ARAMAIC TEXTS FROM QUMRAN AND THE

AUTHORITATIVENESS OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES:

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
Eibert Tigchelaar
1. Introduction
During the last ffy years it has been held broadly that the Aramaic
texts found at Qumran form a distinct group within the Dead Sea
Scrolls corpus.
1
From Jzef Milik on, it has been commonly asserted
that, perhaps with some exceptions, the Aramaic texts are non-Essene
or presectarian.
2
Another prevalent view is that the Aramaic Testament
1
See, chronologically: J.T. Milik, Dix ans de dcouvertes dans le Dsert de Juda
(Paris: Cerf, 1957), 9596; idem, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea
(trans. J. Strugnell; London: SCM, 1959), 13940; S. Segert, Die Sprachenfragen in
der Qumrngemeinschaf, in Qumran-Probleme: Vortrge des Leipziger Symposions
ber Qumran-Probleme vom 9. Bis 14. Oktober 1961 (ed. H. Bardtke; Berlin: Deutsche
Akademie der Wissenschafen zu Berlin, 1963), 31539 (though in this contribution
he pays more attention to the distinct use of Hebrew); idem, Sprachliche Bemerkun-
gen zu einigen aramischen Texten von Qumrn, ArOr 33 (1965): 190206 (192,
2056); J.T. Milik, crits pressniens de Qumrn: dHnoch Amram, in Qumrn:
Sa pit, sa thologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; Paris-Gembloux: Duculot, 1978),
91106; K. Beyer, Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1984), 157; B.Z. Wacholder, Te Ancient Judaeo-Aramaic Literature
(500164 BCE): A Classifcation of Pre-Qumranic Texts, in Archaeology and History
in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L.H. Schifman; Shefeld: JSOT Press, 1990), 25781; D.
Dimant, Te Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Signifcance, in Time to Prepare
the Way in the Wilderness (ed. eadem and L.H. Schifman; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 2258
esp. 32, 35; eadem, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at Qumran, in Te Bible and the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume Two: Te Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community (ed.
J.H. Charlesworth; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 44767; eadem, Te
Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, in Flores Florentino: Dead
Sea Scrolls and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garca Martnez (ed.
A. Hilhorst, . Puech, and E. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 197205; E. Tigchelaar,
Te Imaginal Context and the Visionary of the Aramaic New Jerusalem, in Flores
Florentino (ed. Hilhorst, Puech, and Tigchelaar), 25770 (261); J. Ben-Dov, Hebrew
and Aramaic Writing in the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Te Ancient
Near Eastern Background and the Quest for a Written Authority, Tarbiz 78 (2008
2009): 2760 [Hebrew], vi [English summary]. I saw Ben-Dovs article only at the fnal
stage of writing this paper.
2
Tus already Milik, Dix ans, 9596 and Ten Years, 13940, even though the
hypothesis of the nonsectarian provenance is ofen ascribed to Stanislav Segert or
156 eibert tigchelaar
of Levi or Aramaic Levi Document, as well as most other Aramaic Tes-
taments of the Patriarchs are older than Jubilees.
3
Tese two assump-
tions are generally correlated to larger hypotheses, such as the revival
of Hebrew under the Hasmonaeans,
4
the sectarian use of Hebrew as
an antilanguage,
5
or a non-Judaean provenance, like Samaria,
6
Upper-
Ben Zion Wacholder. See, more recently, for example, C. Hempel, Kriterien zur
Bestimmung essenischer Verfasserschaf von Qumrantexten, in Qumran kontrovers:
Beitrge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. J. Frey and H. Stegemann; Pader-
born: Bonifatius, 2003), 7185 (78 n. 34); A. Lange, Kriterien essenischer Texte, in
Qumran kontrovers (ed. Frey and Stegemann), 5969 (64): Ein aramischer . . . Text
ist . . . mit einiger Sicherheit nichtessenisch; D.K. Falk, Te Parabiblical Texts: Strate-
gies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T&T Clark,
2007), 29: Tere is wide agreement among scholars that the community at Qumran
did not compose new works in Aramaic. As for the possible exceptions, J.T. Milik,
Prire de Nabonide et autres crits dun cycle de Daniel, RB 63 (1956): 40715,
ascribed 4Q245 (4QPseudo-Daniel
c
) to a Qumran author (415), and in crits pres-
sniens, 105 he allows for the possibility that the Epistle of Enoch as well as Abraham
section of the Genesis Apocryphon might not be pre-Essene, but Essene works. As
possible candidates for Essene or sectarian authorship have also been considered the
Aramaic New Jerusalem text and the Visions of Amram. Cf., e.g., F. Garca Martnez,
Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill,
1992), 149 (Pseudo-Daniel), 213 (New Jerusalem); idem, Apocalypticism in the Dead
Sea Scrolls, reprinted in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism
(ed. E.J.C. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 195226 (205: Visions of Amram).
3
See especially Milik, crits pressniens; see also the dates given in . Puech,
Qumrn Grotte 4.XXII: Textes aramens, premire partie: 4Q529549 (DJD 31; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2001), 126, 173, 193, 25859, 287. Te most fervent opposition to the pre-
Jubilees dating of the Aramaic Levi Document comes from J. Kugel, How Old is the
Aramaic Levi Document, DSD 14 (2007): 291312. D.M. Peters, Noah Traditions in
the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity (Atlanta, Ga.: SBL,
2008), 177, assumes that the ALD is presectarian and pre-Jubilees, but allows that
subsequent Aramaic texts in the same tradition could be later than the Rule of the
Community and Jubilees.
