The Valediction of Moses A Proto Biblica

Forschungen zum Alten Testament
Edited by
Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton)

Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)
145
Idan Dershowitz
The Valediction of Moses
A Proto-Biblical Book
Mohr Siebeck
Idan Dershowitz: born 1982; undergraduate and graduate training at the Hebrew University,
following several years of yeshiva study; 2017 elected to the Harvard Society of Fellows;
currently Chair of Hebrew Bible and Its Exegesis at the University of Potsdam.
orcid.org/0000-0002-5310-8504
Open access sponsored by the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at the
Harvard Law School.
ISBN 978-3-16-160644-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-160645-8

DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-160645-8
ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament)
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;
detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com

This work is licensed under the license „Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Inter-
national“ (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). A complete Version of the license text can be found at: https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Any use not covered by the above license is prohibited and illegal without the permission of
the publisher.
The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buch-
binderei Spinner in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany.
Acknowledgments
This work would not have been possible without the generosity of my friends,
family, and colleagues.
The Harvard Society of Fellows provided the ideal environment for this ven-
ture. At a time in which academia is becoming increasingly risk averse, the Society
remains devoted to supporting its fellows’ passion projects. In particular, I’d like
to thank the Society’s indefatigable chair during my time there, Walter Gilbert,
and its phenomenal administrators, Kelly Katz and Ana Novak. I would also like
to acknowledge the William F. Milton Fund and the Julis-Rabinowitz Program
on Jewish and Israeli Law at the Harvard Law School, both of which provided
crucial financial support.
Few things have been as gratifying and stimulating as discussing ideas with the
friends I made at the Harvard Society of Fellows, including Alexander Bevilacqua,
Sivan Goren-Arzony, Kevin Holden, Abhishek Kaicker, Abram Kaplan, Marika
Knowles, Robert Lee, Jed Lewinsohn, Alexandru Lupsasca, Tara Menon, Tamara
Morsel-Eisenberg, Matthew Spellberg, S. Margaret Spivey-Faulkner, and Moira
Weigel.
I am very fortunate to have found a welcoming new home at the University
of Potsdam’s School of Jewish Theology, and I look forward to furthering my
research on the Valediction of Moses within the School’s vibrant academic com-
munity. I am grateful to my team members, Daniel Vorpahl and Dorothee Hansel,
for their help with the bibliography, proofreading, and indices.
The Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at the Harvard Law
School, together with the Harvard Society of Fellows, hosted a workshop in June
2019, in which I presented my preliminary findings to a group of extraordinary
scholars. This was an incredible opportunity, and I benefited from the input of all
the participants: Shaye Cohen, Sidnie White Crawford, Noah Feldman, Shimon
Gesundheit, Jay Harris, Jan Joosten, Michael Langlois, Eric Nelson, Na’ama Pat-
El, Alexander Rofé, Christopher Rollston, Michael Segal, Jeffrey Stackert, David
Stern, Andrew Teeter, Shani Tzoref, David Vanderhooft, and Molly Zahn. I’d also
like to thank Susan Kahn for organizing this outstanding event.
The workshop is where I met Na’ama Pat-El, with whom I went on to co-author
the excursus on the linguistic profile of V in chapter 6. Her deep and broad knowl-
edge of Semitic linguistics enriches this work enormously. Collaborating with
Na’ama has been enlightening and fun in equal measure, and we are already wrap-
ping up our next joint article.
VI Acknowledgments
I owe a debt of gratitude to my Doktorvater, Shimon Gesundheit. His early

enthusiasm regarding V kept me going in the face of what was then unanimous
skepticism, and our conversations on the Sihon pericope were especially helpful.
From the moment I walked into his office in summer 2017 – bleary eyed af-
ter several sleepless nights and raving about a text that could change everything
– Noah Feldman was both my harshest critic and my greatest supporter. That
is precisely what I needed, and I could not have done this without him. Noah’s
deep expertise in legal theory helped me understand and contextualize the place
of law and covenant in the Valediction of Moses, and our regular midnight text
exchanges advanced my thinking greatly.
My frequent discussions with Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis were incredibly en-
joyable, not to mention invaluable. For months, our shmoozing at shul was de-
voted to V, and we also had a fruitful havruta on the text. Avishay’s insights im-
proved my understanding of several passages in V as well as my reconstructions
of the text itself.
Konrad Schmid’s penetrating questions and observations helped me shape
chapters 3 and 4, and I am thankful for his sage counsel throughout this pro-
cess. Eric Nelson and David Stern gave me hours upon hours of their time, al-
ways offering keen comments and thoughtful advice. I also benefited greatly
from my conversations with Mark Brett, Raphael Dascalu, Raanan Eichler, Irving
Finkel, Israel Finkelstein, Jan Gertz, Rebecca Goldstein, Jonathan Gould, Mishy
Harman, Israel Knohl, Reinhard Kratz, Jon Levenson, Peter Machinist, Adele
Reinhartz, Benjamin Sass, Benjamin Sommer, Andrew Teeter, Eibert Tigchelaar,
Shani Tzoref, and Yair Zakovitch.
Rebekka Luther assisted greatly with the translations of Guthe’s work that ap-
pear in this volume. Johannes Müller provided meticulous research assistance
with chapter 3. Erga Herzog and Mark Smith read drafts and made several con-
structive suggestions.
Maria Metzler is the best editor I could ever have hoped for. In addition to her
deep knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, she has an incredible eye for detail, and her
contributions and improvements are too many to count.
Ronit Prawer, my wonderful companion, has heard more about V than any rea-
sonable person would want to hear about anything, and yet she remains enthusi-
astic. Our countless conversations were immensely helpful, and I loved thinking
through so many of the ideas in this book together. Early on, Ronit would make
me stop working fanatically on this project, so I could attend to more pressing
matters, such as my then-unfinished dissertation. (Thank goodness.) At the same
time, her faith in me and in my work kept me going, as has always been the case.
Ronit, I love you.
My discussions on the Bible with ‫אמי מורתי‬, Schulamith Chava Halevy, have
always been inspiring and instructive. Since childhood, I have learned so much
from her maverick empathetic approach to the text and to its subjects. ‫אבי מורי‬,
Nachum Dershowitz, was a wonderful study partner throughout this journey.
Acknowledgments VII
His initial skepticism was motivating, and his many brilliant insights contributed
tremendously to this project. In my naïveté, I committed to typesetting this book
“myself.” Ultimately, it was my father who invested an unreasonable amount of his
time to code and tweak this LATEX template, and to show me the ropes. All credit
for the pleasing aesthetics of this volume go to him.
This book is dedicated to my parents, with love and gratitude.
Potsdam, Germany, 2020 Idan Dershowitz

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.1. An Unprecedented Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.2. Moabite Pottery Scandal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.3. Cut-Margin Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.2.4. Hebrew “Errors” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.2.5. Paleographic Objections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3. Philological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.1. The Character of V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.1. The Bifurcated Gerizim and Ebal Pericope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.2. The Conquest of Sihon’s Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3. The Absence of P in V’s Historical Exposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3.1. The Incipit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.2. The Injunction against Idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.3. The Stone Tablets and the Wooden Ark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.3.4. The Rebellion at Kadesh Barnea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4. Biblical Intertexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.1. The Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.1.1. Jeremiah 7:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.1.2. Jeremiah 29:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
X Table of Contents
4.1.3. Hosea 4:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.1.4. Psalm 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.1.5. Proverbs 6:16–35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.1.6. Leviticus 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.1.7. Ezekiel 22:6–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1.8. Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2. Gerizim and Ebal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2.1. The Tribal Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2.2. The Location of Gerizim and Ebal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.2.3. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6. Excursus: The Linguistic Profile of V, with Na’ama Pat-El . . . . . . . . 96

6.1. Orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.1.1. Diphthongs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.1.2. Word Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.1.3. Miscellaneous Orthographic Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2.1. The wəqāṭal Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2.2. The (wə-)yiqṭōl Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.2.3. ‫( ללחם‬D 3:1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.2.4. Negation of the Jussive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.2.5. Verbal Forms Following ‫“ עד‬Until” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.2.6. ‫( ונכה עד‬D 1:3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.2.7. ‫( לתת מפת‬E 1:6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.3.1. ‫( בלתי טפכם‬B 1:5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.3.2. ‫( למאד‬D 3:2; E 1:2–3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.3.3. ‫( בעת הזאת‬E 1:9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.3.4. Plural of ‫“ אב‬Father”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.3.5. Plural of Ethnonyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3.6. Disagreement of Suffixed Pronoun with Its Referent . . . . . . . . . 118
6.4. Lexicon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.4.1. ‫( הון‬E 3:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.4.2. ‫( יבעל עם כל בהמה‬G 5:12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.4.3. ‫( החרתך‬E 2:1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.4.4. ‫לו‬/‫( וכל אשר לך‬E 3:3–4, 4:6–7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.4.5. ‫( עדת שקר‬E 4:4; H 1:2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.4.6. ‫( חגהן‬D 2:7–8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.4.7. ‫( שארתך‬G 5:1 [?]; H 1:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.4.8. ‫( גם‬E 3:3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.4.9. ‫( מעלם‬C 1:4, 8; D 1:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Table of Contents XI
6.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7. Annotated Critical Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

7.1. Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.2. Sources and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.3. Text and Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8. English Translation of V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

8.1. Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8.2. Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

9.1. Introductory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
9.2. Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Index of Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Index of Modern Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

List of Figures and Tables
Fig. 1 Photograph of Moses Wilhelm Shapira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV

Fig. 2 Map of Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fig. 3 Two photographs of Fragment E, columns 1–2, and one un-
known fragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fig. 4 Cartoon of Ginsburg apprehending Shapira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fig. 5 Box of linen from Qumran with bituminous substance resulting
from leather decay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fig. 6 Folded fragment of 4QOtot (4Q319) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fig. 7 Fragments of 4QSerekh ha-Yaḥade (4Q259) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fig. 8 1QpHab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Fig. 9 4QShirShabbf (4Q405) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Fig. 10 11QPsa (11Q5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fig. 11 11QTemplea (11Q19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fig. 12 Brinner 11 (Sutro Library) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fig. 13 Ginsburg’s sketch of Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fig. 14 Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithogra-
phy (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Fig. 17 Table by Guthe of letterforms appearing in Fragments D and E
(Va ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Fig. 18 Drawings of Fragment E (Va ) from The Graphic (1883) . . . . . . . . 27
Fig. 19 Drawing of Vb fragment by William Simpson for The Illustrated
London News (1883) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Fig. 20 Ginsburg’s drawing of Fragment E that was analyzed by Lemaire 28
Fig. 21 Different version of Ginsburg’s drawing of the same column . . . 29
Fig. 22 Examples of vav in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ) . . . 30
Fig. 23 Vav in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . . . . . 30
Fig. 24 Examples of qoph in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ) . . 31
Fig. 25 Qoph in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . . . 31
Fig. 26 Examples of he in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ) . . . . . 32
Fig. 27 Illustration of several characters from The Graphic (1883) . . . . . 32
Fig. 28 Samaria Ostracon 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Figures and Tables XIII
Fig. 29 First page of Shapira’s draft transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Fig. 30 Second page of Shapira’s draft transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fig. 31 Third page of Shapira’s draft transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 1 Table of correspondences between Deuteronomy and V . . . . . . . 41
Table 2 The Decalogue constellation in V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Fig. 1. Photograph of Moses Wilhelm Shapira.
1. Introduction
In 1883, more than half a century before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
some intriguing manuscripts came to light that were greeted with considerable
public excitement.1 Written in Paleo-Hebrew script and consisting of a handful of
leather fragments, the text presented a short narrative that had much in common
with the biblical book of Deuteronomy. The British Museum was on the verge
of purchasing the fragments from their purveyor, the antiquities dealer Moses
Wilhelm Shapira. (See fig. 1.) The sale was abruptly called off, however, after the
manuscripts were declared to be forgeries, with Shapira himself the immediate
suspect. Since that time, the manuscripts have fallen out of circulation; it is un-
known whether the fragments still exist, or where they might be.
In this introductory chapter, I review the history of the manuscripts and pro-
vide a fresh analysis of the reasons they were initially judged forgeries. In light
of our current knowledge, none of the original reasons for dismissing the frag-
ments can be considered valid. More recent objections to the authenticity of the
manuscripts on paleographic grounds are likewise found to be untenable. In chap-
ter 2, I present overlooked archival material that severely undermines the verdict
of Shapira’s guilt.
In chapter 3, I show that the literary structure and content of the text itself
– which I call the Valediction of Moses, or “V” – constitutes evidence that the
manuscript fragments are bona fide ancient documents. Moreover, rather than
being a secondary abridgment of Deuteronomy, as has been assumed, V was
composed prior to the canonical book of Deuteronomy. Indeed, Deuteronomy
evolved out of V itself – or out of a very similar text. As such, V offers a priceless
key for illuminating the compositional history of this Pentateuchal text.
I explore intertexts between V and various biblical passages in chapter 4. These
intertexts suggest that V’s traditions were familiar to several biblical authors.
Conclusions and future directions are presented in chapter 5. An excursus co-
authored with Na’ama Pat-El (chapter 6) examines V’s linguistic profile, which
we find to be consistent with a First Temple–era text. Chapters 7–9 contain an
annotated critical edition of V, an English translation, and a reconstruction of
the Paleo-Hebrew text.
1 A separate discussion of the material covered in this chapter is published in Idan Der-
showitz, “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy Fragments,”
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133, no. 1 (2021).
2 1. Introduction
The Valediction of Moses is an extraordinary textual specimen with far-

reaching implications for biblical studies, particularly in its capacity to shed light
on the development of the book of Deuteronomy.
1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment

The prominent antiquities and manuscript dealer Moses Wilhelm Shapira (1830–
84) was born to a Jewish family in the city of Kamianets-Podilskyi, in present-day
Ukraine. He converted to Christianity when he was twenty-five years old and
moved to Jerusalem, where he would open a shop on Christian Quarter Street
in the Old City that offered miscellaneous souvenirs for sale, as well as valu-
able manuscripts and other antiquities. Shapira traveled extensively to acquire
his wares, many of which he sold to prominent international collectors and insti-
tutions.
According to Shapira, in 1878 he learned about several leather fragments that
Bedouins had reportedly found in a cave on the eastern side of the Dead Sea,
near Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon; see fig. 2). On a shelf or a ledge in the cave were
several linen-wrapped bundles that contained strips of blackened leather. (See
fig. 3.) One of the Bedouins took the strips, allegedly because he thought they
might bring good luck. These leather strips had a sticky black substance on the
back that looked like bitumen, to which the brittle remains of linen fabric were
stuck.2 With the assistance of a local sheikh, Shapira managed to procure from
a member of the Bedouin Ajayah tribe sixteen leather strips – manuscript frag-
ments of varying length and condition – for a very modest price. Upon further
examination, it became clear that the fragments represented three manuscripts
of the same text (namely, V ): One of the manuscripts was almost complete and a
second was somewhat fragmentary. What little remained of the third manuscript
was in very poor condition.3
In the summer of 1883, Shapira traveled to Europe and sought to have the
manuscripts evaluated by experts who were best equipped to assess their value
and authenticity. Shapira succeeded in gaining an audience for his fragments
in Berlin, where a number of eminent scholars gathered to analyze them. As re-
ported in The Times of London:
The committee met at the house of its convener, Professor Lepsius, on the 10th of July last;
and, while Mr. Shapira, of Jerusalem, was waiting in expectant trepidation in an adjoining
room, spent exactly one hour and a half in a close and critical investigation into the char-
acter of his goat-skin wares. At the end of the sitting they unanimously pronounced the
2 British Library Ms. Add. 41294, “Papers relative to M. W. Shapira’s forged MS. of
Deuteronomy,” 3.
3 Ibid., 29. I refer to the first of these manuscripts as Va , and the second as Vb .
1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment 3
Fig. 2. Map with Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon) marked. From Mitchell’s New General Atlas (Philadel-
phia: Mitchell, 1874). Image courtesy of the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection.
4 1. Introduction
Fig. 3. Two photographs of Fragment E, columns 1–2, and one unknown fragment. In the top
image, Fragment E is folded in half, with column 4 (verso) partially visible behind column 1
(recto). The image of the unknown fragment is cropped at the bottom. By permission of the
British Library (Ms. Add. 41294).
alleged codex to be a clever and impudent forgery. There was some thought of calling in
a chemist… [but they] deemed it unnecessary to call for further proof.4
At around the same time that the Berlin committee conducted their brief
evaluation, another biblical scholar, Hermann Guthe, worked to decipher the
manuscripts in Leipzig with the historian Eduard Meyer. Guthe and Meyer were
able to spend several days with the texts in Shapira’s hotel room, but even this
was not sufficient time to undertake a thorough analysis of the manuscripts. The
leather fragments were severely blackened and became blacker by the week. Since
most of the text, written in black ink, was illegible against this dark background,
and infrared photography was not yet in use, Guthe and Meyer resorted to brush-
ing alcohol on the leather to make the ink shine against the light. Guthe described
their method as follows:
We were only able to read small parts without any kind of aid. Usually, we applied some
alcohol (spirit) with a small brush to sections of the manuscript and then tried to identify
the letters that glistened from the moisture. Unfortunately, this was not always possible,
even with help of a magnifying glass. This explains the various large and small gaps that
the reader will encounter when reading the text of the leather manuscript.5
Due to summer thunderstorms, the light was too poor to allow the scholars to
confirm their preliminary transcription of certain columns. Guthe nonetheless
published his findings the following month.6 Although he initially thought the
fragments to be authentic,7 Guthe eventually became persuaded that they were
forgeries.
Despite the initial unfavorable reception of the manuscripts in Germany,
Shapira persisted in his quest. He traveled from Berlin to London, where he
reportedly offered to sell his fragments to the British Museum for one million
pounds.8 Having already acquired many valuable manuscripts from Shapira,9
the British Museum seriously considered purchasing these fragments from him
as well, pending their authentication by the scholar Christian David Ginsburg.
Ginsburg devoted several weeks to studying the manuscripts, regularly publish-
ing updates and translations of the text in The Athenæum, a London weekly liter-
4 “The Shapira Manuscripts,” The Times (August 28, 1883), 5. According to the same article,
“This committee consisted of Professor Dillmann, of the Hebrew Chair; Professor Sachau, the
distinguished Orientalist; Professor Schrader, the celebrated Assyriologist; Professor Ermann,
another Hebrew scholar; and Dr. Schneider” (ibid.).
5 Hermann Guthe, Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Rede an die
Kinder Israel (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883), 21. (My translation.)
6 Ibid.
7 “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript,” The Times (August 8, 1883), 11.
8 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 24; The Times (August 3, 1883), 9.
9 George Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British
Museum, vol. 4 (London: The British Museum, 1935), viii–ix.

6 1. Introduction
ary magazine.10 While awaiting Ginsburg’s verdict, the British Museum exhibited
two of the fragments, which attracted large crowds. Among the curious onlookers
was none other than the prime minister, William Gladstone, who also met with
Shapira to learn more about the manuscripts.11
Another noteworthy visitor to the British Museum at this time was the French
Orientalist and diplomat Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, a longtime neme-
sis of Shapira’s.12 Clermont-Ganneau arrived in London and requested access
to the fragments, which he already believed must be forgeries.13 Ginsburg per-
mitted him a few minutes with “two or three” fragments,14 on the condition
that Clermont-Ganneau refrain from publishing anything on the matter until
Ginsburg published his own report.15 And yet the very next morning, Clermont-
Ganneau declared his opinion to the press that the fragments were forgeries.
Afterward, Clermont-Ganneau was denied further access to the fragments.
But this did not prevent him from making further claims regarding Shapira’s
manuscripts. As Clermont-Ganneau himself noted:
In these circumstances, the object of my mission became extremely difficult to attain, and
I almost despaired of it. I did not, however, lose courage. I set to work with the meagre
means of information which were at my disposal: – (1) The hasty inspection of two or
three pieces which M. Ginsburg had allowed me to handle for a few minutes on my first
visit; (2) the examination of two fragments exposed to public view in a glass case in the
manuscript department of the British Museum – a case very ill-lighted and difficult of
approach, owing to the crowd of the curious pressing round these venerable relics.16
Based solely on “these meagre means of information,” Clermont-Ganneau man-

aged to craft a theory regarding the method by which the forgery was carried out.
He argued that the forger had obtained the leather fragments by cutting off the
lower margins of Torah scrolls, noting underhandedly that “Mr. Shapira must be
well acquainted with [such scrolls], for he deals in them.”17 Soon after Clermont-
Ganneau made his declaration, Ginsburg too announced the results of his assess-
10 Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2911 (Au-
gust 11, 1883), 178–79; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2912 (Au-
gust 18, 1883), 206; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2913 (August 25,
1883), 242–44; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8,
1883), 304–5.
11 “The Shapira Manuscript,” The London Evening Standard (August 14, 1883), 3.
12 See §1.2.2.
13 Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts,” The Times (August 21,
1883), 8: “I will not conceal the fact that I entertained in advance, most serious doubts as to
their authenticity, and that I came here in order to settle these doubts. But I thought it my duty
to pronounce no opinion until I had seen the originals.”
14 Ibid.
15 “From our London Correspondent (by Private Wire),” The Manchester Guardian
(September 6, 1883), 5.
16 Clermont-Ganneau, “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts,” The Times (August 21, 1883), 8.
17 Ibid.
ment,18 which were much the same. Ginsburg highlighted two primary reasons
for his forgery verdict: First, in line with the theory that the manuscripts had
been cut from the margins of scrolls,19 Ginsburg stated that the fragments were a
perfect match for Yemenite Torah scrolls. Second, Ginsburg observed that there
were various errors in the Hebrew text, several of which he believed could have
been made only by someone of European Jewish extraction.20 Although Ginsburg
did not explicitly accuse Shapira of forgery, his statement on the matter left little
room for doubt: Not only was Shapira of European Jewish extraction, but it was
well known that he was also the primary, if not only, dealer of Yemenite Torah
scrolls at the time. A cartoon published in the magazine Punch on September 8,
1883 depicts Shapira as a stereotypical Jew, with the ink of his devious forgery
still dripping from his fingers. The dubious character is held in a firm grip by
Ginsburg, who is shown valiantly apprehending Shapira in front of the British
Museum.21 See fig. 4.
In light of Ginsburg’s authoritative ruling, the British Museum declined to buy
the fragments, which were apparently abandoned by the devastated Shapira. In a
letter to Ginsburg dated August 23, 1883, Shapira expressed his abjection and a
sense of betrayal, clinging to his avowed belief that the manuscripts were authen-
tic:
Dear Dr. Ginsburg!

You have made a fool of me by publishing & exhibiting things that you believe to be false.
I do not think I will be able to survive this shame. Although I am yet not Convinced that
the M.s. is a forgery unless Ganneau did it!
I will leave London in a day or two for Berlin.
Yours truly,
M W Shapira22
Word of this letter seems to have reached The Times, which published the follow-
ing statement: “[Shapira] is so disappointed with the results of his bargain that
he threatens to commit suicide. This, we venture to think, he will not do.”23 But
Shapira never returned to his wife and daughters in Jerusalem. After spending six
18 Ginsburg’s letter to Edward Bond of the British Museum, dated August 22, 1883, was
published in The Times (August 27, 1883), 6; Ginsburg then published his final installment on
the manuscripts in The Athenæum: “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915
(September 8, 1883), 304–5. In both publications, Ginsburg designated the manuscripts forg-
eries.
19 It is possible that Ginsburg initiated this theory rather than Clermont-Ganneau. For the
controversy regarding which of these scholars first developed the idea that the manuscripts
were excised from the margins of eastern Torah scrolls, see “From our London Correspondent
(by Private Wire),” The Manchester Guardian (September 6, 1883), 5.
20 The Times (August 27, 1883), 6.
21 Punch, or the London Charivari (September 8, 1883), 118.
22 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 16.
8 1. Introduction
Fig. 4. Cartoon of Ginsburg apprehending Shapira.

1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict 9
months wandering through Europe, Shapira committed suicide in a hotel room

in Rotterdam, Holland, where his body was found on March 9, 1884.
Shapira’s manuscripts eventually made their way from the British Museum to
Sotheby’s, where they were purchased in July 1885 by the bookseller Bernard
Quaritch. (Quaritch’s namesake bookshop still exists in London.) Quaritch went
on to sell the fragments in 1898 or 1899 to Philip Brookes Mason, a naturalist,
doctor, and avid collector.24 Their subsequent fate is unknown.
1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict

Beyond the primary reasons given by Ginsburg, which will be discussed at greater
length below, why were Shapira’s fragments judged forgeries in 1883? It appears
that several factors conspired to seal their fate. First, very simply, the Dead Sea
Scrolls had not yet been discovered. The manuscripts that Shapira offered to the
scholarly world were thus entirely without precedent. Second, Shapira’s record
was tarnished due to a previous scandal involving suspect artifacts. Third, the
discipline of biblical studies was very much in its infancy, and little was known
about the composition history of Deuteronomy. Other factors, including ram-
pant anti-Jewish (and anti-Arab; see below) sentiments, surely played a part as
well. After all, despite having “fair hair and blue eyes; not the least like the or-
dinary Polish Jew,” Shapira would always remain a Hebrew who “converted to
Christianity but not to good works.”25
1.2.1. An Unprecedented Discovery

The distinguished philologist Archibald Sayce stated his opinion on Shapira’s
fragments in August 1883:
It is really demanding too much of Western credulity to ask us to believe that in a damp
climate like that of Palestine any sheepskins could have lasted for nearly 3,000 years, either
above ground or under ground, even though they may have been abundantly salted with
asphalte from the Vale of Siddim itself.26
Another commentary published two years later in the St. James Gazette (Jan-
uary 2, 1885) expresses a similar view on Shapira’s manuscripts: “Every one re-
members the announcement of the original copy of Deuteronomy: how people
24 Charles Francis Thornewill, “Obituary Notice of Philip Brookes Mason,” Journal of Con-
chology 11 (1904): 104–5, at 105. See also Patricia Francis, “Philip Brookes Mason (1842–1903):
Surgeon, General Practitioner and Naturalist,” Archives of Natural History 42, no. 1 (2015): 126–
39.
25 Walter Besant, Autobiography of Sir Walter Besant (London: Hutchinson, 1902), 162.
26 Archibald H. Sayce, “Correspondence: The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” The Academy
589 (August 24, 1883), 116–17, at 117.

10 1. Introduction
who knew anything about leather and linen, and damp caves, and Arabs, and
Jerusalem curiosity-dealers, laughed at the whole thing.”
In fact, the details of Shapira’s scorned discovery story were so similar to those
of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946–47 that some scholars initially concluded the
latter were also a hoax. Like Shapira’s manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls were said
to have been accidentally discovered by Bedouins in caves around the Dead Sea,
and many were also wrapped in linen and covered with a bituminous substance.27
In 1949, Solomon Zeitlin, an expert on the Second Temple period and editor
of the Jewish Quarterly Review, cited Shapira’s manuscripts as evidence that the
Dead Sea Scrolls must likewise be forgeries:
Professor Burrows seems to have forgotten the affair of Shapira, who produced a
manuscript of the Book of Deuteronomy, written on parchment in archaic Hebrew script.
He stated that he procured it from a Bedouin who told him that he found it in a cave
(again a Bedouin and a cave). Scholars and experts of the British Museum were convinced
of its authenticity until it was discovered to have been produced by Shapira himself over
a period of twenty years. Thus “the Bedouin and the cave” became a myth.28
In retrospect, Zeitlin’s judgment on the matter was incorrect. The Dead Sea
Scrolls were soon confirmed to be genuine, and they marked a watershed in the
field of biblical studies. Had Shapira’s manuscripts come to light after the veri-
fication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, his texts certainly would have been judged dif-
ferently. Moreover, the details of discovery as reported by Shapira – which are
almost identical to the circumstances surrounding the unearthing of the Dead
Sea Scrolls – must now be regarded as strong evidence supporting the validity of
Shapira’s fragments.29 Indeed, the presence of a bituminous substance on both
the Shapira fragments and many Dead Sea Scrolls provides even more support
27 See, e.g., Naama Sukenik, “The Temple Scroll Wrapper from Cave 11. MS 5095/2, MS
5095/4, MS 5095/1,” in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the
Schøyen Collection, ed. Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois (London: T&T Clark,
2016), 339–50; Roland de Vaux, “Post-Scriptum: La Cachette des Manuscrits Hébreux,” Revue
Biblique 56, no. 2 (1949): 234–37; Joan E. Taylor, “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The
Qumran Genizah Theory Revisited,” in “Go Out and Study the Land” (Judges 18:2): Archaeolog-
ical, Historical, and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness,
and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 269–315, at 280, 314–15.
28 Solomon Zeitlin, “The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls,” Jewish Quarterly Review 40, no.
1 (1949): 57–78, at 67.

