Tendenz and Translation: The Importance of Knowing the Character of a Manuscript for Textual Criticism

One of the toughest jobs for textual critics is knowing the tendenz or proclivities of the manuscripts or versions they are using for textual reconstruction. This step requires an enormous amount of work that entails an intensive study of a manuscript. Often, I fear, this work is not done and variants are studies in isolation without a sufficient knowledge of the manuscripts themselves. One of the reasons it is not done is that it is a daunting task that few can accomplish. So when someone does this work, it is a great service to the scholarly community (We should thank God for the Kittels, Wevers, Alands, Metzgers of the world!).

This sort of painstaking text critical work has now been done on the Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa). As I mentioned in a previous post, I am working through Ulrich Dahmen’s Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Fruehjudentum: Rekonstrucktion, Textbestand, Sturktur und Pragmatik der Psalmen Rolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (Brill, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).

In this third chapter, Dahmen works through all of the variants between 11QPsa and the Masoretic Book of Psalms. From this analysis he draws a number of conclusions. First, he concludes that 11QPsa is clearly dependent on and secondary to the proto-Masoretic Psalter (Something which I have been arguing for many years). That is, almost all of the places where 11QPsa has an alternative reading compared to the MT Psalter, the reading in 11QPsa is later. What is more, Dahmen argues that when all of the variants are considered together (and this is the crucial step of gaining the big picture) some patterns begin to appear. While I will not bore you with the details (and Dahmen notes many details), the most important characteristic are the number of features which connect the scroll with the other texts and themes common to the Qumran community. This is one of the things that is meant when taking about a manuscript’s tendenz.

Knowing the tendenz of 11QPsa provides some critical purchase when making text-criticical decisions. What Dahmen’s research means in practical terms is that 11QPsa is of limited use for textual criticism of the MT book of Psalms. That doesn’t mean it is of no value. Dahmen highlights a couple places where 11QPsa preserves a better reading than the MT. The best example is with the missing nun verse in the acrostic Psalm 145 (an acrostic is a poem that is organized according to the alphabet). In the MT tradition the psalm is clearly missing a verse because its acrostic skips from mem to samech (between vv. 13-14). Well, before 11QPsa was discovered scholars knew something was up and often used the LXX to reconstruct the missing verse. When the Psalms Scroll was discovered, lo and behold, the nun verse was recovered. As it turns out, the two texts (LXX and 11QPsa) preserved similar readings:
πιστὸς κύριος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
The Lord is faithful in all his words, and devout in all his deeds

× ×?מן ×?לוהי×? בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו
God is faithful in his words, and gracious in all his deeds

You’ll notice a slight difference between the LXX use of “Lord” while 11QPsa employs “God.” A number of factors suggest that the LXX preserves the better reading. First, when looking at the rest of Psalm, it almost exclusively employs Yahweh. Second, one of the things that Dahmen uncovered in his analysis is that 11QPsa tends to substitute other terms for Yahweh. What evidently happened is that some time in the transmission of the Masoretic text of the book of Psalms, this verse dropped out. The LXX and 11QPsa both preserved the original line, though the LXX preserved the better text in regards to the name used for God.

The moral of this story is that before you can evaluate a textual variant, you need to know the tendenz of the text. Otherwise you’ll miss the forest for the trees.

New Story on the Leviticus Scroll Fragments Published

My story on the recently discovered scroll fragments of the Book of Leviticus has appeared in the print edition ChristianWeek. It actually made the front page. Now that the article is published I will blog a full account of my interview with Hanan Eshel in the near future.

Here is the ChristianWeek article (I have cropped and edited it so only my article appears on the page):

(click for a larger image)

Thank God for Worms, Decomposition, and Computers:Reconstructing the Dead Sea Scrolls

I am currently working through Ulrich Dahmen’s excellent monograph on the so-called Qumran Psalms scroll (11QPsa), Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Fruehjudentum: Rekonstrucktion, Textbestand, Sturktur und Pragmatik der Psalmen Rolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).