4
See the brief discussion in S. Weitzman, Why Did the Qumran Community
Write in Hebrew? JAOS 119 (1999): 3545 (36); W.M. Schniedewind, Aramaic, Te
Death of Written Hebrew, and Language Shif in the Persian Period, in Margins of
Writing, Origins of Cultures (ed. S.L. Sanders; Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago, 2006), 13747, who states that the Hebrew language began to
fourish again in the third century b.c.e. (143).
5
See, e.g., W.M. Schniedewind, Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage, JBL 118
(1999): 23552; idem, Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew, in Diggers at the
Well: Proceedings of a Tird International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 24555.
6
Milik, crits pressniens, 96, 101; see also R. Kugler, Some Further Evidence
for the Samaritan Provenance of Aramaic Levi (1QTestLevi; 4QTestLevi), RevQ
17/6568 (1996): 35158; Puech, DJD 31:287; E. Eshel and H. Eshel, Toponymic
Midrash in 1 Enoch and in Other Second Temple Jewish Literature, Henoch 24
(2002): 11530.
aramaic texts from qumran 157
Galilee,
7
or even the Eastern Diaspora,
8
of some Aramaic composi-
tions. It is also observed that the genre, style and content of the Ara-
maic texts contrast with that of the Hebrew texts found in the same
corpus.
9
Most of the Aramaic texts are pseudepigraphic, related to or
associated with pre-Mosaic fgures or to persons connected with the
Eastern Diaspora. Te genres can be described as apocalyptic, aggadic,
and testamentary. Of specifc interest for the topic of this volume are
those suggestions that discuss the relation between the Aramaic com-
positions and the Hebrew Scriptures. Tus, Devorah Dimant asserts
that while Hebrew parabiblical texts stay closely to the biblical text
and elaborate or comment on it, Aramaic parabiblical texts treat the
biblical materials more freely, or use biblical fgures or events as a peg
on which large chunks of aggadic non-biblical expansions are hung.
10

George Brooke argues that the Qumran community used Hebrew as a
result of the canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures.
11
Te basic question that informs this essay is to what extent Aramaic
texts found near Qumran relate diferently to the Hebrew Scriptures
than Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, and whether diferences are connected
to date, to genre, or to provenance. Tis query can be related to difer-
ent theories, in particular to that of the canonical process. Following
the reasoning of Brooke (Hebrew was used as a result of the canoniza-
tion of the Hebrew Scriptures), one could hypothesize that Aramaic
texts stem from a period refecting an earlier stage in the canonical
process. In other words, was the authoritativeness of the Hebrew
Scriptures diferent for (the authors of) the Aramaic texts, than for
the Hebrew texts?
7
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Enoch, Levi and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper
Galilee, JBL 100 (1981): 575600; Eshel and Eshel, Toponymic Midrash.
8
Dimant, Te Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, 2045.
9
Dimant, Te Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, 198.
10
Dimant, Te Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, 202. See
more in detail, Dimant, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at Qumran.
11
G.J. Brooke, Between Authority and Canon: Te Signifcance of Reworking
the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process, in Reworking the Bible: Apocry-
phal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. E.G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R.A. Clements;
Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85104 (9194: Language and Script). In a sense, Brooke takes
up the suggestions of Segert and Wacholder, but in a more sophisticated manner.
158 eibert tigchelaar
2. Aramaic Texts from Qumran
Te list of manuscripts from Qumran contains a large amount of items
written in Aramaic.
12
However, some of these are documentary,
13
and
many have received no specifc name, since they consist of uniden-
tifed or unclassifed fragments.
14
Also, some manuscripts with spe-
cifc names are so fragmentary that one cannot say very much about
them at all.
15
For all practical purposes, one may identify the following
compositions written in Aramaic in the corpus: Targums of Leviticus
(4Q156) and of Job (4Q157, 11Q10); Biblical Chronology (4Q559); the
Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen/1Q20); Books of Enoch (4Q2014Q202,
4Q2044Q207, 4Q212); Astronomical Book of Enoch (4Q2084Q211);
Book of Giants (1Q231Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q206 frgs. 23, 4Q530
4Q533, 6Q8); Birth of Noah (4Q5344Q536); Testament of Jacob?
(4Q537); Testament of Judah/Benjamin (4Q538); Testament of Joseph
(4Q539); Aramaic Levi Document (1Q21, 4Q213, 4Q213a, 4Q213b,
4Q214, 4Q214a, 4Q214b); Apocryphon of Levi? (4Q5404Q541); Tes-
tament of Qahat (4Q542); Visions of Amram (4Q5434Q549); Testa-
ment (4Q587+XQ6); New Jerusalem (1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554, 4Q554a,
4Q555, 5Q15, 11Q18); Words of Michael (4Q529, 4Q571, 6Q23); Tobit
(4Q196199); Jews at the Persian Court (4Q550); Prayer of Naboni-
dus (4Q242); Aramaic parts of Daniel (1Q711Q72; 4Q1124Q113;
4Q115); Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243245); Apocryphon of Daniel (4Q246);
Four Kingdoms (4Q552, 4Q553, 4Q553a); Prophecy (4Q556, 4Q556a,
4Q566, 4Q568; probably diferent compositions); Vision (4Q557, 4Q558,
4Q565; probably diferent compositions); Account/Story (4Q551);
Wisdom Composition (4Q563); Proverbs (4Q569); Magical Booklet
12
Te fgures would difer, depending on whether one counts items such as
4Q584a-x (4QUnid. Fragments A) as one item or twenty-four items. Note also that
some lists, such as Emanuel Tovs list of Aramaic Texts in Te Texts from the Judaean
Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed.