29 Several scholars have made a case for the authenticity of Shapira’s manuscripts (as post-
biblical Hellenistic documents) in light of their affinity to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but these ar-
guments have not been widely accepted. See, e.g., Jacob L. Teicher, “The Genuineness of the
Shapira Manuscripts,” The Times Literary Supplement (London) (March 22, 1957), 184; Mena-
hem Mansoor, “The Case of Shapira’s Dead Sea (Deuteronomy) Scrolls of 1883,” Wisconsin
Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 47 (1958): 183–225; John Marco Allegro, The Shapira
Affair (New York: Doubleday, 1965); Helen G. Jefferson, “The Shapira Manuscript and the
Qumran Scrolls,” Revue de Qumrân 6, no. 3 (1968): 391–99; Shlomo Guil, “The Shapira Scroll
Was an Authentic Dead Sea Scroll,” PEQ 149, no. 1 (2017): 6–27; Yoram Sabo, The Scroll Mer-
chant: In Search of Moses Wilhelm Shapira’s Lost Jewish Treasure (Hebrew) (Bnei Brak: Hakib-
Fig. 5. Box of linen from Qumran with bituminous substance resulting from leather decay. Cour-
tesy of Mireille Bélis, École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem.
for antiquity than is apparent at first glance. As it turns out, despite its prevalence
in the Dead Sea region, bitumen is a red herring. The black substance found on
the Dead Sea Scrolls and their linen wrappings is, in fact, leather that has decom-
posed over the span of millennia:
In the case of certain wads of manuscript material, a complication presented itself in the
form of a black bituminous substance which permeated the tissue and prevented the mem-
branes from being separated. […] [T]he black material was tested with solvents. […] Simi-
lar tests applied to fragments of the parchment showed that some pieces behaved towards
solvents in the same way as the black material itself and, when a fragment of parchment
came to light which had clearly decomposed at one edge to this pitch-like material, its ori-
gin was no longer it doubt – the black substance was, in fact, the ultimate decomposition
product of the animal membrane, in other words, a form of glue.30
Apart from the discovery story, there were other unusual features of Shapira’s
manuscripts that caused scholars to doubt their authenticity: The fragments ex-
hibited distinct vertical creases, indicating that the leather had been folded like
butz Hameuchad, 2018). Cf. Colette Sirat, “Les Fragments Shapira,” Revue des Études Juives 1–2
(1984): 95–111.
30 Harold J. Plenderleith, “Technical Note on Unwrapping of Dead Sea Scroll Fragments,”
in Qumran Cave 1, ed. Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T. Milik, DJD 1 (Oxford: Clarendon,
1955), 39–40, at 40. See also Mireille Bélis, “The Unpublished Textiles from the Qumran Caves,”
in The Caves of Qumran, ed. Marcello Fidanzio (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 123–36.
12 1. Introduction
Fig. 6. Folded fragment of 4QOtot (4Q319), as it was discovered. Courtesy of the Leon Levy
Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Najib Anton Albina)
an accordion or fold-out postcards, rather than rolled up like a scroll;31 some

fragments had one relatively smooth edge, which was considered a tell-tale sign
of recent cutting;32 and the scribes largely disregarded the marginal dry-point
lines on the manuscripts.33 Today, however, we possess numerous verified an-
cient manuscripts – from Qumran and elsewhere – that share these exact fea-
tures.34 Again, the odd details that made Shapira’s manuscripts seem so dubious
in the late 1800s have now transformed into evidence substantiating their antiq-
uity. See figs. 5–9.
1.2.2. Moabite Pottery Scandal

The second unpropitious point of timing concerns an event in Shapira’s own ca-
reer. Roughly a decade before the debut of his manuscripts on the world stage, a
large collection of Moabite figurines sold by Shapira to the German Oriental Soci-
ety (DMG) and Royal Museum (Altes Museum) in Berlin were determined to be
31 Sirat (“Les Fragments Shapira,” 110–11) stated that the vertical creases in Shapira’s
manuscripts must be an anachronism.

32 Ginsburg, The Times (August 27, 1883), 6 (point III).
33 Ibid. (point II).
34 See discussion of cut-margin theory in §1.2.3.
Fig. 7. Several fragments of 4QSerekh ha-Yaḥade (4Q259; same manuscript as 4Q319), with fold
between columns visible. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel
Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Najib Anton Albina)
14 1. Introduction
Fig. 8. 1QpHab with one smooth and one ragged edge. Left margins are disregarded. Courtesy
of the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum.
Fig. 9. 4QShirShabbf (4Q405). Horizontal dry-point lines are disregarded. Courtesy of the Leon
Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Shai Halevi)
inauthentic. The forgery was announced in 1876 by none other than Clermont-
Ganneau.35 Moreover, a few of Shapira’s associates had confessed to forging the
pottery, further implicating Shapira in the scandal. The same associates would
later rescind their confessions, which they said had been extracted from them by
Clermont-Ganneau, a powerful diplomat, by means of blackmail and bribery.36
Alleged unscrupulous conduct aside, Clermont-Ganneau also did not have a
unblemished record when it came to assessing the authenticity of ancient arti-
facts. For instance, he also declared that the Osorkon Bust, or Eliba’l Inscription
(discovered in 1881), was a fake – a judgment that was later shown to be false.37
Today this bust of Pharaoh Osorkon I is housed in the Louvre.
Shapira maintained his innocence in the Moabite pottery affair, insisting that
he himself had expressed doubts about the authenticity of the figurines but had
proceeded to broker the deal under pressure from the Prussian government,
which was eager to acquire Moabite artifacts following the sensational discovery
of the Moabite Stone in 1868–70. Shapira continued to conduct successful busi-
ness after this scandal. The British Museum in particular purchased hundreds of
important manuscripts from Shapira in the late 1870s and early 1880s.38 Nonethe-
less, Shapira’s reputation was tarnished by the incident, which caused some to
doubt the genuineness of his Deuteronomy manuscripts as well.39
It should be remembered that before the development of technologies such as
carbon dating that make it possible to verify the antiquity of certain objects, the
risk of inadvertently buying and selling inauthentic material was substantial.40
35 Charles Clermont-Ganneau, Les fraudes archéologiques en Palestine, suivies de quelques
monuments phéniciens apocryphes (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1885), 179–81.

36 See “The Shapira Collection,” The Athenæum (March 7, 1874), 326–27.
37 René Dussaud, “L’Origine de l’alphabet et son évolution première d’après les découvertes
de Byblos,” Syria 25, no. 1/2 (1946): 36–52, at 48. I thank Benjamin Sass for bringing this point
to my attention.
38 Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum,
vol. 4, viii–ix.
39 See, e.g., Charles Clermont-Ganneau, “Genuine and False Inscriptions in Palestine,” Pales-
tine Exploration Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1884): 89–100, at 92.

40 Shapira’s daughter, in a roman à clef, describes the receipt of the Moabite pottery as fol-
lows: “On the following morning, when she ran out into the paddock, she found it transformed
into a regular caravansary. It was alive with strange men and their beasts, and piled up with
bales of stuffs and calabashes filled with roses of Jericho and the balm of Gilead and bitter ap-
ples from the Dead Sea. One corner was filled with rows of coal-black sacks which terrified
Siona. They were said to contain wheat from the banks of Jordan and barley from the land of
Moab. A Bedouin with a long spear was in charge of this particular corner, and Siona thought
he looked just like a demon in a fairy tale mounting guard over priceless treasure. Such sacks
as these were never opened when her father was not present. He always stood by, whilst Selim,
the factotum of the household, plunged his hands into the grain, extracting urns and idols and
sundry articles in pottery. These Mr. Benedictus would carry away with the greatest care to that
mysterious upper room at the top of the stone steps. But whenever he passed Ouarda, bearing
his precious spoils, she would promptly cross herself, whilst Siona’s mother would sigh audi-
bly: ‘Oh, my God, my God, what, more of these Moabitish idols!’” (Myriam Harry, The Little
16 1. Introduction
Whether or not Shapira was as blameless in the affair as he claimed, it is clear

that his manuscripts were assessed in the light of the Moabite pottery scandal.
1.2.3. Cut-Margin Theory

Let us turn now to consider the two points that had convinced Ginsburg the
manuscripts were fraudulent. First, both he and Clermont-Ganneau asserted that
Shapira’s fragments had been cut from the bottom of Yemenite Torah scrolls.41
The main reason for their suspicion had to do with the edges of the leather strips:
Some of Shapira’s fragments – although by no means all of them – had one edge
that was relatively smooth, while the other edges were rougher.42 This was taken
as proof that the fragments had been recently excised, since it was believed that
ancient manuscripts could not have a smooth edge. In Ginsburg’s words, “Now,
many of the Shapira slips are only ragged at the bottom, but straight at the top,
thus plainly showing that they have been comparatively recently cut off from the
scrolls since they have not yet had time to become ragged at the top.”43
However, there is nothing unusual about an ancient manuscript having one
smooth and one degraded edge. Indeed, there are abundant such Dead Sea
Scrolls. Pictured below are just a few examples. Ginsburg’s confident assertion
on this point is thus plainly misguided. See figs. 10–11.
Since Clermont-Ganneau himself had been banned from further examining
the fragments, he published a call for other scholars to compare Shapira’s leather
strips with Torah scrolls, outlining detailed instructions for a test that would
prove the corrupt origins of the fragments:
Daughter of Jerusalem, trans. Phoebe Allen [New York: E. P. Dutton, 1919], 8–9. “Mr. Benedic-
tus” refers to Shapira.)
41 In his letter to Bond published in The Times, Ginsburg outlined several other claims to
support the theory that Shapira’s manuscripts were cut from Yemenite scrolls, noting that “(1),
some of them are written on similar rough sheep skins to the material on which the Deuteron-
omy slips are written; (2), the lower margin of some of these scrolls […] is the same width as the
height of the Shapira slips; and (3), one of these scrolls – viz., Oriental, 1457, has actually such a
cut off slip fastened to the beginning of Genesis – and this scroll was bought from Mr. Shapira in
1877, the very year in which he declares that he obtained the inscribed slips” (The Times [August
27, 1883], 6). In fact, Shapira stated that he first heard about (and obtained) the manuscripts in
1878. Furthermore, as mentioned below, it was found that the leather of Shapira’s manuscripts
differed “very considerably” from such Torah scrolls (The Daily News [August 22, 1883], 3).
42 In his report, Hermann Guthe provides a different account of the fragments’ edges. Ac-
cording to him, “only a few pieces have a better-preserved, let alone well-preserved, edge. […]
The long edges exhibit similar differences in their state of preservation; on one strip, the leather
has become so brittle that one could easily tear or pinch it off like a decayed piece of cloth”
(Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 3; my translation). Guthe’s description of the eroded state of most
of the fragments, on their short and long edges alike, appears to be supported by the available
photographs and drawings of the fragments.
Fig. 10. 11QPsa (11Q5) with one smooth and one ragged edge. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead
Sea Scrolls Digital Library, Israel Antiquities Authority. (Photo: Najib Anton Albina)
Fig. 11. 11QTemplea (11Q19) with one smooth and one ragged edge. Courtesy of the Shrine of
the Book, Israel Museum.
18 1. Introduction
I advise all the impartial scholars […] to whom may be permitted an examination which is
denied to me (I know not, or rather, I know very well why) to take the suspected strips, and
to lay them against the lower edge of one of the synagogue rolls preserved at the British
Museum. […] (1). To ascertain whether, by chance, there does not remain on the upper
portion of the strips traces of the tails of the square Hebrew letters, especially of the final
letters which, as we know, descend below the normal line. (2). To see if the back of the
leather does not materially differ in appearance from the face of it; and whether it has not
been left in the raw state, as on the synagogue rolls. (3). To take the average height of all the
strips, in order to obtain from them the greatest height, which will enable us to determine
the height of the original margin of the roll (or the rolls) that supplied the forger. I can at
once affirm that on this roll the columns of square Hebrew characters were from 10 to 11
cm in breadth, and were separated by blank intervals of about 4½ cm in breadth. (4). To
ascertain the description of the leather, and above all of the thread in the seams.44
As it turns out, at least one person accepted this challenge shortly thereafter and
published the results, which failed to confirm Clermont-Ganneau’s suspicions:
M. Clermont Ganneau […] has published a letter, in which he claims to have discov-
ered that the manuscript is a forgery, and that it was written on slips cut from the mar-
gin of a comparatively modern synagogue-roll. […] But the portion of the Deuteronomy
manuscript examined by the present writer was written on leather of a thicker character,
differing very considerably from that usually employed in synagogue-rolls.45
Furthermore, no traces of letters were found on the top of Shapira’s leather strips.
Despite the lack of evidence for the cut-margin theory, it has proved remark-
ably tenacious. In recent years, the journalist Chanan Tigay has even claimed to
have located the exact scroll from which Shapira cut his fragments, since its bot-
tom margin was removed.46 But the scroll identified by Tigay (Brinner 11, in San
Francisco’s Sutro Library) shows signs of significant water damage, particularly
in the lower portion. It is therefore almost certain that the bottom part of the
manuscript was excised in order to stem further rot from the severe water dam-
age in that area, rather than to serve as the medium for a forged text.47 See fig.
12.
1.2.4. Hebrew “Errors”

Besides his suspicion that Shapira’s fragments had been cut from the margins
of eastern Torah scrolls – a theory for which there is no viable corroborating
evidence – Ginsburg also claimed that there were certain errors in the Hebrew
44 Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts,” The Times (August 21,
1883), 8.
45 The Daily News (August 22, 1883), 3; no byline. This is cited in Mansoor, “Shapira’s Dead
Sea Scrolls,” 197.

