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

218 THE QUMRAN CONCEPT OF TIME
of history. As indicated above, the beginning of the document interprets
the earlier tradition preserved in 1QS 3.15b–16a:
Interpretation concerning the periods 57 which God made; 58 a period to
accomplish [all that is]
and (a period to accomplish all) that shall be. Before creating them, 59 (God)
established [their] deeds [according to the detail(s) of 60 their periods,]
(one) period after another. 61 And it 62 was engraved on (the) tablets of
[heaven…]
[for a]ll (the) periods of their 63 dominion. This (is the) order from [Adam
to Noah, and from Shem to Abraha]m unt[il] he begat Isaac there
were 64 ten [generations.…]
[…] (vacat) 65 […]
57. Cq in this document refers to a defined interval of “time,” i.e., a “period,” as elsewhere
in the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls. See, for example, 1QpHab 7.12–14 and CD
MS A 2.9–10, and discussions by Nötscher, Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran
Texte, 167–69 and Shemaryahu Talmon, “Cq,” ThWAT 7:84–92, esp. 89–92.
58. The translation understands h#( as a perfect third person singular form. The
unpointed text, however, is ambiguous and a participial form “making” is also possible.
59. The possible antecedents (i.e., a masculine plural noun) Mycq and, more probably,
the partially restored hyhnw [hywh lwk]. For the second possibility, see 1QS 3.15b–16a
on which this passage is based, where hyyhnw hywh lwk is the antecedent of the two
pronominal suffixes that follow; Mtb#xm lwk Nykh Mtwyh ynplw hyyhnw hywh lwk.
Less probable is Milik’s rendering, which translates the form as a participle and the
suffix as referring ahead to the “angels,” which he restores later in the line (Milik,
Books of Enoch, 251).
60. For discussion of #wrp as “detail(s)” see Albert I. Baumgarten, JBL 102 (1983):
418–22.
61. Milik renders the prepositional construction “one period after another” (Milik,
Books of Enoch, 251), while Roberts translates “a time according to its time” (Roberts,
“Wicked and Holy,” 207).
62. The precise antecedent of )wh is difficult to determine. Milik understands it as
referring to “each period;” Dimant suggests that it may refer to #wrp, “detail(s)”
(Dimant, “The ‘Pesher on the Periods,’” 79–80). Regardless of the identification of the
precise antecedent, the interpretation of the overall passage is not greatly affected.
63. Due to the fragmentary state of the text, the antecedent of the pronominal suffix
is ambiguous and is tied to how one reads and restores line 2. I read the antecedent
as hyhnw [hywh lwk]. Mycq is also possible, though not probable. If one reads
twlw(p as a construct and restores a possessive noun (as does Milik), then the
antecedent of this suffix probably would be that noun. See note to M]twlw(p.
Dimant restores #y) ynbl at the end of line 3, which provides the antecedent for her
(Dimant, ibid., 78–79). Similarly, Armin Lange restores Md)h ynbl at the end of line
3 (Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 277).
64. t) here expresses “duration” (see the entry I. t) 2., in BDB, 85); so also Milik,
Books of Enoch, 250. See Exod 13:7, Lev 25:22 and Deut 9:25. For another possible
interpretation, see Dimant, ibid., 80–81.
65. The vacat indicates the end of a section.