E. Tov; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 22126, omit 3Q14 frags. 49. In addition,
the attribution of some fragments to specifc manuscripts is disputed.
13
4Q342, 4Q3454Q347, 4Q3514Q352a, 4Q3534Q359, 4Q360a.
14
1Q631Q68; 3Q123Q13; 3Q14 49; 4Q490; 4Q558a; 4Q562, 4Q564, 4Q567,
4Q570, 4Q5724Q574, 4Q575a, 4Q584a-x, 4Q585a-z, 4Q586a-n, 5Q24; 11Q24. One
should note that unidentifed can mean several diferent things. It can mean that
fragments could not with certainty be attributed to a specifc manuscript (Unidentifed
Fragments), or that fragments can be attributed to a specifc manuscript, but that the
genre or nature of that manuscript could not be identifed (Unidentifed Text).
15
For example, 4Q488 (4QApocryphon), 4Q489 (4QApocalypse), 6Q19 (Text
Related to Genesis).
aramaic texts from qumran 159
(4Q560); Horoscope (4Q561); Zodiology and Brontology (4Q318); List
of False Prophets (4Q339).
16
In 2007 Dimant divided those works into six diferent groups:
I. Works about the Period of the Flood; II. Works Dealing with the
History of the Patriarchs; III. Visionary Compositions; IV. Legend-
ary Narratives and Court Tales; V. Astronomy and Magic; VI. Varia.
17

A few years earlier, Lange had classifed all the nonbiblical Dead Sea
Scrolls in ffeen categories (of which the frst nine were the most
important).
18
Virtually all the Aramaic texts ft in only four of those
categories, namely Parabiblical Texts; Historical Texts and Tales; Apoc-
alyptic and Eschatological Texts; and Magic and Divination. From a
diferent perspective, I myself stated that virtually all the Aramaic nar-
rative texts found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls belong to two main
categories, namely (1) texts related or ascribed to pre-Mosaic fgures;
or (2) narratives that have an Eastern Diaspora setting.
19
Armin Langes other fve main categories include only few Aramaic
texts. In the category of Exegetical Texts (like commentaries and pesha-
rim) he includes the Biblical Chronology and the List of False Prophets,
even though they are of an entirely diferent category than the Hebrew
exegetical texts. His category of Texts concerned with Religious Law
(like the rules and other halakic texts) includes no Aramaic texts, even
though some Aramaic texts, like the Aramaic Levi Document do con-
tain halakic sections; Te Astronomical Enoch can be included in the
Calendrical Texts. Te category Poetic and Liturgical Texts contains no
Aramaic texts at all. In DJD 39, the group of Sapiential Texts did not
list any Aramaic texts, but mile Puechs recent DJD 37 volume indi-
cates that Wisdom Composition (4Q563) and Proverbs (4Q569) should
probably be included in this list.
20
One may add that some more of the
16
Some of the proposed names of the compositions, as well as the attribution of
diferent manuscripts to the same composition, are problematic. For a discussion of
some of these, see D. Dimant, Review of Qumrn Grotte 4.XXII: Textes aramens,
premire partie 4Q5294Q549, DSD 10 (2003): 292304.
17
Dimant, Te Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, 200201.
18
A. Lange (with U. Mittman-Richert), Annotated List of the Texts from the
Judaean Desert Classifed by Content and Genre, in DJD 39:11564.
19
Tigchelaar, Te Imaginal Context, 261.
20
. Puech, Qumrn Grotte 4.XXVII: Textes aramens, deuxime partie (4Q550
4Q575a, 4Q5804Q587) (DJD 37; Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), 335, cautions that the
few remains of 4Q563 (4Qcrit de sagesse) could belong to a wisdom composition, or
perhaps to the end of a Testament, where the patriarch exhorts his children.
160 eibert tigchelaar
small DJD 37 manuscripts, such as, e.g., 4Q583 (4QProphecy
e
) are too
fragmentary to ft easily in the existing classifcations.
Tough the general constitution of the Aramaic texts found at
Qumran is clearly diferent from that of the Hebrew texts, the col-
lection of Aramaic texts is not homogeneous. For example, the use of
the dicolon in 4Q156 to indicate sense units (verses and half-verses) is
unique in the corpus;
21
linguistic analysis suggests that the Targum of
Job (4Q157; 11Q10) originated in the East.
22
Te Aramaic manuscripts
were copied in the time range from the end third century b.c.e. or
early second century b.c.e. (for 4Q208)
23
to the frst part of the frst
century c.e. Also, some texts seem to have quite diferent concerns,
and might therefore have been produced in diferent groups. For those
reasons, we cannot in general talk about all the Aramaic texts as one
group. In this paper, references will be mainly to certain groups of
Aramaic compositions.
3. Authoritativeness of Scriptures:
Some Perspectives
Te changing views in the past decades on the processes of canoniza-
tion have also resulted in an attempt to diferentiate our terminology.
Exemplary is the work of Eugene Ulrich, who made the following dis-
tinction between several terms that are related to, but not identical to
the concept of canon:
An authoritative work is a writing which a group, secular or religious,
recognizes and accepts as determinative for its conduct, and as of a
higher order than can be overridden by the power or will of the group
or any member. A constitution or law code would be an example.
