Moses' Farewell Address according to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22)

http://jsp.sagepub.com/Pseudepigrapha

Journal for the Study of the

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/23/3/201The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0951820714528629

2014 23: 201Journal for the Study of the PseudepigraphaAriel Feldman

Moses' Farewell Address according to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22)

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the PseudepigraphaAdditional services and information for

http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jsp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 14, 2014Version of Record >>

at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 14, 2014jsp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 14, 2014jsp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jsp.sagepub.com/

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/23/3/201

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jsp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/23/3/201.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha Vol 23.3 (2014): 201-214 © The Author(s), 2014. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0951820714528629 http://JSP.sagepub.com

Moses’ Farewell Address according to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22)* ARIEL FELDMAN Brite Divinity School, TCU Box 298130, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA

Abstract This article explores the reworking of Moses’ farewell address to Israel in 1Q22 (1QWords of Moses). Analyzing exegetical techniques employed by this scroll and illuminating some of its passages that have not been adequately read and understood, the article suggests that the scroll’s recasting of the Deuteronomic account of the Mosaic farewell discourse is modeled on the Sinai revelation.

Keywords: Deuteronomy, Sinai, Day of Atonement, sabbatical year. Moses’ farewell address to Israel as recorded in the book of Deuter-onomy proved to be a source of inspiration for several ancient Jewish authors. It is reworked in various ways and for different purposes in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities (IV.176-95), the Assumption (Testament)

* This article was written while I served as BA-AHRC-ESRC Visiting Fellow at the University of Manchester. I am grateful to my academic host, Professor George J. Brooke, for his comments on the initial draft of this study. This research was also supported by grants from the Jewish Memorial Foundation and Israel Science Foundation (no. 190/05). Unfortunately, I was not able to incorporate in this article the recently published revised edition of 1Q22 by Elisha Qimron (in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Writings [Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013], II, pp. 104-106 [Hebrew]).

at Afyon Kocatepe Universitesi on May 14, 2014jsp.sagepub.comDownloaded from


202 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23.3 (2014)

202

of Moses and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (19.1-5). While these texts have been known to scholars for a long time, the Qumran scrolls yielded yet another composition rewriting Moses’ Deuteronomic discourse, 1QWords of Moses (1Q22). The scroll 1Q22 survives in 49 fragments inscribed by a Middle to Late Hasmonean hand.1 The reconstruction of this severely damaged scroll presents a formidable task. Still, 1Q22’s editor, J.T. Milik, was able to place the majority of its fragments into four consecutive col-umns. The reconstructed scroll opens with a divine speech to Moses (I, 1-11). Next follow Moses’ exhortation (II, 1-11) and a recitation of the laws (II, 11–IV, 11). Hence, Milik entitled the scroll ‘Words of Moses’. Perhaps, it is due to 1Q22’s fragmentary state, appearing to a reader as consisting mostly of a reconstructed text, that this scroll has been long neglected by the scholars. That is not to say that it was com-pletely ignored. Thus, Jean Carmignac offered several signi cant improvements to Milik’s edition.2 John Strugnell proposed that 1Q22 is another copy of the pseudepigraphic work attributed to Moses found in 1Q29, 4Q375 and 4Q376.3 Eibert Tigchelaar identi ed a fragment of another copy of the ‘Words of Moses’ from the fourth cave of Qumran. He also discussed 1Q22’s dating, provenance and relation to other Second Temple writings.4 Recently Mats Eskhult studied some

1. J.T. Milik, ‘Dires de Moïse’, in D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD, 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 91-97. The dating of the scroll is that of E.J.C. Tigchelaar, ‘A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7-10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14’, DSD 12 (2005), pp. 303-12 (311-12). Milik offered no dating for 1Q22. 2. J. Carmignac, ‘Quelques détails de lecture dans la “Règle de la Congrégation”, le “Recueil des Bénédictions” et les “Dires de Moïse” ’, RevQ 4 (1963–64), pp. 88-96. See also his translation and notes in J. Carmignac et al., Les textes de Qumran: Traduits and annotés (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1963), pp. 247-78. 3. J. Strugnell, ‘Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works’, in L.H. Schiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (JSPSup, 8; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 1990), pp. 221-56 (233, 245-47); idem, ‘4QApocryphon of Mosesb?’, in M. Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Para-biblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD, 19; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 129-31. Another copy of this work was later identi ed in 4Q408. See A. Steudel, ‘4Q408. 4Qapoc-ryphon of Mosesc?’, in S. Pfann et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts (DJD, 36; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), pp. 298-315. 4. Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Mosheh’, pp. 303-12.



FELDMAN Moses’ Farewell Address 203

203

of the features of 1Q22’s Hebrew.5 Still, since its initial publication in 1955 no detailed study of this scroll has been undertaken. The present study attempts to contribute to the ongoing research of 1Q22 by exploring some of the aspects of its treatment of Scripture. The Divine Address to Moses The composition preserved in 1Q22 opens with a divine address to Moses on the rst day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year from Exodus, the very day when according to Deuteronomy Moses began his farewell speech to Israel (I, 1-2). While no such discourse is found in the rst chapter of Deuteronomy, the notion of God speaking to Moses on that day seems to originate in Deut. 1.3:

It was in the fortieth year, on the rst day of the eleventh month, that Moses addressed the Israelites in accordance with the instructions that the Lord had given him for them.6

The author of 1Q22 expanded the phrase ‘the instructions that the Lord had given him for them’ into a full-blown discourse in which God instructs Moses as to what he should do and say (I, 1-11). The rst triad of the divine commands sets the stage for Moses’ subsequent address to Israel (I, 2-3):

[Convene] the entire cong[rega]tion and ascend t[o Mount Nebo ]and stand[ ther]e, you and Elea[zar] son7 of Aar[on].

While some of the keywords in this passage are missing, enough has been preserved to permit the reconstruction of its general thrust. As the phrase ‘[convene] the entire cong[rega]tion’ indicates, Moses is

rst commanded to gather the entire congregation of Israel. This injunction points to Deut. 1.1 depicting Moses addressing ‘all Israel’. Then he is required to ascend to a certain place. Although the precise location is unknown, Milik plausibly proposed that this is Mt Nebo. In 5. M. Eskhult, ‘Some Aspects of the Verbal System in Qumran Hebrew’, in J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey (eds.), Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period (STJD, 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 29-46 (33-35). 6. All the biblical quotations are from the NJPS translation. The English translation of 1Q22 follows that of M. Wise et al., in E. Tov (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Elec-tronic Library (Leiden: Brill, 2006) with slight adaptations. 7. The editor read and restored here [ . On the photograph PAM 40.474 faint traces of bet are visible. Thus, one may read here .




204

fact, the language of the scroll echoes the divine command to Moses from Deut. 32.49: ‘Ascend these heights of Abarim to Mt Nebo’. Yet, while according to this verse his ascent took place after he delivered his farewell speeches, in 1Q22 Moses seems to address the people from Mt Nebo. Finally, he is instructed to stand on Mt Nebo together with the High Priest Eleazar. These features of 1Q22’s reworking of Deuteronomy 1 remind of the Sinai revelation.8 Thus, in Deut. 4.10 Moses is commanded to ‘gather the people’, so that they may hear God’s words. He ascends Mt Sinai on several occasions.9 Deuteronomy 5.4, 5 depicts Moses as standing between God and the people while God addressed Israel. Eleazar’s presence may also point to the Sinai theophany, where Aaron ascends Mt Sinai together with Moses (Exod. 19.24; 24.1, 9, 11).10 This series of commands is followed by another injunction (line 3):

And ex[plain ( ] ) 11 to the family] heads of the Lev[i]tes and all the [ ].

8. While these peculiar aspects of 1Q22’s description were noted by several scholars (see, for instance, Milik, ‘Dires de Moïse’, p. 93; A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran [trans. G. Vermes; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961], p. 307 n. 2), to the best of my knowledge its similarities to the biblical Sinai account were not pointed out. 9. See Exod. 19.3, 20, 24; 24.1, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18; Deut. 9.9; 10.1, 3. 10. The Samaritan version of Exod. 24.1, 9 and, apparently, the pre-Samaritan 4QpaleoExodm XXVI, 20, XXVII, 31, add the names of Eleazar and Ithamar. See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradi-tion (Harvard Semitic Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 212-13. Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Moshe’, pp. 310-11, suggests that Eleazar’s presence re ects a priestly orienta-tion of 1Q22. Since in the following Joshua is mentioned alongside Moses and Eleazar, one may note that in LXX version of Exod. 24.13, as well as in 4Q364 14 4-5, Joshua accompanies Moses as he ascends Sinai. 11. The DJD edition has ] . According to a recent infrared photograph (J5928 R ir [made available by the West Semitic Research Project of University of Southern California]) pe is preceded by waw, ] . The extant text of 1Q22 reveals no traces of the sectarian terminology and ideology (on the phrase and the notion of the atonement for the land [IV, 1], noted by Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Moshe’, pp. 310-11, as reminiscent of the sectarian scrolls, see below). Thus, the command ] is usually rendered as ‘explain’ (e.g. Milik, ‘Dires de Moïse’, p. 92). The verb is not attested in the Biblical Hebrew. It appears in the Aramaic sections of Daniel (5.12, 16) with reference to the interpretation of dreams (BDB, p. 1109). In the sectarian 1QpHab II, 7-9 a qal form of is employed to describe the Teacher of Righteousness’s ability to interpret the words of the Prophets.




205

The notion of Moses elucidating the Law seems to point to Deut. 1.5:

On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound ( ) this Teaching.

Yet, while in Deut. 1.5 he expounds the Law to the entire Israel, in 1Q22 Moses explains it to ‘to the family] heads of the Lev[i]tes’.12 The phrase [ ][ , as Milik plausibly restored, may be rendered as referring to one group, ‘to the family] heads of the Lev[i]tes’ (1 Chron. 9.33, 34; 15.12), 13 or to two groups, ‘to the family] heads, to the Lev[i]tes’.14 The next phrase, [ ] , is even more puzzling. The editor reconstructed it as ] (‘and all the[ priests’; cf. Deut. 27.9; 31.9). Yet, a restoration ] (‘and all the[ elders’; cf. 1 Kgs 20.8) is equally possible (cf. Deut. 31.1, 9). In either case, 1Q22’s vision of Moses elucidating the Law to a limited group appears to be based on Deut. 31.28:

Gather to me all the elders of your tribes and your of cials [LXX and, apparently, 4QDeutb add the heads of the tribes and the judges], that I may speak all these words to them.

The author of the scroll reworked this passage to include also ‘the Lev[i]tes’ or ‘the family] heads of the Lev[i]tes’.15 If correct, 1Q22 once again reversed the order of the events as they are outlined in Deuteronomy and placed Moses’ speech to the of cials before his address to the nation. Since in Exod. 19.7 Moses is said to report the

12. As was observed by many scholars. See, for instance, G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Shef eld: JSOT Press, 1987, 3rd edn), p. 264. 13. Thus Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 264. 14. See J. Maier, Die Texte vom Toten Meer (Munich: Ernst Reinhardt, 1960), I, p. 168; F. García Martínez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997–98), I, p. 59; E. Cook, ‘Words of Moses’, in M. Wise et al., Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: Harper, 2005), p. 106. 15. For the role of the Levites as expounders of the Law see Deut. 33.8-11; Mal. 2.7. G.J. Brooke, ‘Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament’, in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac (Krak w: Enigma Press, 1993), pp. 105-29 (109), observes that the mention of the Levitical chiefs may point to the Levitical orientation of this scroll. A similar comment was made by Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Mosheh’, p. 311. The inclusion of the Levites is even more striking when one compares 1Q22’s formulation with the rabbinic notion of the Oral Law given by Moses to Joshua and then to the elders (m. Abot 1.1).




206

divine commands rst to the elders, it is not unlikely that this rearrangement also re ects an in uence of the Sinai account. Next Moses is required to command the entire Israel all the precepts of the Torah (lines 3-5):16

command the children of Israe[l] the [w]ords of the L[a]w that [I] have commanded[ you ]on Mt S[i]nai…all of them thorou[ghly.

The scroll alludes here to Deut. 1.3. As we have seen, the entire divine discourse in column I is an expansion of the phrase ‘in accordance with the instructions that the Lord had given him’. Yet, now 1Q22 identi es these ‘instructions’ with the laws given at Sinai. In Deuteronomy the reciting of the Law is followed by Moses’ prophetic warnings to the people. Similarly, the nal command given to Moses in line 5 is to bear witness to Israel. Relying on the Mosaic admonition from Deut. 31.16-21, the scroll goes on to describe Israel’s future apostasy (lines 5-11). Among the divine statutes that Israel will abandon, 1Q22 lists ‘mo]nth and sabbath [and jubilee ]and covenant’ (line 8). 17 Since in columns III–IV Moses recites the regulations pertaining to the Sabbatical Year and the Day of Atonement,18 one may conclude with Tigchelaar that 1Q22 might have been particularly concerned with the Torah precepts related to the appointed times of the calendar.19 Moses’ Exhortation to Israel The scroll’s description of Moses’ carrying out of the divine com-mands is rather brief (I, 11-12). Most likely, it assumes that he carried them out in full, as it mentions neither the gathering of the congre-gation, nor Moses’ ascent to Mt Nebo. Still, he is said to summon 16. As was observed by Carmignac, ‘Dires’, p. 249 n. 3, and Brooke, ‘Levi and the Levites’, p. 109, Moses is not commanded to expound the Law to Israel. Yet, note my reconstruction of II, 8-9 below. 17. This quotation follows the corrections proposed by Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Mosheh’, p. 305. Yet, while he reads [ ] , I was not able to nd traces of a waw on the photographs. 18. Another fragment of this scroll (frg. 41 2-3) mentions ‘w]eeks’ in close proximity to ‘sanctu[ary’. Perhaps, this is an allusion to the Festival of Weeks. The phrase ‘eve]ry year[’, found in frg. 42 3, is used in 11QTa XLII, 13 with reference to the Festival of Booths. 19. Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Mosheh’, p. 310.




207

Eleazar (as required in line 3) and Joshua.20 The purpose of their calling is somewhat unclear, as the text is highly fragmentary. Appar-ently, the scroll envisages them accompanying Moses as he speaks to the people. Since the rst lines of column II paraphrase Deut. 27.9-10, their presence reminds of Moses’ addressing Israel together with the elders (27.1) and the levitical priests (27.9).21 Just as the book of Deuteronomy opens with admonitory speeches, so also the Mosaic discourse in 1Q22 II, 1-5 begins with an exhorta-tion based on the Deuteronomic passages calling for the observance of God’s laws once in the Promised Land.22 This admonition is followed by another exhortation in lines 5-11. The scroll alludes to Moses’ plea in Deut. 1.12, ‘How can I bear unaided the trouble of you ( )’, as the word [ (line 7) indicates.23 Milik restored lines 8-9 accord-ingly:

] [] [ ] [ ] / [ ] [ ] [

and to comman[d you ]the w[ay tha]t you should walk in, [appoint for yourself wise men who] should explain [to you and to ]your[ children ]all these words of the L[aw]

The phrase ‘and to comman[d you ]the w[ay tha]t you should walk in[’ combines elements found in two parallel passages, Exod. 18.20 (‘and make known to them the way they are to go [M has

; 4QpaleoExodm, Sam, and LXX read ]’) and Deut. 1.18 (‘Thus I instructed [ ] you, at that time, about the various things that you should do [ ]’). However, Milik’s

20. Joshua is named here next to Eleazar, as is the case in all the instances where the Hebrew Bible mentions these two gures together (Num. 32.28; 34.17; Josh. 14.1; 19.51; 21.1; cf. CD V, 3; 4Q522 9 ii 13). Perhaps this indicates Joshua’s being subordinate to Eleazar (Num. 27.18-21). 21. Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings, p. 307, and Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Mosheh’, p. 314, suggest that it is Eleazar and Joshua who address the people in II, 1-5. Yet, the discourse found in this section of the scroll is phrased in the rst person singular (see II, 2, 4), just as in Deut. 27.1, 4 and 10, where Moses speaks to the people accompanied initially by the elders and then by the priests. That Moses is a speaker in cols. II, 5-IV seems to be con rmed by the mentioning of his name in II, 5 and IV, 3. 22. Deut. 27.9-10; 6.1, 10-11; 8.11, 14; 30.20. 23. The DJD edition has [. On the photographs (PAM 40.529; J5928 R ir) a trace of ink before et, perhaps the top of a waw or yod, is visible.




208

restoration [ is syntactically dif cult. It seems more likely that the scroll went on paraphrasing Deut. 1.18:

] 24 [] [ ] [ ] /25 [ ] [ ] [

and to comman[d you ]the w[ay tha]t you should walk in[ and all the things you should ]do, to explain / [to you and to ]your[ children ]all these words of the L[aw ].

This reconstruction reading the verb as opening a new clause follows more closely the underlying biblical text. Yet, it leaves no space for the mention of the of cials. The text as reconstructed by Milik depicts them as explaining ‘the words of the L[aw]’. Such a reading of Exod. 18.13-26 and Deut. 1.12-18 would be intriguing, as in the biblical story they are entrusted primarily with the judicial authority, and not with the elucidation of the Torah.26 Yet, the extant wording of lines 8-9 paraphrases the verses that describe Moses, not the appointees. Similarly, the verb points to the Deuteronomic description of Moses as expounding the Torah to Israel (Deut. 1.5). Thus, it is likely that in these lines Moses reminds the people of his God-given responsibility to explain to them the Law.27 Followed by a warning to ‘be [very careful] of yourselves’ lest God’s wrath may ‘ignite / against yo[u’ (lines 9-10), this reminder prepares the people for the legal section of his discourse. The Sabbatical Year In column II, line 11 the recitation of the laws begins. Columns III and IV deal with two topics: the laws of the Shemi ah and the Day of Atonement. The Hebrew Bible does not specify when the Sabbatical year begins. Yet, the command to proclaim the Jubilee year on the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishre), namely, on the Day of

24. The lacuna is large enough to accommodate also the word , an adaptation of the biblical . 25. This restoration seems to be too long for the lacuna. 26. As was observed by J. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge, MA/ London: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 700. 27. Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Mosheh’, p. 311, suggests that the scroll might have reworked Exod. 18.19-26 and Deut. 1.12-17 as referring to the priests and the Levites. Yet, the extant text of col. II yields no support for this proposition.




209

Atonement (Lev. 25.10), suggests that the Fallow year also began in the same month.28 The Rabbinic halakha postulates that the Sabbatical year begins on the 1st of Tishre (m. Rosh Hashana 1.1). The fact that the discussion of the Fallow year in 1Q22 precedes that of the Day of Atonement may imply that the author of the scroll shared this view.29 One of the distinct features of the section dealing with the Shemi ah regulations is an attempt to present a harmonistic treatment of this topic. In the Hebrew Bible the agricultural regulations pertaining to the Sabbatical year appear in Leviticus 25, while the laws regulating the remission of debts taking place during this year are found in Deuteronomy 15. In 1Q22 both aspects of the Fallow year are treated within the same section concerned with the Fallow year (the agri-cultural laws are mentioned rst).30 The discussion of the remission of debts in column III concludes with the statement (lines 6-7):

For in [this] yea[r] / [G]od[ will bless you and will forgive your ]iniqu[ities31 Clearly, the phrase ‘your ]iniqu[ities’ was preceded by a Hebrew verb denoting forgiveness, such as, , (Exod. 34.9; Ps. 51.11) or (Isa. 27.9; Ps. 78.38 [thus Milik]). Thus, 1Q22 seems to link the forgiveness of sins to the obedience to the Shemi ah laws, parti-cularly, to the remission of debts.32 The Day of Atonement This formulation seems to lead to a lengthy discussion of the Day of Atonement in column III, 8–IV.33 The text of the scroll here is even more fragmentary. Still, some of the extant phrases shed light on its 28. See the recent discussion by J. Ben-Dov, ‘Jubilean Chronology and the 364-Day Year’, Meghillot 5–6 (2007), pp. 49-60 (Hebrew), and the literature cited there. 29. See Ben-Dov, ‘Jubilean Chronology’. 30. As has been noted by J. Licht, ‘Review of D. Barthélemy, J.T. Milik et al., Qumran Cave 1 (Discoveries in the Judean Desert 1) Oxford, 1955’, Tarbiz 26 (1956–57), pp. 469-73 (473) (Hebrew). 31. My restorations differ slightly from those of Milik, as they are based on a different calculation of the sizes of the lacunae. 32. On the link between the remission of debts and the forgiveness of sins in the ancient sources, see M. Weinfeld, Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (LSTS, 54; London: T&T Clark, 2005), pp. 229-30. 33. The wording of frgs. 12 and 24 suggest that col. V (to which they apparently belong) might have also been (at least partially) concerned with the Day of Atonement.




210

interpretation of this festival. Thus, as a prelude to the prohibition of work on the 10th of Tishre (III, 11), 1Q22 III, 9-10 observes:

[ ] / [ ][ ]

for ]they[ we]re wandering/ ]your [ ] until the [te]nth day of the[ seventh] month [’

Milik restored [ ] / [ ][ ] and commented that this formulation provides a midrashic explanation of the origins of the festival.34 Dupont-Sommer suggested that 1Q22 refers here to the day on which Israel’s wanderings in the desert came to an end and which was commemorated by the Day of Atonement.35 Indeed, according to Josh. 4.19, the Israelites crossed the Jordan on the 10th of the rst month. However, this was the month of Nisan, as they celebrated Passover on the 14th day of the same month (Josh. 5.11). Assuming that Milik’s reconstruction of column III (particu-larly, the placement of the frg. 39) is correct, one may propose that the Qal participle of , ‘to rove about’,36 , points to the description of Manna gathering in Num. 11.8: ‘The people would go about and gather it ( ), grind it between millstones’.37 In this case, the wording of the scroll would imply that on the 10th of Tishre the Israelites refrained from collecting the Manna. Furthermore, it may suggest that in author’s view the Israelites also fasted on that day. While this appears to be the common interpretation of the biblical injunction ‘and you shall practice self-denial’ (Lev. 16.31; cf. 23.27; Num. 29.7) in Second Temple times,38 1Q22 might have projected this practice well back to the days of the wanderings in the desert. In any case, it is of interest that unlike Leviticus 16 the scroll deals rst with the prohibition of work and only then with the ritual procedures of Yom Kippur. A similar sequence of the divine directives is found in Num. 29.7-11.

34. Milik, ‘Dires de Moïse’, p. 95. 35. Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings, p. 309 n. 2. For a similar comment, see T.H. Gaster, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect (London: Secker & Warburg, 1957), p. 223. 36. HALOT, p. 1440. 37. Perhaps, one might restore here [ ] / . 38. See, for instance, L.H. Schiffman, ‘The Case of the Day of Atonement Ritual’, in M.E. Stone and E.G. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives (STDJ, 27; Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 181-88 (183-84).




211

Column IV deals with the sacri cial procedures of the Day of Atonement. Line 1 seems to refer to the atoning for the people of Israel and for the land:

[ ] ] [39 ] [ ] [ ] [

[ ] rams [ ] [ ]them [ for the children of Isra]el and for the la[nd.