Dahmen proposes a new reconstruction of the beginning of the Psalms scroll based on the techniques developed by H. Stegemann and others. What I find the most fascinating is the help that worm traces and decomposition patterns — as well as computers — play in the reconstruction. His reconstruction is similar to that of Peter Flint’s in The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll & the Book of Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 1997; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com), though Dahmen omits Psalm 110 from column 4 since its inclusion would make the line and column lengths too large. That seems quite plausible to me.

Who would have thought that worms, decomposition, and computers would all work together to help us reconstruct and interpret ancient biblical scrolls? I find it all quite fascinating.

The LXX Psalm Superscriptions (Part 4) Situational Ascriptions

This is the fourth of a series of entries on the superscriptions in the Greek Psalter. Previous entries include “The Septuagint Psalm Superscriptions (Part 1),” “The Septuagint Psalm Superscriptions (Part 2): Personal Names and Notions of Authorship,” and “The Septuagint Psalm Superscriptions (Part 3): Liturgical Notices.”

[Note: I have removed the diacritical marks in the Greek text since it wasn’t displaying properly in some browsers.]

Situational Ascriptions in the Superscriptions

The final category that I want to discuss in this series are the additions and expansions of the situational ascriptions in the LXX Psalter. In the Hebrew Bible the situational notices relate individual psalms to some event in David’s life:

Psalm Situation Passage
3 David’s flight from Absalom 2 Sam 15-18
7 Concerning Cush, a Benjaminite (= Hushai the Archite? 2 Sam 17) ?
18 Deliverance from all his enemies and from Saul 2 Sam 22
34 Feigned madness before Abimelech 1 Sam 21:1-15
51 Nathan’s confrontation over Bathsheba 2 Sam 12
52 The betrayal of Doeg the Edomite 1 Sam 21:2-10; 22:9-10
54 The Ziphites’ betrayal of David to Saul 1 Sam 23:14-28
56 When the Philistines seized him in Gath 1 Sam 21:10-15; 27:1-12
57 Flight from Saul into the cave 1 Sam 22:1-2, 24:1-7
59 Saul’s surveillance of David’s house 1 Sam 19:11-12
60 Military victories over Aram-naharaim, Aram-zobah, and when Joab returned and struck Edom 2 Sam 8:13–14; 1 Chr 18:12–13; cf. 1 Chr 19:6
63 David in the Judean wilderness 1 Sam 23; 25; or 2 Sam 15
142 When David was in the cave 1 Sam 22:1-2, 24:1-7

While some of these superscriptions may contain a kernal of historical information, modern Psalms scholars are almost unanimous in understanding the situational superscriptions as much later additions that reflect interpretive or exegetical activity. For example, Mowinckel sees the titles as the end result of learned legends about David that associated certain psalms to specific incidents in David’s life (Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992] 2.100), while Bernhardt see these title as evidence of the first exegetical treatment of the psalms (Karl H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der altorientalischen Königsideologieim Alten Testament [Brill, 1961] 11). This midrashic understanding of the titles is also held by B.S. Childs, who argues “the Psalm titles do not appear to reflect independent historical tradition but are the result of an exegetical activity which derived its material from within the text itself” (“Psalms Titles and Midrashic Exegesis” JSS 16 [1971] 143; see also Martin Kleer, “Der Liebliche Sänger Der Psalmen Israels”: Untersuchungen Zu David Als Dichter Und Beter Der Psalmen [Bodenheim: Philo, 1996]).

David’s expanding role as the sweet psalmist of Israel continues in the LXX, with five additional psalms like to parts of David’s life. It is doubtful that the additional situational ascriptions in the psalm superscriptions are the result of the translator. This is based on what we know of translators generally; that is, that they tend to be conservative and stay pretty close to the text. More importantly, it is also supported by what is known of the translation technique of the LXX Psalter. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the same processes that gave rise to the situational titles in the MT Psalter would have ceased with its translation into Greek. Once the book of Psalms was translated into Greek, further midrashic activity would have occured.