A book of scripture is a sacred authoritative work believed to have God
as its ultimate author, which the community, as a group and individu-
ally, recognizes and accepts as determinative for its belief and practice
for all time and in all geographical areas.
24
21
On the use of the dicolon in other corpora, see E. Tov, Scribal Practices and
Approaches Refected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004),
13840.
22
T. Muraoka, Te Aramaic of the Old Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI, JJS
25 (1974): 42543; a position which is still held by Muraoka today.
23
J.T. Milik, Te Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrn Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 273.
24
E. Ulrich, Te Notion and Defnition of Canon, in Te Canon Debate (ed. L.M.
aramaic texts from qumran 161
Tis functional defnition of Scripture is certainly valid for many
religious groups, particularly in the Jewish and Christian traditions.
However, as cautioned by Miriam Levering, many views on Scriptures
are infuenced by Protestant culture, and the nature and scope of the
authority and normativity of Scriptures may be much narrower or
much diferent [than thought], and the purposes for which authority
is sought may difer.
25
Ulrich himself acknowledges diferences when
he refers to writings that increasingly functioned as authoritative
books.
26
Leverings comments about diferences in nature and scope
not only hold true from a comparative perspective, but such difer-
ences can also be found within one and the same religious tradition.
Since this is not the place for a systematic overview of the authorita-
tiveness of Scriptures in early Judaism, I will merely highlight some
aspects that relate to the topic of this paper and this volume.
First, it is clear that Scriptures are not the only source of author-
ity or authoritativeness. Other sources that are implicitly or explic-
itly referred to as authoritative are, for example, ancestral tradition,
supernatural revelations, or even inspired interpretation. Likewise,
the authoritative character of Scriptures or other sources may perhaps
indeed ultimately be attributed to divine inspiration or authorship,
but it is ofen frst of all related to the antiquity of those Scriptures or
traditions, or to the special status of specifc human authors or pro-
tagonists. Sometimes the two are explicitly connected: for example,
1 En. 33:34 claims that both Enoch and Uriel are the authors of the
Astronomical Book.
Second, a groups or individuals study of authoritative Scriptures
may be aimed at increasing insight with respect to, for example, doc-
trine, providence, history, or halakic rules. Many explicit references
to Scripture, however, are argumentative and selective, and suggest
McDonald and J.A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 2135 (29). See also
the similar defnition in P.W. Flint, Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Te Evidence
from Qumran, in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls
in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S.M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 269304 (272):
Te word Scripture denotes a writing that was considered divinely revealed, uniquely
authoritative, and believed to be ancient origin (even if it was actually quite recent).
25
M. Levering, Introduction: Rethinking Scripture, in Rethinking Scripture:
Essays from a Comparative Perspective (ed. M. Levering; Albany, N.Y.: State University
of New York, 1989), 117 (10).
26
E. Ulrich, Te Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the
Composition of the Bible, in Te Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 5178 (57).
162 eibert tigchelaar
a context of discourse, dispute, or confict. Tey aim to legitimize or
support ones own positions or interests, or to denounce opponents.
27
Tird, the scope of the authority of texts may be broad or limited,
and shif over time. Also, texts may exercise diferent kinds of authority.
Te early Jewish texts give little evidence for references to the author-
ity of Scriptures with regard to belief or doctrine, but much more with
respect to conduct (halakah) and interpretation of the present.
28
Fourth, in every literary culture later literary texts interact with ear-
lier ones, which therefore may be called authoritative or even canoni-
cal in a literary or cultural sense. Allusions to, or the imitation, or even
emulation, of the style of earlier literature certainly indicates some
kind of authoritativeness, but not necessarily the kind that determines
belief or practice.
From a methodological point of view, we can approach the question
of the relation of the Aramaic texts to the Hebrew Scriptures from
diferent perspectives. We should investigate the explicit and implicit
references in those Aramaic texts to the Hebrew ones. But also, we
should study more generally the features and functions of those Ara-
maic texts, and see how they relate to the growth of authoritativeness
of the Hebrew Scriptures.
4. Aramaic Texts and the Hebrew Scriptures
4.1. Explicit Quotations or References
From the beginning of Scrolls scholarship, scholars have focused on
the use of explicit quotations both for text-critical reasons, and as a
means to determine which texts were canonical or regarded as Scrip-
27
See, e.g., S. Metso, Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule, in Te Bible
as Book: Te Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E.D. Herbert and
E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 8192, who argues that the biblical quotations
in the Community Rule were added secondarily in the need to justify rules already in
efect (90).
28
A good example is given by A. Lange, Authoritative Literature and Scripture in
the Chronistic Corpus, in Te Words of a Wise Mans Mouth are Gracious (Qoh
10,12): Festschrif for Gnter Stemberger on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed.
M. Perani; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 2952, who shows that the katuv-
formulas in the book of Chronicles with very few exceptions pertain to the cult and
sacrifcial matters. See below my comments on the Aramaic Levi Document.
aramaic texts from qumran 163
ture.
29
Te Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls contain very few explicit quota-
tions. Te only certain case seems to be 4Q562 (4QNonidentifed Text
A) 7 12 the [word] which the prophet spoke [ab]out [. . . will] be like
who touches the apple of his eye which is most likely to be a reference
to Zech 2:12. Unfortunately, the manuscript is so fragmentary that
very little can be said at all, and the function of the quotation remains
unclear. It is possible that 4Q556 (4QProphecy
a
) 1 7 About this, the
prophet said that . . . also introduced a quotation, but the text is bro-
ken and both the prophet (Daniel?) and the possible quotation (but it
could also be a paraphrase) cannot be identifed.
