... 9 ..................................................................... 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment F, column 2 of 4 ( V b ?) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... Fragment F, column 3 of 4 ( V b ?) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... 162 9 10 11 12 8. English Translation of V ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... Fragment F, column 4 of 4 ( V b ?) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... Fragment G, column 1 of 5 ( V b ) 1 [on]g upon the land that I promised to give to them and to their children after them. Listen, Is[rael], 2 today you cross the Jordan to go and dispossess many powerful nations, great fortifi3 ed cities. Do not say in your hearts, “They are many, these nations; we shall not manage to dispossess them.” Do not fear th4 em. Recall what Elohim did to Pharaoh and to all of Egypt – that is what Elohim will do to all your enemies. 5 For Elohim is the one who goes before you; he is a consuming fire. He will eradicate them and swiftly humble them bef6 ore you. [Elo]him will also cast l[ep]rosy upon them, till the hiding remnants are utterly demolished bef7 ore you, if only you keep [his] comm[andments], ordinances, and decrees, which I am commanding you today. 8 Know today that it is not because of [your] righteousness that Elohim, your god, is setting before you this land to possess, 9 for you have been a stiffnecked people. From the day you left Egypt until today, [you] have been rebellious 10 against Elohim, your god. At Horeb, on the day I climbed the mountain to acquire the two stone tablets, upon which 11 are written [all the pronouncements that] Elohim [uttered] to you upon the 8.2. Translation 163 mountain from amid the fire on the day of the assembly, 12 you [en]raged [Elohim and made for yourselves a c]ast [calf ]. [I threw myself down before Elohim on the] mountain that burned like fire Fragment G, column 2 of 5 ( V b ) 1 with the two tablets in my hands. When I saw your sin, I broke the two tablets before your e2 yes, and I prayed for you at that time for forty days and forty nights. At Taberah 3 and at Massah and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you were rebellious against your god. At that time Elohim said 4 to me, “[Carve ou]t t[w]o stone tablets like the first ones, and climb up the mountain to me,” so I climbed the mountain 5 with the two tablets in my hands. Then Elohim wrote upon the tablets the [ten] pronouncements that he had uttered to you upon the mountain on the d6 ay of the assembly, and he gave [them] to me. Behold, they are in the ark that I made. At Kadesh-barnea, when Elohim said to me, 7 “Go up and possess the land,” you were rebellious against your god and did not go up or heed his 8 voice. Elohim planned to eradicate y[o]u, so I threw [my]self down on your behalf when [I] stood upon the mountain for forty days 9 [and fo]rt[y ni]ghts on your behalf, and Elo[him] heeded [that time too and did not annihilate] y[ou at] once. 10 It is not because of your righteousness that your god has given you the means to acquire wealth [………] It was your fathers whom [Elohim desired], 11 loving them, so he chose their [descend]ants after [them] out of all [the nation]s. For [Elohi]m, 12 your god, is the god of gods and the ma[s]te[r] of masters, [the mighty] and awesome [god]. H[e] is your glory Fragment G, column 3 of 5 ( V b ) 1 and he is the one who did for you the great and awesome deeds. Your ancestors went down to Egy[pt] with seventy people, 2 [and n]ow you have become a vast and great nation. For if you ke[e]p all of the [l]aw that I am commanding you to3 day to perform, loving your god and walking in all his ways and decrees, then E[lo]him will dispossess a 4 [ll the people] of the place – everything upon which the soles of your feet tread. [N]o man will stand up to you, for the [dread] 5 and fear of you will be upon the entire land over which you tread. See, I am 164 8. English Translation of V se[tting before] you today a ble6 ssing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of Elohim; and the curse, if you do not obey, but turn 7 from the way that I am commanding you today. [When] Elohim [brings y]ou into the land that yo8 u are going into to possess, you shall give the blessing on Mount [Gerizim] and the curse on Mount Ebal. Behold, they are across 9 the [Jord]an westward, in the land of the Canaanites, in the A[rabah, oppo]site the stone circle, beside the oaks of Moré. These sha[ll stand] 10 [on Mount Ebal]: Reuben, Zebulun, and Gad; Asher, Da[n], and Na[phtali]. And these shall stand on Mount Gerizim: Sim11 eon, and Judah, and Issachar; Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Benjamin. Then the Levites shall stand opposite Mount Gerizim and 12 [call o]ut in a loud voice, “Blessed is the man who h[as] Elohim as his god, and who prostrates himself only to him, and who Fragment G, column 4 of 5 ( V b ) 1 serves him alone.” And all the peo[ple] shall call out “Amen.” “Blessed is the m[an who sa]nctifies the seventh day 2 and rests on it.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “[Blessed is he who] honors his father and his mother.” And 3 all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge or exact retribution for the soul of his brother.” And they shall respond 4 “Amen.” “Blessed is the man who does not defile the wife of his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “A5 men.” “Blessed is the man who does not ch[ea]t his fellow.” And all the [people] shall call [out “Amen.” ] Blessed is the man 6 who does not swear in my name falsely.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Blessed is the man who does not 7 deceive or [l]ie to his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Blessed is he who does not lust after 8 an[yone be]longing to his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “[Blessed] is the man who lov9 es his fellow.” And all the people shall call o[u]t “Amen.” “Blessed is the man who upholds all the procla10 mations of this teaching to perform them.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” The Levites shall continue 11 and call out in a [loud] voice, “See, i[f ] you truly heed the voice of your god, taking care to d12 o all his commandments, then all of these blessings will befall you: Blessed 8.2. Translation 165 are you in the city, blessed are you Fragment G, column 5 of 5 ( V b ) 1 in the field, blessed are your firstling [and] your remnant. Blessed are the fruit of your loins and the fruit of your land, the wom[bs of your ca-] 2 ttle and the bellies of your sheep. Blessed are you in your coming, and blessed are you in your going. Eloh[im] 3 will set your enemies – defeated – before you. Eloh[im] will order blessing upon all your ha[nd]iwork. Elohim will est4 ablish you as a holy people; all the peoples of the land will behold [and] fear you. Eloh[im] will open 5 the heavens for you, [to] give rain for your land in its season. You will lend to many nations; you will not borr6 ow. You will be only on top; you will [not] be on bottom. Elohim will make you abound only in goodness upon the [good] land 7 [that Elohim, god of your fa]thers, is giving you.” The Levites shall then turn to stand opposite Mount Eb8 [al] and call out in a loud voice, “Cursed is the man who does/////// [work//// on//// the ///////// seventh////// day.”////// And /// all//// the///////// people 9 ////// shall //// call///// out/////////// “Amen.” ] a carving or a casting, the handiwork of a craftsman.” And all the people shall call out 10 “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who does work on the seventh day.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Cursed is he who disgraces his father and mother.” And 11 all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Cursed is he who strikes down his fellow in secret.” And all the people shall call o12 ut “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who approaches any of his kin, or who commits adultery 13 [with the wif ]e of his fellow, or who copulates with any animal.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Cursed is Fragment H, column 1 of 2 ( V b ) 1 he who moves the boundary marker of his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who swears 2 falsely in my name.” And all the [people] shall call [ou]t “Amen.” “Cursed is he who takes a br[ibe] to g[ive] false judgment against his comr3 [ade.” And all the peo]ple [shall call] o[ut] “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who desires and lusts after the wife of his fe4 llow, his daughter, [his] female slave, or anything that is his.” [And all the people shall call] out “Amen.” “Cursed is the ma5 n who hates his brother in his heart.” And all [the peo]ple shall call out 166 8. English Translation of V “Amen.” “Cursed is the man wh6 o does not uphold all the proclamations of t[h]is teaching to perform them.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” 7 The Levites shall continue calling out in a loud voice and say, “If you do not heed the voice of Elohim, taking 8 care to do all his commandments [and] decrees, then all of these curses will befall you: Cursed are you in the ci9 ty, cu[rsed] are you in the fi[eld, cursed are your firstling] and your remnant. Cursed are the fruit of your loins and the fruit of your land, 10 the wombs of your cattle and [the bellies of ] your [sheep]. Cursed are you in your co[m]ing, and cursed are you in your going. 11 Elohim will set you – de[feated – before] your enemies. Elohim will cas[t] the execration upon all your ha[nd]iwork. 12 Elohim will make you an epitaph, a proverb, and a saying among all the nations of the land. Elohim will stop up the heavens. Fragment H, column 2 of 2 ( V b ) 1 The stranger settled in your midst will rise higher and higher; you will descend lower and lower. He will lend to you; 2 you [will not lend to] him. Elohim will demolish and eradicate you from [the] land that you are going 3 into to possess.” [Then I said], “I am today one hundred and twenty years old; I can no lo[nger] come and 4 go before you. And Elohim has said to me, ‘You will not cross the Jordan; Joshua, who stands before you – 5 [he] will cross the Jordan.’ He will bring you into the good land that [you are going] in6 to to possess. Be strong and resolute; do not fear and do not panic. For Elohim, your god – he is the one who wa7 lks alongside y[ou. He will not let go of you; he will not abandon you. Now, write down this teaching, so t8 hat] this [teaching may be a witness] before you, [since it will not be forgotten from the mouths of your descendants,] for [I know 9 the schemes that you devise].” These are the words that Moses instructed all the children of Israel 10 according to the order of YHWH on the plains of Moab before his death.