The first addition is found in Ps 27(LXX 26):

Ps 27 MT לדוד Of David
4QPsr לדוד Of David
LXX 26 Του Δαυιδ, Ï€Ï?ο του χÏ?ισθηναι
Pertaining to David. Before he was annointed.

Most read the title as suggesting that this psalm was recited before David was anointed. The question remains, however, which anointing is being talked about? It could be his initial anointing by Samuel in 1 Sam 16:13, or his anointing as king over Judah in 2 Sam 2:4, or even his anointing as king over Israel in 2 Sam 5:1-6, esp. 3 (Rahlfs evidently understood the added phrase as referring to the anointing of the High Priest; most others apply the note to David [Pietersma, “Exegesis and Liturgy,” 103; Mozley, 48; Thomson and Brenton in their translation).

The early exegete Theodoret understood superscription to refer to an event prior to David’s anointing as king. He points to an association unique to the Greek translation of both סך “den, lairâ€? and ×?הל “tent” with of σκηνη — a term reserved for “tabernacle” elsewhere (Theodoret, In psalmos; cited in Rainer Stichel, “Zur Herkunft Der Psalmenüberschriften in Der Septuaginta,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter [Herder, 2001] 149-161, p. 152). Theodoret also saw the “unjust witness” in verse 12 as an allusion to the deception of Doeg the Edomite.
Thus, while it is possible that the association could have happened on the Hebrew side of things, that it would have happened on the Greek side is clear.

Ps 93 MT
11QPsa הללויה Hallelujah
LXX 92 εις την ημεÏ?αν του Ï€Ï?οσαββατου
οτε κατωκισται η γη αινος ωδς τω Δαυιδ
For the day before the Sabbath when the land was first inhabited;
a praise song of David

There is a significant amount of textual variation in this superscription. Rather than understanding this situational ascription as connected to an event in David’s life, it more likely refers to the sixth day of creation.

Ps 96 MT
LXX 95 οτε ο οικος ωκοδομειτο μετα την αιχμαλωσιαν ωδη τω Δαυιδ
When the house was built after the captivity; a song of David

Once again there is a lot of textual instability with this superscription. While 1 Chr 16:23-33 associates this psalm with the brining of the ark into Jerusalem by David (which would be after he made himself a house), the reference to the captivity suggests the reference is to the rebuilding of the Temple in the post-exilic period. These connections could suggest the use of the psalm in a temple dedication festival (Kraus). No matter whatprompted the title, the use of οτε in the superscription suggests it is secondary.

Ps 97 MT
LXX 96 τω Δαυιδ οτε η γη αυτου καθισταται
Pertaining to David, when his land is established

While not entirely clear, this superscript may allude to the statement in 2 Samuel 7:1 that David “was settled in his palace and Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies around him.” While there is no strong lexical links between the psalm and 2 Sam 7, the use of καθιστημι in the superscript strongly connects it with a number of psalms that speak of the establishment of David’s throne (Pss 2:6; 8:7; 18[17]:44; cf. 9:21). Noteworthy is this association is only found in the Greek text as καθιστημι is used to translate a variety of Hebrew terms. The use of οτε in the superscription suggests it is secondary.

Ps 143 MT מזמור לדוד A Psalm of David
11QPsa מזמור לדוד A Psalm of David
LXX 142 ψαλμος τω Δαυιδ οτε αυτον ο υιος καταδιωκει
A psalm, pertaining to David, when [his] son pursued him

There is some variation in the textual witnesses to this superscription; in fact many witnesses name Absalom explicitly. The reference is certainly to Absalom’s rebellion in 2 Sam 15-18 (cf. Ps 3), though what triggered the association is not as clear, though the psalm itself is a lament of an individual who is being pursued by his enemy. The use of καταδιωκω in v. 3 and the superscript identifies Absalom as the enemy. Likely secondary due to the use of οτε.