30
Explicit references
to Scriptures, albeit without literal quotations, are found in Tobit,
which book refers repeatedly to the book or law of Moses,
31
and in
14:4 to Jonah (lxx Vat) or Nahum (lxx Sin).
32
Tis paucity of explicit
quotations could be ascribed to the genre and setting of the texts. A
large part of the texts is attributed to pre-Mosaic fgures, which would
not be expected to quote Scriptures that are attributed to Moses and
later fgures. Many other texts are visionary or prophetic, a genre that
claims itself to be revelatory, and therefore also is not likely to refer
to other Scriptures.
4.2. Quotations, Allusions, Use of Scripture
Te hitherto unknown Aramaic texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-
serve a few certain or possible quotations and allusions to Hebrew
29
Tus, e.g., I.H. Eybers, Some Light on the Canon of the Qumran Sect, in
Papers Read at 5th Meeting of Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika
(Potchefstroom: Pro Rege, 1962): 114, reprinted in S. Leiman, ed., Te Canon and
Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader (New York, N.Y.: Ktav, 1974),
2336. Flint, Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 294: Statements that Indicate Scrip-
tural Status.
30
Puech, DJD 37:15373 considers it possible that 4Q556 and 4Q556a are two
copies of the same composition. Te few references in 4Q556a indicate that the text
describes the events during the Antiochean crisis, and there are some correspondences
with Dan 11.
31
See J.J. Collins, Te Judaism of the Book of Tobit, in Te Book of Tobit: Text,
Tradition, Teology (ed. G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellr; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 2340
(3134) demonstrates that in Tobit the law of Moses is not a reference to the Pen-
tateuch, but roughly equivalent to normative Jewish tradition.
32
Parts of Tob 14:4 remain in 4Q196 Schyen fragment, published by M. Haller-
mayer and T. Elgvin, Schyen ms. 5234: Ein neues Tobit-fragment vom Toten Meer,
RevQ 22/87 (2006): 45161, and in 4Q198 1, but neither preserves the reference to the
prophet Jonah or Nahum.
164 eibert tigchelaar
Scriptures. Te clearest of those is the small fragment 4Q583 1
(4QProphecy
e
), which has in lines 12 the remains of an Aramaic text
corresponding to Isa 14:3132; line 3 is unwritten; the frst ten or so
words of the new section in line 4 are missing, afer which we read
arose against him, increased between Media and Persia, Assyria and
the Mediterranean.
33
Te fragment is too small and isolated to deter-
mine its genre and the function of the quotation, and it is not clear
whether the rendering of smoke from the North (as in mt and lxx)
by evil from the North (as in Jer 1:14; 4:6; 6:1) is interpretive (linking
Isa 14:31 to Jer 1). Also, we do not know whether the quotation was
formally introduced with a reference to Isaiah or Scripture. Because
of the general reference in line 4 it is less likely that we have here an
Aramaic pesher-like interpretation. Rather, as suggested by Puech, we
have here a prophecy which is attached to the Isaian one.
In 4Q558 (4QpapVision
b
) 51 ii 4 we fnd the phrase Terefore, I
will send Elijah befo[re, which closely corresponds to Mal 3:23, and
seems to be an allusion, paraphrase, or even quotation.
34
Unfortunately,
4Q558 consists mainly of very small fragments, and the character of
the work, which has references to historical fgures as well as terms
which one expects in eschatological contexts, is not quite clear.
Dimant suggested that the phrase !# 62) '+ (to me the silver
and the gold) at the beginning of 4Q529 (4QWords of Michael) 1 15
is a citation of Hag 2:8 which refers to the splendor of the future Tem-
ple. Even though 4Q571 (4QWords of Michael
a
) adds substantially to
the text of 4Q529 1 1114, the exact meaning of the section remains
unclear (for example, the identity of the son/man and his father), but
it is clear that the context of the Aramaic section mentions the city
(Jerusalem), as well as probably Gods (lit. the Lord of Eternity) return
to his house (4Q571 12).
35
Still, the immediately preceding and fol-
lowing words are missing, and we cannot ascertain whether we have
here a quotation, allusion, or an accidental verbal correspondence (for
example, the words might be part of the direct speech between the son
and his father).
Te background of the combined text of 4Q243 13 and 4Q244 12
(4QPseudo-Daniel
a,b
) with the phrase they were sac]rifcing their chil-
33
Puech, DJD 37:44752 with discussion of earlier interpretations of the fragment.
34
See the most recent discussion in DJD 37:21718.
35
Dimant, Review of Qumrn Grotte 4.XXII, 294, which suggestion is mentioned
as possible by Puech in DJD 37:400.
aramaic texts from qumran 165
dren to the demons of error; and God became angry at them and said
to give them into the hand of Nebu[chadnezzar can be found in Ps
106:37, 4041,
36
but the specifc phrasing of sacrifcing their children
to the demons of error may also have been infuenced by Jub. 1:11
sacrifce their children to demons and to all the works of error of
their hearts.
37
In spite of the paucity of (explicit) quotations from or clear conscious
allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures, the study of texts like the Books of
Enoch clearly shows the knowledge and use of the Hebrew Scriptures.
38

Four completely diferent examples with regard to 1 Enoch should suf-
fce to illustrate the extent of the use of those Scriptures.
(1) Lars Hartman has analyzed in detail the use of Scripture in 1 En.
15. For example, the theophany in 1 En. 1 contains no explicit quota-
tions of Scripture, but both the literary forms and most specifc expres-
sions and motifs can be shown to have been directly derived from the
Hebrew Scriptures;
39
(2) Te very close verbal correspondence between
1 En. 6:12 and Gen 6:12 suggests that 1 Enoch here adopted the text
of Genesis, before gradually expanding on the story told so lapidary in
Gen 6:14. Tis does not mean that 1 En. 611 is a kind of midrash
on Gen 6, but that the author or editors of this section deliberately
associated their text with the Gen 6 episode; (3) In a study on the use
of Scripture in 1 En. 1719, Michael Knibb called attention to sev-
eral lexical correspondences with the Hebrew Scriptures, and observed
the relatively high correspondence of items which Enoch saw in 1 En.
17:118:5 with locations mentioned in Job 38 in a series of rhetori-
cal questions suggesting that no one man had ever been there. Knibb
argues that if one reads the Enochic section against Job 38, the impli-
cation would be that Enoch had access to secrets known otherwise
36
Collins and Flint, DJD 22:150.
37
Jubilees 1:11, 13 combines elements of Ps 106:37 and Deut 32:17, 20. Te expres-
sion demons of error is also found in T. Jud. 23:1 ( ).
38
See the section Scripture in 1 Enoch, in G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Com-
mentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 136; 81108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis,
Minn.: Fortress, 2001), 5758.
39
See L. Hartman, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 15 (Lund: Gleerup,
1979). Cf. also the discussion in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 13749. In view of the indebt-
edness to theophany sections in the Hebrew Scripture, I consider, with M. Black, Te
Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 1056, that
1 En. 1:4 emheyya, from there, may refect a misunderstanding of mn tmn a refer-
ence to Hab 3:3 (from Teman).
166 eibert tigchelaar
only to God, and that . . . the mystery he reveals . . . is true;
40
(4) In his
overview of the use of Scriptures in 1 Enoch, George Nickelsburg men-
tions the indebtedness to the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, and describes
Isa 6566 as a foundational text, which color[s] the descriptions of
the new age in almost all parts of 1 Enoch.
41
Dependence on, or use of forms of the Hebrew Scriptures, is attested
for example in the theophany of 1 En. 1, or the fgure of the guide
angel(s) in 1 En. 1736, but also in the case of the New Jerusalem text,
which should be understood against the background of Ezek 4048.
4.3. Translations, Reworkings, and Parabiblical Texts
Tree manuscripts consist of translations of Hebrew Scriptures in Ara-
maic, namely 4Q156 (translation of Leviticus), and 4Q157 and 11Q10
(translation of Job).
42
Also the last columns of the Genesis Apocryphon
correspond quite closely to the Hebrew text of Gen 13 and 14, so that
its character is virtually that of a translation.
Te composite character of the Genesis Apocryphon, which is
refected in the diferent protagonists (Lamech, Noah, Abram), and
voices (frst; third), is also clear in the diference between aggadic nar-
ratives (especially in the Lamech and Noah sections) and more close
renderings of the Hebrew text in the Abram part.
43
All sections of the
Genesis Apocryphon have in common with the Aramaic Enochic and
Patriarchal texts that they ascribe non-scriptural traditions to scrip-
tural fgures. In some cases, as in the extensive retelling of Abram and
Sarai in Egypt, the tradition is an expansion of a scriptural narrative.
In many other cases, the connection with a scriptural text or narrative
element is less clear. Tis goes, for example, for Lamechs fear that a
Watcher had fathered his son, or for Methuselahs journey to Enoch.
40
M. Knibb, Te Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 1719, in Jerusalem, Alexandria,
Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (ed. F. Garca
Martnez and G. Luttikhuizen; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 16578 (173).
41
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 5758 (57).
42
On the discussion as to whether one should call all Aramaic translations targu-
mim, see, e.g., D. Shepherd, Targum and Translation: A Reconsideration of the Qum-
ran Aramaic Version of Job (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004).
43
Dimant, Te Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community, 2023
states that the Genesis Apocryphon is unlike other Aramaic texts in that it follows
closely the biblical story, whereas the Hebrew Book of Jubilees is actually more like the
Aramaic aggadic texts. It seems to me that Dimants claim is largely built on the last
part of the Apocryphon, and does not hold true for the earlier sections.
aramaic texts from qumran 167
It should be emphasized that all these texts are attributed to scriptural
fgures, especially in the line of Enoch, Noah, Abram, Jacob and his
sons, and Levi, Qahat and Amram, even if they are little more than
names in the scriptural texts. Te common designation of this kind of
writings as parabiblical (or perhaps parascriptural)
44
may obfus-
cate the fact that some of these writings are not primarily connected
to scriptural texts or themes, but to fgures that are also found in the
Scriptures.
4.4. Daniel and Aramaic Danielic Texts
For this survey of the relation of Aramaic text to Hebrew Scriptures,
the case of Aramaic Danielic texts and the Aramaic and Hebrew
parts of Daniel is problematic. A series of hitherto unknown texts
related to, or reminiscent of, Daniel were found at Qumran, but in no
single case, except perhaps 4Q245, can it be assumed that the bibli-
cal book of Daniel actually preceded or infuenced those other texts.
45

Terefore, the title Pseudo-Daniel (for 4Q243245), and even the label
parabiblical are problematic.
4.5. Authoritativeness of Scriptures in the Aramaic Texts
In accordance with the literary fction of pre-Mosaic authorship,
the large corpus of Aramaic texts attributed to Enoch, Noah, and the
44
R.A. Kraf, Para-mania: Beside, Before, and Beyond Bible Studies, JBL 126
(2007): 527.