[vacat] 11 [vacat] 12 [vacat] 9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction 9.1. Introductory Remarks What follows is a Paleo-Hebrew reconstruction of the transcribed manuscript fragments of Va and Vb . Like the originals, it is presented scriptio continua, except for the Decalogue, where word-separating dots feature (along with larger script and petuḥot before and after each proclamation). As an approximation of the original manuscripts, it is a useful tool for text-critical questions and for weighing potential reconstructions of the illegible sections. Circlets appear above characters that were partially legible to the transcribers; outlined characters are reconstructions. A word of caution: The Paleo-Hebrew typeface used here is not a perfect match for the scripts of either Va or Vb . 9.2. Text Fragment A, column 1 of 1 ( V a ) ‫אלההדברםאשרדברמשהעלפייהוהאלכלבני‬ ‫ישראלבמ דברבעברהירדן בערבה·אלהםאל‬ ‫הנודבראל נובחרבלאמר·רבלכםשבתבהרהז‬ ‫הפנווסעו לכםובאוהרהאמריואלכלשכנובע‬ ‫רבהבהרובשפלהובחףהים·ונסעמחרבונלךא‬ ‫תכלהמדבר̊הגדלוהנראהזהאשרראתםונבא‬ ‫עדקדש ברנע·ואמראלכםבאתםהיוםעדהר‬ ‫האמריע לוורשואתהארץכאשרדבראל̊ה̊ם‬ ‫אלהיאבתכםלכם·ולא̊א̊ב̊ת̊םלעלתותרגנוו̊ת̊א̊מ‬ ‫רובש נאתאלהםאתנונתןאתנובידהאמרי‬ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Fragment B, column 1 of 1 ( V a ) ‫לאבדנווי חראףאלהםוי שבעלאמרחי אני‬ ‫כיכלהעםהראםאתאתתיואתמפתיאשרעשתי‬ ‫זהעשרפעמםולא̊ה̊א̊מ̊נ̊וולאשמעובקלי‬ ‫אםיראואתהארץהטב האשרנשבעתילת‬ ‫תלאבתהםבלתיעבדיכלבבןיפנהויהשע‬ ·‫בןנןהעמדלפנךהמה̊י̊ב̊א̊ושמהולהםאתננה‬ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ‫‪9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫ואתםפנו לכםוסעוהמדברהדרךיםסףעדתם‬ ‫כלהדרא נשיהמרבהמק רבהמחנהו נסעמ‬ ‫קדשברנעעדתמואנשיהמרבהלמתמקרבה‬ ‫מחנה ונפןונסעקדשה·ויאמראלהםאלי‬ ‫) ‪Fragment C, column 1 of 1 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫אתםעברםהיוםאתגבלבניעשוהישבם‬ ‫בשעירלאתצרםולאתתגרבםמלחמהכילא‬ ‫אתןמארצםלכםירשה·כילבניעשונתתהירשה‬ ‫̊ה̊ח̊ר̊םמעלםישבהבהובניעשוירשםוישבותחת‬ ‫ם·ונפןונעבראתמדברמאב·ויאמראלהםאליאתם‬ ‫עברםהיוםאתגבלמאבלאתצרםולאתתגרבםמל‬ ‫חמהכילאאתןמארצםלכםירשהכילבנילטנת‬ ‫תיערירשה·רפאםמעלםישבובהוהמאבםיקראו‬ ‫להםאמםוישמדםאלהםוישבותחתם·ונפן‬ ‫ונעבראתנחלזרדויאמראלהםאלילאמרקמו‬ ‫) ‪Fragment D, column 1 of 3 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫ועברואתנחלארנןהיוםהחלתילתתלפנךאתסיחןמ‬ ‫לךחשבןהאמריואתארצו·ונצאלקראתסיחןיהצ‬ ‫הונכהעדלאהשארלושרדונלכדאתכלערומערערא‬ ‫שרעלשפתנחלארנןעדהגלעדועדנחליבקהכלנתןאלה‬ ‫םאלהנולפננו·ונפןונעברדרךנחליבקויאמראלהם‬ ‫אלילאמראתםעברםהיוםאתגבלארץבניעמןלאתצ‬ ‫רםולאתתגרבםמלחמהכילבנילטנתתיארץבניעמןירשה‬ ‫רפאםמעלםישבובהוהעמנםיקראולהםעזמזמםוישמ‬ ‫דםאלהםמפנהםוישבותחתם·ויאמראלהםאלישלחאנ‬ ‫שםלרגלאתיעזרונלכדאתיעזרונשבבעריהאמרי·ויצא‬ ‫) ‪Fragment D, column 2 of 3 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫עגמלךהבשןלקראתנולמלחמהונכהועדלאהשארלוש‬ ‫רדונלכדמאתםששםערכלגבלהארגבבצרתחמהדלת‬ ‫םובריחם·לבדמעריהפרזםהרבהמאדוכלעריהמשר‬ ‫וכלהגלעדוכלהבשןעדסלכהואדרעי·ארץרפאם̊י̊ק̊ר̊א‬ ‫גםהואכיעגמלךהבשןמיתרהרפאםנשאר·ונפן‬ ‫ונסענגבהונשבמולבתפער·ויצאובעתההואבנת‬ ‫מאבונשימדיןלקראתכםותקראןלכםלאכלמחג‬ ‫הןותאלומזבחהןותשתומנ̊ס̊חהןותשתחולאלה‬ ‫הןותזנואתנשיהמדינםותצמדולבעלפערביום‬ ‫ההואוחרהאףאלהםעלכםויגףבכםבעתההוא‬ ‫‪168‬‬ ‫‪169‬‬ ‫‪9.2. Text‬‬ ‫) ‪Fragment D, column 3 of 3 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫מגפהגדלה·ושלחתימכםאנשםללחםאתהמדינםו‬ ‫הכתםאתםלפיחרבושבתםמאתםשביהרבהלמאדות‬ ‫עצרהמגפה·ואתיצוהאלהםבעתההואללמדאתכםחקםומ‬ ‫שפטםלעשתםבארץאשרעברםשמהלרשתה·השמרולכם‬ ‫לאתספואלמצות̊יולאתגרעוממנו·השמרולכםפןתשכחוו‬ ‫עשתםלכםפסלותמנהתבנתכלסמלאשרבשמםממעלואשרבאר‬ ‫ץמ תחתואשרבמיםמתחתלארץ·וחרהאפ̊יבכםו̊אשמ ד‬ ‫אתכםמהרהמןהארץהטבה̊הזאת·וידעתהיוםו‬ ‫שמרתאתחקתוומצותולמעןיטבלכםו‬ ‫למעןתארכוימםעלהאדמהאשראלהםאלהך‬ ‫) ‪Fragment E, column 1 of 4 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫נתןלכם·שמעישראלאלהםאלהנואלהםאחד‬ ‫ואהבתאתאלהםאלהךבכללבבךובכלנפשךלמ‬ ‫אדמאדוהיוהדברםהאלהאשראנךמצוךהיו‬ ‫םעללבבךושננתםלכלבנךודברתאתםבשבת‬ ‫ךבבתךובלכתךבדרךבשכבךובקמךוקשרת‬ ‫םאתםלאותעלידךוהיולתת̊מ̊פתביןענךוכת‬ ‫בתאתםעלמזזתבתךושערךכיאלהםכרתעמ‬ ‫ך̊ב̊ר̊תבחרבביוםהקהלואנךעמדתיביןאלהם‬ ‫ובנכםבעתהזאתכיפחדתמפניהאשולא עלתם‬ ‫הה̊רלהגדלכםדבראלהכםלאמר]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫) ‪Fragment E, column 2 of 4 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫אנך·אלהם·אלהך·אשר·החרתך·מא‬ ‫רץ·מצרם·מבת·עבדם·לאיהיה‬ ‫יה·לכם·‬ ‫אלהם·אחרם·לאתעשו·לכם·פסל·וכל·תמ‬ ‫נה·אשר·בשמם·ממעל·ואשר·בארץ·מ‬ ‫תחת·ואשר·במים·מתחת·לארץ·לאתש‬ ‫תחו·להם·ולאתעבדם·אנך·אלהם·‬ ‫אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫קדש·אתיום·השבעי·ושבת·בו·כי·ש‬ ‫) ‪Fragment E, column 3 of 4 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫שת·ימם·עשתי·אתהשמם·ואתהא‬ ‫רץ·וכל·אשר·בם·ושבתי·ביום·השבעי·‬ ‫על·כן·תשבת·גם·אתה·ובהמתך·וכל·אשר·‬ ‫לך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction‬‬ ‫‪ 5‬כבד·אתאבך·ואתאמך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫צח·את̊נפש·אחך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·‬ ‫לאתרצח‬ ‫לאתנאף·אתאשת·רעך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫לאתגנב·אתהן·אחך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫) ‪Fragment E, column 4 of 4 ( V a‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫לאתשבע·בשמי·לשקר·כי·אנך·אקנא·את‬ ‫עון·אבת·על·בנם·על·שלשם·ועל·רבעם·ל̊נ‬ ‫שאי·שמי·לשקר·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫לאתענו·באחך·עדת·שקר·אנך·אלהם·אל‬ ‫הך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫לאתחמד·אשת·רעך·עבדו·ואמתו·וכל·אש‬ ‫ר·לו·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫בך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·‬ ‫לאתשנא·אתאחך·̊ב̊ל̊ב ב‬ ‫להדבראלהםעמכםבהרמתך‬ ‫אתעשרתהדברםהא ל‬ ‫אלהםעמכםבהרמתך‬ ‫)? ‪Fragment F, column 1 of 4 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‬כשמעכםאתהקל‬ ‫מתךהאשותאמרואלידבראתהעמנ וונשמעו̊א לידברעמ נואל‬ ‫הםולא̊נמת·וישמעאלהםאת̊דבר כםבדברכםאליבעתההואויא‬ ‫מ רהטבואשרדברו·מיי תןוהיהלבבםזהליראהאתיולשמראתכלמ‬ ‫צותיכלהימם למעןל א ‪. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫)? ‪Fragment F, column 2 of 4 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪170‬‬ ‫‪171‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪9.2. Text‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫)? ‪Fragment F, column 3 of 4 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫)? ‪Fragment F, column 4 of 4 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫) ‪Fragment G, column 1 of 5 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫מםעל̊ה̊אדמהאשרנשבעתילתתלהםולבנהםאחרהם·שמעיש ראל‬ ‫אתםעברםהיוםאתהירדןלבאלרשתגויםרבםועצמםערםגדל̊תובצ‬ ‫רתחמהלאת̊אמרובלבבכם̊רבםהמההגויםהאלהלאנכללהרשםלאתיראמה‬ ‫םזכר̊א̊תאשר̊ע̊שהאלהםלפרעהולכלמצרםכןיעשהאלהםלכלאיבך·‬ ‫כי̊א̊ל̊ה̊םהואהעברל̊פנךאשא̊כ̊לההוא·הואישמדםויכנעםמהרהל̊פ‬ ‫נך·גםאתה צרעתישלח אלהםבםעדאב̊דיאבדה̊נ̊סתרםהנשארםמל̊פ‬ ‫נך̊רקאםתשמרואתמצותוומשפטווחקתואשראנךמצוךהיוםו‬ ‫ידעתהיוםכילאבצדקתךאלהםאלהךנתןלפנךאתהארץהזאתלרשתה‬ ‫כיעםקשהערףהיתמןהיוםאשר̊יצאתממצרםעדהיוםממרםהית‬ ‫‪9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪172‬‬ ‫םאתאלהםאלהך·̊בחר̊ב̊ביוםעלתיההרלקחתאתשנילחתהאבנםועל̊ה̊ם‬ ‫כתבם כלהדברםאשרדבראלה̊םעמכםבהרמתךהאשביוםהקהל‬ ‫הקצפתםאתאלהםועשתםלכםעגלמסכה ואתנפללפניאלהםבהרהבערכאש‬ ‫) ‪Fragment G, column 2 of 5 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫ושנילחתבידיואראחטאתכםואשבראתשניהלחתלע‬ ‫ינכםו̊אתפללבעדכםבעתההואארבעםיוםוארבעםללה·ובתבערה‬ ‫ובמסהובקברתהתאוהממרםהיתםאתאלהכם·בעתההואאמראל‬ ‫הםאלי פסללךש נילחתאבנם̊כ̊ר̊אשנםוע̊להאליההרהואעלההרהושני‬ ‫הלחתבי̊די·ויכתבאלהםעלהלחתאתעשרתהדברםאשרדבראלכם̊ב̊ה̊רבי‬ ‫וםהקהלויתנםאליוהנםבארןאשרעשתיובקדשברנעבאמראליאלה‬ ‫םעלוורשואתהארץממרםהיתםאתאלהכםולאעלתםולאשמעתםבק‬ ‫לו̊ו̊י̊א̊מ̊ראלהםלהשמדא תכםואת נפלבעדכםבעמדיבהרארבעם̊י̊ו̊ם‬ ‫וארבע םל̊להבעדכםוישמעאל הםגםבפעםההואולאהשחתאת כםכרגע·‬ ‫לאבצדקתךאלהךנתןלךכחלעשתחיל ‪.........‬רקחשקאלהםבאב‬ ‫תכםלאהבהאתםויבחרב זרעםאחרהםמכלהעמם·כ יאלהם‬ ‫אלהכםהואאלהאלהםואד̊נ יהאדנם האלהגברוהנראהו אתהלתך‬ ‫) ‪Fragment G, column 3 of 5 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫והואאשרעשהאתךאתהגדלתואתהנראת·בשבעםנפשירדואבתךלמצר‬ ‫םועתההית̊םלעםעצםורב·כי̊אםתשמרןאתכלהמצוהאשראנךצותךה‬ ‫יוםלעשתהלאהבהאתאלהכםללכתבכלדרכוובכלחקתו·והרשאלהםאתכ‬ ‫לאנשיהמקםכלאשרתדרך̊כ̊ףרגלכםבו· לאיתיצבאישב̊פנכםכי פחדכ‬ ‫םומראכםיהיהעלפניכלהארץאשרת̊דרכובו·ראהאנךנת ןלפנכםהיוםבר‬ ‫כהוקללהאתהברכהאםתשמעואלמצותאלהםוהקללהאםלאתשמעווסרתם‬ ‫מהדרךאשראנךמצוהאתכםהיום ·והיהכייבאךאלהםאלהארץאשראת‬ ‫הבאשמהלרשתהונתתאתהברכהעלהר גרזםוהקללהעלהרעבל·הלאהמהבעבר‬ ‫ה ירדןדרךמבאהשמשבארץהכנעניבע רבהנגדהגלגלאצלאלנימרא·ואלה̊י עמדו‬ ‫עלהרעבלראובןזבולןוגדאשרד ןונ פתלי·ואלהיעמדועלהרגרזםשמ‬ ‫עןויהודהוישכרמנשהואפרםובנימן·ועמדוהלויםנגדהרגרזםו‬ ‫ענוואמרובקלרםברךהאישאשריהיהאלהםאלהוולולבדוישתחוואתו‬ ‫) ‪Fragment G, column 4 of 5 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫לבדויעבדוענוכלהע םואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשריקדשאתהיוםהשבעי‬ ‫וישבתבווענוכלהעםואמרואמן· ברךמכבדאבוואמווענוכלה‬ ‫עםואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשרלאיקםולאיטראתנפשאחוו‬ ‫ענואמן·ברךהאישאשרלאיטמאאתאשתרעהווענוכלהעםואמרוא‬ ‫מן·ברךהאישאשרלאינהאתרעהווענוכלה עםואמרואמן·ברךהאיש‬ ‫אשרלאישבעבשמילשקרוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשרלא‬ ‫יכחשולא י̊שקרברעהווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךאשרלאנשא‬ ‫עינואלכלנפשרעהווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשריאה‬ ‫באתרעהווענוכלהעםואמ רואמן·ברךהאישאשריקםאתכלדב‬ ‫‪173‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪9.2. Text‬‬ ‫ריהתרההזאתלעשתאתםוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ויספוהלוי‬ ‫םויענוויאמרובקל רםראהא םשמעתשמעבקלאלהךלשמרלעש‬ ‫תאתכלמצותוובאועלךכלהברכתהאלהברךאתהבערברךאתה‬ ‫) ‪Fragment G, column 5 of 5 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫בשדהברךטנאך ושארתך·ברךפריבטנךופריאדמתךשג רא‬ ‫לפךועשתרתצאנךברךאתהבבאךוברךאתהבצאתך·יתןאלה ם‬ ‫אתאיבךנגפםלפנך·יצואלה םאתהברכהבכלמעשהידך·יק‬ ‫מךאלהםלולעםקדשוראוכלעמיהארץ ויראוממך·יפתחאלה ם‬ ‫לךאתהשמם לתתמטרארצךבע̊ת̊ו̊והלותגויםרבםואתהלאתלו‬ ‫הוהיתרקלמעלה ולאתהיהלמטהויתרךאלהםרקלטבהעלהאדמה הטב‬ ‫האשראלהםאלהיאבתכםנתןלכם·ויסבוהלויםאתפנהםנגדהרעב‬ ‫ויענוויאמרובקלרםאררהאישאשריעשה‪//////////////////////////‬‬ ‫מלאכהביוםהשבעיוענו‬ ‫ל‬ ‫כלהעםואמרואמן‬ ‫‪·///////////////////‬פסלומסכהמעשהידיחרשוענוכלהעםואמרו‬ ‫אמן·אררהאישאשריעשהמלאכהביוםהשבעיוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ארר‬ ‫מקלהאבוואמווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררמכהרעהובסתרוענוכלהעםואמ‬ ‫רואמן·אררהאישאשריקרבאלכלשארבשרוואשרינא̊ף‬ ‫אתאשתרעהוואשריבעלעםכלבהמהוענוהעםואמרואמן·ארר‬ ‫) ‪Fragment H, column 1 of 2 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫מסגגבלרעהווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררהאישאשרישבע‬ ‫בשמילשקרוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררלקחש חדל̊העד̊ע̊דתשקרבעמ‬ ‫ת ווענוכלהעםואמ רואמן·אררהאישאשריחמדויש̊א̊ע̊נ̊ואלאשתר‬ ‫עהואלבתוואמת וולכלאשרלו וענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררהאי‬ ‫שאשרישנא אתאחו̊ב̊ל̊ב̊ווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררהאישאש‬ ‫רלאיקםאתכלדבריהתרהה זאתלעשתאתםוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·‬ ‫ויספו‪฀‬הלויםלקראבקלרםויאמרווהיהאםלאתשמעבקלאלהםלש‬ ‫מרלעשתאתכלמצותו וחקתו̊ובאועלךכלהקללתהאלהארראתהבע‬ ‫רוא רראתהבש דהאררטנאךושארתךאררפריבטנךופריאדמת‬ ‫ךשגראלפךו עשתרתצאנך·ארראתהבב אךוארראתהבצאתך·ית‬ ‫נךאלהםנ גףלפניאיבךישלחאלהםאתהמארהבכלמעשהידךיתנך‬ ‫אלהםלשמהל̊מ̊ש̊לולשננהבכלעמיהארץיעצראלהםאתה̊ש̊מ̊ם‬ ‫) ‪Fragment H, column 2 of 2 ( V b‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫הגרא̊ש̊רי̊ש̊בבקרבךיעלהמעלהמעלהואתהת̊ר̊דמטהמטההואילוך‬ ‫ואתהלאתלונויאבדוישמדאלהםאתכםמן הא̊דמהאשראתהבא‬ ‫ש̊מ̊הלרשתה· ואמרבןמ̊אהועשרםשנה אנךהיוםלאאכלע ודלצאתול‬ ‫באלפנכםואלהםאמראלילאתעבראתהירדןיהשעהעמדלפנך‬ ‫הואיעבראתהירדןוהואיבאאתכםאלהארץהטבהאשר אתםבאםש‬ ‫מהלרשתה·חזקוואמצואלתראוואלת̊חפזוכיאלהםאלהכםהואהה‬ ‫לךעמכ םלאירפכםולאיעזבכם·ועתהכתבולכםאתהתרההזאתלמ‬ ‫עןתהיההתרההזאת לעדלפנכם כילאתשכחמפיזרעכםכי ידעתיא‬ ‫‪9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫תיצרכםאשראתםעשם·אלההדברםאשרצוהמשהאתכלבני‬ ‫עלפייהוהבערבתמאבלפנימתו·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪174‬‬ Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard. Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot. Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5–11. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991. –. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. –. “Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs.” In: Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9 (2003), pp. 56–123. Aḥituv, Shmuel. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: Carta, 2008. Albright, William Foxwell. “The Gezer Calendar.” In: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92.1 (1943), pp. 16–26. Allegro, John Marco. The Shapira Affair. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. 1st ed. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 1st ed. The Anchor Bible 24. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. “Archæological Frauds in Palestine.” In: St. James Gazette (Jan. 2, 1885), pp. 6–7. Artus, Olivier. Études sur le livre des Nombres. Récit, Histoire et Loi en Nb 13,1–20,13. OBO 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Azar, Moshe. The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew. Hebrew. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1995. Bacon, Benjamin W. Triple Tradition of the Exodus. Hartford, CT: Student Publishing Company, 1894. Barr, James. “Some Notes on ben ‘between’ in Classical Hebrew.” In: Journal of Semitic Studies 23.1 (1978), pp. 1–22. –. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Halle: Niemeyer, 1918. Begg, Christopher T. “The Significance of the ‘Numeruswechsel’ in Deuteronomy: The ‘Prehistory’ of the Question.” In: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 55 (1979), pp. 116–24. Bélis, Mireille. “The Unpublished Textiles from the Qumran Caves.” In: The Caves of Qumran. Ed. by Marcello Fidanzio. Leiden: Brill, 2017, pp. 123–36. Ben‐Shahar, Rina. “The Phonetic Representation of Spoken Language in Modern Hebrew Literature.” In: Traduction, terminologie, rédaction 8.2 (1995), pp. 249–73. Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler. “Psalms.” In: The Jewish Study Bible. Ed. by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 1265–436. Bertholet, Alfred. Deuteronomium. KHC V. Freiburg, 1899. Besant, Walter. Autobiography of Sir Walter Besant: With a pref. note by S. Squire Sprigge. Ed. by S. Squire Sprigge. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1902. 176 Bibliography “Biblical Research: Shapira’s Last Forgery.” In: The Independent 35 (Aug. 30, 1883), p. 9. Bjøru, Øyvind. “Transitivity and the Binyanim.” In: Proceedings of the Oslo-Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics. Ed. by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014, pp. 48–63. Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. London: Routledge, 1995. Brockelmann, Carl. “Semitische Analogiebildungen.” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 67.1 (1913), pp. 107–12. Caballero, Jay. “When a Man Wrongs a Woman: Slavery, Concubinage, and Divorce in the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy.” In: San Diego, CA, Nov. 2019. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon. “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts.” In: The Times (Aug. 1883), p. 8. –. “Genuine and False Inscriptions in Palestine.” In: Palestine Exploration Quarterly 16.1 (1884), pp. 89–100. –. Les fraudes archéologiques en Palestine, suivies de quelques monuments phéniciens apocryphes. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1885. Cohen, Maimon. The Kethib and Qeri System in the Biblical Text. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007. Collins, Terence. “The Kilamuwa Inscription: A Phoenician Poem.” In: Die Welt des Orients 6.2 (1971), pp. 183–88. Cook, Stanley A. “A Pre-Masoretic Biblical Papyrus.” In: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 25 (1903), pp. 34–56. Cooke, George A. A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Cross Jr., Frank Moore. “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet.” In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 134 (1954), pp. 15–24. –. “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C.: II. The Murabbaât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-yam.” In: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962), pp. 34–46. –. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. –. “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [‐âw].” In: Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. HSS 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003, pp. 351–56. Cross Jr., Frank Moore and David Noel Freedman. Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series 36. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1952. Dershowitz, Idan. “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy Fragments.” In: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133.1 (2021). Dillmann, August. Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. KeH 13. Leipzig, 1886. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. et al. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. Driver, Samuel R. Deuteronomy. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. Dussaud, René. “L’Origine de l’alphabet et son évolution première d’après les découvertes de Byblos.” In: Syria 25.1/2 (1946), pp. 36–52. Fassberg, Steven E. “The Kethiv/Qere ‫ ִהוא‬, Diachrony, and Dialectology.” In: Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Ed. by Cynthia L. Miller and Ziony Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012, pp. 171–80. –. An Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2019. Bibliography 177 Feldman, Ariel. “Moses’ Farewell Address according to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22).” In: Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23.3 (2014), pp. 201–14. Finkelstein, Israel. “Jerobeam II’s Temples.” In: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 132.2 (2020), pp. 250–65. Fishbane, Michael. “Varia Deuteronomica.” In: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84.3 (1972), pp. 349–52. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995. Francis, Patricia. “Philip Brookes Mason (1842–1903): Surgeon, General Practitioner and Naturalist.” In: Archives of Natural History 42.1 (2015), pp. 126–39. Frankel, David. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore. SVT 89. Leiden: Brill, 2002. “From our London Correspondent (by Private Wire).” In: The Manchester Guardian (Sept. 6, 1883), p. 5. Garr, Randall W. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 BCE. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Gesenius, Wilhelm, E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Gesundheit, Shimon. “Midrash-Exegesis in the Service of Literary Criticism.” In: The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts. Ed. by Christoph Berner and Harald Samuel. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015, pp. 73–86. Gevirtz, Stanley. “Of Syntax and Style in the ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’ – ‘Old Canaanite’ Connection.” In: Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 18 (1986), pp. 25–29. Ginsburg, Christian David. The Moabite Stone: A Fac-simile of the Original Inscription, with an English Translation, and a Historical and Critical Commentary. 2nd ed. London: Reeves and Turner, 1871. –. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2911 (Aug. 11, 1883), pp. 178–79. –. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2912 (Aug. 18, 1883), p. 206. –. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2913 (Aug. 25, 1883), pp. 242–44. –. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2915 (Sept. 8, 1883), pp. 304–5. Green, William Henry. A Grammar of the Hebrew Language. New York: John Wiley, 1861. Greengus, Samuel. Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the Ancient Near East. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. Guil, Shlomo. “The Shapira Scroll Was an Authentic Dead Sea Scroll.” In: Palestine Exploration Quarterly 149.1 (2017), pp. 6–27. Guthe, Hermann. Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Worte an die Kinder Israel, mitgeteilt und geprüft von Hermann Guthe. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883. Harry, Myriam. The Little Daughter of Jerusalem. Trans. by Phoebe Allen. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1919. Harvey Jr., Paul B. and Baruch Halpern. “W. M. L. de Wette’s ‘Dissertatio Critica …’: Context and Translation.” In: Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008), pp. 47–85. Hasselbach, Rebecca. “External Plural Markers in Semitic: A New Assessment.” In: Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Grag. Ed. by Cynthia L. Miller. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2007, pp. 123–38. Heide, Martin. “The Moabitica and Their Aftermath.” In: New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical. Ed. by Meir Lubetski. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012, pp. 193–241. Hendel, Ronald S. and Jan Joosten. How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018. 178 Bibliography Hoftijzer, Jacob and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Ed. by Paul D. Hanson. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1986. Hornkohl, Aaron. “Hebrew Diachrony and the Linguistic Periodisation of Biblical Texts: Observations from the Perspective of Reworked Pentateuchal Material.” In: Journal for Semitics 25.2 (2016), pp. 1004–63. Huehnergard, John and Na’ama Pat-El. “Introduction to the Semitic Languages and Their History.” In: The Semitic Languages. Ed. by John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El. 2nd ed. Milton: Routledge, 2019, pp. 1–21. Hurvitz, Avi. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible.” In: Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. London: T&T Clark, 2003, pp. 24–37. –. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. SVT 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hyatt, J. Philip. “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy.” In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1.2 (1942), pp. 156–73. Isaksson, Bo. “So-called we-qatal Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew Once Again.” In: Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19 (2015), pp. 71–117. Ishida, Tomoo. “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations.” In: Biblica 60.4 (1979), pp. 461–90. Jackson, Bernard S. “The ‘Institutions’ of Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible.” In: Journal of Semitic Studies 56.2 (2011), pp. 221–51. Jefferson, Helen G. “The Shapira Manuscript and the Qumran Scrolls.” In: Revue de Qumrân 6.3 (1968), pp. 391–99. Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Vol. 1. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Jeon, Jaeyoung. “The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period.” In: Journal of Biblical Literature 139.2 (2020), pp. 255–74. Joffe, Laura. “The Elohistic Psalter: What, How and Why?” In: Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 15.1 (2001), pp. 142–69. Joosten, Jan. “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System.” In: Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, pp. 135– 48. –. “The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective.” In: The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Ed. by Angelika Berlejung and Pierre van Hecke. Leuven: Peeters, 2007, pp. 47–61. –. “The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudoclassicisms.” In: Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Ed. by Cynthia L. Miller and Ziony Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012, pp. 281–92. –. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. JBS 10. Jerusalem: Simor, 2012. Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2000. Kaufman, Ivan Tracy. “The Samaria Ostraca: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Palaeography.” PhD diss. Harvard University, 1966. Bibliography 179 Keil, Carl F. Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Erster Theil. Die Bücher Mose’s. Zweiter Band. Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1870. Kenyon, Frederic. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: Being a History of the Text and Its Translations. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1895. Kleinert, Paul. Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker. Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Rechtsund Literaturgeschichte. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1872. Kline, Moshe. “The Editor Was Nodding’: A Reading of Leviticus 19 in Memory of Mary Douglas.” In: Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8.17 (2008), pp. 1–59. Knapp, Dietrich. Deuteronomium 4: literarische Analyse und theologische Interpretation. Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Krahmalkov, Charles R. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Kratz, Reinhard. “The Headings of the Book of Deuteronomy.” In: Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History. Ed. by Konrad Schmid and Raymond F. Person Jr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, pp. 31–46. Kuenen, Abraham. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. Trans. by J. W. Colenso. London: Longman, 1865. –. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung. Erster Teil, Erstes Stück: Die Entstehung des Hexateuch. Leipzig, 1887. Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959. L’Hour, Jean. “L’alliance de Sichem.” In: Revue Biblique 69.1 (1962), pp. 5–36. –. “L’alliance de Sichem (suite).” In: Revue Biblique 69.2 (1962), pp. 161–84. Landis Gogel, Sandra. A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Lemaire, André. “Paleography’s Verdict: They’re Fakes!” In: Biblical Archaeology Review 23.3 (1997), pp. 36–39. –. “Une inscription araméenne du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. trouvée à Bukân (Azerbaïdjan iranien).” In: Studia Iranica 27.1 (1998), pp. 15–30. Leuchter, Mark. The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Levenson, Jon D. “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” In: Harvard Theological Review 68.3– 4 (1975), pp. 203–33. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Levinson, Bernard M. “Deuteronomy.” In: The Jewish Study Bible. Ed. by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 339–428. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Maier, Christl. “‘Begehre nicht ihre Schönheit in deinem Herzen’ (Prov 6,25): Eine Aktualisierung des Ehebruchsverbots aus persischer Zeit.” In: Biblical Interpretation 5.1 (1997), pp. 46–62. Mansoor, Menahem. “The Case of Shapira’s Dead Sea (Deuteronomy) Scrolls of 1883.” In: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 47 (1958), pp. 183–225. Margoliouth, George. Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum. Vol. 4. London: The British Museum, 1935. Marti, Karl. “Das fünfte Buch Mose oder Deuteronomium.” In: Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Ed. by Alfred Bertholet. Vol. 1. Tübingen, 1922, pp. 258–327. Martilla, Marko. “The Deuteronomistic Heritage in the Psalms.” In: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37.1 (2012), pp. 67–91. 180 Bibliography Mayes, Andrew D. H. “Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy.” In: Journal of Biblical Literature 100.1 (1981), pp. 23–51. Mays, James Luther. Hosea. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1969. Mazar, Amihai. “Three 10th–9th Century B.C.E. Inscriptions from Tēl Reḥōv.” In: Saxa loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels. Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. by Cornelis G. den Hertog, Ulrich Hübner, and Stefan Münger. AOAT 302. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003. Mendel-Geberovich, Anat et al. “A Brand New Old Inscription: Arad Ostracon 16 Rediscovered via Multispectral Imaging.” In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 378 (2017), pp. 113–25. Meyer, Esias E. “The Reinterpretation of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19 and the Centrality of Cult.” In: Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 30.2 (2016), pp. 198–214. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22. AB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Mor, Uri. Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert. Hebrew. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2015. Moran, William L. “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets.” PhD thesis. Johns Hopkins University, 1950. Morgenstern, Julian. “The Decalogue of the Holiness Code.” In: Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1995), pp. 1–27. Mowinckel, Sigmund. “Zur Geschichte der Dekaloge.” In: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 55.3–4 (1937), pp. 218–35. “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript.” In: The Times (Aug. 8, 1883), p. 11. Naveh, Joseph. “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B. C.” In: Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960), pp. 129–39. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Neubauer, Adolf. “The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Academy 589 (Aug. 18, 1883), p. 116. –. “The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Academy 590 (Aug. 25, 1883), p. 130. Noonan, Benjamin J. Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Contact. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019. Notarius, Tania. “Prospective ‘weqatal’ in Biblical Hebrew: Dubious Cases or Unidentified Category?” In: Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34.1 (2008), pp. 39–55. –. The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Noth, Martin. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Darmstaft: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1930. –. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943. Notley, R. Steven and Ze’ev Safrai. Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Oettli, Samuel. Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Josua und Richter. München, 1893. Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. Deuteronomium 1–11. Vol. 1. Freiburg: Herder, 2012. –. Deuteronomium 1–11. Vol. 2. Freiburg: Herder, 2012. Bibliography 181 Papers Relative to M. W. Shapira’s Forged Ms. of Deuteronomy (A. D. 1883–1884). Reproduced from British Library Ms. Add. 41,294. Pat-El, Na’ama. “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination.” In: Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting. Ed. by Holger Gzella and M. L. Folmer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008, pp. 55–76. –. “On Negation in Phoenician.” In: Linguistic Studies in Phoenician. Ed. by Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron Schade. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013, pp. 47–67. Pat-El, Na’ama and Alexander Treiger. “On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and Adverbs in Semitic.” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 158.2 (2008), pp. 265–83. Pat-El, Na’ama and Aren M. Wilson-Wright. “The Features of Canaanite: A Reevaluation.” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 166 (2016), pp. 41–55. Peckham, Brian. “The Composition of Deut. 5–11.” In: The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. by Carol L. Meyers and Michael Patrick O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 217–40. Perlitt, Lothar. Deuteronomium. Vol. 1-5. BKAT 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. –. Deuteronomium 1–6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013. Plenderleith, Harold J. “Technical Note on Unwrapping of Dead Sea Scroll Fragments.” In: Qumran Cave 1. Ed. by Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955, pp. 39–40. Plöger, Josef G. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967. Polak, Frank H. “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire.” In: Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Ed. by Oded Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, pp. 589–628. Porzig, Peter. Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Puukko, Antti F. Das Deuteronomium. Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. BWAT 5. Leipzig, 1910. Qimron, Elisha. “Waw Denoting a Glide.” Hebrew. In: Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible. Ed. by Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001, pp. 362–75. –. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2018. –. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Rabe, Norbert. Vom Gerücht zum Gericht. Revidierte Textund Literarkritik der Kundschaftererzählung Numeri 13.14 als Neuansatz in der Pentateuchforschung. Tübingen, 1994. Rabin, Chaim. “The Nature and Origin of the šafel in Hebrew and Aramaic.” In: Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), pp. 148–58. Rabinowicz, Oskar K. “The Shapira Forgery Mystery.” In: Jewish Quarterly Review 47.2 (1956), pp. 170–83. Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964. Rainey, Anson F. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan, Vol. 1: Orthography, Phonology, Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Pronouns, Nouns, Numerals. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –. “Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis in the Hashavyahu Ostracon.” In: Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27.1 (2000), pp. 75–79. Rand, Michael C. Introduction to the Grammar of Hebrew Poetry in Byzantine Palestine. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006. 182 Bibliography Raymond, Eric D. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Reiner, Fred. “Tracking the Shapira Case: A Biblical Scandal Revisited.” In: Biblical Archaeology Review 23.3 (1997), pp. 32–41, 66–67. Reisner, George Andrew. Israelite Ostraca from Samaria. Boston: E. O. Cockayne, 1920. Rubinstein, Arie. “The Anomalous Perfect with Waw-Conjunctive in Biblical Hebrew.” In: Biblica 44.1 (1963), pp. 62–69. Rüterswörden, Udo. Das Buch Deuteronomium. NSK.AT 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006. Sabo, Yoram. The Scroll Merchant: In Search of Moses Wilhelm Shapira’s Lost Jewish Treasure. Hebrew. Bnei Brak: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2018. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Trans. by John Elwode. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Sayce, Archibald H. “Correspondence: The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Academy (Aug. 1883), pp. 116–17. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen zur Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch.” In: Vetus Testamentum 32.2 (1982), pp. 183–84. Schmitt, Rüdiger. Der Heilige Krieg im Pentateuch und im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, Studien zur Forschungs-, Rezeptionsund Religionsgeschichte von Krieg und Bann im Alten Testament. München: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. Schorch, Stefan. “Where Is the Altar? Scribal Intervention in the Book of Joshua and Beyond.” In: Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions. Ed. by Benedikt Hensel, Dany Nocquet, and Bartosz Adamczewski. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, pp. 231–44. Schultz, Friedrich W. Das Deuteronomium. Berlin: Schlawitz, 1859. Schwartz, Baruch. “Psalm 50: Its Subject, Form and Place.” Hebrew. In: Shnaton 3 (1979), pp. 95–96. –. The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999. Segal, Moses H. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927. Shapira, Moses Wilhelm. “Eigenhändiges Verzeichnis der von Shapira gesammelten hebräischen Handschriften. Ms. or. fol. 1342.” Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. Shitrit, Talya. “Aramaic Loanwords and Borrowing.” In: Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Ed. by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Shulman, Ahouva. “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” In: Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13.2 (2000), pp. 168–80. Siegismund, Kasper. “Anterior Weqatal in the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran Documents.” In: Hebrew Studies 58 (2017), pp. 199–220. Simpson, William. “Alleged Text of Deuteronomy.” In: The Illustrated London News (Aug. 25, 1883), pp. 181–82. Sirat, Colette. “Les Fragments Shapira.” In: Revue des Études Juives 1-2 (1984), pp. 95–111. Soggin, J. Alberto. Judges. Ed. by G. Ernest Wright and et al. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981. Stade, Bernhard. “Miscellen.” In: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1886). Staerk, Willy. Das Deuteronomium. Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form. Eine kritische Studie. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1894. Staps, Camil. “A Case Study of Reciprocal Middles in Biblical Hebrew: The Niphal of ‫לחם‬.” In: Orientalia 87.2 (2018), pp. 159–87. Bibliography 183 Steuernagel, Carl. Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums. Litterarcritische Untersuchung über seine Zusammensetzung und Entstehung. Halle: J. Krause, 1894. –. Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Vol. 3. HK 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Sukenik, Eleazar L. “An Epitaph of Uzziahu King of Judah.” Hebrew. In: Tarbiz 2 (1931), pp. 288– 92, 382. Sukenik, Naama. “The Temple Scroll Wrapper from Cave 11. MS 5095/2, MS 5095/4, MS 5095/1.” In: Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Collection. Ed. by Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois. London: T&T Clark, 2016, pp. 339–50. Talshir, David. “‫ אָ חוֹת‬and ‫ עֵ דוֹת‬in Ancient Hebrew.” In: Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 15-16 (2002), pp. 108–23. –. “Is the Jehoash Inscription Genuine? A Philological Analysis.” Hebrew. In: Leshonenu La’am 54.1 (2003), pp. 3–10. Taylor, Joan E. “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The Qumran Genizah Theory Revisited.” In: “Go Out and Study the Land” (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical, and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Ed. by Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 269–315. Teicher, Jacob L. “The Genuineness of the Shapira Manuscripts.” In: Times Literary Supplement (Mar. 22, 1957). “The Shapira Collection.” In: The Athenæum (Mar. 7, 1874), pp. 326–27. “The Shapira Manuscript.” In: The London Evening Standard (Aug. 14, 1883), p. 3. “The Shapira Manuscript of Deuteronomy.” In: The Graphic (Sept. 1, 1883), p. 224. “The Shapira Manuscripts.” In: The Times (Aug. 28, 1883), p. 5. Thornewill, Charles Francis. “Obituary Notice of Philip Brookes Mason.” In: Journal of Conchology 11 (1904), pp. 104–5. Tigay, Chanan. The Lost Book of Moses: The Hunt for the World’s Oldest Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 2016. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7-10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14.” In: Dead Sea Discoveries 12.3 (2005), pp. 303–12. Tobolowsky, Andrew. The Sons of Jacob and the Sons of Herakles: The History of the Tribal System and the Organization of Biblical Identity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Tov, Emanuel. “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha.” In: The Book of Joshua. Ed. by Ed Noort. BETL 250. Leuven: Peeters, 2012, pp. 65–85. Tropper, Josef. Die Inschriften von Zincirli: Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1993. Tsujita, Kyoji. “The Retrospective Pronoun as Direct Object in Relative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew.” In: Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday. Ed. by Alan S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991, pp. 1577–82. Ulrich, Eugene. “Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land.” In: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2017, pp. 48–65. Valeton, Josua J. P. “Deuteronomium.” In: Studiën: theologisch tijdschrift 6 (1880), pp. 304–5. Vater, Johann Severin. Commentar über den Pentateuch. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1802. Vaux, Roland de. “Post-Scriptum: La Cachette des Manuscrits Hébreux.” In: Revue Biblique 56.2 (1949), pp. 234–37. 184 Bibliography Veijola, Timo. “Zu Ableitung und Bedeutung von hēʿîd im Hebräischen: ein Beitrag zur Bundesterminologie.” In: Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976), pp. 343–51. –. “Principal Observations on the Basic Story in Deuteronomy 1–3.” In: “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”. Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. Ed. by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk. ed. Frankfurt a. M.: P. Lang, 1988, pp. 249–59. –. Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,1–16,17. Vol. 1. ATD 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. VerSteeg, Russ. Law in Ancient Egypt. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2002. Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place.” In: The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Ed. by Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990, pp. 1–44. –. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weiss, Meir. “The Decalogue in Prophetic Literature.” In: The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Ed. by Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990, pp. 67– 81. Weiss, Raphael. “On the Use of the Negative ‫ לא‬in the Bible.” Hebrew. In: Eretz-Israel 14 (1978), pp. 148–54. Wellhausen, Julius. “Die Composition des Hexateuchs.” In: Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie 22 (1877), pp. 407–79. Westbrook, Raymond. “Judges in the Cuneiform Sources.” In: Maarav 12.1–2 (2005), pp. 27– 39. Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de. “Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi Libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur.” PhD thesis. University of Jena, 1805. –. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Vol. 1. Halle, 1806. Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. (Revised and expanded by John C. Beckman). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Wilson-Wright, Aren M. “A Reevaluation of the Semitic Direct Object Markers.” In: Hebrew Studies 57 (2016), pp. 7–15. –. “Father, Brother, and Father-in-Law as III-w Nouns in Semitic.” In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 79.1 (2016), pp. 23–32. Wolff, Hans Walter. Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Ed. by Paul D. Hanson and Gary Stansell. Hermeneia 28. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974. Zeitlin, Solomon. “The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls.” In: Jewish Quarterly Review 40.1 (1949), pp. 57–78. –. “The Fiction of the Recent Discoveries near the Dead Sea.” In: Jewish Quarterly Review 44.2 (1953), pp. 85–115. Zevit, Ziony. “The Elohistic Psalter.” In: The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Continuum, 2001, pp. 668–78. Index of Primary Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 1:14 1:26 2:2–3 2:6 4:12 6:4 7:11 7:14 7:23 13:7 13:16 15:6 15:18 15:20 20:3 20:7 21:25 24:8 27:29 28:16 29:31 31:7 31:21 33:7 34:2 34:30 35:2 38:5 39:7 40:15 43:3 43:15 43:28 46:1 48:3–6 58, 58n55, 79n13 115 58 105n45 107 113n82 128n155 116 58 122 117n109 108 105n47 116 117n109, 118n110 83 122 105n47 113 102, 138n64 79 121n123 105n47 122 127–28 120 117n109 123 105n47 81, 120, 153n213 118 124n138 91n25 102, 138n64 122 90 Exodus 2:6 145n122 3:8 3:17 5:8 5:11 7:3 7:9 8:28 12:31 12:31–32 12:38 12:51 13:9 13:16 16:7 16:10 17:7 17:31–32 19:1 19:4 19:17 19:23 20 20:2 20:3 20:4 20:5 20:7 20:8 20:11 20:12 20:13 20:13–15 20:14 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:19–20 21:29 22:15 23:6–8 23:18 117n109 117n109 118, 139n75 75 115n97, 141n91 115n98, 141n91 116 127 127 127 116 141n91 141n91 69n82 69n82 79 127n152 116 64 115 124, 124n138 54n37, 75 39n4, 78 74 57–58, 59n58, 83, 143n107 72n1, 74, 145n121 72, 75, 77 83 104n42 80, 83, 85, 143n114 75, 83 77 75, 80 75, 80, 83 123, 145n124 81, 122 145n128 127 120 124n136 125, 138n61 186 Index of Primary Sources 23:23 23:28 24:16 25:10 25:15 26:7 26:8 31:17 32:19 32:25–29 33:2 34 34:11 34:25 39:3 40:15 117n109 147n136 69n82 60 118n114, 139n75 54 54 104n42, 105n45 59 62 117n109 60, 60n65 117n109 126, 138n61 105n47 115 Leviticus 5:24 6:7–8 9:6 9:23 15:18 16:21 19 19:1–4 19:3 19:4 19:11 19:11–18 19:12 19:14 19:16 19:17 19:18 19:33 20:18 25:32–33 75 118n114, 139n75 69n82 69n82 120 99 54n37, 82–85, 87 82 83 83–84 83–84 82 75, 84 87 84 84 83–84 84 111n72 118 Numbers 1:4–15 5:19 7:5 7:72 8:1 9:2 10:17 10:17–18 10:21–22 89 120 115n96 54 115 110 105 105n47 105n47 10:25 13–14 13:1–15 13:2 13:8 13:17–18 13:30 14 14:3 14:8–9 14:10 14:21 14:21–22 14:21–25 14:22 14:22–23 14:23 14:24–25 14:25 14:31 14:33–34 14:45 16:19 17:3–5 17:7 18:20 18:28 20:1 20:1–13 20:6 20:13 24:22 25:2 27:14 31:9 32:10–12 32:11–12 32:13 33:30–34 105n47 63–64 63, 88 63, 67, 89 89 67 64 68 135n32 64n72 69n82 68–69 69 66 68 69 69 69 69 135n32 67n78 102n35 69n82 141n91 69n82 62 118, 118n114, 139n75 64n75 64, 64n75 69n82 135n36 115n96 137n60 64n75 117 135n28 115 67n78 62 Deuteronomy 1:28b–33 1–3 1–4 1 1:1 1:1–2 1:1–3 1:1–4 64 51 53 67–68 54–55 54 56 56 187 Index of Primary Sources 1:1–5 1:1–6 1:3 1:3–4 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:6–4:40 1:19 1:19–21 1:19–39 1:19–46 1:21 1:22 1:22–23 1:22–25 1:26–27 1:27 1:28 1:28–33 1:29–33 1:34 1:34–35 1:34–36 1:34–40 1:35 1:36–39 1:37 1:39 1:41–46 1:46 2 2:1–4 2:5 2:9 2:12 2:16–17 2:17 2:19 2:20–21 2:24 2:24–31 2:24–37 2:26 2:26–29 2:26–30 2:26-37 2:30 2:30–31 54–56 54 54 56 54 54, 56 55 47 64, 67 65 63 52, 64n74 68, 134n25 67 63 65–68 64n74, 65, 68 64, 134n26 64, 67 64, 64n74, 65–66 64 134n28 64n74 64 66 64n74 64n74 64 64n74, 135n32 70n84 135n33 51 135n34 113 113 42n2, 128 51 52 113 38 48–49, 51 49 48, 50, 50n25, 51 51 51 52 51 51 51 2:31 2:32–34 2:32–36 2:33 2:34 2:34–35 2:35 2:36 2:37 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:11 3:13 3:14 4:2 4:10–14 4:15–16 4:15–18 4:16 4:16–18 4:18 4:23 4:25 4:34 4:41 4:44–28:68 4:45 4:47 5–11 5–28 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:11 5:12 5:16 5:17 5:17–19 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:22 5:23–29 6:5 6:7 48, 51 49 51 114 49, 52 48 51 49 48, 50–51 114n89 20 118 42n2 137n57 137n53 118 58 58 58 57–59, 59n58 57–58, 59n59 58 57n50 57n50 115n97, 141n91 91n25 47 125n142, 155n234 91n25 47, 53 47 116 39n4, 78 74, 83 57, 59n58, 83 72n1, 74, 145n121 72, 75, 77 83 80, 83, 85, 143n114 75, 83 77 75, 80 75, 80, 83 123 81, 122 142n101, 145n126 146n128 140n86 125n142 188 6:8 6:20 6:22 7:1 7:1–2 7:8 7:16 7:19 7:20 9 9:8 9:17 9:19 9:23 9:23–25 9:26–29 10 10:1 10:1–2 10:1–5 10:3 10:3–5 10:5 10:6–7 10:6–9 10:8–9 10:10 10:10–11 10:17–18 11 11:18 11:26 11:26–30 11:26–32 11:29–30 11:30 11:31–27:11 12–26 12 13:1 13:1–2 13:6 13:9 16:17–20 18:16 18:16–17 19:3 19:13 Index of Primary Sources 115, 141n91 125 115, 115n97, 141n91 117n109 52 121n126, 143n104 113, 113n82 115n97, 141n91 147n136 59, 63n69 134n28 59 116 66–68 62–63 63n69 60n65, 63 59–61 59–60 60–62 60–61 59 61–62 62, 62n68 60, 62 60, 62, 62n68 62–63, 63n69, 116 63n69 124n136 45, 87 141n91 45, 48 46 47 45, 47 91, 91n24 46 41, 45, 47, 53 47 113n82, 115n98, 118, 141n91 115n97, 141n91 121n126, 143n104 113n82 124n136 113n82 146n128 115n96 98 20 20:3 20:10 20:10–14 20:10–18 20:14 20:15–18 20:16–18 20:17 21:10–14 21:15 22:22 22:22–24 22:24 22:29 23:1 26:5 26:8 26:16–27:26 27–28 27 27:12–13 27:12–14 27:14 27:18 27:20 28–30 28 28:5 28:11 28:17 28:46 29–30 29:3 30:9 31:6–21 32 32:22 32:46 32:51 33 34 34:11 51–52, 70 154n232 51 50, 50n25, 52 51–52 51 50 52 117n109 120 121n123 120 120 120n122 120n122 52n31 91n25 115n97, 141n91 47 45, 47, 52n31, 87 53 45, 47, 88 46 109 87 52n31, 120 53 47 126 109 126 115nn97–98, 141n91 47 115n97, 141n91 109 155n233 41 110n66 102n35, 124 64n75 41 41 115n97, 141n91 Joshua 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:15 91n25, 118 150n178 118n114, 139n75 91n25 189 Index of Primary Sources 2:16 2:22 3:10 4:6–7 4:19 5:1 5:2 5:10 6:26 7:9 8 8:15 8:33 8:34 9:1 9:7 9:9–10 9:24 10:24 10:25 11:3 12:1 12:2 12:8 15:7 17:15 21:41 23:14 24:2 24:11 45:11 114 114 117n109 141n91 91n24, 92 92 92 91n24 111n72 110 90, 92 91n25 90 73n2 117n109 52n30 52n30 52n30 106 154n232 117n109 91n25 48 117n109 91n24 117, 117n109, 118 118 118n114 128n155 117n109 122 Judges 1:4–5 1:26 3:4 3:5 3:19 5:7 6:13 7:13 11:13 11:22 12:4 16:18 17:7 18:2 18:30 19:8 117n109 118 115n96 117n109 91n24 117n109 79 105 48 48 113n80 105n47 89 10n27 90n22 105n47 19:19 21:20 127 102n35 1 Samuel 1:3 1:12 1:28 6:18 7:9 8:9 13:18 14:36 17:38 27:8 28:19 124n136 105n47 102, 138n64 117n109 114 124n138 91n25 113n82 105n47 128n155 110 2 Samuel 1:4 11:17 12:31 13:18 19:16 127 113n80 105n47 105n47 91n24 1 Kings 2:6 9:9 9:20 10:29 13:3 13:5 14:15 18:23 18:43 21:8 21:11 113n82 102, 138n64 117n109 118 115n98, 141n91 115n98, 141n91 135n31 110 91n25 121, 143n104 121, 143n104 2 Kings 7:6 7:8 17:15 17:18 18:36 22 23:3 23:25 118 114 124 134n28 105 48 125 140n86 Isaiah 3:8 8:18 14:9 98n8 115nn97–98, 141n91 103n41 190 Index of Primary Sources 20:3 27:6 34:2 34:12 36:21 42:14 44:17 45:11 46:9 51:8 57:11 63:16 115n97, 141n91 111n72 111 121, 143n104 105 128n155 126n148 102n35 128n155 145n119 128n155 128n155 Jeremiah 2:20 5:2 5:15 6:10 7:7 7:9 11:17 19:4 25:5 27:20 29:23 31:22 32:10 32:20–21 32:23 39:6 46:18 48:8 128n155 75 128n155 124n138 128n155 74–77 124n138 135n31 128n155 121, 143n104 76, 81 58 124n138 115n97, 141n91 155n235 121, 143n104 68 110 Ezekiel 5:11 5:14 8:3 8:5 12:6 17:23 18:12 21:2 22:6–12 22:7 22:7–8 22:8 22:8–9 22:9 22:9–11 113n82 110 57n53, 58 57n53, 58 115n98, 141n91 58 81, 153n213 91n25 84–87 85 85 85 86 85–86 85 22:12 23:43 26:20 27:12 38:11 39:4 39:17 40:20 40:24 40:44 41:12 47:19 48:14 48:28 85–86 102n31 128n155 119 117n109 58 58 91n25 91n25 91n25 91n25 64n75 113, 113n82 64n75 Hosea 4 4:2 4:15 9:15 10:12 12:12 13:15 75 75, 77–78 91n24 91n24, 113n82 114 91n24 98n9 Joel 2:2 2:30 113n82 115n98, 141n91 Amos 4:4 5:5 91n24 91n24 Micah 6:4 121n126, 143n104 Zechariah 2:8 3:6–7 5:4 8:7 117n109 124n138 75 91n25 Malachi 2:3 2:14 3:5 126, 138n61 124 75 Psalms 25:6 25:10 35:1 128n155 125 112, 138n68 191 Index of Primary Sources 50 50:7 50:7–20 50:16–21 50:18 50:19–20 56:2 56:2–3 72:5 74:6 78:43 82:1 90:2 93:2 95:8–11 99:7 102:24 103:17 105:27 118:27 119:2 119:22 119:52 119:146 119:167 119:168 132:2 135:9 148:10 78–80 78 78–79 78 78 78 112 138n68 145n119 102n31 115n97, 141n91 124n140 128n155 128n155 67n78 125n142 145n119 128n155 115n97, 141n91 126, 138n61 125, 125n143 125n143 128n155 125n143 125n143 125n143 125n143 115n97, 141n91 58 Proverbs 1:13 6:16–35 6:20 6:25 6:30–31 6:31 6:32 6:35 8:23 30:21–23 30:23 119 80–82 80 81 80 81 76n7, 80–81 81 128n155 121n123 121n123 Job 16:21 98n9 Ecclesiastes 10:17 121, 143n104 Esther 4:14 9:19 116n104 117n109 Ezra 9:1 117n109 Nehemiah 2:16 4:14 4:19 5:7 6:17 7:5 8:6 9:8 9:10 9:14 13:17 121, 143n104 121, 143n104 121, 143n104 121, 143n104 121, 143n104 121, 143n104 102, 138n64 117n109 115nn97–98, 141n91 102 121, 143n104 1 Chronicles 2:1 12:39 29:10 101, 151n187 126n148 128n155 2 Chronicles 1:17 8:7 16:14 19:5–7 32:24 33:7 33:15 34 34:14 118 117n109 116, 139n70, 140n86 124n136 115n98, 141n91 57n53, 58 57n53, 58 48 48n24 Sirach 36:15 123 Valediction of Moses A–D A–E A 1:1–2 A 1:2–4 A 1:4 A 1:5–10 A 1:5–9 A 1:9–B 1:1 132n13 133n20 55 55 98 68 65 65 192 B 1:1 B 1:1–8 B 1:2 B 1:2–5 B 1:5 B 1:5–6 B 1:7 B 1:8–9 B 1:9 C 1:2 C 1:4 C 1:4–5 C 1:6–7 C 1:8 C 1:8–9 C 1:10–D 1:2 D1 D 1:2 D 1:2–3 D 1:3 D 1:3–5 D 1:6–7 D 1:8 D 1:8–9 D 2:1 D 2:1–2 D 2:2 D 2:3 D 2:3–5 D 2:6 D 2:6–3:3 D 2:7 D 2:7–8 D 2:8 D 2:9 D 2:10 D3 D 3:1 D 3:1–2 D 3:2 D 3:3 D 3:5 D 3:5–6 D 3:5–7 D 3:6–7 D 3:7 D 3:9–10 D 2:5–3:3 D 2:6–3:3 Index of Primary Sources 34n2, 69, 138n63 66 68, 115, 141n91 69 115 69 69, 114n88 64n75 114 113 128 42n2, 136n50 113 128, 135n37 42n2 49 11n30 103 49 114 49 113 128, 135n37 38, 42n2 103 114 20 117 117 102, 116 104 103, 118n112 125 20, 102, 125 117 116, 137n59 153n208 112, 137n59 137n59 116, 140n86 116 118 58 58 58 98n7 144n114 70n84 104 E 1:1–4 E 1:2–3 E 1:3 E 1:6 E 1:8 E 1:9 E 2:1 E 2:2 E 2:5 E 2:5–7 E 3:2 E 3:3 E 3:3–4 E 3:6 E 3:7 E 3:8 E 4:1 E 4:1–3 E 4:2 E 4:4 E 4:4–5 E 4:6 E 4:6–7 E 4:8 E 1:1–4:2 E 2:8–3:4 F–H F F 1:4 G1 G 1:6 G 1:9–10 G 1:11 G 2:2 G 2:3 G 2:3–4 G 2:4 G 2:4–6 G 2:6 G 2:6–9 G3 G 3–H 1 G 3:5–9 G 3:8 G 3:8–9 G 3:9–11 G 3:9–12 G 3:11 G 4:1 133n13 116, 139n70 101 20n52, 98, 115 98, 116 116 121 151n191 98n7 72n1 104 126 122 73 76 81, 119 72, 76, 84, 124n137 76 116 123–24, 124nn135,137 77 73 81, 122 72, 84, 124n135 133n13 86, 126 133n20 132n11 152n201 132n11 114 145n122 145n126 116 116 61 61 61 61 62 150 72 46 142n100 91 88 46 101 108 Index of Primary Sources G 4:1–2 G 4:2 G 4:3 G 4:3–4 G 4:5 G 4:5–7 G 4:6–7 G 4:7–8 G 4:8–9 G 4:10–11 G5 G 5:1 G 5:6–7 G 5:7–8 G 5:11 G 5:12 G 5:12–13 H H 1:1–2 H 1:2 H 1:2–3 H 1:3–4 H 1:7 H 1:9 H 2:2 86, 111n72, 143n110 151n194 73, 84 83 84, 86 124n135 77, 84 73, 81 84, 124n135 108 132n9, 147 126 108 109 73 119–20 70n86 132n11 124n137 123 82, 86, 124 73, 81, 111n72 103, 109 126 111n72 Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q4 (1Q Deuteronomya ) 151n183 1Q5 (1Q Deuteronomyb ) 151n183 1Q22 (1Q Words of Moses; Divre Moshe) 42n5 1QHa (1Q Hodayota ) 126n148 1QIsaa (1Q Isaiaha ) 106, 126n148 1QpHab (1Q Pesher to Habakkuk) 14fig., 132n8 1QS (1Q Rule of the Community; Manual of Discipline) 126n148, 132n8 4Q33 (4Q Deuteronomyf ) 135n37 4Q41 (4Q Deuteronomyn ) 142n97, 143n107 4Q47 (4Q Joshuaa ) 92, 92n28 193 4Q51 (4Q Samuela ) 102n33, 138n64 4Q129 (4Q Phylactery B) 142n97 4Q134 (4Q Phylactery G) 142n97, 143nn107,114 4Q137 (4Q Phylactery J) 143n107 4Q158 (4Q Reworked Pentateucha ) 126n148 4Q161 (4Q Isaiah Peshera ) 112n78 4Q259 (4Q Rule of the Communitye ) 13fig. 4Q280 (4Q Curses) 126n148 4Q319 (4Q Otot) 12fig. 4Q374 (4Q Discourse on the Exodus; Conquest Tradition) 126n148 4Q381 (Q Non-Canonical Psalms B) 126n148 4Q405 (4Q Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificef ) 14fig., 132n8 4Q427 (4Q Hodayota ) 126n148 4Q431 (4Q Hodayote ) 126n148 4Q468g (4Q Eschatological Work A?) 112n78 4Q496 (4Q War Scrollf ) 126n148 4Q522 (4Q Prophecy of Joshua) 101, 151n187 4Q540 (4Q Apocryphon of Levia ?) 