the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

216 THE QUMRAN CONCEPT OF TIME
rather full orthography 47 and, in the case of 4Q180, the scribal practices
of the Qumran community. 48 Moreover, the provenience of the composition
as the community is strongly indicated by the use of the community’s
technical terms and ideas as well as probable allusions to the Rule
of the Community. The formula, l( r#p, which may indicate the sort of
“commentary” peculiar to the community, 49 is extant twice on 4Q180,
including the probable incipit. 50
Unpublished Fragments of Pseudepigraphical Literature from Qumran’s Fourth
Cave,”ALUOS 4 [1962–63], 3–5 and pl. 1; John M. Allegro and Arnold A. Anderson,
Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 77–80 and pls. 17,
27). Strugnell, who improved on Allegro’s work, first suggested a relationship between the
two manuscripts, with 4Q180 as perhaps a commentary on 4Q181 (see John Strugnell,
“Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Judaean desert of Jordan,” RevQ 7
[1970]: 163–276, esp. 252). See also Devorah Dimant who argues against Milik’s identification
of these two manuscripts as copies of the same document; rather, she suggests that
the similarities as well as differences between 4Q180 frag. 1, lines 5, 7–8, and 4Q181 frag.
2, lines 1–2, “may be better explained as a citation,” with 4Q181 preserving a citation of
4Q180 or with both citing another source (Devorah Dimant, “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’
(4Q180) and 4Q181,” IOS 9 [1979]: 77–102, esp. 88–91, 99–100).
47. For example, lwk in 4Q181 frag. 2, lines 5, 9; 4Q180 frags. 2–4 2.8, 9; but lk
in 4Q180 frag. 1, line 9; hmhl in 4Q181 frag. 2, line 2; but Mhl in the parallel
4Q180 frag. 1, line 8. Note also the quotation of Gen 18:20–21 in 4Q180 frags. 2–4
2.5–7, which preserves a fuller orthography than the MT (cf. Roberts, “Wicked and
Holy,” 210n20, and Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V,” 254).
48. Note the preference for l) rather than the Tetragrammaton in 4Q180 frag. 1,
line 1, and that l) is written in a paleo-Hebrew script. Because of the avoidance of
the Tetragrammaton, one should perhaps restore l) at the beginning of 4Q180 frags.
2–4 2.5, rather than hwhy. Roberts and Strugnell restore hwhy; Milik restores r#)w,
though the tetragrammaton is often used in citing the biblical text (4Q180 frags. 2–4
2.5–7 quote Gen 18:20–21). Whether one restores l) or hwhy, it was probably written
in a paleo-Hebrew script.
49. Among the published Dead Sea Scrolls, the exact formula l( r#p occurs only
in this document and probably in 4Q464 and 4Q171 (= 4QpPs a ). 4Q464, “An
Exposition on the Patriarchs,” frag. 3 2.7 reads l]( r#p [note that the ( is damaged]
(Michael E. Stone and Esther Eshel, “An Exposition on the Patriarchs [4Q464] and
Two Other Documents [4Q464 a and 4Q464 b ],” Le Muséon 105 [1992]: 248–49, 254
and pl. = PAM 43.357; cf. 247). The extremely fragmentary 4Q464 is written in a
Herodian script and exhibits the full orthography, which may be characteristic of
Qumran scribal practices (see idem, esp. 244). In 4Q171 3.7, the formula l( r#p is
clearly visible on the leather (see Allegro and Anderson, Qumrân Cave 4.I
[4Q158–4Q186] [DJD 5], pl. 16). Although there is an unusually large space between
r#p and l(, the emendation to wr#p (so Allegro, Horgan) is not certain. For the
various formulae used in the pesharim, see Casey D. Elledge, “Appendix: A Graphic
Index of Citation and Commentary Formulae in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead
Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other
Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP 6B;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 367–77.
50. Fragment 1, lines 1, 7; the formula is also implied in line 8: l)zz( l(w. As
Strugnell notes, 4Q181 frag. 2 (part of which parallels 4Q180 frag. 1) preserves a