45
For discussions of the Danielic texts, see three articles in J.J. Collins and P.W.
Flint, eds., Te Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (Leiden: Brill, 2001), namely
P.W. Flint, Te Daniel Tradition at Qumran (32967), L.T. Stuckenbruck, Daniel
and Early Enoch Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls (36886), and E. Eshel, Possible
Sources of the Book of Daniel (38794). In addition to the works discussed in those
essays one should now also consider 4Q5564Q556a (4QProphecy
a,b
), which seems to
contain vaticinium ex eventu prophecy about the period of the Antiochean crisis, and
perhaps 4Q570 (4QNon-Identifed Text D). Puech, DJD 37:9, even speculates that in
4Q550 either of the two Jews at the court, Patireza and his son Bagasrava, could have
been identical with the prophet Daniel. However, in most cases there is not enough
evidence, and diferent positions are possible. For example, J.J. Collins, Daniel: A
Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993),
7779, argues that 4Q246 alludes to Dan 7, but Puech, in his edition of 4Q246 in
Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996),
16584, considers the text contemporaneous with Daniel, towards the end of the reign
of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
168 eibert tigchelaar
Patriarchs, never refers explicitly to any of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Instead, we see diferent phenomena. Tose Aramaic texts clearly pre-
suppose the fgures and narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures, and some-
times extensively interact with and use those Scriptures. At the same
time, a few refer explicitly to an authoritative corpus of texts attributed
to Enoch and Noah, or an authoritative body of knowledge transmit-
ted orally, from Abraham on, from father to (grand)son. Such refer-
ences to the transmission of books or of oral instructions are found
especially in the Books of Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic
Levi Document, and in the Testament of Qahat (4Q542).
46
Noteworthy
is ALD 10:10 where Isaac instructs Levi for thus my father Abra-
ham commanded me, for thus he found in the writing of the Book
of Noah concerning the blood,
47
because it connects the teaching of
the patriarchs (the Abraham-Amram axis) to that of the prediluvian
generation (the Enoch-Noah axis), and authorizes specifc halakah
by referring to a written book.
48
What do the authors of those texts want to achieve by having Isaac
and Abraham refer to older texts? Te reference to books of Noah
could be interpreted as a fctional necessity, to solve the problem of
the apparent lack of transmission of priestly traditions between Shem
and Abraham. Te need to go back beyond Abraham to Noah and
Enoch may serve to stress the antiquity of priestly traditions per se,
but also to emphasize the connection between Enoch, Noah, and Levi,
those three who are said to walk with God.
49
However, there are no
explicit quotations from those real or fctional books, and the label
46
On these texts and the transmission of teaching in antiquity, see M.E. Stone,
Te Axis of History at Qumran, in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: Te Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E.G. Chazon and M.E. Stone;
Leiden: Brill, 1999), 13449.
47
Translation from J.C. Greenfeld, M.E. Stone, and E. Eshel, eds., Te Aramaic
Levi Document (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 91.
48
See H. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of
the Levi Document (Brill: Leiden, 2004), 29899 and, without furthering the discussion
in this respect, Peters, Noah Traditions, 5354. Te motif of Abraham having access to
books of the forefathers also appears in the Genesis Apocryphon, which has Abraham
reading to the Egyptians from the words of Enoch (19:25) and Jub. 12:27; 21:10. In the
last example, what Abraham found in the words of Enoch and Noah again serves to
authorize halakah on sacrifce and the eating of fesh. Te (Hebrew) Book of Jubilees is
most explicit about the chain of transmission. Jubilees 7:3839 describes the transmis-
sion of instructions (commanded) from Enoch to Methuselah to Lamech to Noah to
his sons. In Jub. 10:14 Noah gives the book of healing only to Shem.
49
Gen 5:22, 24; 6:9; Mal 2:6.
aramaic texts from qumran 169
words of Noah could simply function as a cover-all for sacrifcial
levitical halakah.
Yet, the explicit references to Abrahams behaviour and instructions,
and to the word of Noah may have a specifc function. Larry Schifman
has compared the entire sacrifcial halakah of ALD with that of sectar-
ian and Tannaitic halakah. He describes that in general the issues of
sacrifcial halakah in ALD are oriented toward sacrifcial procedure,
toward flling the gaps in the biblical text and describing the man-
ner in which rites are to be performed and that the details are as
close to rabbinic laws as they are to sectarian ones.
50
It is important
that in several of the cases where the halakah of ALD is not largely in
agreement with Tannaitic (or once with sectarian) halakah, and hence
where controversies could have existed, the ALD refers explicitly to
Abraham, and to the words of Noah. Tis goes for the twelve kinds
of wood allowed for sacrifces (ALD 7:57),
51
as well as the washing of
hands and feet to remove the blood afer the sacrifce (ALD 10:57)
52

and covering the blood of non-sacral animals (ALD 10:910).
53
Te
Aramaic Levi Document also refers to Abraham with respect to the
splitting of wood checked for worms (7:4), which may not have been
contradictory to Tannaitic law, but certainly to Jub. 21:13.
In all these cases the question is whether we have here diferent
practices based on divergent interpretations of existing Scripture (for
example, the issue of covering blood of non-sacral animals in ALD 10:9
could have been derived by applying Lev 17:13 to non-sacral slaughter),
50
L.H. Schifman, Sacrifcial Halakhah in the Fragments of the Aramaic Levi Doc-
ument from Qumran, the Cairo Genizah, and Mt. Athos Monastery, in Reworking the
Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. Chazon, Dimant, and Clements),
177202 (202).
