We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
1 Sanders, J., The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, Vol. IV (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar, (hereafter = DJD IV); and The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (New York, 1967)Google Scholar. We will include in this article the abbreviations adopted by Sanders in the editio princeps for the non-massoretic compositions of IIQPsa. However, one can question the utility of these abbreviations for individual compositions of the scroll. This would seem needlessly to multiply the number of abbreviations used by scholars in dealing with the Qumrân material. Reference to column and line(s) might serve scholarly purposes with less difficulty.
2 Sanders, DJD IV, 39, 45, 64–76.
3 Hurvitz, A., Observations on the language of the 3rd Apocryphal Psalm from Qumrân, Revue de Qumrân 5 (1965), 225–32Google Scholar.
4 Sanders, DJD IV, 40, 76–79.
5 M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim …, Vol. 2, p. 1691, s.v.
6 Jastrow, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 1049, s.v. One must recognize, however, the possibility that חיזע could be explained as a legitimate Hebrew form qatil (verbal noun): חיזע. Although this Hebrew root is not attested in such a form, its possibility cannot be ruled out.
7 Called to my attention by Conrad L'Heureux, who has independently argued the use here of the root למח. Cf. The Bible as Literary Source of 3 New Psalms (IIQPsa), (unpublished thesis presented to the Faculty of the Catholic University of America), 19.
8 The words רצי and עד occur together in Gen. 6:5 and 8:21, but there עד is used predicatively.
9 That חשר not שרי is the correct root is suggested by three points: 1) syntactically, שרי does not take נ with the thing possessed; 2) orthographlcally, one would expect the root שרי to show up in this scroll as ושריי not ושרי; and 3) contextually, חשר fits in better with its parallel verb מלש appearing in the verse above. For the appearance of חשר used in the Hebrew Qal at Qumrân, cf. Carmignac, J., Précisions au Vocabulaire de L'Hebreu Biblique, Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955), 353Google Scholar. The form of חשר which Carmignac suggests is a verb is taken as a noun from the same root by Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford, 1962), 3i4f.Google Scholar The other occurrence of חשר at Qumrân is certainly a hifil; cf. CD 11,20.
In Mishnaic Hebrew חשר is not attested in the qal but rather in the hifil, whereas in Aramaic it occurs both in the peal and afel. In the peal, it is used with ב “to claim power over,” which fits our expression nicely. This G-stem usage is found in Aramaic and Nabatean inscriptions. Cf. Jean, C. and Hoftijzer, J., Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Sémitique de l'Ouest (= DIS) (Leiden, 1965)Google Scholar, 284 s.v.; see also The Aramaic Suzerainty Treaty from Sefire in the Museum of Beirut, CBQ 20(1958), 459. In the inscriptions, the object of the G-stem verb, “to have power over,” is introduced either by ל (e.g., in the Sefire Treaty) or by לא (cf. RB 61, p. 183). The usage of ב is also possible (DIS, p. 284, rsjIII).
From another approach, the LXX translation of certain Biblical Hebrew verb forms which are treated by the Massoretes as forms of שרי suggests the possibility that the Greek translator understood חשר not שרי. For example, חזשךיז of Jer. 30:3 is translated by the verb κνριɛνɛιν, which normally translates לשמ and מלש. And in Nu. 21:24 κατακνριɛνɛιν translates שךיז (the full orthography of MT is not probative of שךי here).
In short, the usage of חשך in the qal with ב affords us another instance of late Aramaic influence on the composer of this “psalm.”
10 Cf. Brown, , Driver, , Briggs, , A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1962), pp. 1075 and 1076 s.vGoogle Scholar.
11 Brown, Driver, Briggs, op. cit., p. 1075 s.v.
12 Jastrow, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 1581 s.v.
13 Sanders, DJD IV, 76.
14 Cf. Brown, Driver, Briggs, op. cit., p. 986 s.v.
15 Another possible indication of lateness is found in Line 2 of this Column: לגך יטטזט לזב הבל וךזי “those who stumble laud thee.” There is no polel form of טזמ in the Bible. However, we actually have a Talmudic manuscript with a ןיטים form. Cf. Jastrow, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 740 s.v. טןם appears once in the Bible as a hithpolel (Is. 24:19). The form we have in this line may be construed as either the polel participle of טום (the preformative of the participle would then be missing) or the qal participle of a טטם. For biblical examples of the polel participle without the — ם preformative, cf. I Sam. 18:9, Is. 2:6, Je. 27:9, and Is. 57:3. This phenomenon in biblical Hebrew is treated by the grammars cited by Brown, Driver, Briggs, op. cit., p. 778, under the entry II [ןבע]. Segal, M. H., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford, 1927), 37Google Scholar, mentions the loss of the — ם preformative as a tendency in Mishnaic Hebrew.