Ps 144 MT לדוד Of David
11QPsa
LXX 143 τω Δαυιδ Ï€Ï?ος τον Γολιαδ
Pertaining to David, concerning Goliath

This final addition to the situaltion ascription in the LXX Psalms connects this psalm to LXX Psalm 151. This allusion to the Goliath episode in 1 Sam 17 was more than likely triggered by the reference to the “evil sword” in verses 10-11:

εκ Ï?ομφαιας πονηÏ?ας. 11 Ï?υσαι με και εξελου με εκ χειÏ?ος υιων αλλοτÏ?ιων, ων το στομα ελαλησεν ματαιοτητα και η δεξια αυτων δεξια αδικιας.
From an evil sword Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of aliens, whose mouth spoke vanity, and whose right hand was a right hand of injustice.

The question once again is whether or not this harkens back to a Hebrew Vorlage or whether it is a Greek development. The one piece of evidence which may suggest it derives from the Greek is the transcription of Goliath’s name as Γολιαδ, and not Γολιαθ, which would be expected as the translator typically renders final tavs on names with a theta.

Conclusions

What becomes clear from examining these additional superscriptions that read the psalms in the light of David’s life, is that the exegetical activity that was started in the Hebrew tradition was continued in the Greek. This represents a further “Davidization” of the Psalter in which more psalms were read and/or prayed in association with an exemplary situation in the life of David.

Sinaiticus to Enter the Digital World

BBC News has an article on the digitizing of Codex Sinaiticus (the image to the right is the beginning of Matthew in the codex). This isn’t ground-breaking news (see below), though I have been watching for any stories on Sinaiticus since I am writing a dictionary entry on the codex for The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.The BBC article has a number of errors. For instance, the tag line indicates that Sinaiticus is “the oldest known Biblical New Testament in the world” which it isn’t. Further down in the article they are correct when they say “it has the oldest complete copy of the New Testament.” Here’s another error: “It is named after the place it was written, the monastery of Saint Catherine in Sinai, Egypt.” More properly it should say that it was named after the place it was discovered. It may have been copied there, but it more likely was produced in Rome, Caesarea, or Alexandria.

I am surprised that BBC picked up the story when it did. Reuters published a similar story by Tim Perry early in July (it is still available here).


UPDATE: Qumran Fragments on the Market?

Ed Cook at Ralph the Sacred River has posted a clarification of the quotes and information attributed to him in the story in Dutch newspaper het Parool. His response may be found here; my original blog entry is here. It appears clear that Ed was misrepresented by the story.

In regards to the Leviticus scroll fragments, Ed argues that the fragments ultimately have to be considered unprovenanced since they were not found in situ and no other related fragments were discovered in the alleged cave when Hanan Eshel was able to examine it. While I see his point (and I suspect we’ll never know for sure), I wonder what other Dead Sea Scrolls we would have to declare unprovenanced if held to the same standards?

Qumran Fragments on the Market? Discovery and Provenance of the Leviticus Fragments

Stephen Goranson brought my attention (via the Biblical Studies email list) to the following story by Henk Schutten: “Dead Sea Scrolls in the Trade.” The story was published in Dutch newspaper het Parool (An English Translation is available here). The article discusses four Dead Sea Scroll fragments which were offered for sale by a dealer at the 2003 Maastricht Art Fair, Tefaf. These scrolls were linked to the Kando family. What I found surprising is the linking of these scrolls that were sold on the black market and the recent recovery of the fragments of a Leviticus Scroll (see a list of my blog entries on this subject here). Here is the relevant excerpt:

In March last year, it was revealed that the Kando family had further new fragments from the book of Henoch, a Qumran-manuscript about Judgement Day. The husband and wife team, Esther and Hanan Eshel, announced the discovery of the Henoch fragments last year, as well as last month a further revelation. They had managed to get hold of two Hebrew fragments from the Book of Leviticus, which had just been discovered by Bedouins in a cave in Nahal Arougot, in the desert of Judea. The story goes that Hanan Eshel, as an ancient historian at the University of Bar Ilan, had been approached to assess the authenticity of the parchments, but instead bought them for $3,000, because he was afraid that the find – so he says – would be smuggled out of the country.So many discoveries in so short a period, in an area that has been so exhaustively explored by archaeologists – it cannot be a coincidence – that it is the word among the researchers in the field. The American philologist Edward Cook, a renowned international translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and author of ‘Solving the mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, states that the involvement of the Kando family is a virtual certainty in the new finds. He adds, “More than likely that the Kando family have had the scrolls or fragments for a long time”. “It is known that in the 50s many Bedouins first offered their finds to Kando. There is no guarantee whatsoever that Kando did not keep part of the material for himself. Everything indicates that the family are trying to market the fragments” (Emphasis added).

I guess my question is whether there is any evidence whatsoever that links the Leviticus fragments to the Kando family? From my interview with Hanan Eshel (20 July 2005), it seems unlikely that the Leviticus scroll fragments have anything to do with the Kando family.

The Discovery and Provenance of the Leviticus Fragments

Here is the story of how the Leviticus fragments were discovered and came into the possession of Hanan Eshel based on my interview with him.

The story begins in 2000 when Hanan Eshel was teaching a seminar on the Bar Kokhba revolt. In one of his lectures he was talking about the refuge caves — the places Jews had fled in 135 CE when the Roman army captured Judea and Jews were trying to find shelter — and he pointed out that there were 27 known refuge caves. In the middle of the lecture he noted that it was odd that numerous caves were discovered in the area that was in Israeli hands, but in the area that was in Jordanian hands there was only one place in Waddi Murrrabat identified.

Some of the students in this class decided to survey the area that used to be in Jordanian hands. The survey started in 2001. A total of 350 caves were surveyed with metal detectors. From this five caves were discovered that were used for refuge. Early on in this survey, the survey team’s jeep was broken into and all the equipment was stolen. At that point they decided to hire some Bedouins to look after the vehicle when they were going down the cliffs.

Then later, one day in 2004, one of the Bedouins who had been hired on occasion to look after the vehicle called and said that some Bedouins had found fragments of a scroll and that he wanted to show them to Eshel in order to get an estimation of their worth.

The rest of the story is well-known by now. Hanan Eshel examined the fragments at an abandoned Jordanian police station the night of 23 August 2004 (here is a picture taken that evening), but then had to leave to teach in the United States. While the Bedouin said he had been offered $20,000 for the scroll on the black market, that sale never materialized. When Hanan got back to Israel and discovered that the fragments were still around and that they were being further damaged by the Bedouin, only then did he purchase them for $3000 USD on behalf Bar Ilan University and turn them over to the Antiquities Authority.

What may not be well-known is that after securing the Leviticus fragments, Hanan was taken to the cave where the fragments were purportedly found. From a controlled examination of the cave, Hanan found evidence that the cave had been looted by Bedouin in August of 2004 (e.g., metal poles that they walked into the cave on were still in the walls [I believe], newspapers dated to August 2004 were found in the cave, etc.). He also found pottery and textiles consistent with others from the Bar Kokhba period in the cave. Interestingly, right from the very beginning the Bedouin described the fragments as being from the Bar Kokhba period. This was because, as Eshel later discovered, the Bedouin had found Bar Kokhba coins in the cave where the scroll was found. While Eshel did not find the fragments in situ, I think that it is pretty clear that the proper cave was identified.

Perhaps this whole story is a ruse by the Bedouin to sell fragments of a scroll from the Kando family’s hidden stash of scrolls (which may very likely exist). Perhaps they climbed the cliffs in the Judaean desert to create a fake cave to show Eshel. I personally think that is all highly doubtful.

Hopefully now that more of the story of the Leviticus scroll’s origin is known, it will dispel some of the speculation.

New Picture of Leviticus Scroll Fragments

As promised, below is a new — previously unpublished — picture of the recently discovered scroll fragments of the book of Leviticus. This picture was taken by Hanan Eshel on the night of 23 August 2004 at the abandoned Jordanian police station where he first met the Bedouin wanting an estimate of the fragments’ worth.