51
Schifman, Sacrifcial Halakhah in the Fragments of the Aramaic Levi Document
from Qumran, 18586: a much more restrictive view than that of the Tannaim
(186). ALD 7:7 attributes this explicitly to Abraham (Tese are those that he told me
are ftting to ofer up).
52
Schifman, Sacrifcial Halakhah in the Fragments of the Aramaic Levi Docu-
ment from Qumran, 18788: the requirement of washing the blood of the hands
and feet of the priest before ofering the parts of the animal is unique to this text
(187). Together with the next item, these are bracketed by a preceding My father
Abraham commanded me (ALD 10:3) and a concluding Tus my father Abraham
commanded me, for thus he found in the writing of the book of Noah concerning
the blood (10:10).
53
Schifman, Sacrifcial Halakhah in the Fragments of the Aramaic Levi Document
from Qumran, 2012: in agreement with the Temple Scroll and the sectarian form
of halakhah (202).
170 eibert tigchelaar
or whether we have here a description of actual sacrifcial practices
which are attributed back to Levi, Abraham, and Noah. Hence, here
the references to authorities (Abraham, Noah) clearly serve to autho-
rize disputed halakah.
In the Books of Enoch, references to Scriptures are self-referential:
the books Enoch refers to are either the same books in which those
references are found, or other books in the Enochic corpus. Tus, the
writing mentioned in 1 En. 33:34, part of the Book of Watchers, refers
to the Astronomical Book, whereas the books mentioned in 1 En. 82:1
probably refer to the entire Enochic collection, which contains wis-
dom for all generations of eternity.
Te Enochic and Patriarchal works, as well as the Genesis Apocry-
phon (and the Hebrew book of Jubilees) also refer to other sources of
knowledge, apart from ancestral books. Tus, several protagonists are
taken to heaven, communicate with angels, read heavenly tablets, or
have revelatory visions or dreams. Visions are also found in other Ara-
maic texts, like the New Jerusalem and those probably to be attributed
to Daniel (e.g. Four Kingdoms). In the case of the very fragmentary
prophecies such as 4Q556556a, it is possible, but not certain that they
are part of an angelic speech to a visionary. In this respect, the Ara-
maic texts stand apart from the Hebrew Dead Sea scrolls, which rarely
refer to such means of knowledge.
5. Conclusions
Because of the lack of detailed study of all Aramaic texts, conclusions
have to be cautious and limited of scope. It has been argued that the
phenomenon of explicit quotations (in contrast to general references
to the Law or earlier books) of the Pentateuch and other Hebrew
Scriptures increases drastically in the literature to be dated afer the
Maccabean revolt. Tis would indicate that the concept of authori-
tative literature gradually developed, and was accepted more broadly
from the second century b.c.e. on.
54
Te evidence of the Aramaic texts
54
E.g. Lange, Authoritative Literature and Scripture in the Chronistic Corpus,
who focuses on the quotation formulas. Cf. also A. van der Kooij, Te Canonization
of Ancient Books Kept in the Temple of Jerusalem, in Canonization and Decanoniza-
tion (ed. A. van der Kooij and K. van der Toorn; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1740, and with
the same argument and examples, idem, Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books and
aramaic texts from qumran 171
is ambiguous in this respect. Te references to heavenly tablets and to
writing in texts like the Books of Enoch and ALD certainly function as a
fctional device, but also demonstrate an appreciation of writtenness.
Te writings with pre-Mosaic fctional authors maintain the literary
fction and therefore cannot quote Hebrew Scriptures that are attrib-
uted to later authors. At the same time, parts of 1 Enoch clearly use
literary forms and motifs, and even the text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Te manner in which one refers to earlier literature depends not only
on the degree of authoritativeness of that literature, but also on the lit-
erary forms, genre, and subject matter of the texts authors were creat-
ing. From this perspective, one may take the genre of texts, rather than
the presence or absence of quotations, as an indirect indication of their
authors view on the authoritativeness of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Te choice of scriptural pre-Mosaic fgures as fctional authors
of the parabiblical Aramaic texts we now have, afrms the cultural
authoritativeness of the Hebrew Scriptures, or, put more minimally, of
the traditions incorporated in those Scriptures. But it also challenges
the view that those Hebrew Scriptures were the only authoritative
traditions. In particular 1 Enoch, with its repeated statement that its
knowledge, written by Enoch in books and transmitted to his prog-
eny, is for all generations, claims a more ancient, distinct, and separate
scriptural authority that has not been superseded by the giving of the
Law at Sinai. Te ALD, on the contrary, emphasizes priestly (levitical)
oral instruction from father to son, even though it does acknowledge
the importance of writing. Te Visions of Amram is an example of a
third source of authority, namely visionary revelation (note that in the
preserved text, Amram never refers to instruction given by his forefa-
thers). All these types of Aramaic texts should be contrasted to vari-
ous forms of rewritten Scripture or explicit exegesis which are found
in Hebrew literature. Tis does not necessarily imply that the Hebrew
Scriptures were less authoritative for the authors of the Aramaic texts,
only that there were diferent strategies of authorizing additional ele-
ments, and that there was a correspondence between language, literary
genres, and authorizing strategies.
Hasmonaean Politics, in Te Biblical Canons (ed. J.-M. Auwers and H.J. de Jonge;
Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 2738.