46 Chanan Tigay, The Lost Book of Moses: The Hunt for the World’s Oldest Bible (New York:
HarperCollins, 2016), 316–18.

47 For additional details and a more thorough rebuttal of Tigay’s claim, see Dershowitz, “Vale-
diction of Moses.”
Fig. 12. Brinner 11, showing water damage. Courtesy of the Sutro Library, San Francisco.
20 1. Introduction
that could have only been made by “a Polish, Russian, or German Jew, or one who
had learned Hebrew in the north of Europe.”48
For example, Ginsburg surmised that the ostensible mix-up between the He-
brew letters khet and kaph in Fragment D (column 2, line 2) was a phonetic er-
ror pointing to a European Jewish compiler who would have pronounced “the
undageshed caph and the guttural letter cheth alike.”49 The word in question was
initially transcribed by Guthe, Ginsburg, and Shapira as ‫כבל‬, rather than the ex-
pected ‫“( חבל‬region,” corresponding to Deut 3:4). In the forgery scheme envi-
sioned by Ginsburg, the compiler of the Hebrew text would have verbally dic-
tated the text to a skilled scribe who then wrote out the words in the archaic
Paleo-Hebrew script.50 But in fact, since the kaph of ‫ כבל‬does not follow a vowel,
it would have corresponded to the stop /k/, not the fricative /x/. This particular
word is thus not a viable candidate for the supposed error identified by Gins-
burg.51 In a letter, Shapira would later propose the more probable reading ‫( גבל‬the
letters gimel and kaph are rather similar in the script of the Shapira manuscripts),
meaning “border/territory.”
Another apparent confusion of khet and kaph occurs just a few lines later (Frag-
ment D, column 2, line 8) in the word transcribed by Ginsburg as ‫מנסחהן‬, “from
their libations/drink offerings,” but this time a khet appears where a kaph is ex-
pected. The orthography indeed appears to be unusual in this case, but again it
makes little sense to suppose a phonetic error between the two sounds, since here
too the expected kaph does not follow a vowel and so would not be pronounced
like khet. Rather than betraying a modern scribal scenario, the substitution of the
two letters could well be archaic. The Hebrew word ‫( לתך‬with final kaph) cor-
responds to Ugaritic ltḥ (with final khet), for instance, and the Dead Sea Scroll
4Q540, which dates to the Hasmonean period, has ‫ כסר‬instead of the expected ‫חסר‬
(fragment 1, line 3). We must also consider the possibility that the word was not
accurately transcribed here, since Guthe indicated that he found this particular
letter to be completely illegible.52
48The Times (August 27, 1883), 6.
49Ibid.
50 Ginsburg thought the person who conceived the Hebrew text could not have also written
out the Paleo-Hebrew (i.e., “Phoenician”) script because of certain mistakes in the text that Gins-
burg felt sure the author would have corrected had he been able to read the archaic letterforms:
“The compiler of the text…could not have been familiar with the Phoenician characters exhib-
ited in these slips, or he would assuredly have read over the transcript and have detected these
errors. He would especially have noticed the transposition of the two letters in the predicate
applied to God, which, instead of saying He was ‘angry,’ declares that He ‘committed adultery’”
(ibid.).
51 For an earlier dismantling of this and other arguments discussed in this section, see Man-
soor, “Shapira’s Dead Sea Scrolls,” 214–17. See also footnote 53 in the critical edition of V (chap-
ter 7).
52 See Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 30. Another example noted by Ginsburg is the string of let-
ters he reads as ‫ לתתהות‬or ‫ לתתוהת‬in E 1:6, which he takes to be an ignorant corruption of the
canonical ‫( לטוטפות‬translated as “frontlets”) – namely, a mix-up between tet and tav, again sup-
1.2.5. Paleographic Objections

Apart from the reasons enumerated by Ginsburg in 1883 and discussed above, the
only substantial new arguments that have been leveled against the authenticity of
Shapira’s manuscripts in recent years pertain to paleography. But since paleog-
raphy is a study of ancient writing, and the Shapira manuscripts are unavailable,
such analyses must be undertaken with great caution.
Without access to the manuscripts themselves or legible photographs, schol-
ars who wish to study the letterforms are forced to rely on renderings of Shapira’s
fragments produced by a few artists and scholars in the 1880s. In terms of script-
bearing illustrations, we have the various drawings of Va Fragment E made by or
for Ginsburg (figs. 13–16),53 as well as a table of letterforms prepared by Guthe
(fig. 17).54 It is only these scholarly renderings that have received any paleo-
graphic attention. In addition, drawings were prepared by two or three “naïve”
artists, but these have been almost entirely overlooked. They comprise two draw-
ings for The Graphic – one column of a fragment of Va with several legible char-
acters (fig. 18, bottom), and an illustration of the first line of text on Fragment
A (fig. 18, top)55 – and one drawing for The Illustrated London News of a col-
umn of Vb bearing little legible text (fig. 19).56 Importantly, the representations
of the same letterforms by the various artists differ dramatically. Even the dif-
ferent drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing include radical divergences. Furthermore, it
is imperative to realize that the scholars, on the one hand, and the naïve artists,
on the other, were engaged in altogether different enterprises. The scholars were
copying the Paleo-Hebrew text they had deciphered, whereas the naïve artists,
who were illiterate in Paleo-Hebrew, were simply drawing the shapes they dis-
cerned.57
posedly caused by the particular pronunciation of a European Jew. For a European Jew, how-
ever, the two tavs here would correspond to /s/, whereas the tets of ‫ לטוטפות‬would be /t/. Even
if this faulty reasoning could explain the tet/tav substitution, it would not account for the sub-
sequent three characters: ‫ הות‬or ‫והת‬, per Ginsburg, rather than the expected ‫( פות‬or rather ‫ פת‬in
V’s orthographic scheme). For a detailed analysis of these six letters, which I reconstruct as ‫לתת‬
‫ ֯מ ֯פת‬, see note 91 in the critical edition. See also §6.2.7.
53 The different versions of Ginsburg’s drawing are shown in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34 (top
and bottom), 35 (top and bottom), 36 (top and bottom), 37–38; Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of
Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 305.
54 Guthe’s table of letterforms can be found in the appendix to Lederhandschrift, on p. 96.
55 The Graphic (September 1, 1883), 224.
56 The Illustrated London News (August 25, 1883), 181.
57 For a critique of Ginsburg’s renderings and a detailed analysis of the problems involved
with applying paleographic tools to this text, see Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.”
22 1. Introduction
Fig. 13. Ginsburg’s sketch (above) of Fragment E (Va ) and drawing as it appeared in The
Athenæum 2915 (below). Note especially the different representations of the penultimate line
of column 3. Sketch by permission of the British Library (Ms. Add. 41294).
Fig. 14. Drawing of Fragment E (Va ) prepared by Dangerfield Lithography (London, 1883), in consultation with Ginsburg. By permission of the British
Library (Ms. Add. 41294).
23
24
1. Introduction
25
26 1. Introduction
Fig. 17. Table by Guthe of letterforms in Fragments D and E (Va ).

Fig. 18. Drawings of Fragment E (Va ) from The Graphic (1883). Column 3 is shown below. The
text on top is from Fragment A, column 1.
Fig. 19. Drawing of Vb fragment from The Illustrated London News (1883).
28 1. Introduction
Among those who have raised objections to Shapira’s fragments on epigraphic

grounds is André Lemaire, who published the following statement in a 1997 issue
of Biblical Archaeology Review:
Paleographical analysis reveals the work of at least two different scribes. However, the
letter shapes do not correspond exactly to any known ancient West Semitic script. It is nei-
ther Moabite (although most letters seem like imitations of Moabite writing in the Mesha
Stele, which records the ninth-century B.C.E. Moabite king Mesha’s victories over Israel;
photo and detail of drawing, below) nor “Canaanite” (West Semitic writing from about
the 13th to the 11th century B.C.E.). It is neither the Hebrew script used during the First
Temple period nor the archaizing paleo-Hebrew script found on coins of the First Jewish
Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.) and the Second Jewish Revolt (132–135 C.E.) and in
several of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In truth, after a simple look at the facsimile, an experienced
paleographer can see it is a forgery.58
Lemaire bases his claim here on an early draft of Fragment E by Ginsburg, which
– problematically – is quite different from Ginsburg’s other drawings of the very
same fragment, as can be seen, for example, from a comparison of figs. 20 and
21.59 Because this drawing is demonstrably unreliable, the results of Lemaire’s
paleographic assessment are immaterial.
Fig. 20. Ginsburg’s drawing of Fragment E that was analyzed by Lemaire (BL Ms. Add. 41294,
35).
58 André Lemaire, “Paleography’s Verdict: They’re Fakes!” Biblical Archaeology Review 23,
no. 3 (1997): 36–38, at 38 (emphasis mine).

59 For Ginsburg’s various drawings of the manuscript, see BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34 (top and
bottom), 35 (top and bottom), 36 (top and bottom), 37–38; Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of
Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 305.
Fig. 21. Different version of Ginsburg’s drawing of the same column (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 34).
Even an untrained eye can spot numerous differences between these two ver-
sions of the same column as drawn by Ginsburg. I will highlight just two sample
discrepancies. In line 8 (Va , Fragment E, column 1), the word ‫ בין‬looks quite
different in the draft published in Lemaire’s article (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 35) as
compared with another drawing of the same column by Ginsburg (BL Ms. Add.
41294, 34):
The word ‫ הזאת‬in the same column likewise displays noteworthy differences
in each of its letters, as well as in the inclination of the line:
A comparison of these two drafts calls into question the possibility of conduct-
ing any fruitful second-hand paleographic analysis in this case. Furthermore, as I
30 1. Introduction
discuss in my article on the Shapira fragments, Ginsburg’s rendering of the Mesha

Stele exhibits radically different paleography from the object itself, further calling
into question the enterprise of undertaking a paleographic analysis on the basis
of his drawings.60
Ginsburg’s drawings also differ considerably from the table of letterforms sup-
plied by Guthe. Again, I cite only two examples here. In Ginsburg’s drafts of Frag-
ment E he consistently represents the letter vav with two diagonal strokes, so that
it resembles a lowercase “y.” By contrast, in Guthe’s table of the letterforms in this
very fragment, the vav is rendered with what appear to be three strokes, produc-
ing a much narrower, more vertical, and more symmetrical letterform.
Fig. 22. Examples of vav in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ).
Fig. 23. Vav in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ).
The differences between Ginsburg’s and Guthe’s renderings of the qoph in

Fragment E are no less striking. In Ginsburg’s drawings, the qoph is represented
as a circle intersected by a vertical stroke.61 In Guthe’s drawing of the qoph let-
terforms in this fragment, not only is the vertical stroke substantially longer than
in Ginsburg’s drawings, but it also clearly does not intersect the circle. (See figs.
24 and 25.) Indeed, Guthe says as much explicitly in his discussion of the letter,
drawing attention to the distinctiveness of this specific feature.62
60 Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.”

61 There is, however, no consistency vis-à-vis stance.
62 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 67.
Fig. 24. Examples of qoph in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ).
Fig. 25. Qoph in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ).
While paleographic analysis can be essential for the purposes of authentication

and dating, this is not the case for the Shapira manuscripts, considering that the
original objects are lost. We do not have a single photograph of the manuscripts
in which text is discernible, and we have seen that Ginsburg’s drawings are unre-
liable and mutually contradictory.
This is not to say that paleography has nothing at all to contribute. Guthe’s
descriptions and discussion of the letterforms are considerably more useful than
Ginsburg’s drawings, for example, although they too cannot be taken at face value.
Most valuable of all are the naïve drawings prepared by artists who were not lit-
erate in Paleo-Hebrew, which have been overlooked by paleographers. Ginsburg
and Guthe were well versed in the paleographic curriculum of their generation,
and that knowledge appears to have influenced how they saw and represented the
script on the Shapira fragments. Illiterate artists, on the other hand, are largely
immune to such pattern-recognition hazards.
This brings me to my final example. One paleographic oddity in Ginsburg’s
drawings of the Shapira manuscripts is the right-leaning stance of the he.63
63 I thank Christopher Rollston and Michael Langlois for highlighting this apparent pale-
ographic problem with the Shapira manuscripts. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the
letterforms drawn by Guthe.
32 1. Introduction
Fig. 26. Examples of he in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ).
While not without precedent in ancient inscriptions, this stance is nevertheless

uncommon. It therefore might be seen as a revealing an error by a forger who was
not attuned to stance, given that stance was not a well-understood phenomenon
in the nineteenth century. However, in the drawing of Fragment A’s first words,
published in The Graphic in 1883 and prepared by a non-specialist artist,64 we
can see three very clear he characters. Unlike in Ginsburg’s drawings, where the
letter has a right-leaning orientation, here each he leans unmistakably to the left.
Fig. 27. Illustration of several characters from first line of Fragment A (or its Vb counterpart)
from The Graphic (1883).
Another detail in this artist’s rendering that conflicts with those of Ginsburg
and Guthe is the flourish, or reflex, on the bottom-right of the two yods (the
fourth and fifth letters from the left). This feature is now attested in the epigraphic
record, especially among the Samaria ostraca.65 Furthermore, the first of the two
yods here is drawn with a single stroke. It is notable that although single-stroke
yods are highly uncommon in the epigraphic record, they are, in fact, attested
in the Samaria corpus – inscriptions that were unknown in Shapira’s lifetime. As
Ivan Kaufman writes:
The letter yod in the Harvard Samaria Ostraca is of particular interest because of two main
aspects of its cursive development, namely the very common reflex at the end of its tail
and the occasional continuous execution of the top and middle horizontals or of the latter
with the lower half of the vertical…This manifestation of the reflex, so common at Samaria,
leaves no trace in later inscriptions even though the reflex is found in them on other letters
such as ’alef, zayin, samek, and ṣade. The further peculiarity with respect to the yod of the
64
The Graphic (September 1, 1883), 224.
65
See Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth
Centuries B. C.: II. The Murabba’ât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-yam,” Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962): 34–46, at 36; Ivan Tracy Kaufman, “The
Samaria Ostraca: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Palaeography” (PhD diss., Harvard University,
1966), 45–48.
1.3. Summary 33
Samaria Ostraca is the execution of the letter with what looks like a continuous movement
of the pen. Reisner noted three examples, according to his facsimiles. We have evidence
now for about a dozen such yods.66
Fig. 28. Samaria Ostracon 15, with single-stroke yod. Drawing by George Reisner.
Even if a cursory glance at the paleography as reproduced in Ginsburg’s draw-

