No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Original Text of CD 7:9–8:2 = 19:5–14
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Extract
Ideally, textual criticism should precede literary criticism, because the objectivity of the latter is compromised if variants are selected on the basis of their contribution to the literary analysis. In some instances, however, a rigid separation of the two disciplines defeats its own purpose. The Damascus Document (CD) provides a case in point. To date the application of purely textual criticism to 7:9–8:2 = 19:5–14 has yielded no satisfactory and generally accepted solution. In this study I hope to show that the recognition of one paragraph as a secondary insertion simplifies the textual problem to the point where it can be resolved by a simple and plausible hypothesis. The distinction of different levels in a text is one of the many analogies between literary criticism and archaeology, and to this extent makes this contribution an appropriate one in a volume designed to honour the memory of Paul Lapp.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1971
References
1 Comparaison entre les manuscrits “A” et “B” du Document de Damas, Revue de Qumran 2(1959–1960), 66Google Scholar.
2 The Zadokite Documents (Oxford, 1958Google Scholar2), viii. His critical edition fuses the texts of A and B, but they are printed separately in an Appendix (78–80).
3 Rabin, 28.
4 “The existence of a lacuna in B is proved by the fact that bĕyadh elsewhere follows amar (21a; iii. 21; iv. 13; xix. 14) or ziwwah (D. i. 3, cf. Z. v. 22) but never kathuv” (Rabin, 30–31). For a convenient summary of the introductory formulae to OT quotations in CD and the other Qumran documents, cf. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament, New Testament Studies 7(1960–1961), 299–305Google Scholar.
5 Denis, A. M., Les thèmes de connaissance dans le Document de Damas (Studia Hellenistica, 15: Louvain, 1967), 146Google Scholar.
6 (7, 9/19, 5): Et quant à tous les méprisants des ordonnances et décrets, quand Dieu visitera le Pays (19, 6:) pour retourner leur oeuvre sur les impies, (7, 10/19, 7a:) (alors) arrive (pour eux) la parole qui est écrite dans les paroles d'lsaïe, fils d'Amos, le prophète, (7, 11:) qui dit: “II viendra sur toi et sur ton peuple et sur a l maison de ton père des jours tels (7, 12:) qu'il n'en est venu depuis la séparation d'Éphraïm d'avec Juda, quand se séparèrent les deux maisons d'lsraël”, (7, 13a:) (qu') Éphraïm se sépara d'avec Juda. (7, 13b:) […] Et tous les apostats sont livrés au glaive, (19, 7b:) [comme Dieu a dit] par le prophète Zacharie: “Glaive, lève-toi contre (19, 8:) mon berger et contre l'hommé de mon amitié, parole de Dieu; frappe le berger et seront dispersées les brebis, (19, 9:) et je ramène ma main sur les petits.” Et ceux qui restent de garde pour lui, ceux-là sont les humbles des brebis, (7, 13c:) et (ces) tenants ferme (7, 14–21a:) se sont échappés vers le Pays du nord, comme (Dieu) a dit: J'exilerai … etc., et il piétine tous fils de Seth; (7, 21b/19, 10a:) ceux-là échapperont au temps de la visite, (19, 10b: et les restants seront transmis au glaive) quand viendra le messie (19, 11:) d'Aaron et d'Israël; ainsi en a-t-il été au temps de la visite premiere dont (Dieu) a dit (19, 12:) par Ézéchiel, “de marquer d'une marque le front de ceux qui soupirent et gémissent.” (8, 1/19, 13:) Et les restants sont livrés au glaive des vengeances vengeresses de l'alliance, et tel sera le cas de tous les entrés (19, 14:) de son alliance qui (8, 2:) n'ont pas tenu ferme … etc. (Denis, 144).
7 “Le document A insère alors un midrash d'Am.-Nu.” (141); “Le document B, qui a omis … la citation d'Is.… omet aussi le midrash d'Amos-Nombres” (141); “Le document omet done la référence à Zack.” (142); etc.