20, 138n63 5/6Hev papHebrew Legal Papyrus [P. Yadin 44] 100n22 5/6Hev papHebrew Legal Papyrus [P. Yadin 46] 100n22 11Q1 (11Q Leviticusa ) 43n10, 132n8 11Q5 (11Q Psalmsa ) 17fig. 11Q19 (11Q Templea ) 17fig., 132n8 Mur22 (Mur papDeed of Sale of Land) 100n22 194 Index of Primary Sources XQ3 (XQ Phylactery 3) 143n107, 145n124 Masoretic and Samaritan Manuscripts British Library Or. 5557A.74 138n61 Cambridge T-S AS 110.121 126n145, 138n61 Kennicott 1 (Oxford Bodleian Ms. Digby Or. 32) 98n9 Kennicott 4 (Oxford Bodleian Ms. Hunt. 11) 102n32, 138n64 Kennicott 69 (Oxford Corpus Christi College Ms. 5) 141n94, 151n184 Kennicott 75 (Oxford Jesus College Ms. 95) 154n220 Kennicott 81 (Oxford Merton College [?]) 139n71 Kennicott 95 (Cambridge St. John’s College Ms. A 1) 102n32, 138n64 Kennicott 96 (Cambridge St. John’s College Ms. A 2) 134n28 Kennicott 129 (BL Arundel Or. 2) 139n71 Kennicott 131 (Lambeth Ms. 435) 126n145, 138n61 Kennicott 133 (Westminster Ca Ms. 2) 126n145, 138n61 Kennicott 147 (Cf. Cod. Parm. 2292) 98n9 Kennicott 173 (Denmark Ms. Hebr. 1) 102n32, 138n64 Kennicott 221 (BNF Ms. Sam. 3) 134n28 Kennicott 232 (Vatican Ms. ebr. 20) 137n55 Kennicott 681 (Oxford Corpus Christi College Ms. 133) 126n145, 138n61 Sutro Brinner 11 18, 19fig. General Index Abravanel, Isaac, 63 adultery, 20n50, 70n86, 74–76, 76n7, 78–81, 85, 120–21 Akkadian, 99, 108n58, 117, 121n124, 123, 124n136 Aleppo Codex, 98n9 Altes Museum (Royal Museum), 12 Amarna letters, 102, 108n58 antisemitism, 8fig., 6–9 Arabic, 79n13, 99, 121, 123 Arad ostraca, 97, 100, 100n23, 106, 108, 130 Aramaic, 39n8, 99n14, 100, 103, 103n36, 112, 112n77, 114n91, 117, 119, 121, 123, 126n146, 128, 128n156, 129, 129n160, 143n104 archaic features, 20, 102n31, 110–12, 128 ark of the covenant, 59–63, 90 Arnon. See Wadi al-Mujib Athenæum, The, 5, 7n18, 22fig., 133, 142n102, 144n116, 147, 147n136, 148nn138–39,142,146–47,150, 149nn153–54, 152n201 Bar Kokhba, 130 Bedouins, 2, 10, 15n40, 39 Bekor Shor, 64n75 Ben Sira. See Sirach bitumen-like substance on manuscripts, 2, 10, 11, 11fig., 39, 131 blackening of leather, 2, 4fig., 5, 133 bribery, 15, 81–82, 85–86, 124, 124n136 British Library, 2n2, 4fig., 22–25figs., 131n5, 133n16 British Museum, 1, 5, 5n9, 6–7, 7n18, 8fig., 9–10, 15, 15n38, 18, 40, 134n28, 137n53 Chronicles, book of, 116n101 Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), 96, 98n9, 100, 104, 107, 111, 113–14, 116, 118–19, 122, 126n146, 130. See also pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon, 6–7, 15, 15n35 cut-margin theory, 6–7, 7n19, 12, 14fig., 17fig., 16–18, 19fig., 39 Dangerfield Lithography, 23–25figs. Dead Sea, 2, 3fig., 10–11, 15n40, 39 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1, 9–10, 10nn27–28, 10n29, 11, 11fig., 11n30, 12, 12–14figs., 16, 17fig., 20, 28, 42, 42n5, 43, 43n10, 92–94, 104n43, 112nn77–78, 117, 119, 119n117, 130, 132n8, 143nn107,114, 145n124. See also Qumran Decalogue, 39n4, 41, 41n1, 42–43, 48n23, 53n31, 54n37, 57, 57n51, 59, 59n58, 72–87, 93–94, 100, 104n42, 122–23, 124n135, 131–32, 132n9, 142, 142n102, 143n114, 144n116, 152n201, 155n234 deception, 77–78, 82, 84 defective spelling (ḥaser), 98n9, 97–100, 102–3, 113n84, 114n88, 125n143, 130–31, 141n92, 142n104 Deir ʿAlla inscription, 108n58 Deuteronomic law code, 41, 47n17, 45–53, 64, 70, 120n122 Deuteronomic warfare legislation, 50–52 Deuteronomy Rabbah, 50n25 diphthongs. See monophthongization divine names in V – Elohim, 42, 44, 79, 79n13, 80 – YHWH (Tetragrammaton), 42, 44, 79, 142n97 drawings of Shapira fragments, 16n42, 21, 21n53, 22–25figs., 27fig., 28, 28n59, 29–32, 32fig., 33, 39n4, 131–33, 140, 140nn87–88, 140nn89–90, 141n91, 141nn92–93, 142n100, 142nn98–99,102, 143nn105–6,109, 143nn112–13, 144n115, 144n116, 145nn120–21, 145n125 196 General Index dry-point lines, 12, 14fig., 131–32, 132n8 Eblaite, 99 Ecclesiasticus. See Sirach edges of manuscripts, 12, 14fig., 16, 16n42, 17fig., 18, 19fig. Elephantine papyri, 103, 103n36 Elohistic Psalter, 79, 79nn12–13 epigraphic corpus, 32–33, 95–102, 102n31, 103, 106, 108, 111, 111n72, 112, 129–30 Ethiopic, 121 European pronunciation of Hebrew, 7, 18–20, 39, 137n53 Eusebius of Caesarea, 92 First Temple (pre-exilic) period, 1, 28, 70, 94–95, 97, 99–100, 103, 111, 114, 130. See also pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew folds in manuscripts, 4fig., 11, 12fig., 12n31, 13fig., 131–32 Fortschreibungen, 52, 60–62, 62n68, 63 Fragment A, 21, 27fig., 32, 32fig.. See also under Valediction of Moses in Index of Primary Sources Fragment D, 20, 26fig., 153n208. See also under Valediction of Moses in Index of Primary Sources Fragment E, 4fig., 21, 22–25figs., 26–27figs., 28, 28–29figs., 30, 30–32figs., 131, 133. See also under Valediction of Moses in Index of Primary Sources Ge‘ez, 99 Gerizim-Ebal pericope, 45–48, 70, 72, 87–93 German Oriental Society (DMG), 12 Gersonides, 64n75 Gezer calendar, 99n14 Gladstone, William, 6 graphic confusion, 20, 136n45, 138n63, 141n91, 142n100, 148n147, 152nn201,203. See also transcriptions of V, errors Graphic, The, 21, 27fig., 32, 32fig., 131 Harry, Myriam (Shapira’s daughter), 15n40 Hellenistic period, 10n29, 42, 56, 66, 94, 97, 104, 129–30 hiphil (C-stem), 113n83, 114n89, 121, 124 Hobbes, Thomas, 47n17 Humboldt University (University of Berlin), 34 Ibn Ezra, 147n136 idols, 15n40, 57–59, 81, 83 Illustrated London News, The, 21, 27fig., 131, 132n6 incipit, 54–57 ink, 5, 7, 8fig., 133 Jerusalem, 2, 7, 10, 15n40, 43 Joshua, book of, 93n29 jussive, 113 Kadesh Barnea, 63–69, 135n33 Kara, Joseph, 89n22 ketiv, 99, 102, 102nn31,35, 103, 103nn37–38, 114, 135n37, 138n64 killing, 48, 74, 77, 83 Kimhi, David, 78 KLMW (Kilamuwa) inscription, 112, 112n75, 112n78, 138n68 Kuntillet ʿAjrud, 98, 111 Lachish ostraca, 97–98, 101n27 Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), 58, 97, 102, 104, 111–14, 116n104, 119, 119n118, 126nn146,148, 129, 129n160, 130. See also Second Temple (post-exilic) period lectio difficilior, 90n22, 125, 138n61 lectio facilior, 138n62 Levites, 60, 62, 87–93, 109n62. See also tribes of Israel linen, 2, 10, 11fig., 39, 43, 131 Louvre, 15 lust, 81, 153n213 LXX. See Septuagint Mason, Philip Brookes, 9, 9n24 Masoretic Text (MT), 38, 46, 49–50, 55, 58, 61–62, 65–66, 69, 77, 88, 91–92, 92n28, 97–98, 98nn9–10, 99–102, 102n31, 102n35, 103, 103n41, 105, 108–11, 112n78, 113, 113n80, 114n89, 115, 116nn101,104, 117–21, 123–25, 121n126, 125n143, 126, 126nn145,148, 128–30, 135nn36–37, General Index 136nn39,41,45–46, 137nn55,60, 138nn61,64, 139nn70–71, 140nn86,90, 141nn91–92, 142nn95–96,104, 142n97, 143nn104,106, 143nn107,114, 145nn121,124, 147n136, 148nn141,150, 150nn174,178, 151nn183,185,187, 154nn217–218,220, 155n234 matres lectionis, 97–100 Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone), 15, 28, 30, 33, 33n67, 44, 98n11, 100, 100n19, 100n24, 102, 112, 112n76, 128 metathesis, 34n2, 134n28 midrash, 50n25, 54n37, 82 Mishnaic Hebrew, 111, 111nn70–71, 120n121, 121–23, 126n148, 130, 143n104 Moabite pottery scandal, 9, 12–16, 39 Moabite Stone. See Mesha Stele monophthongization, 97–98, 98nn10–11, 98nn7,9, 99, 112n75, 131 morphosyntax – nominal, 97, 115–19 – verbal, 97, 103–15 MT. See Masoretic Text murder. See killing Nachmanides, 64n75 narrator, 42 Nash Papyrus, 142n104, 144n114, 155n234 negation, 97, 100, 100nn21,23, 112–13, 115, 115n100 niphal (N-stem), 75, 112, 112n78, 112–13n80, 138n68 nomistic edits, 45, 70, 94 northern Hebrew, 99 nota accusativi, 76n7, 100, 100nn22–23, 112n80, 120n120, 151n191 Numbers Rabbah, 50n25 197 141n91, 142n100, 145n119, 148n147, 152nn201,203, 167–74 paleography, 1, 21–33, 44, 94, 132 paragraph breaks (petuḥot), 100, 131 Peshitta, 75, 102, 135n36, 138n64. See also Syriac Phoenician inscriptions, 57n53, 58, 98, 101, 112, 112nn75,78, 115, 116n103, 138n68 photographs of Shapira fragments, 4fig., 16n42, 21, 31, 131, 137n53, 143n105 plene spelling (malé), 98n9, 97–100, 102–3, 103n39, 113n84, 125n143, 129, 137n58, 142nn96,104 Poenulus, 101n28 poetry, biblical, 41, 70, 110, 110n66, 112, 119n117 possessive suffix, 98, 98n11, 99, 99n16, 100 pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew, 1, 95–96, 103, 114, 119, 129–30. See also Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) prefix, 100, 100n21, 126, 126n146, 130 prefix conjugation, 108n61, 108–11 Priestly corpus (P), 44, 53, 53n34, 54, 54n37, 55–58, 58n55, 59, 59nn58–59, 60–64, 64n75, 65–68, 68n79, 69-70, 70n84, 83n18, 89, 135n32 pronominal suffix, 122, 145n122 Pseudo-Rashi, 48n24 Punic, 100n22, 101n29 qal (G-stem), 112, 112–13n80, 113n83, 121, 138n68, 143n104 qere, 99, 102, 102nn31,35, 103nn37–38, 114, 135n37, 138n64 qere perpetuum, 101, 151n187 Quaritch, Bernard, 9 Qumran, 10, 10n27, 11fig., 11n30, 12, 12–14figs., 17fig., 20, 42, 42n5, 43, 43n10, 92–94, 104n43, 112, 112nn77–78, 117, 119, 119n117. See also Dead Sea Scrolls object marker. See nota accusativi orthography, 20, 21n52, 42, 96–103, 112n78, 113n80, 114nn88–89, 126n148, 129, 131, 137n58, 138nn63–64, 141n92, 142n98, 143n104, 151nn187–88 Osorkon Bust (Eliba’l Inscription), 15 Rabbinic Hebrew. See Mishnaic Hebrew Rashi, 89n22 Paleo-Hebrew script, 1, 20, 20n50, 21, 22–27figs., 28, 28–30figs., 31, 31–33figs., 38, 44, 131, 134, 136nn45,48, 138n63, Sabaic, 117 Sabbath, 54n37, 83, 85–86, 104, 105n45, 107, 126, 128 198 General Index sacrifice, 20, 74, 125–26, 126n145, 138n61 Samaria ostraca, 32, 32n65, 33, 33fig., 33n66, 98, 111n72 Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), 98n10, 103, 134n28, 135n36, 136nn39,41,44–45, 150nn174,178, 151nn183–85, 154nn217–18 Sayings of Moses (Dires de Moïse), 42–43 scriptio continua, 38, 100, 131 Second Temple (post-exilic) period, 10, 58, 60, 97, 114, 119, 119n118, 129. See also Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) Septuagint (LXX), 58, 92, 92n28, 101–2, 114n89, 135n32, 136nn41,45–46, 137n60, 138n64, 141n94, 142n104, 143n114, 145n124, 148n141, 150n174, 151nn185,187, 154n217 Shapira Manuscripts – condition of, 2, 4fig., 12, 16, 16n42, 131–32, 133n19, 143nn105–6, 150n182 – dimensions of, 16n41, 18, 132 – discovery of, 2, 3fig., 9–11, 39, 39n8, 94 – initial evaluation of, 2–7, 39n8, 44n13 – margins of, 12, 132, 151n186, 153n205, 154n231 – present location of, 1, 9, 131 – purchase of, 2, 10, 39, 39n8 Shapira, Anna Magdalena Rosette, 34 Shapira, Moses Wilhelm – conversion to Christianity, 2, 9 – letters by, 7, 20, 34n2, 39nn4,8, 43–44, 117n108, 133, 134–35n28, 137n53, 145n119 – photograph of, XIVfig. – shop in Jerusalem, 2, 15n40 – suicide of, 7, 9, 34, 94 Shema, 80, 155n234 Sihon narrative, 48–52, 70 Siloam tomb inscription, 97 Siloam tunnel inscription, 44, 103 Simpson, William, 21, 27fig., 132n6 single-stroke yods, 32, 33fig. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira), 123 Sotheby’s, 9 southern (Judahite) Hebrew, 99 SP. See Samaritan Pentateuch spies (scouts) motif, 52, 63–69, 70n84, 89 Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Königliche Bibliothek), 34, 34n1 stance, of letterforms, 30n61, 31, 31n63, 32, 32fig. stealing, 74, 77–78, 80, 83 stone tablets, 59–63 suffix conjugation, 104–8, 110, 114n88 swearing falsely, 72, 75–76, 84 Syriac, 99, 117. See also Peshitta Targum Neofiti, 136n46 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Yerushalmi), 136n46 Tel Dan inscription, 112, 112n77 Tel Reḥov inscription, 33n66 Ten Commandments. See Decalogue terminal letterforms, 18, 38, 136n48, 151n184 Times, The (of London), 2, 5nn4,7–8, 6nn13,16, 7, 7nn18,20,23, 12n32, 16nn41,43, 18n44, 20n48, 131n4, 132n10 transcriptions of V. See also notes in critical edition – by Ginsburg, 5, 20, 96n4, 115n95, 117n105, 125, 132–33, 133nn14,18 – by Guthe (with Meyer), 5, 20, 20n52, 39n4, 115n95, 117n108, 125, 132, 132nn8,11, 133, 133nn18–19 – by Shapira, 20, 34–37, 35–37figs., 38–40, 94, 115n95, 117n108, 125, 132, 132n13, 133, 133n18 – errors, 20, 34–39, 39n4, 117n108, 133, 135n33, 136nn38,45,48, 138nn62–63, 141n91, 142nn100–1, 144n116, 146n129, 147, 148n147, 149n155, 150nn169,180, 152nn201,203, 153nn207–8, 154n228 Transjordan, 42n2, 43, 91nn25–26 tribes of Israel, 45, 87–91, 93. See also Levites Ugaritic, 20, 98n7, 100, 117n106, 138n63 V as abridgment of Deuteronomy, 1, 42–43, 52, 94 V as proto-Deuteronomic text, 1, 40, 42–44, 52, 54–57, 59, 63, 70, 70n86, 94, 97, 129 Vulgate, 102, 138n64, 141n94 General Index Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon), 2, 3fig. water damage, 18, 19fig. word-separating dots, 100, 100n23, 112n75, 131, 142, 143n113, 144n115, 145n120, 147n137, 154n227, 167 199 Yavne-Yam (Mesad Hashavyahu) ostracon, 98, 106, 106n51, 114, 114n94 Yemenite Torah scrolls, 6–7, 7n19, 16, 16n41, 18, 19fig., 34, 39 Index of Modern Persons Achenbach, Reinhard, 59–60, 60n61, 62, 69n81 Aḥituv, Shmuel, 101, 101n27, 107, 114n94 Albright, William Foxwell, 99n14 Allegro, John Marco, 10n29, 43 Allen, Leslie C., 74n3 Andersen, Francis I., 75, 77 Artus, Olivier, 69n81 Azar, Moshe, 111n71 Bacon, Benjamin W., 56 Barr, James, 97, 98n9 Bauer, Hans, 98 Baumgartner, Walter, 119 Begg, Christopher T., 53n33 Ben Sasson-Gordis, Avishay, VI Ben‐Shahar, Rina, 100n22 Berlin, Adele, 67n78, 79 Bertholet, Alfred, 56, 62n67 Besant, Walter, 9n25 Bevilacqua, Alexander, V Bhattacharyya, Tania, 96n1 Bjøru, Øyvind, 112n79 Brett, Mark, VI Brettler, Marc Zvi, 50n26, 51, 67n78, 79 Brockelmann, Carl, 121n127 Bélis, Mireille, 11fig., 11n30 Caballero, Jay, 120n122 Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon, 6, 7n19, 15, 15n39, 16, 18 Cohen, Maimon, 102n31 Cohen, Shaye, V Collins, Terence, 112n75 Cook, Stanley A., 142n104 Cooke, George A., 57n53 Crawford, Sidnie White, V Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., 32n65, 88n21, 98–99, 107n54 Dascalu, Raphael, VI Dershowitz, Idan, 1n1, 18n47, 21n57, 30n60, 33n67, 96n2, 115, 129 Dershowitz, Nachum, VI, 77n8, 92n27 Dillmann, August, 5n4, 43n11, 56, 58n55 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., 107 Driver, Samuel R., 56, 60n65, 105n46, 108 Dussaud, René, 15n37 Eichler, Raanan, VI, 59n60 Fassberg, Steven E., 96n1, 103, 103n38, 113n85 Feldman, Ariel, 42n5 Feldman, Noah, V–VI, 118n114 Figeac, Petra, 34n1 Finkel, Irving, VI Finkelstein, Israel, VI, 91n24 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 114n91, 128n156 Francis, Patricia, 9n24 Frankel, David, 67–68, 68n79 Freedman, David Noel, 75, 77, 98–99 Fürtig, Nicolé, 34n1 Gal, Sophia, 34n1 Garr, Randall W., 99, 99n16 Gertz, Jan, VI Gesenius, Wilhelm, 113nn82–83,85, 123n129 Gesundheit, Shimon, V–VI, 50n25, 52n29 Gevirtz, Stanley, 118n113 Gilbert, Walter, V Ginsburg, Christian David, 5–7, 7nn18–19, 8, 8fig., 9–16, 16n41, 17–20, 20nn50,52, 21, 21nn52–53,57, 22–25figs., 28, 28n59, 29–33, 42, 79n13, 96n4, 115n95, 117n105, 125, 132–33, 133n18, 134n28, 135nn29,32–33, 136nn47–49,51, 137nn53–54,57–58, 138nn61–63,65–66, Index of Modern Persons 139nn69,73–74,76,78,80–82, 140nn84,87–90, 141nn91–93, 142nn98–100,102, 143nn105–6,109,112–13, 144nn115–17, 145nn120–21,125, 147nn134–37, 148nn138–40,142–43,146–50, 149nn152–54,158–63,165, 150nn166–67,171–73,175–76,178–80, 151nn183–84,188–92,194, 152nn195–96,198–201,203, 153nn204,206–10,213, 154nn214,216,219,222–29,232 Goldstein, Rebecca, VI Goren-Arzony, Sivan, V Gould, Jonathan, VI Graf, Karl Heinrich, 53n34 Green, Henry, 103n38 Greengus, Samuel, 124n136 Guil, Shlomo, 10n29, 43n10 Guthe, Hermann, 5–32, 16n42, 21n54, 31n63, 39n4, 44n13, 125, 131–55 Halevy, Schulamith Chava, VI Halpern, Baruch, 47n17 Hansel, Dorothee, V Harman, Mishy, VI Harris, Jay, V Harvey, Paul B., Jr., 47n17 Hasselbach, Rebecca, 99n17 Heide, Martin, 123 Hendel, Ronald S., 129 Herzog, Erga, VI Hoftijzer, Jacob, 57n53 Holden, Kevin, V Holladay, William L., 75 Hornkohl, Aaron, 129n161 Huehnergard, John, 107n57 Hurvitz, Avi, 119n118, 126n146, 129n160 Hyatt, J. Philip, 47 Isaksson, Bo, 110n65 Ishida, Tomoo, 118n111 Jackson, Bernard S., 120n122 Jefferson, Helen G., 10n29, 43 Jeon, Jaeyoung, 68n79 Joffe, Laura, 79n12 Jongeling, Karel, 57n53 201 Joosten, Jan, V, 96n1, 104, 104n45, 109, 113, 113nn81,85,87, 118n112, 119n115, 129 Joüon, Paul, 114n90 Kaicker, Abhishek, V Kaplan, Abram, V Katz, Kelly, V Kaufman, Ivan Tracy, 32 Keil, Carl F., 57n54 Kenyon, Frederic, 41n1 Khan, Geoffrey, 96n1, 102n34 Kline, Moshe, 83 Knapp, Dietrich, 57, 57n53 Knohl, Israel, VI Knowles, Marika, V Koehler, Ludwig, 119 Krahmalkov, Charles R., 100n22, 101n29 Kratz, Reinhard, VI, 54–55 Kuenen, Abraham, 56, 63n70 L’Hour, Jean, 47 Landis Gogel, Sandra, 111n72 Langlois, Michael, V, 31n63 Leander, Pontus, 98 Lee, Robert, V Lemaire, André, 28, 28fig., 29, 103, 128 Leuchter, Mark, 88n21 Levenson, Jon D., VI, 47n22 Levine, Baruch A., 63n71 Levinson, Bernard M., 62n68 Lewinsohn, Jed, V Lundbom, Jack R., 74n3 Lupsasca, Alexandru, V Machinist, Peter, VI, 112n73 Maier, Christl, 80n14 Mansoor, Menahem, 10n29, 18n45, 20n51, 43, 123n131, 137n53 Margoliouth, George, 5n9, 15n38 Marti, Karl, 56 Martilla, Marko, 78 Mayer, Esias E., 82n16 Mayes, Andrew D. H., 47 Mays, James Luther, 77n8 Mazar, Amihai, 33n66 Mendel-Geberovich, Anat, 106n49 Menon, Tara, V Metzler, Maria, VI, 96n1 Meyer, Eduard, 131–55 202 Index of Modern Persons Mor, Uri, 111n69 Moran, William L., 108n58 Morgenstern, Julian, 82n16 Morsel-Eisenberg, Tamara, V, 56n40, 96n1 Mowinckel, Sigmund, 82n16 Müller, Johannes, VI Muraoka, Takamitsu, 114n90 Naveh, Joseph, 107 Nelson, Eric, V–VI Nelson, Richard D., 50n26, 62 Neubauer, Adolf, 96–97, 96nn3–4, 104–5n45, 108, 119n115, 122–23, 121n125, 126–27, 127n151, 128n154 Noonan, Benjamin J., 119n116 Notarius, Tania, 110, 110nn65–66, 110n67 Noth, Martin, 44, 88n21 Novak, Ana, V O’Connor, Michael Patrick, 47n22, 112n74, 113n85, 127n153 Oettli, Samuel, 57, 61 Otto, Eckart, 52n29, 54n36, 57n53, 60, 64, 64n76, 69n81 Pat-El, Na’ama, V, 1, 101n28, 107n57, 114n92, 95–130, 115n100, 123n130 Peckham, Brian, 47n22 Perlitt, Lothar, 55n39, 64 Plenderleith, Harold J., 11n30 Plöger, Josef G., 70n84 Polak, Frank H., 129n160 Porzig, Peter, 60, 62n68 Prawer, Ronit, VI Puukko, Antti F., 56 Qimron, Elisha, 111n69, 125n143, 126n147 Rabe, Norbert, 69n83 Rabin, Chaim, 121n127 Rabinowicz, Oskar K., 96n4, 104n45, 121n125, 123n131 Rad, Gerhard von, 63n69 Rainey, Anson F., 102n30, 107, 107n56 Rand, Michael C., 116n102 Raymond, Eric D., 112n78 Reiner, Fred, 41n1 Reinhartz, Adele, VI Reisner, George Andrew, 33, 33fig. Rofé, Alexander, V Rollston, Christopher, V, 31n63 Rubinstein, Arie, 105n46 Rüterswörden, Udo, 55n39 Sáenz-Badillos, Angel, 97n5, 102n31 Sabo, Yoram, 10n29 Sass, Benjamin, VI, 15n37, 33n66 Sayce, Archibald H., 9 Schmid, Konrad, VI Schmitt, Hans-Christoph, 69n81 Schmitt, Rüdiger, 51 Schorch, Stefan, 92 Schultz, Friedrich W., 57n54 Schwartz, Baruch, 79n10, 83–84 Segal, Michael, V Segal, Moses H., 111n70 Shapira, Moses Wilhelm, 1–40, 43, 44n13, 53, 56, 61–62, 69–70, 94, 100, 117n108, 131–45 Shitrit, Talya, 129n160 Shulman, Ahouva, 113n82 Siegismund, Kasper, 104n43 Sirat, Colette, 11n29, 12n31 Smith, Mark, VI Soggin, J. Alberto, 89n22 Sommer, Benjamin, VI Spellberg, Matthew, V Spies-Gans, Paris, 96n1 Spivey-Faulkner, S. Margaret, V Stackert, Jeffrey, V Stade, Bernhard, 105, 105n46 Staerk, Willy, 44, 53, 58 Staps, Camil, 112n80 Steinschneider, Moritz, 34, 43n11 Stern, David, V–VI Steuernagel, Carl, 44, 53, 56, 58, 58n55 Strack, Hermann, 34, 39n4, 43, 44n12, 145n119 Sukenik, Eleazar L., 100n20 Sukenik, Naama, 10n27 Talshir, David, 125n141 Taylor, Joan E., 10n27 Teeter, Andrew, V–VI Teicher, Jacob L., 10n29, 42, 43n11 Thornewill, Charles Francis, 9n24 Index of Modern Persons Tigay, Chanan, 18, 18n47 Tigay, Jeffrey H., 121, 121n124 Tigchelaar, Eibert, VI, 42n5 Tobolowsky, Andrew, 88n21 Tov, Emanuel, 92n28 Treiger, Alexander, 123n130 Tropper, Josef, 101n28 Tsujita, Kyoji, 114n93 Tzoref, Shani, V–VI, 96n1 Ulrich, Eugene, 92n28 Valeton, Josua J. P., 56 Vanderhooft, David, V Vater, Johann Severin, 53 Vaux, Roland de, 10n27, 131n4 Veijola, Timo, 51, 55n39 VerSteeg, Russ, 124n136 Vorpahl, Daniel, V 203 Waltke, Bruce K., 112n74, 113n85, 127n153 Weigel, Moira, V Weinfeld, Moshe, 47, 54, 57, 60n64, 63n70, 67, 79n10 Weiss, Meir, 77n8 Weiss, Raphael, 100n21 Wellhausen, Julius, 53, 53n34 Wells, Bruce, 121n123 Westbrook, Raymond, 124n136 Westermann, Claus, 69 Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de, 46, 47n17, 48, 53 Williams, Ronald J., 114n90 Wilson-Wright, Aren M., 99, 101n28, 117n107, 120n120 Wolff, Hans Walter, 77n8 Zahn, Molly, V Zakovitch, Yair, VI Zeitlin, Solomon, 10, 130 Zevit, Ziony, 79n13

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book (Full View)

The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book (Full View)

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS