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):
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.
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.]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.