The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

BRENT A. STRAWN 117
Regardless of differences between Qumran tefillin and rabbinic halakah,
the correspondence of content between the Deuteronomy manuscripts
and the phylacteries and mezuzot is suggestive. 54 Since the liturgical function
of the phylacteries and mezuzot is well established, one might reasonably
infer that the excerpted manuscripts were used similarly—that is, in
some sort of liturgical or ritual function (see §4 below). So Tov thinks
that 4QDeut j “served liturgical purposes” due to two factors: “the fragments
of the manuscript consist of sections which are also contained in
the Qumran phylacteries…and the manuscript is of small dimensions.” 55
Tov’s comment shows that the confluence of criteria is the best-case scenario
when identifying excerpted texts. But, with specific reference to the
phylacteries, it must be admitted that both 4QDeut j and 4QDeut n preserve
Deut 8:5–10—and accord that passage its own column—and that this
is not the case in the phylacteries. 56 Similarly, the Deuteronomy manuscripts
also include portions from Deut 5:1–6:3 and chapter 32. 57 What
should be made of these facts?
First, we should recall the variation in textual content apparent in the
tefillin from Qumran, especially those from Cave 4. Some of those texts
do include the Decalogue. 58 Second, inclusion of text(s) in the excerpted
manuscripts that is not included in the phylacteries or mezuzot means
nothing more or less than that the excerpted manuscripts are not coterminous
with the phylacteries or mezuzot in form, nor—it should be
stressed—function. Correspondence in passage content and distribution, not
to mention excerpted form, certainly indicates that these different documents—the
excerpted manuscripts, on the one hand, and the phylacteries
and mezuzot, on the other—are related and that their function(s) is similar.
The differences between these documents indicate that they are not identical.
Again, this should not be understood as denying a liturgical functionality
to the excerpted texts, even those parts not paralleled in the
tefillin and mezuzot, but only a denial of identical liturgical function. The
liturgical importance of Deut 8:5–10, for instance, was noted by
Stegemann, who drew attention to the fact that it is set off as its own unit
Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E. Tov
et al.; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 182–83.
54. See Duncan, “Excerpted Texts,” 47–48 for parallels between the Deuteronomy
manuscripts and the phylactery texts.
55. Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated,” 588.
56. Duncan, “Considerations of 4QDt j ,” 202.
57. Duncan, “Deuteronomy,” 201.
58. See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Phylacteries and Mezuzot,” in EDSS 2:676; further
Tov, “Tefillin of Different Origin.” Cf. also the Nash Papyrus.