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

DEVORAH DIMANT 449
concepts and definitions applied to this literature are ill-adapted to deal
with the complexity of the phenomena emerging from Qumran. The
Qumran evidence changes our state of knowledge in substantial ways. 7 It
shows that Jewish compositions traditionally designated Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha formed a small segment of an extensive literature in
Hebrew and Aramaic, which circulated in Eretz-Israel during Second
Temple Era. This rich and variegated literature displays a panorama of
ideas and perspectives, which reflects a many-faceted society. The Qumran
discoveries thus call for a thorough reassessment of both the previously
known and the new apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature.
Especially needed is a systematic survey of writings of this kind found at
Qumran, which will outline their character and their various subgroups. 8
In order to facilitate a fresh evaluation of this literature, a classified list
of the available material from Qumran is offered here. An effort has been
made to include in the list all the substantial works published to date,
incorporating changes in identification known today. 9 However, not
included are tiny fragments difficult to identify and define.
The list also includes the previously known Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha found at Qumran, in order to give an idea of their place
within the entire Qumranic corpus of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic
works. One of important features of the apocryphal literature contained
in Qumran library is the prominence of Aramaic compositions as a distinct
group. In order to better grasp the respective characters of the
7. This is true even of works known before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls,
such as the book of Jubilees, the Book of Enoch, and the Aramaic Levi Document, which is
one of the sources of the Testament of Levi known in a Greek version.
8. Much of the discussions published during the first three decades of research on
various Pseudepigrapha from Qumran known until then is summarized by Florentino
García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9;
Leiden: Brill, 1992). Recent surveys still tend to focus upon Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha known before the Qumran discovery. Cf. James C. VanderKam, “The
Scrolls, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha,” Hebrew Studies 34 (1993): 35–47;
Micheal E. Stone, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” DSD 3 (1996):
270–95; Jonas C. Greenfield, “Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Unusual Texts at
Qumran,” in A Light for Jacob: Studies in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob
Shalom Licht (ed. Y. Hoffman and F. H. Polak; Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute
and Tel Aviv University, 1997), 1*–9*. A more consequential overview is offered by
Peter W. Flint, “‘Apocrypha,’ Other Previously-known Writings and ‘Pseudepigrapha’
in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment
(ed. P. W. Flint, J. C. VanderKam, and A. E. Alvarez; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999),
2:24–66. However this contribution is dominated by a canonical perspective, which
overshadows other aspects of the corpus. Telling is the fact that out of the forty-four
pages of the survey, only ten (51–61) are devoted to unknown compositions dealing
with a particular group of writings, perhaps related to the book of Daniel.
9. Only the most recent editions are cited.