ings suggests the work of a forger, it must be remembered that no contemporary
epigrapher has had an opportunity to analyze the original fragments. Indeed, in
a world in which the unquestionably genuine Mesha Stele were lost and only the
scholarly “facsimiles” remained – including that of Ginsburg himself 67 – pale-
ographers using the very same reasoning would condemn the Mesha Stele as a
forgery. And they would be wrong.
1.3. Summary
Under scrutiny, every objection to the authenticity of Shapira’s manuscripts falls
flat. Moreover, in light of our expanded comparanda following the many new epi-
graphic finds since 1883, various features once regarded as proof that the Shapira
manuscripts were forgeries now appear to validate their antiquity. In the next
chapter, I introduce new evidence that points to the same conclusion.
66 Kaufman, “Ostraca,” 45–46. Cf. George Andrew Reisner, Israelite Ostraca from Samaria
(Boston: E. O. Cockayne, 1920), 15 pages from title page (unnumbered). For a possible exam-
ple in an early inscription from Tel Reḥov, see Amihai Mazar, “Three 10th–9th Century B.C.E.
Inscriptions from Tēl Reḥōv,” in Saxa loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels.
Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Cornelis G. den Hertog, Ulrich Hübner,
and Stefan Münger, AOAT 302 (Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2003), 171–84, at 179. I thank Ben-
jamin Sass for bringing this feature of the Tel Reḥov inscription to my attention.
67 Christian David Ginsburg, The Moabite Stone: A Fac-simile of the Original Inscription,
with an English Translation, and a Historical and Critical Commentary, 2nd ed. (London:
Reeves and Turner, 1871). For more on this point, see Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.”
2. A New Discovery:
The Shapira Papers
Several years after Shapira’s suicide, his widow, Anna Magdalena Rosette, do-
nated several of his papers to Hermann Strack, an acquaintance of Shapira’s who
was a professor at the University of Berlin (now Humboldt University). Strack
transferred the documents to his teacher and colleague, Moritz Steinschneider,
who compiled and bound them, depositing them at the Königliche Bibliothek
(now the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin), where they remain today. These documents
consist primarily of catalogs listing and describing various Jewish manuscripts
that Shapira procured in Yemen and Egypt.1 Steinschneider bound several loose
sheets together with the catalogs, some of which contain the text of piyyutim in
Shapira’s collection, and one of which lists items for sale from the Cairo Genizah,
several years before the corpus attracted significant attention.
Of especial interest are three untitled pages with Hebrew writing in purple ink,
which are scattered throughout the volume in no particular order. Taken together,
these sheets constitute roughly the first third of Shapira’s own transcription of the
Valediction of Moses. This remarkable document, which has not been previously
identified, is of great significance for the question of Shapira’s alleged forgery of
the manuscripts, as we will see.
The transcription is a preliminary one: There are several question marks,
marginal comments, and rejected readings.2 Indeed, Shapira had not yet deter-
mined the correct arrangement of the fragments when he was preparing this draft;
after transcribing five columns, he corrected himself and wrote that the passage
he had identified as the sixth column was, in actual fact, the third one. Notably,
the document also contains several transcription errors. Shapira’s difficulty mak-
ing sense of the text is difficult to reconcile with the idea that he was himself
involved in its fabrication.
1 Ms. or. fol. 1342. It is listed today as Eigenhändiges Verzeichnis der von Shapira gesam-
melten hebr. Handschriften; the handwritten title inside the volume is Shapiras eigenhändiges
Verzeichniße der von ihm gesammelten hebraeischen Handschriften. I am grateful for the assis-
tance of Petra Figeac, Nicolé Fürtig, and Sophia Gal at the Staatsbibliothek.
2 That this is an early draft can also be inferred from a comparison with Shapira’s later
writings. In a letter from August 1883, Shapira writes that he had previously read a certain string
of letters (located in B 1:1 ) as ‫( וינאף‬metathesis of ‫)ויאנף‬, only to realize later that the correct
reading is ‫ויחר אף‬. In the draft from the Shapira papers, he first transcribed ‫( וימאר‬apparently a
metathesis of ‫)ויאמר‬, then struck it out and wrote instead ‫וינאף‬. Thus, the earlier reading Shapira
refers to in his letter is the corrected reading here. See BL Ms. Add. 41294, 21.
2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers 35
Fig. 29. First page of Shapira’s draft transcription.

36 2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers
Fig. 30. Second page of Shapira’s draft transcription.

Fig. 31. Third page of Shapira’s draft transcription.

One illuminating mistake is Shapira’s reading of the word ‫ וישמ]ד[ם‬below as ‫וישם‬

‫]את[ם‬. (The line break is marked with a pilcrow [¶].)
Deut 2:20b–21 (MT) Shapira’s transcription Corrected transcription

of Va D 1:8–9 of Va D 1:8–9
‫רפאים ישבו בה לפנים‬ ‫]רפ[אם מעלם ישבו בה‬ ‫]רפ[אם מעלם ישבו בה‬
‫והעמנים יקראו להם זמזמים‬ ‫והעמנם יקראו להם עזמזמם‬ ‫והעמנם יקראו להם עזמזמם‬
‫עם גדול ורב ורם כענקים‬ ‫וישם¶]את[ם אלהם מפנהם‬ ‫וישמ¶]ד[ם אלהם מפנהם‬
‫וישמידם יהוה מפניהם‬ · ‫וישבו תחתם‬ · ‫וישבו תחתם‬
‫ויירשם וישבו תחתם‬
To better understand the cause of this error, consider that this section of the
manuscript from which Shapira was reading (Va ) would have looked something
like this:
Shapira appears to have been thrown off by the scriptio continua (and the asso-
ciated possibility for lexemes to be broken between lines) and the absence of ter-
minal letterforms in Paleo-Hebrew.3 The last four letters in the upper line form a
familiar biblical Hebrew word, ‫( וישם‬placed), and Shapira seemingly overlooked
the possibility that the word did not end at the line break. The second of the
two lines, like the first, was damaged and illegible on the far-right edge, leading
Shapira to seek a short word ending with a mem – the first visible letter on the line
– to fit in the small space. ‫( אתם‬them) fit the bill, so he tentatively reconstructed
an aleph and tav, marking them with a question mark.
The etiology of this error is easy enough to reconstruct, but it raises an obvi-
ous question: If Shapira forged the manuscripts – or if he was complicit in their
alleged forgery – how can we explain the existence of his middling attempt at
3 For a description of the manuscripts, see §7.1.

reading them? If Shapira himself devised or inscribed the text, it goes without
saying that he would not have needed to decipher it.4
At the very least, these papers suggest that Shapira believed the manuscripts to
be authentic, and that he was unfamiliar with their contents. If the manuscripts
are indeed forgeries, Shapira would have to have been the victim of the hoax, not
its perpetrator.
This, in turn, raises new questions as to the possible motive for the supposed
forgery, as well as its feasibility. It is no coincidence that Shapira has always been
personally implicated in the forgery of these manuscripts. After all, he had an
obvious motive: enormous wealth and prestige. He also had a marred reputation
ever since he was found to have sold inauthentic Moabite pottery.5 Furthermore,
the text of V allegedly contained errors made by a person of European Jewish
extraction, which again seemed to incriminate Shapira.6 Lastly, the manuscripts
were said to have been cut from the bottom margins of Oriental Torah scrolls, of
which Shapira was a major purveyor.7 As we saw in the previous chapter, none
of these arguments is tenable any longer.
Had Shapira known the manuscripts to be forgeries, then his tales of discovery
and purchase would certainly have been lies. However, considering that Shapira
apparently believed the manuscripts to be genuine, it is difficult to explain his
account or, indeed, to construct a coherent narrative regarding the supposed
forgery. As mentioned above, Shapira said that he purchased the manuscripts
from Bedouins who found them in a cave near the Dead Sea, wrapped in linen
bundles and covered in a bitumen-like substance. If the discovery story was a
ruse to dupe Shapira, what then motivated the mastermind? Are we to believe
that a forger invested tremendous time, effort, and funds to create two fraudulent
manuscripts (and part of a third), only to sell them to Bedouins who then passed
them on to Shapira for a pittance?8 Moreover, an anonymous forger would not
4 Another misunderstanding of V by Shapira has to do with the demarcation of the Deca-
logue’s ten proclamations. In a letter to Strack, Shapira wrote that the first proclamation in V is
“‫ לא תעשה‬your [sic] shall have no other gods” (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 7). Whether Shapira intended
‫לא תעשה‬, as in the Hebrew, or ‫לא יהיה‬, as in his translation, he was incorrect. The layout of the
Decalogue in Va , which is preserved in numerous drawings, shows that the first proclamation in
V begins with “I am Elohim your god” (cf. Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6: ‫)אנכי יהוה אלהיך‬. Each proclama-
tion starts a new line, and the only pertinent line break in the vicinity appears before ‫אנך‬. Guthe
made a similar error and marked “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” as the beginning
of the first proclamation (Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 34). Both Guthe and Shapira may have been
influenced by traditions that construe ‫ אנכי‬as a preamble.
5 See §1.2.2.
6 See §1.2.4.
7 See §1.2.3.
8 According to Shapira, he paid very little for the fragments: “I confess; that when getting
prof. S. [= Schlottmann] letter I begin [sic] to totter in my opinion, not so much for the last
reason [that ‫ החרתיך‬is Aramaic, not Hebrew], as for the general reason the prof. gives, that it
contradicts our Bible; Of course, my 1st question I had ask [sic] myself was, if it is by all means
a forgery who could have been such a learned & artful forger? & for what purpose? as the mony
have earned a penny from the fortunes that Shapira stood to gain from a success-
ful sale of the manuscripts to the British Museum. Such a forger would also have
had no obvious opportunity to gain fame as anything other than a fraud.
Lastly, as noted below, the text of V corresponds to no scholarly opinion or
theory that existed at the time, ruling out vindication of a particular scholar as a
plausible motive. As the author of a Daily News article from 1883 observed: “One
considerable argument in favour of the genuineness of the manuscripts results
from the fact that it agrees with no school of theological or critical opinion.”9
In the next chapter, I conduct a philological analysis of the text, which es-
tablishes its identity as a progenitor – not descendant – of Deuteronomy. In-
deed, in many ways it agrees with critical opinions regarding the development
of Deuteronomy, but these opinions have emerged only in recent decades. They
could hardly have underpinned a nineteenth-century forgery.
[sic] I paid for the M.s.s was not worth the speaking of ” (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 5).
9 The Daily News (August 22, 1883), 3.
3. Philological Analysis
3.1. The Character of V

The Valediction of Moses (V ) is a relatively short composition, roughly compara-
ble in length to the biblical book of Hosea. Most of V corresponds to portions of
Deuteronomy.
In the following table, the numbers indicate chapters in the book of Deuteron-
omy. Each line reflects a correspondence between a Deuteronomic verse and a
textual unit in V.
Table 1. Table of correspondences between Deuteronomy and V.
As is immediately evident, V contains nothing at all corresponding to chapters

12 through 26 of Deuteronomy – that is, the law code. V’s legal corpus indeed
comprises only its unique version of the Decalogue.1 The poems of Deuteron-
omy 32 and 33 are also absent in V, as is the story of Moses’s death in Deuteron-
omy 34. Several more Deuteronomic texts have no analogues in V, and there are
also passages in V with no counterpart in Deuteronomy. Comparing the parallel
units to one another brings innumerable variants into focus, and these minute dif-
ferences sometimes have outsize ramifications. Indeed, very few Deuteronomic
1 The oft repeated assertion that V’s Decalogue contains eleven commandments has no ba-
sis in fact. (See, e.g., Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: Being a History of
the Text and Its Translations [London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1895], 43; Fred Reiner, “Tracking
the Shapira Case: A Biblical Scandal Revisited,” Biblical Archaeology Review 23, no. 3 [1997]:
32–41, at 35.)
42 3. Philological Analysis
verses have identical counterparts in V, even after controlling for orthographic

variation.
Unlike Deuteronomy, in which the narrator intervenes repeatedly, the Valedic-
tion of Moses has no narrator except in the introductory and concluding verses.2
Coincidentally, these two brief narrational passages contain the only instances of
the Tetragrammaton in V. Moses is the speaker throughout the remainder of the
work, and he never utters this divine name; instead we find only “Elohim” (‫)אלהם‬.
Given the manifest kinship between Deuteronomy and V, the question of lit-
erary dependence naturally arises. Is V a reworked and excerpted Deuteronomy,
or is Deuteronomy a reworked and expanded V? A third option must also be con-
sidered, namely that V and Deuteronomy have a common ancestor. If this is the
case, then one of the texts may be higher in the family tree, but neither would be
directly dependent upon the other.3
Describing the text in 1893, Ginsburg wrote: “It will be seen that we have here
nearly the whole of Deuteronomy in an abridged form.”4 Of course, if the Vale-
diction of Moses is an abridgment of Deuteronomy, it follows that the former is
dependent upon the latter.
Many decades later, in 1957, Jacob Teicher argued against the consensus that
the fragments were forgeries. Although he deemed the manuscripts authentic, he
too saw the text they contained as an abridgment of Deuteronomy, written by
someone familiar with the Pentateuch at large. Teicher therefore compared the
composition to the Hellenistic Sayings of Moses, which was discovered in Qum-
ran:5
[I]t is, in fact, a skilful compilation of material drawn almost entirely from our Deuteron-
omy and combined with passages from other books of the Pentateuch. Its theme is Moses’s
last speech, and the main stress in it is laid upon the worship and love of one God and the
observance of the Decalogue, which is referred to as the torah, the law. (The Qumran frag-
ment entitled The Sayings of Moses in the Oxford edition may perhaps be related to it.)6
2 It is not entirely clear who makes the parenthetical comments on the aboriginal residents
of the Transjordan (Va C 1:4–5, 8–9; D 1:8–9). If it is not Moses, these would be additional
exceptions. However, unlike their counterparts in Deuteronomy, which reflect a post-Mosaic
perspective (Deut 2:12; 3:11), the comments in V refer only to anterior events and are therefore
unproblematic as Moses’s own words.
3 There are hybrid options, such as D being descended from proto-V, with V itself reflecting
subsequent updates in light of D.