The Leviticus scroll fragmentsClick for Larger Image

The four fragments are clearly discernible in the picture:

  • Top left: The small fragment containing portions of Leviticus 23:38 and 39.
  • Top right: The decomposed fragment; even with infrared photographs this fragment was indecipherable save for a few scattered letters.
  • Bottom: The two pieces which had already been joined together. The fragment on the right contains Leviticus 23:40-44, while the left fragment contains remnants of Leviticus 24:16-18.

My story on the discovery of the scroll will appear in ChristianWeek next week; after that I will post a more complete accounting of my 20 July 2005 interview with Hanan Eshel.

See here for additional posts on the Leviticus Scroll.

Conflation and Confusion in Report on Leviticus Scroll Discovery

A post on the biblical studies email list by Elmer D. Escoto brought my attention to a Spanish news story on the Leviticus scroll discovery that interestingly conflates what I believe is its original English source — with very confusing results.

Here is the Spanish story from Noticia Cristiana.com:

Decifran tres pergaminos encontrados en el desierto de Judea

Martes 26 de Julio de 2005

Tel Aviv, Israel, (El Pais / NoticiaCristiana.com) Tres antiguos rollos —un pergamino y dos de plata—con dos mil años de antigüedad y encontrados en el Desierto de Judea en 1979, contienen versos conocidos del Levítico, libro del Viejo testamento, de acuerdo con el arqueólogo Chanan Eshel, de la Universidad Bar Ilan de Tel Aviv.

El utilizó cámaras electrónicas, sistemas infrarrojos y scanner de alta resolución para leerlos, los rollos de plata son más antiguos que los rollos del Mar Muerto, y eran usados como amuletos, que los convierte en los más antiguos conocidos y el uso más antiguo de fragmentos de la Biblia como protección.

Los fragmentos del Levítico, el tercer libro de la Biblia Hebrea, son atribuidos a la tribu de Levi, de la cual descienden los pueblos israelíes, y contiene regulaciones para sacerdotes y sus seguidores.

El arqueólogo Gabriel Barkay encontró los rollos en una cueva en Ketef Hinnom, cerca de Jerusalén, en 1979, y gracias a la tecnología hoy podemos conocer su contenido.

Los amuletos de plata son más antiguos que los Rollos del Mar Muerto, que contenían 800 documentos y fueron datados alrededor del 200 o 300 años después de Cristo.

De acuerdo con Bruce Zuckerman, líder del proyecto y profesor de Religión en la Universidad del Sur de California, es probable que los sacerdotes hubieran utilizado un sistema de graffiti para enseñar sus oraciones.

“Puede él ser bendecido por Yahweh, el guerrero, y el destructor del mal” es una de las inscripciones en los amuletos, pertenece al Libro de Zacarías y fue usado mucho después en rituales de exorcismo.

Here is the (incomplete) translation by Elmer D. Escoto along with my additions underlined:

Three 2,000-year-old scrolls (one parchment and two silver scrolls) that were found in the Desert of Judea in 1979 have scriptures from the book of Leviticus, says archaeologist Chanan Eshel of Bar-Ilan University in Tel-Aviv.

He used electronic cameras, infrared systems and a high resolution scanner to read them. The silver scrolls are older than the Dead Sea scrolls and were used as amulets, the oldest know ones, and also the oldest use of Biblical texts as protection.

The fragments of Leviticus, the third book of the Hebrew Bible, are attributed to the tribe of Levi, from which the Israeli priests descend, and contains regulations for priests and their followers.

Archaeologist Gabriel Barkai found these scrolls in a cave in Ketef Hinom, not far from Jerusalem in 1979, and thanks to technology we can now know their contents.

The silver amulets are older than the Dead Sea Scrolls which had 800 documents and have been dated from 200 – 300 a.C.

According to Bruce Zuckerman, project leader and teacher of Religion at South California University, it is probable that priests had used a graffiti system to teach their prayers.

