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

DEVORAH DIMANT 465
Mount Sinai was Hebrew publicly revealed to the people of Israel. 92 So
everything related to post-Sinaitic times in the land of Israel had to be formulated
in Hebrew, whereas Aramaic was reserved for periods preceding
this revelation or for circumstances of Jews in exile.
This, indeed, brings into focus the fact that a considerable number of
the Aramaic pseudepigraphic texts from Qumran deal with pre-Sinaitic
times: the Enochic cycle, the pseudepigraphic works attributed to
patriarchs of Levitical lineage, and the Genesis Apocryphon. The Danielrelated
works from Qumran, such as Pseudo-Daniel and the Prayer of
Nabonidus, are written in Aramaic, because they take place in Babylon. So
here the use of Aramaic may be explained as due to the Babylonian scene,
as is the case of the Aramaic in chapters 2–6 of the canonical book of
Daniel. Another composition in which the use of Aramaic requires explanation
is the eschatological vision of Jerusalem and the temple contained
in the New Jerusalem. The name of the seer who relates this vision has not
been preserved, so we do not know where he received the vision. To the
extent that this work is inspired by the eschatological visions of the
prophet Ezekiel (chs. 40–48), it may have been also influenced by the fact
that Ezekiel saw his visions in Babylon. However this may be, there is an
evident link between the language and literary style, and a thematic link
which may reflect different social and historical background and origin.
The differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic texts in literary
character and ideological approach may be due to different historical and
social settings. It stands to reason that the Hebrew compositions were
authored in Eretz-Israel, whereas at least some of the Aramaic writings
originated in the Babylonian-Iranian diaspora or drew on traditions nurtured
in that sphere. 93 This conclusion is corroborated by the early date
of some Aramaic works. A few of them, such as the Enochic Astronomic
Book and the Testament of Amram, are represented by copies dated to the
third and beginning of the second century B.C.E., at least a century earlier
than the oldest sectarian texts. 94 Such Aramaic texts must have been
92. The notion is expressed by Jubilees 12:25–26 and 4Q464 3 6–9. Cf. 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): 243–63. The text is published
by Esther Eshel and Michael E. Stone, “Exposition on the Patriarchs,” in
Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 215–30.
93. For instance, the Babylonian background is unmistakable in the Book of Enoch
and the Book of Giants. Iranian elements are apparent in the Four Kingdoms vision. Cf.
my survey in The Community of the Renewed Covenant (see n85), 175–91.
94. A copy of the Enochic Astronomic Work (4Q208) is dated to the end of the third
or beginning of the second century B.C.E. Three copies of Visions of Amram a–f ar
(4Q543, 4Q544, 4Q547) date to the second half of the second century B.C.E. Cf.