4 Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2913
(1883), 242.
5 This composition is also known as “Dires de Moïse,” “Words of Moses,” and “Divre Moshe.”
It is attested in 1Q22, as well as in a small fragment from cave 4 in Qumran. See Eibert Tigchelaar,
“A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7–10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14,”
DSD 12, no. 3 (2005): 303–12; Ariel Feldman, “Moses’ Farewell Address according to 1QWords
of Moses (1Q22),” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23, no. 3 (2014): 201–14.
6 Teicher, “Genuineness of Shapira,” 184.
3.1. The Character of V 43
Menahem Mansoor, who argued vigorously in favor of the manuscripts’ re-

assessment, wrote similarly:
It is clear that Shapira’s Deuteronomy displays a skilfully abridged manual compiled from
Deuteronomy with interpolations from other books of the Pentateuch with Moses’ last
speech as a theme. It is also probable that the “Dires de Moise” is a similar compilation. In
these Qumran Deuteronomic texts we find interpolations from Leviticus, Numbers, just
as is the case with Shapira’s text.7
Several years after Mansoor, John Allegro, too, described V as a reworked and
abridged Deuteronomy:
As will be seen […] what we have here is a shortened narrative, a kind of “vest-pocket”
Deuteronomy with excerpts from elsewhere in the Pentateuch inserted where the sequence
of events seemed to the compiler defective […] The briefest scanning of these will give
some indication of the abridgment and conflation that the compiler allowed himself in
his work.8
In accordance with this view, Allegro also suggested that the manuscripts may
have been written by Jewish sectarians living in the Transjordan.9 He was fol-
lowed in this by Helen Jefferson.10
The few suggestions that V is – or, rather, purports to be – something other than
a secondary abridgment of Deuteronomy (or the Pentateuch more broadly) have
typically been offered rhetorically by those who discount the Shapira manuscripts
as forgeries. For example:
Every one remembers the announcement of the original copy of Deuteronomy: how people
who knew anything about leather and linen, and damp caves, and Arabs, and Jerusalem
curiosity-dealers, laughed at the whole thing.11
Notably, though, Shapira himself did not present the text as a proto-
Deuteronomy. Instead, not unlike Allegro and Jefferson would later do, Shapira
portrayed it as a sectarian work of uncertain date, making V an early offshoot of
Deuteronomy. In a letter to Hermann Strack, he wrote the following:
Shall we suppose that the manuscripts belonged to a sect or school which believed only
that the Ten Commandments are from God? Or should we be allowed to say that the
7 Mansoor, “Shapira’s Dead Sea Scrolls,” 223.
8 Allegro, Shapira Affair, 81.
9 Allegro, Shapira Affair, 134–36.
10 Helen G. Jefferson, “The Shapira Manuscript and the Qumran Scrolls,” Revue de Qumrân
6, no. 3 (1968): 391–99, at 395, 397. More recently, Shlomo Guil has argued that the manuscripts
are Qumran-like Dead Sea Scrolls, presumably from the Hasmonean period. The closest paral-
lel he sees is 11QpaleoLeva (11Q1), which he dates to the first century BCE. See Shlomo Guil,
“The Shapira Scroll Was an Authentic Dead Sea Scroll,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 149, no.
1 (2017): 6–27.
11 “Archæological Frauds in Palestine,” St. James Gazette (January 2, 1885), 7. (Cited above
in §1.2.1; my emphasis.) According to Teicher, this was first suggested by Dillmann and Stein-
schneider, both of whom considered the documents to be forgeries (Teicher, “Genuineness of
Shapira,” 184).
manuscripts belonged to Jews who dwelt in the east of the Jordan where the manuscripts
are supposed to have been found, and who believed only in Elohim (although the western
Jews must have had long before known and used the word YHWH)? And might that also ac-
count for the exactness of the topography, which put Sihon between Moab and Amon, and
Amon between Sihon and Og? Also, as the first verse and the last word mention “accord-
ing to the word of YHWH” and never in the midst of the book, could we suppose that the
first and last verse were added by a Yahwistic scribe who copied an Elohistic manuscript
(perhaps for a tomb of an Elohistic believer) and put his own heading and closing form?
I confess the last suggestion does not well satisfy me. It would be expected that an Elohist
would not bury his dead with a manuscript which has the word YHWH even on the title
page.
You will ask me, dear professor, what I suppose to be the date of our manuscripts?
To this, I will say, judging from the format of the letters, one will be inclined to give to
this unorthodox manuscript such an early time, as between the date of the Mesha Stone
and the Siloam inscription, or about the 6th century B.C. But one must be very cautious.
Who knows? May it not be that they used old forms of letters in writing or copying such
documents, and especially for using them as a talisman for the dead bodies or as charms,
only with very old forms of letters even if such letters are commonly not used at all more?
And if so, the date may be very late. The question will of course be for scholars to decide
(if they agree to my suggestion). How late may we put a Jewish colony of unorthodox
doctrines, as of the ten tribes, or of the Rechabites, etc. etc., before or after Christ?12
In the following sections, I provide evidence that – contrary to the view held by
nearly all scholars – V is indeed a proto-Deuteronomic text or closely related to
such a text. I make my case by subjecting the Valediction of Moses to a compar-
ative philological analysis. This bears not only on the matter of literary kinship,
but also on the question of forgery.
The question of forgery is implicated, since the Valediction of Moses resolves
problems in the canonical text that had not been identified in the nineteenth –
and in some cases, even the twentieth – century. The text of V is first attested in
1878, when Deuteronomy had been subjected to precious little critical analysis.13
The works of Staerk14 and Steuernagel15 – not to mention Noth16 – were all well
in the future.
As for literary kinship, it can be established that several Pentateuchal passages
are derived from V, or from a text very similar to V. Indeed, the narrative, or “his-
torical,” portions of V are conspicuously free of any P or post-P language, even
when the corresponding passages in the Pentateuch are replete with it. In addition,
12 Letter from Shapira to Strack dated May 9, 1883. BL Ms. Add. 41294, 8–10. Edited for
spelling, grammar, and clarity.

13 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 6–7. The scholar Guthe alludes to there – with whom Shapira
shared his text at the time – is Konstantin Schlottmann.

14 Willy Staerk, Das Deuteronomium. Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form. Eine kritische
Studie (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1894).

15 Carl Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums. Litterarcritische Untersuchung über
seine Zusammensetzung und Entstehung (Halle: J. Krause, 1894).

16 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943).

3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V 45
V not only lacks the Deuteronomic law code of chapters 12–26, but it also lacks
any signs of the influence of this legal corpus upon the narratives. This stands in
contrast to Deuteronomy itself, which contains several such examples.
3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V

As noted above, whereas the Valediction of Moses corresponds rather closely to
the narrative portions of Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomic law code has no Vale-
dictoric counterpart. In the following, I address first the absence of the code itself
in V, followed by a discussion of the V narrative’s unharmonized nature vis-à-vis
nomistic Deuteronomic edits.
3.2.1. The Bifurcated Gerizim and Ebal Pericope

One of the more peculiar features of Deuteronomy is the bisection of the instruc-
tions concerning the blessings and curses of Gerizim and Ebal between chapters
11 and 27–28. The narrative begins in Deut 11:26 with the proclamation: “Behold,
I set before you today a blessing and a curse” (‫͏וּקלָ לָ ה‬
ְ ‫) ְראֵ ה אָ נ ִֹכי נֹתֵ ן ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה‬.
In the following four verses, the criterion for receiving the blessing is stated (keep-
ing the laws), as are the place and time in which the blessings and curses are to be
proclaimed (Gerizim and Ebal, once the people of Israel have entered the land).
The story then ends abruptly, with no mention of the expected blessings and
curses. Instead, the text continues with the Deuteronomic legal code, which com-
prises some fifteen chapters. It is only after the legal code has been given in its
entirety – nearly 40 percent of the book – that the Gerizim and Ebal narrative
thread is again picked up.
V, for its part, contains a version of the same narrative, which overlaps with that
of Deuteronomy almost in its entirety. However, in V, this story appears as a sin-
gle, cohesive unit, transitioning directly, and logically, from the geographic data
(cf. Deut 11:29–30) to specifying which tribes are to stand on which mountain
(cf. Deut 27:12–13). Thus, in V, the blessings and curses scheduled for “today” in-
deed appear in the same oration, as seen in the table below. (Non-orthographic
variants are in bold.)
‫‪46‬‬ ‫‪3. Philological Analysis‬‬
‫)‪Deuteronomy (MT‬‬ ‫) ‪Valediction of Moses (Vb‬‬

‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫ְראֵ ה אָ נ ִֹכי נֹתֵ ן ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה‬ ‫ראה אנך נת]ן לפנ[כם היום ברכה‬
‫‪11:26–30‬‬ ‫͏וּקלָ לָ ה׃ אֶ ת הַ ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּ‬
‫ְ‬ ‫וקללה את הברכה אם תשמעו אל‬
‫‪G 3:5–9‬‬ ‫אֶ ל ִמ ְצוֹת יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי‬ ‫מצות אלהם והקללה אם לא‬
‫ְמצַ ͏וֶּה אֶ ְתכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם׃ וְ הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ִאם ל ֹא‬ ‫תשמעו וסרתם מהדרך אשר אנך‬
‫ִת ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּ אֶ ל ִמ ְצוֹת יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם‬ ‫מצוה אתכם היום ]· והיה כי יב[אך‬
‫וְ סַ ְר͏תֶּ ם ִמן הַ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי ְמצַ ͏וֶּה‬ ‫אלהם אל הארץ אשר אתה בא‬
‫ֱֹלהים‬
‫אֶ ְתכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם לָ לֶ כֶ ת אַ ח ֲֵרי א ִ‬ ‫שמה לרשתה ונתת את הברכה על‬
‫אֲחֵ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא יְ ַד ְע͏תֶּ ם׃ וְ הָ יָה ִ͏כּי‬ ‫הר ]גרזם[ והקללה על הר עבל ·‬
‫יְ ִביאֲָך יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֶ ל הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫הלא המה בעבר ה]ירד[ן דרך‬
‫אַ ͏תָּ ה בָ א ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה ְל ִר ְ͏שׁ͏תָּ ͏הּ וְ נָתַ ͏תָּ ה אֶ ת‬ ‫מבא השמש בארץ הכנעני בע]רבה‬
‫הַ ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה עַ ל הַ ר ͏גְּ ִרזִ ים וְ אֶ ת הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה‬ ‫נג[ד הגלגל אצל אלני מרא ·‬
‫עַ ל הַ ר עֵ יבָ ל׃ הֲל ֹא הֵ ͏מָּ ה ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר‬
‫הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן אַ ח ֲֵרי ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שֶּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬
‫ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י הַ ͏יֹּ ͏שֵׁ ב ͏בָּ ע ֲָרבָ ה מ͏וּל‬
‫הַ ͏גִּ ְל͏גָּל אֵ צֶ ל אֵ לוֹנֵי מ ֶֹרה׃‬
‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫ִ͏כּי אַ ͏תֶּ ם עֹ ְב ִרים אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן לָ ב ֹא‬
‫‪11:31–27:11‬‬ ‫לָ ֶר͏שֶׁ ת אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה‬
‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫יר ְ͏שׁ͏תֶּ ם אֹתָ ͏הּ‬

‫אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם נֹתֵ ן לָ כֶ ם וִ ִ‬
‫͏וּ͏שׁמַ ְר͏תֶּ ם לַ עֲ͏שׂוֹת אֵ ת‬
‫וִ י͏שַׁ ְב͏תֶּ ם ͏בָּ ͏הּ׃ ְ‬
‫͏כָּ ל הַ חֻ ִ͏קּים וְ אֶ ת הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ִטים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬
‫אָ נ ִֹכי נֹתֵ ן ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם׃ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה‬
‫הַ חֻ ִ͏קּים וְ הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ִטים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁ ְמר͏וּן‬
‫לַ עֲ͏שׂוֹת ͏בָּ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ י‬
‫אבֹתֶ יָך ְלָך ְל ִר ְ͏שׁ͏תָּ ͏הּ ͏כָּ ל הַ ͏יּ ִָמים‬
‫ֲ‬
‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אַ ͏תֶּ ם חַ ͏יִּ ים עַ ל הָ א ֲָדמָ ה׃‬
‫]…[‬
‫וְ ͏שָׁ מַ ְע͏תָּ ְ͏בּקוֹל יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך וְ עָ ִ͏שׂיתָ‬
‫אֶ ת ִמ ְצוֹתָ ו וְ אֶ ת חֻ ͏קָּ יו אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי‬
‫ְמצַ ͏וְּ ָך הַ ͏יּוֹם׃ וַיְ צַ ו מֹ͏שֶׁ ה אֶ ת הָ עָ ם‬
‫͏בַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ה͏וּא לֵ אמֹר׃‬
‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ ְלבָ ֵרְך אֶ ת הָ עָ ם עַ ל הַ ר‬ ‫ואלה י֯]עמדו על הר עבל[ ראובן‬
‫‪27:12–14‬‬ ‫͏גְּ ִרזִ ים ְ͏בּעָ ְב ְרכֶ ם אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן‬ ‫זבולן וגד אשר ד]ן[ ונ]פתלי[ ·‬
‫‪G 3:9–12‬‬ ‫͏וּבנְ י ִָמן׃‬
‫יה͏וּדה וְ יִ ͏שָּׂ שכָ ר וְ יוֹסֵ ף ִ‬
‫ָ‬ ‫וְ לֵ וִ י וִ‬ ‫ואלה יעמדו על הר גרזם שמען‬
‫וְ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ עַ ל הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ְ͏בּהַ ר‬ ‫ויהודה וישכר מנשה ואפרם ובנימן‬
‫עֵ יבָ ל ְרא͏וּבֵ ן ͏גָּד וְ אָ ͏שֵׁ ר ͏וּזְ ב͏וּלֻ ן ָ͏דּן‬ ‫· ועמדו הלוים נגד הר גרזם ו]ענ[ו‬
‫וְ נ ְַפ͏תָּ ִלי׃ וְ עָ נ͏וּ הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם וְ אָ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל‬ ‫ואמרו בקל רם‬
‫ִאי͏שׁ יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל קוֹל ָרם׃‬
‫‪Since the early nineteenth century, especially in the wake of Wilhelm de Wette’s‬‬
‫‪seminal doctoral dissertation, it has been commonplace to see the legal code of‬‬
‫‪Deuteronomy, or something similar to it, as the original stratum of the book.17‬‬
‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪W. M. L. de Wette, “Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Penta-‬‬
J. Philip Hyatt summarized the consensus view in the mid-twentieth century:

But what constituted Urdeuteronomium? The general opinion is that the kernel of the book
is chapters 12–26, to which chapters 5–11 may have formed an introduction and chapter
28 a conclusion.18
Following the influential publications of Jean L’Hour in 1962,19 Andrew Mayes

wrote that the Gerizim and Ebal narrative of Deuteronomy 11 and 27–28 was
introduced secondarily to frame Deuteronomy’s legal code:
11:29–30 stand out from their context: their particular geographical concern disrupts the
continuity of the context which culminates in the general warning to obey the command-
ments in the land. The verses have been brought in here to act as a framework, with 27:12–
13, to the deuteronomic law; cf. L’Hour, RB 69 (1962): 166–67.20
In 1991, Moshe Weinfeld similarly wrote:

There is a general agreement in regards to Deut 4:44–28:68. It is believed that these chap-
ters constituted the original book, which was later supplemented by an additional introduc-
tion (1:6–4:40) and by varied material at the end of the book (chaps. 29–30). […] It should
be recognized, however, that chaps. 5–28 are not homogeneous either. The law code that
constitutes the main part of the book was originally put into a framework of the ceremony
of blessings and curses of Gerizim and Ebal. The theme of this ceremony appears at the
opening of the code (11:26–32) and at its conclusion (26:16–27:26). It undoubtedly adds
significance to the code of laws.21
The fact that the laws interrupt the Gerizim and Ebal pericope is difficult to rec-
oncile with the orthodoxy that the narrative portions of Deuteronomy are, on the
whole, a series of supplements to the original law code – the Urdeuteronomium.22
teuchi Libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur” (PhD diss.,
University of Jena, 1805). For more on de Wette’s contributions vis-à-vis those of his prede-
cessors and contemporaries, see Paul B. Harvey, Jr. and Baruch Halpern, “W. M. L. de Wette’s
‘Dissertatio Critica …’: Context and Translation,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische
Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008): 47–85. For the idea that the Deuteronomic law is the earliest stra-
tum, see already Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), book 3, ch. 33.
18 J. Philip Hyatt, “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1/2 (1942):
156–73, at 158.
19 Jean L’Hour, “L’alliance de Sichem,” Revue Biblique 69, no. 1 (1962): 5–36; Jean L’Hour,
“L’alliance de Sichem (suite),” Revue Biblique 69, no. 2 (1962): 161–84.