One of the inscriptions on the amulets reads “He may be blessed by Yahweh, the Warrior and Destroyer of evil”; it belongs to the book of Zechariah and was later much used in exorcism rituals.

What is interesting is confusion of the discovery (the silver scrolls were discovered in 1979, the Leviticus fragments in 2004 and just announced in July 2005), the jump between the third and fourth paragraphs which leads you to believe Gabriel Barkai found the Leviticus fragments, the dating of the Dead Sea scrolls, and the introduction of Zuckerman as “project leader,” and finally the identification of the quote in the last paragraph to the book of Zechariah.

This is one confusing piece of reporting! It all becomes clear, however, when one examines the source article, which in itself is a bit confusing to begin with!

The original article was written by Jennifer Viegas and appeared in Discovery News on discoverychannel.com. In the original article, Viegas was reporting on the recent discovery of the Leviticus fragments as well as the silver scrolls from Ketef Hinnom. While I am not sure why someone would want to wed these two stories, her story at least keeps the two discoveries separate. Here is her story; the Vorlage of the Spanish story:

Rare Scrolls Reveal Early Biblical Writing

By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

July 22, 2005— Three ancient scrolls — one parchment and two silver — recently have been identified as containing some of the world’s earliest known verses from the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Old Testament.

The discovery of two fragments of a 2,000-year-old parchment scroll in the Judean Desert was announced last week by Israeli archaeologist Chanan Eshel of Tel Aviv’s Bar Ilan University.

The fragments contain verses from Leviticus, the third book of the Hebrew Bible, attributed to the tribe of Levi from which Israeli priests are said to be descended. The book consists of regulations for both the priests and their followers.

The two silver scrolls were found by Bar Ilan archaeologist Gabriel Barkay in 1979 in a cave at Ketef Hinnom near Jerusalem. It was only until recently, however, that technology made it possible for scientists to read the scrolls, which date to the 7th century B.C. and likely were worn around the neck as protective amulets.

Project leader Bruce Zuckerman told Discovery News that the scrolls not only are the oldest known Hebrew amulets, but they also are the earliest known artifacts to quote Biblical verses.

“The silver amulets are even older than the Dead Sea Scrolls,” said Zuckerman, who is associate professor of religion at the University of Southern California.

The more than 800 documents that comprise the Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated to about 300-200 B.C., meaning they were created as much as four centuries after the amulets.

Zuckerman and his team utilized electronic cameras, specialized imaging software, and infrared systems from NASA to peer into the etched surfaces of the once-rolled silver scroll amulets.

The scrolls contain only consonants, and one is etched with the Priestly Benediction from Numbers 6:24-26.

It reads, “May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord cause his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and grant you peace.”

Zuckerman said, “We don’t yet know if the Book of Numbers existed then, or if this verse preceded it.”

He added, “We do, however, know that the same prayer also pops up in early graffiti (wall writings), which at least suggests that it would have been a familiar prayer at the time.”

The other scroll reads, “May he/she be blessed by Yahweh, the warrior/helper, and the rebuker of Evil.”

Zuckerman believes the word “rebuker” is significant, because it echoes language used in earlier Canaanite literature describing the pagan god Baal.

It also appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls’ Book of Zachariah and was used much later in exorcism rituals.

Zuckerman, who is compiling images of early Biblical texts for a USC Web site, thinks that together, the scrolls and other early documents support the theory that the Bible represents a collection of sacred materials gathered over hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of years.

“The precedent established by the editors was not to gather the most clear and consistent materials, but those that were believed to be the most sacred,” he said. “For example, two ideas are given for the origin of the universe. Both are included because to leave one out would have violated the sacredness of the tradition.”

Note that the original story is also confusing on some parts, such as the attribution of the book of Leviticus to the tribe of Levi. The confusion of attributing the second silver scroll’s blessing with the book of Zechariah also becomes clear when you look at the source. It’s the word “rebuke” (‏גער) that links the amulet with Zechariah; not that the blessing is from Zechariah.

Anyhow, this is a great example of conflation and confusion of sources.