Both alternatives (polel of טום or qal of טטם) strongly suggest a post-biblical/Mishnaic Hebrew situation. There is no likely possibility of a simple misspelling of the qat participle of טום with two ט's instead of one, because the form of qal is טם with qame⊡ not טום with a waw. There is the possibility that this form may, in fact, represent a hypothetical classical polel of טום which, although unattested in Biblical Hebrew, is presupposed by the one Biblical Hebrew occurrence of טום in the hithpolel (Is. 24:19). However, we prefer to explain our form as late because of the evidence of the later, more frequent use of the hithpolel of טום (and thus more likely use of the polel) and also because of the later attested use, although only once, of a ןיטטום form.
16 Sanders, DJD IV, 42, 43, 79–85.
17 M. Dahood's interpretation of this phrase (cf. Biblica 47 [1966], 142) is to our mind much too far-fetched.
18 Cf. Brown, Driver, Briggs, op. cit., p. 693 s.v.
19 This fact has long been known; many examples can be found in Schechter, S. and Taylor, C., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899), 12–38Google Scholar; and more recently, םלשח אךים ןב ךפם, לגם צ ם pp. 20–23, גישת, םלשךי. Also see Yadin, Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem, 1965), 9Google Scholar.
20 See for examples Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Oxford, 1965), vol. I, 296–98Google Scholar.
21 Sanders, DJD IV, 43, 85–89.
22 Sanders, DJD IV, 89. Cf., however, concerning vocalization, J. Strugnell, Vetus Testamentum Supplement VII, p. 341.
23 The rejection here of Sanders' translation also removes the only unwritten long u in the manuscript.
24 Jastrow, op. cit., vol. II, p. 1645 s.v.
25 חוםלח is found as חםלח (fem. sing.) in 4QPsf's copy of this composition. It is possible that חוםלח is an Aramaic segolate form.
26 Noldeke, Th., Bemerkungen zum Hebräischen Ben Sira, ZAW 20(1900), 87Google Scholar. Cf., however, M. Boogaert, Les suffixes verbaux non accusatifs dans le sémitique nord-occidental et particulièrement en hébreu, Biblica 45(1964), 220ft.
27 Cf. Brown, Driver, Briggs, op. cit., p. 867 s.v.
28 Sanders, DJD IV, 89–91.
29 Sanders, DJD IV, 49, 54–64.
30 For example, Strugnell and Skehan generally agree; Carmignac and Brownlee agree with each other; and Rabinowitz disagrees with Sanders.
31 Quoted by Sanders, DJD IV, 54. Professor Strugnell informs me that he has arrived at approximately the same date but for different reasons from Albright's.
32 Sanders, DJD IV, 58–64. The alleged orphism which was Sanders' principal Hellenistic indicator in his editio princeps has been virtually abandoned by him as a suasive argument in his most recent publication, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (New York, 1967), 94–103, esp. 99Google Scholar.
33 Our own stance concerning this composition is as follows. In disagreement with Sanders, Skehan, and Brownlee, who separate ןוךא from לובח in line 7 of Col. XXVIII, we would rather agree with A. Hurvitz (cf. The Post-Biblical Epithet לובח ןוךא, Tarbiz 34(1965), 224–27. Carmignac also accepts this reading (cf. Revue de Qumrân 5[1965], 249–52Google Scholar) and also I. Rabinowitz (cf. The Alleged Orphism of IIQPss28:3–12, ZAW 76[1965], 194). These three writers treat these two words as a construct phrase: “Lord of the universe.” Hurvitz has shown this phrase to be post-biblical, finding it in Syriac, Palmyrene, Babylonian Talmud, Septuagint(Job 5:8), Ben Sira(36:1), and the language of the liturgy.
A second important phrase is חיךב ינב “sons of the covenant” in lines 11 and 12. The lateness of this phrase has already been recognized by Strack-Billerbeck and J. Carmignac, as noted by A. Hurvitz in his article Observations on the Language of the 3rd Apocryphal Psalm from Qumrân, Revue de Qumrân 5 (1965), 227Google Scholar. חירב ינב is not found in the Bible but at Qumrân (IQM XVII, 8), in Rabbinic literature, Odes of Solomon (17:15), and the New Testament (Acts 3:25). It also is probably from the Hellenistic period or later.
Furthermore, the superscription of LXX and the first verses of IIQPsa151B point to a tradition linking this composition to David's victory over Goliath. This theme is one that gained especial prominence from Hellenistic times on, as has been shown by Lehmann, M. H., Ben Sira and the Qumran literature, Revue de Qumrân 3(1961), 103–16Google Scholar, esp. 104–06.
34 I should like to thank Professors F. M. Cross and John Strugnell, and Dr. A. Hurvitz for their valuable suggestions during the preparation of this article.