20 Andrew D. H. Mayes, “Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy,” Jour-
nal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 1 (1981): 23–51, at 39n61.

21 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commen-
tary, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 11.

22 For reconstructions that do not take the law code to be the kernel of Deuteronomy, see
Jon D. Levenson, “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” Harvard Theological Review 68, no.
3–4 (1975): 203–33, at 223, et passim; Brian Peckham, “The Composition of Deut. 5–11,” in
The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration
of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael Patrick O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1983), 227, et passim.
If the Gerizim and Ebal passages are supplements, it is not clear why their au-
thor would choose to have Moses promise the blessings and curses “today” (Deut
11:26), if intending to only disclose those blessings and curses much later. How-
ever, if V reflects the original form of the narrative, and an editor decided to
introduce the law code secondarily, then the convoluted literary structure we
see in Deuteronomy would be the collateral damage, as it were, of the interven-
tion.23 Such infelicities are often associated with editorial activity; indeed, they
are among the most salient clues that a text has undergone redaction.
While it may be the case that the book described in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles
34 was a version of the Deuteronomic code, as suggested by de Wette and others,24
it does not follow that the narratives in Deuteronomy were written to serve as the
law’s framework, as most scholars nevertheless believe.
In support of the theory that an earlier edition of Deuteronomy lacked the legal
code, we will now see how V preserves a pre-canonical incarnation of the Sihon
narrative, which reflects an ignorance of, or indifference to, the Deuteronomic
law.
3.2.2. The Conquest of Sihon’s Land

The Valediction of Moses tells a simple story of the conquest of Sihon’s territory.
It can be summarized as follows: Elohim commands Moses to take the land of
King Sihon of Heshbon; Moses and the Israelites then attack Sihon at Jahaz, kill
everyone, and capture all the king’s cities. It is a short and straightforward narra-
tive.
The same cannot be said of the narrative in Deut 2:24–37. There, the com-
mandment to take Sihon’s land is confusingly intermingled with a directive to
provoke Sihon to war (2:24bβ). Oddly, Moses does not follow through on the
commandment to take possession of the land and instead proceeds to send mes-
sengers to the king with “words of peace.” Sihon refuses the peaceful overture, af-
ter which Moses, in a resumptive repetition, is once again directed to take Sihon’s
land (2:31; cf. 2:24). Remarkably, even this second command is not followed by
an Israelite attack. Rather, it is Sihon who attacks Israel at Jahaz – unlike in V,
where the reverse is the case. The account of Sihon’s attack and Israel’s counter-
strike is followed by a second substantial Deuteronomic sequence not present
in V: the taking of spoils in 2:34aβ–35. The final significant divergence between
V and Deuteronomy comes at the very end of the unit. Whereas V simply lists
Jabbok as one of the boundaries of the conquered territory (cf. Josh 12:2; Judg
11:13, 22), Deut 2:37 goes out of its way to state that Israel “did not encroach on
23In a future publication, I will elaborate on the motivations for inserting the law code in
its present position in Deuteronomy, thereby displacing the Decalogue as the linchpin of the
book and the crux of Israel’s pact with YHWH.
24 Cf. Pseudo-Rashi on 2 Chr 34:14.
‫‪3.2. The Absence of the Deuteronomic Law Code in V‬‬ ‫‪49‬‬
‫‪the land of the Ammonites, all along the wadi Jabbok and the towns of the hill‬‬
‫”‪country, just as YHWH our God had commanded.‬‬
‫‪The following table highlights the differences between the two versions:‬‬
‫)‪Deuteronomy (MT‬‬ ‫) ‪Valediction of Moses (Va‬‬

‫‪Deut 2:24a‬‬ ‫ק͏וּמ͏וּ ְ͏סּע͏וּ וְ ִע ְבר͏וּ אֶ ת נַחַ ל אַ ְרנֹן ְראֵ ה‬ ‫ויאמר אלהם אלי לאמר קמו ועברו‬
‫‪C 1:10–D 1:2‬‬ ‫נָתַ ִ͏תּי ְבי ְָדָך אֶ ת ִסיחֹן מֶ לֶ ְך חֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן‬ ‫את נחל ארנן היום החלתי לתת‬
‫אמ ִֹרי וְ אֶ ת אַ ְרצוֹ‬
‫הָ ֱ‬ ‫לפנך את סיחן מלך חשבן האמרי‬
‫ואת ארצו ·‬
‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫הָ חֵ ל ָר͏שׁ וְ ִה ְת͏גָּר ͏בּוֹ ִמ ְלחָ מָ ה׃ הַ ͏יּוֹם‬
‫‪2:24b–31‬‬ ‫הַ ͏זֶּה אָ חֵ ל ͏תֵּ ת ͏פַּ ְח ְ͏דָּך וְ יִ ְראָ ְתָך עַ ל‬
‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫ְ͏פּנֵי הָ עַ ִ͏מּים ͏תַּ חַ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ͏שָּׁ מָ יִ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬
‫יִ ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּן ִ͏שׁ ְמעֲָך וְ ָרגְ ז͏וּ וְ חָ ל͏וּ ִמ͏פָּ נֶיָך׃‬
‫וָאֶ ְ͏שׁלַ ח מַ ְלאָ ִכים ִמ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בַּ ר ְק ֵדמוֹת‬
‫אֶ ל ִסיחוֹן מֶ לֶ ְך חֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי ͏שָׁ לוֹם‬
‫לֵ אמֹר׃ אֶ ְע ְ͏בּ ָרה ְבאַ ְרצֶ ָך ͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬
‫͏וּ͏שׂמ ֹאול׃‬
‫͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֵ לֵ ְך ל ֹא אָ ס͏וּר י ִָמין ְ‬
‫אֹכֶ ל ͏בַּ ͏כֶּ סֶ ף ͏תַּ ְ͏שׁ ִ͏בּ ֵרנִ י וְ אָ כַ ְל ִ͏תּי ͏וּמַ יִ ם‬
‫יתי ַרק אֶ ְע ְ͏בּ ָרה‬
‫͏בַּ ͏כֶּ סֶ ף ִ͏תּ͏תֶּ ן ִלי וְ ͏שָׁ ִת ִ‬
‫ְב ַרגְ לָ י׃ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ ִלי ְ͏בּנֵי עֵ ͏שָׂ ו‬
‫הַ ͏יֹּ ְ͏שׁ ִבים ְ͏בּ͏שֵׂ ִעיר וְ הַ ͏מּוֹאָ ִבים הַ ͏יֹּ ְ͏שׁ ִבים‬
‫עבֹר אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן אֶ ל‬
‫ְ͏בּעָ ר עַ ד אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אֶ ֱ‬
‫הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃‬
‫וְ ל ֹא אָ בָ ה ִסיחֹן מֶ לֶ ְך חֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן הַ ע ֲִב ֵרנ͏וּ‬
‫͏בּוֹ ִ͏כּי ִה ְק͏שָׁ ה יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֶ ת ר͏וּחוֹ‬
‫וְ ִא͏מֵּ ץ אֶ ת ְלבָ בוֹ ְלמַ עַ ן ִ͏תּ͏תּוֹ ְבי ְָדָך‬
‫͏כַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה׃ וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ְראֵ ה‬
‫הַ ִח ִתי ͏תֵּ ת ְלפָ נֶיָך אֶ ת ִסיחֹן וְ אֶ ת‬
‫אַ ְרצוֹ הָ חֵ ל ָר͏שׁ לָ ֶר͏שֶׁ ת אֶ ת אַ ְרצוֹ׃‬
‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫ַו͏יֵּצֵ א ִסיחֹן ִל ְק ָראתֵ נ͏וּ ה͏וּא וְ כָ ל עַ ͏מּוֹ‬ ‫ונצא לקראת סיחן יהצה ונכה עד‬
‫‪2:32–34aα‬‬ ‫לַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה י ְָהצָ ה׃ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏תּנֵה͏וּ יְ הוָה‬ ‫לא השאר לו שרד ונלכד את כל‬
‫‪D 1:2–3‬‬ ‫אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ ְלפָ נֵינ͏וּ ַו͏נְַּך אֹתוֹ וְ אֶ ת ͏בָּ נָו וְ אֶ ת‬ ‫ערו‬
‫͏כָּ ל עַ ͏מּוֹ׃ וַ͏נִּ ְל͏כֹּד אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל עָ ָריו‬
‫‪Deut‬‬ ‫͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא ַו ַ͏נּח ֲֵרם אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל ִעיר ְמ ִתם‬
‫‪2:34aβ–35‬‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים וְ הַ ͏טָּ ף ל ֹא ִה ְ͏שׁאַ ְרנ͏וּ ͏שָׂ ִריד׃‬
‫וְ הַ ͏נּ ִ‬
‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫͏וּ͏שׁלַ ל הֶ עָ ִרים‬
‫ַרק הַ ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה ͏בָּ זַזְ נ͏וּ לָ נ͏וּ ְ‬
‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לָ כָ ְדנ͏וּ׃‬
‫‪Deut 2:36‬‬ ‫ערֹעֵ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עַ ל ְ͏שׂפַ ת נַחַ ל אַ ְרנֹן‬
‫מֵ ֲ‬ ‫מערער אשר על שפת נחל ארנן‬
‫‪D 1:3–5‬‬ ‫וְ הָ ִעיר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בַּ ͏נַּחַ ל וְ עַ ד הַ ͏גִּ ְלעָ ד ל ֹא‬ ‫עד הגלעד ועד נחל יבק הכל נתן‬
‫הָ יְ תָ ה ִק ְריָה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏שָׂ גְ בָ ה ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ אֶ ת‬ ‫אלהם אלהנו לפננו ·‬
‫הַ ͏כֹּל נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ ְלפָ נֵינ͏וּ׃‬
Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Va )

Deut 2:37 ‫ַרק אֶ ל אֶ ֶרץ ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מּוֹן ל ֹא קָ ָר ְב͏תָּ ͏כָּ ל‬
Absent in V ‫יַד נַחַ ל ַי͏בֹּק וְ עָ ֵרי הָ הָ ר וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬
‫ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ׃‬
In recent years, scholars have drawn attention to the influences of Deut 20:10–
14 upon Deut 2:24–37.25 This law of warfare dictates that Israel must never go
to war without first offering terms of peace. It is only if the adversary rejects the
peaceful overture and instead opts to go on the attack that Israel may do battle.
Under these specific circumstances, Israel is also granted the right to take spoils.
The text of Deut 20:10–14 follows:
‫ִ͏כּי ִת ְק ַרב אֶ ל ִעיר ְל ִה͏לָּ חֵ ם עָ לֶ יהָ וְ קָ ָראתָ אֵ לֶ יהָ ְל͏שָׁ לוֹם׃ וְ הָ יָה ִאם ͏שָׁ לוֹם ͏תַּ עַ נְ ָך ͏וּפָ ְתחָ ה לָ ְך וְ הָ יָה ͏כָּ ל הָ עָ ם הַ ͏נִּ ְמצָ א‬
‫בָ ͏הּ יִ ְהי͏וּ ְלָך לָ מַ ס ַועֲבָ ד͏וָּך׃ וְ ִאם ל ֹא תַ ְ͏שׁ ִלים ִע͏מָּ ְך וְ עָ ְ͏שׂתָ ה ִע ְ͏מָּך ִמ ְלחָ מָ ה וְ צַ ְר͏תָּ עָ לֶ י͏הָּ ׃ ͏וּנְ תָ נָ͏הּ יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך ְ͏בּי ֶָדָך‬
‫ָ͏שׁים וְ הַ ͏טַּ ף וְ הַ ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ְהיֶה בָ ִעיר ͏כָּ ל ְ͏שׁלָ לָ ͏הּ ͏תָּ בֹז לָ ְך וְ אָ כַ ְל͏תָּ אֶ ת‬
ִ ‫כ͏וּר͏הּ ְל ִפי חָ ֶרב׃ ַרק הַ ͏נּ‬
ָ ְ‫וְ ִה ִ͏כּיתָ אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל ז‬
‫ְ͏שׁלַ ל אֹיְ בֶ יָך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לָ ְך׃‬
When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your
terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced
labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall
besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males
to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and
everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which
the LORD your God has given you.
The subsequent verses, 20:15–18, limit the above to the somewhat nebulous
category of “towns that are very far from you.” As numerous scholars have noted,
these verses belong to a secondary stratum:26
‫חקֹת ִמ ְ͏מָּך ְמאֹד אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא מֵ עָ ֵרי הַ ͏גּוֹיִ ם הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה הֵ ͏נָּה׃ ַרק מֵ עָ ֵרי הָ עַ ִ͏מּים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה‬
ֹ ‫͏כֵּ ן ͏תַּ עֲ͏שֶׂ ה ְלכָ ל הֶ עָ ִרים הָ ְר‬
‫ב͏וּסי‬
ִ ְ‫אמ ִֹרי הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י וְ הַ ְ͏פּ ִר͏זִּ י הַ ִח͏וִּ י וְ הַ י‬
ֱ ָ‫אֱֹלהֶ יָך נֹתֵ ן ְלָך ַנחֲלָ ה ל ֹא ְתחַ ͏יֶּה ͏כָּ ל נְ ͏שָׁ מָ ה׃ ִ͏כּי הַ ח ֲֵרם ͏תַּ ח ֲִרימֵ ם הַ ִח ִ͏תּי וְ ה‬
‫עבֹתָ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ לֵ אֹלהֵ יהֶ ם ַוחֲטָ אתֶ ם לַ יהוָה‬
ֲ ֹ‫͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וְּ ָך יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך׃ ְלמַ עַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא יְ לַ ְ͏מּד͏וּ אֶ ְתכֶ ם לַ עֲ͏שׂוֹת ְ͏כּכֹל ͏תּו‬
‫אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃‬
Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the
nations here. But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as
an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate
them – the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and
the Jebusites – just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach
25 That there is a relationship between Deut 2:24–37 and Deut 20:10–14 was already dis-
cerned by the midrashists of Deuteronomy Rabbah (Deut. Rab. 1:28, 5:13; cf. Num. Rab. 19:27).
For more on these midrashim – and their value for literary-critical analysis – see Shimon
Gesundheit, “Midrash-Exegesis in the Service of Literary Criticism,” in The Reception of Bib-
lical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts, ed. Christoph Berner and Harald Samuel (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2015), 73–86.
26 See, e.g., Marc Zvi Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge,
1995), 72; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westmin-
ster John Knox, 2002), 251. See further below.
you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the
LORD your God.
Timo Veijola’s influential analysis of the Deuteronomic Sihon narrative, pub-