8 To the best of my knowledge only one author has suggested the possibility that this midrash might be an interpolation, namely, K. G. Kuhn, who writes, “So viel wird man sagen können, dass der erste Teil der Damaskusschrift (A 1–8 mit Überschneidung, Fortsetzung und Abschluss in B) eine Art Homilie als Grundschrift hat, von der sich gattungsmässig sehr deutlich darin eingestreute midraschartige Stücke abheben, deren Einfügung m.E. auch literarisch sekundär ist,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 85 (1960), 652Google Scholarf. This intuition happens to be correct here. It is certainly wrong in the cases of CD 4.1–4 and 4:13–18; cf. my study in Revue Biblique 77(1970), 208–19Google Scholar.
9 Art. cit. (note 1), 60.
10 Rabinowitz, I., A Reconsideration of “Damascus” and “390 Years” in the “Damascus” (“Zadokite”) Fragments, JBL 73 (1954), 24Google Scholar note 79.
11 O. Schwarz observes that the literary technique manifested in this midrash differs from that found elsewhere (Der erste Teil der Damaskusschrift und das Alte Testament [Diest, 1965], 113), but the composite character of CD makes it impossible to use this observation to confirm my hypothesis.
12 B contains a direct complement 
(19:5). Accidental omission on the part of A is not impossible (Carmignac, 59), but the antithetic relationship of 
with 
(7:4c) -disturbed by the insertion of 7:6b-8 = 19:2–5a — means that a complement is not absolutely necessary. No complement appears in Ps. 89:39; Job 34:33; 36:5.
13 The four preceding words are found after 
in B (19:9). Carmignac argues that they were accidentally omitted in A, and then reinserted in the wrong place (59), but it is equally possible that B represents a redactional smoothing of an awkward text.
14 This emendation, first suggested by Schechter, has been accepted by Rost, Charles, Maier, and G. Jeremias. Confusion between 
and 
is not unknown in CD, e.g., 
(5:20) and 
(19:15). The point of the explicative note to the Isaiah quotation is to emphasise that “Ephraim” was responsible for the schism within Israel. “Ephraim,” therefore, is a symbol of the wicked, as in 4QpPs 37b, 3. The word-play is not between 
and 
(pace Rabin and Cothenet), but between 
, as has been pointed out by G. Jeremias, who convincingly refutes the widespread view that in this context “Ephraim” represents the community and “Judah” the wicked (Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit [Göttingen, 1963], p. m n. 2). The desperate expedients to which one must have recourse in defense of this view is well demonstrated by O. Schwarz's claim tha t the flight of Roboam (1 Kgs. 12:19) could be interpreted as a dominion of Israel-Ephraim over Judah (op. cit., 39).
15 Compare the same formula in 19:11–12.
16 This phrase is ungrammatical. How it originated is unclear.
17 
(7:13) and 
(19:10, 13) are designations of the same group.
The shift in terminology is due to the presence, subsequent to 7:13, of phrases concerning the salvation of the faithful; it is not significant from a literary point of view.
18 At this point B contains three additional words 
. Carmignac explains their absence in A by postulating a visual jump from 
to 
(61), but they could be a glcss added to B and inspired by Lev. 26:25 = CD 1:17b.
19 
is missing in A. But Carmignac's hypothesis of an accidental omission is implausible (61). Rabin is correct in seeing the phrase 
as an allusion to bodies of legal material in the Ot, Lev. 26:46; Num. 30:17; Dt. 12:1 (32). Since the whole context (6:11b-8:2) exhibits very frequent contacts with Lev. 17–26, I am convinced that the reference is to the conclusion of the Holiness Code. Because of its cryptic character the allusion was missed by a scribe of A who then saw only a grammatical abnormality which he endeavoured to correct by omitting 
. 7:4c (see note 12 above) served as a model.
20 Schwarz, 115.