Milik read in the beginning of line 1: ] ] [ (‘And in the congregation of the gods [and the assembly of the ho]ly ones’). However, the reading is highly doubtful, as the word 40 appears on a small scrap of leather that does not seem to belong here.41 Hence, there is no reason to interpret the word as ‘gods’. Most likely, this is a plural form of , ‘a ram’, written without a yod.42 Leviticus 16 refers to two rams, one brought by the High Priest (16.3) and another one supplied by the people (16.5). The additional sacri ces offered on this day, as outlined in Numbers 29, include yet another ram (Num. 29.8, 9).43 Also, what Milik read and restored as [ may in fact be a word [ . The same passage from Num. 29.8 mentions also seven male lambs ( ). If correct, line 1 lists the sacri cial animals mentioned both in Leviticus 16 and 39. The DJD edition has [ . On the photographs (PAM 40.529; J5928B R ir) an illegible trace of ink is visible before the shin. 40. On the photographs (PAM 40.474; 40.511; J5928B R ir) traces of two illegible letters are visible followed by an interval. The letter before dalet is most likely bet. All its three strokes can still be seen on the photographs. 41. The shapes of the edges of the fragments do not match, as can be seen from the comparison of PAM 40.511 and PAM 40.474. Also, the trace of a letter preceding the word is not consistent with taw, as Milik’s placement (PAM 40.474 and DJD plate XIX) suggests. 42. Cf. 11QTa XV, 12: (with a yod added supra-linearly); XVII, 15: ; XXII, 4: [ . 43. The Temple Scroll states that the ram mentioned in Num. 29 is an addition to that of Lev. 16.5 (11QTa XXXV, 12-16). A similar interpretation is found in the writings of Philo (Special Laws 1.188) and Josephus (Ant. 3.240). The sages differed on the question whether the ram of Num. 29 and the ram given by the people are, in fact, the same (Sifra A arei Mot, 2; b. Yoma 70b). The position of 1Q22 on this matter is unclear, as the preceding word, which might be either ‘two’ or ‘three’, is missing. See Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society: 1983), I, pp. 132-34; Schiffman, ‘Day of Atonement’, pp. 184-87. On the Day of Atonement in 11QT, see further C. Werman, ‘Appointed Times of Atonement in the Temple Scroll’, Meghillot 4 (2006), pp. 97-107 (Hebrew).




212

Numbers 29, thus providing a uni ed inventory of the Day of Atonement sacri ces (cf. 11QTa XXV, 13-16; Ant. III, 240). The phrase ‘and for the la[nd’, as restored by Milik, indicates that according to 1Q22 a provision was made for the atonement for the land on the Day of Atonement, a feature missing from the biblical passages concerned with this festival (Lev. 16; 23; Num. 29). The notion of atoning for the land is found in Num. 35.33: ‘You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and the land can have no expiation for blood ( ) that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it’ (cf. Deut. 32.43:

, ‘And cleanse the land of His people’). It is further developed in 1QapGen X, 13 and Jub. 6.2, where Noah’s sacri ce after the Flood (Gen. 8.20) is interpreted as an atonement for the land.44 Intriguingly, the Jubilean description of Noah’s sacri ce suggests a close af nity between Noah’s act and the Day of Atonement (see 5.18). Still, 1Q22 seems to be the only Second Temple source that actually includes a procedure for atonement for the land in its description of the Day of Atonement. Perhaps it is with 1Q22’s Yom Kippur regulation in mind that one should read 1QS VIII, 6, 10; IX, 4-5; 1QSa I, 3, and 4Q265 7 9 depicting the Ya ad as atoning for the land.45 Conclusion: 1Q22 and Deuteronomy The extant fragments of 1Q22 contain two discourses. First, God instructs Moses (I, 1-11). Then, following his command, Moses 44. See J. VanderKam, ‘The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees’, in E.G. Chazon and M. Stone (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseude-pigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 151-81 (163-69) and in the same volume C. Werman, ‘Qumran and the Book of Noah’, pp. 171-82 (175); J. van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1–11 in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup, 66; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 224-26. For the analysis of Noah’s sacri cial procedures, see D.K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls, 8; LSTS, 63; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 69-71. 45. On these passages, see J. Licht, The Rule Scroll (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1965 [Hebrew]), pp. 172-73; P. Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls (WUNT, 2/3; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977), pp. 66, 85-86; E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 302-303. On 4Q265, see C. Werman, ‘4Q265 and the Book of Jubilees’, Zion 73 (2008), pp. 5-20 (10) (Hebrew).




213

exhorts Israel to remain faithful to God and recites the Law (II, 11-IV, 11). The scroll dates these two discourses to the day when, according to Deut. 1.3, Moses began addressing Israel in the plains of Moab. Not only does 1Q22 assume the temporal framework of Deuteronomy, but it also borrows its overarching literary structure of admonitions (Deut. 1–11) followed by an exposition of the laws (12-26.15). Furthermore, columns I–III, 7 heavily rely on Deuteronomy for wording. Still, 1Q22’s account of what took place on ‘the rst day of the eleventh month’ also differs in several respects from that of Deuteron-omy. Taking as its departure point Deut. 1.3, stating that Moses spoke to Israel in accordance with the divine instructions, 1Q22 claims that God actually spoke to Moses at length on that day. It also re-arranges the Deuteronomic order of the events commanding Moses to ascend Mt Nebo before his address to Israel. In a similar fashion, 1Q22 seems to place Moses’ discourse to the of cials (Deut. 31.28) before his speech to the people. At least some of these unique features of 1Q22 seem to have been in uenced by the biblical accounts of the giving of the Torah at Sinai. The legal section of the Mosaic discourse in 1Q22 (III–IV) also deviates from the Deuteronomic Code (Deut. 12.1–26.15). Its treat-ment of the laws seems to have been selective, focusing on the com-mandments related to the appointed times, which it appears to present according to their calendrical order, beginning with the month of Tishre.46 Also, 1Q22 appears to present a harmonistic exposition of a given legal topic, bringing together the relevant passages from the different books of the Torah, and not from Deuteronomy alone. 47 Moreover, it includes laws that are not dealt with in the book of Deut-eronomy, as is the case with the Day of Atonement. Furthermore, reworking the Pentateuchal laws, 1Q22 introduces exegetical tradi-tions that are not found in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the section dealing with the Sabbatical year seems to link the forgiveness of sins to the

46. See a similar ordering of the festivals by Josephus in Ant. 3, 239-40. See further L.H. Feldman, ‘Rearrangement of Pentateuchal Material in Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 1–4’, in idem, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (SJSJ, 107; Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 361-412 (388-89). 47. On the topical arrangement of laws in other Qumran texts see L. Schiffman, ‘Codi cation of Jewish Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in idem, Qumran and Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 170-83 (181).




214

remission of debts, while the columns concerned with the Day of Atonement appear to mention Israel’s avoidance of collecting the Manna on the 10th of Tishre (and, perhaps, fasting), and a provision for the atonement for the land. This last feature of the scroll’s treat-ment of the Yom Kippur laws, that is, the atonement for the land, along with its extensive discussion of the Sabbatical Year regulations, which become operative only with the entrance into the Promised Land (Deut. 25.1), offers another insight into the criteria underlying its selective treatment of the biblical laws, namely, preoccupation with the commandments pertaining to the Land. While this short contribution explored some of the aspects of 1Q22’s treatment of Scripture, a detailed study of this scroll is urgently needed. Only then will it be possible to place this work within the wider context of the other Second Temple texts reworking the Pentateuch in general and the book of Deuteronomy in particular.48

48. On 1Q22’s relation to the texts associated with the ‘Apocryphon of Moses’ (above, n. 3), see meanwhile Tigchelaar, ‘Divre Mosheh’, pp. 309-10 (the literature cited there should be supplemented by G. Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls [Shef eld: JSOT Press, 1994], p. 158). See also the recent analysis of the scrolls 1Q29, 4Q375, 4Q376, and 4Q408 in L. Goldman, ‘The Law of the Prophet as Re ected in 4Q375’, Meghillot 6–7 (2007), pp. 61-84 (Hebrew); eadem, ‘The Rules regarding Fighting a Permitted War in 4Q376’, Meghillot 8-9 (2010), pp. 319-41 (Hebrew); eadem, ‘The Apocryphon of Moses: A Composition Representing the High Priest as the Supreme Judicial Authority’, Meghillot 10 (2013), pp. 181-200 (Hebrew). I would like to thank Dr Goldman for sending me a pre-publication copy of the latter article.



Documents

Moses' Farewell Address according to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22)