lished in 1988, notes the dependence of Deut 2:24–37 upon the law of warfare in
Deuteronomy 20:
Of course, it was [the Deuteronomistic historian’s] ideological background, the influence
of which is discernible even in the introductory chapters, most clearly in the account of
the defeat of Sihon and Og. In both cases the theological interpretation was borrowed
from the military theory of the Holy War as it was advanced in the Deuteronomic laws of
warfare, especially in Deut 20.27
Veijola suggests that the original Sihon narrative comprised Deut 2:16–17, 24aα1,
30a, 31a, 32–36. While this differs somewhat from what we find in V, it has in
common with V the absence of both the “words of peace” element in verses 26–
29 and the Jabbok exception in verse 37.
In 1995, Marc Zvi Brettler published his analysis of the passage, in which he
highlights an additional dependency upon the law of Deuteronomy 20 the taking
of spoils in Deut 2:35 (cf. Deut 20:14):
Deut 20:10–18 and Deut 2:26ff. are clearly related. There are close verbal similarities be-
tween these passages; these include “words of peace” (Deut 2:26), which is similar to “you
shall offer it terms of peace” (Deut 20:10), and Deut 2:35, “we only took as spoils the an-
imals and the booty” which is similar to “only…and the animals…you may despoil…and
you may eat the booty” (Deut 20:14). It is likely that the author of Deuteronomy 2 knew
a form of Deuteronomy 20. This is supported by the general inclination to date Deuteron-
omy 1–3 later than the original lawbook, which would have included Deuteronomy 20.
In addition, literary evidence suggests that Deuteronomy 2 is later than chapter 20. The
phrase, “you shall offer terms of peace” (Deut 20:10) is well integrated to Deuteronomy
20, while the comparable “words of peace” (Deut 2:26) is problematic in Deuteronomy 2
because the text later indicates that the Israelites’ intentions were not truly peaceful (vv.
30–1) and suggests Israelite hostility towards the Moabites (v. 24). This suggests that the
phrase in Deuteronomy 2 is borrowed from chapter 20, and thus Deuteronomy 2 is the
later text.28
Although Brettler speaks of “the author” of Deuteronomy 2, he sees here the work
of multiple hands. It is notable that both the poorly integrated “words of peace”
in Deut 2:26 and the spoils of Deut 2:35 are nowhere to be found in the V version.
Unlike Veijola, Brettler does not posit the secondariness of 2:37. Rüdiger Schmitt
brings together the three observations of lateness:
The text of Deuteronomy 2:24–37 itself is not of one piece, but shows clear signs of growth.
[…] Verse 37 also represents a gloss, which originates from the prohibition of war against
27 Timo Veijola, “Principal Observations on the Basic Story in Deuteronomy 1–3,” in “Wün-
schet Jerusalem Frieden”. Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Or-
ganization for the Study of the Old Testament, ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk
(Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1988), 255.
28 Brettler, Creation of History, 72.
the Ammonites in Deut 2:17. […] Within the framework of the Deuteronomistic Fortschrei-
bung in verses 26–29* and 30b – the episode regarding the failed peace offer to Sihon of
Heshbon – the expansion of the DtrH base layer is clearly derived from the stipulation in
Deut 20:10ff to first make a peace offer to an enemy in a foreign city. […] As a term from
the context of holy war, ḥrm appears in verse 34 with the meaning “to execute the ban.”
With the total execution of the ban against the entire population, including women and
children, Deut 2:34f provides here a positive example of obedience to Yahweh, conform-
ing to the demand of the warfare legislation in Deut 20:16–18 and Deut 7:1–2, which is
contrasted with the previous failure in the story of the spies in Deut 1:19–46. Since the
later Deuteronomistic tradition lacked the peace offer prescribed in Deut 20, this was sup-
plemented in 2:26–29*, 30b to bring [the narrative] into full compliance with the law.29
The comparison of the Sihon episode as relayed in Deuteronomy and V highlights

the dependence of the former upon the latter. It is easy to see how the insertion
of the Deuteronomic law into V (or a relative thereof ) would have necessitated
the updating of a story in which Moses – and indeed YHWH – are in flagrant
violation of the law of warfare in Deut 20:10–14. This, in turn, led to various
literary incongruities in the expanded version of the story in Deuteronomy, which
have made it possible for scholars to tease apart the strata and postulate a proto-
Deuteronomic version very much like the one recorded in V.30
The inverse scenario, on the other hand, is implausible. An ancient writer is
not likely to have rewritten the Sihon narrative to make Moses transgress his own
law, certainly not by removing the very elements that contemporary scholars now
identify as secondary. This is also true of a modern forger working a century
before the composition history of the passage had been untangled.
The fact that the canonical version of the Sihon pericope is dependent upon
the Deuteronomic law code, while the recension in V is not, supports the view
that V is not an abridgment of Deuteronomy in which the law has simply been
elided. Rather, V appears to reflect an early stage in the development of the narra-
tives, at which point the Deuteronomic laws had yet to be incorporated into the
text.31
29 Rüdiger Schmitt, Der Heilige Krieg im Pentateuch und im deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerk, Studien zur Forschungs-, Rezeptions- und Religionsgeschichte von Krieg und
Bann im Alten Testament (Munich: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 68–70. (My translation.) See
also Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Liter-
aturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 451–52. For a recent analysis of this pericope and its supplement,
see Gesundheit, “Midrash-Exegesis,” 73–86.
30 The story of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 may reflect V’s version of the Sihon narrative, ac-
cording to which the Amorites were given no opportunity to peacefully surrender. See especially
Josh 9:7, 9–10, 24.
31 That the Deuteronomic law code had no influence on V is evident from other compar-
isons as well. For instance, while V contains a list detailing those who are cursed due to their
transgressions, as in Deut 27–28, the verse regarding intercourse with one’s father (Deut 27:20)
is conspicuously absent in V. The cited transgression, of course, is a Deuteronomic law (Deut
23:1). In V, on the other hand, those cursed are specifically the transgressors of (V’s version of )
3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition 53
3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition

As noted above, Shapira first shared the text of V with scholars in September
of 1878. This was well before the publication of the pivotal works of Staerk and
Steuernagel on the redaction history of Deuteronomy,32 and the regnant theo-
retical framework was still the one associated with de Wette.33 Indeed, to this
day – and contrary to the implication of V that the law was added secondarily to
the narrative – nearly all scholars associate the Urdeuteronomium with the legal
code. Most of the narrative portions, on the other hand, are typically seen as later
additions.
Moreover, according to de Wette and his peers, Deuteronomy was written after
the completion of Genesis through Numbers – including the Priestly portions
thereof – and with an awareness of those texts:
Deuteronomy comes to our hands as a whole, it is the last of the Pentateuch, and of a dif-
ferent design. The earlier books follow one another more along a certain historical thread.
We can therefore regard them as a whole and contrast them to it.34
V paints a very different picture. Namely, it suggests that the original Deutero-
nomic narratives were uninfluenced by Priestly writings. Accordingly, the P-like
elements in Deuteronomy would have only been added secondarily, giving rise
to the composite texts canonized in the final edition of the book.
Most importantly, for our purposes, scholars in 1878 had not yet begun to see
the Deuteronomic narratives as the product of gradual accretion, as most scholars
of Deuteronomy do today. They therefore did not generally attempt to tease apart
layers within a single pericope. For instance, Wellhausen, who was only thirty-
four years old at the time, had just proposed that Deuteronomy was a conflation of
two editions, each of which had contained the legal Urdeuteronomium: Deuteron-
omy 1–4; 12–26; 27 and Deuteronomy 5–11; 12–26; 28–30.35 He viewed these
units, however, as essentially atomic, not the product of piecemeal growth. Ac-
cording to Vater’s earlier fragmentary hypothesis, Deuteronomy consists of some
twenty fragments, but these too were considered mutually independent, rather
the Decalogue.
32 Staerk, Das Deuteronomium (1894); Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums
(1894).
33 See Christopher T. Begg, “The Significance of the ‘Numeruswechsel’ in Deuteronomy:
The ‘Pre-history’ of the Question,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 55 (1979): 116–24, at

116.
34 W. M. L. de Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 1 (Halle, 1806–7),
266–67. Translation from Harvey and Halpern, 66–67. Karl Graf and, especially, Julius Well-
hausen ushered in the idea that P was the latest Pentateuchal source, after which it would make
sense to associate the (post-)Priestly material in Deuteronomy with supplements.
35 Julius Wellhausen, “Die Composition des Hexateuchs,” Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie
22 (1877): 407–79, at 464, et passim.

than as a series of supplementary additions.36 All of this is very different from con-
temporary studies of the book, which typically take for granted the presence of
innumerable interpolations. It is these most recent conclusions that are reflected
in V.
I now turn to a literary-critical analysis of several pericopes in V. Each has
a counterpart in Deuteronomy, which invariably contains post-Priestly supple-
ments absent in V.37 That V’s narrative portions are free of signs of Priestly influ-
ence has not previously been noted. Nevertheless, this observation is crucial for
understanding the nature of the text and its relative dating. Indeed, it establishes
V as an ancient proto-Deuteronomic work, as we will now see.
3.3.1. The Incipit

It has long been recognized that Deut 1:3 is of (post-)Priestly origin. Weinfeld’s
comment is typical: “The exact dating by year, month, and day is characteristic
of the priestly code, as is the use of ʿšty ʿśr instead of ʾḥd ʿśr (Exod 26:7, 8; Num
7:72; etc.).”38
This verse, however, is not the only element in the book’s incipit that appears
to be non-indigenous. Scholars have recently come to view the entirety of 1b–5
as a series of accretions, which collectively interrupt an earlier narrative that had
progressed directly from verse 1a to verse 6.
Reinhard Kratz summarizes the view commonly held today:
[T]here is a consensus in critical scholarship that this heading is not a unity but has in fact
grown successively. The core is generally found in Deut 1:1a:
‫אלה הדברים א͏שׁר דבר מ͏שׁה אל כל י͏שׂראל בעבר הירדן‬
These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan.
Everything else in Deut 1:1–5 is – for good reason – seen as being a literary supplement.
Among the various supplements, first v. 4 and then v. 5, which have the same context in
time and place, would have been added to v. 1a. Then vv. 1b–2 were inserted, adding the
whole period of the journey through the desert. Verse 3 dates the speech of Moses exactly
on the day of the fortieth year of the wandering through the desert and points out that what
36 Johann Severin Vater, Commentar über den Pentateuch (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1802–5). See
Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 67–68.

37 It is well established that there are significant correspondences between the Decalogue
and Lev 19 (H), as already discussed in Lev. Rab. 24:5. (For a comprehensive review, see Jacob
Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, AB 3A [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 1596–1602.) These correspon-
dences run even deeper once V’s version of the Decalogue, together with its concomitant bless-
ings and curses, is taken into view. In chapter 4, I discuss these parallels and their implications.
In a future publication, I will address the Sabbath justification, which in V – as in Exod 20 –
resembles ideas and language that are typically attributed to Priestly circles.
38 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 128.
“Moses addressed to all Israel” is “in accordance with the instructions that the LORD had
given him.”
After removing the supplements, the introduction of the speech “on the other side of
the Jordan” remains.39
It is notable that the version found in V is practically identical to the proto-

Deuteronomic text reconstructed by scholars in recent years:

Deut ‫אֵ ͏לֶּ ה הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר מֹ͏שֶׁ ה אֶ ל‬ ‫]אלה הדב[רם אשר דבר משה על‬
1:1a–1bα ‫͏כָּ ל יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ͏בַּ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר‬ ‫פי יהוה אל כל בני ]י[שראל‬
A 1:1–2 ‫͏בָּ ע ֲָרבָ ה‬ · ‫במ]דב[ר בעבר הירדן ]בע[רבה‬
Deut 1:1–5bβ ‫ארן ͏וּבֵ ין ͏תֹּפֶ ל וְ לָ בָ ן‬

ָ ָ‫מוֹל ס͏וּף ͏בֵּ ין ͏פּ‬
Absent in V ‫ַוחֲצֵ רֹת וְ ִדי זָהָ ב׃ אַ חַ ד עָ ͏שָׂ ר יוֹם‬

‫מֵ ח ֵֹרב ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ר ͏שֵׂ ִעיר עַ ד קָ ֵד͏שׁ‬
‫͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע׃ וַיְ ִהי ְ͏בּאַ ְר͏בָּ ִעים ͏שָׁ נָה ְ͏בּעַ ְ͏שׁ͏תֵּ י‬
‫עָ ͏שָׂ ר ח ֶֹד͏שׁ ְ͏בּאֶ חָ ד לַ ח ֶֹד͏שׁ ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר מֹ͏שֶׁ ה‬
‫אֶ ל ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ְ͏כּכֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה‬
‫אֹתוֹ אֲלֵ הֶ ם׃ אַ ח ֲֵרי הַ ͏כֹּתוֹ אֵ ת ִסיחֹן‬
‫אמ ִֹרי אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יוֹ͏שֵׁ ב ְ͏בּחֶ ְ͏שׁ͏בּוֹן‬
ֱ ָ‫מֶ לֶ ְך ה‬
‫וְ אֵ ת עוֹג מֶ לֶ ְך הַ ͏בָּ ͏שָׁ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יוֹ͏שֵׁ ב‬
‫ְ͏בּעַ ְ͏שׁ͏תָּ רֹת ְ͏בּאֶ ְד ֶר ִעי׃ ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן‬
‫הוֹאיל מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ͏בֵּ אֵ ר אֶ ת‬
ִ ‫ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ מוֹאָ ב‬
‫͏תּוֹרה הַ ͏זּ ֹאת לֵ אמֹר׃‬
ָ ַ‫ה‬
Deut 1:6 ‫יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר אֵ לֵ ינ͏וּ ְ͏בּח ֵֹרב‬ ‫אלהם אלהנו דבר אל]נו[ בחרב‬
A 1:2–4 ‫לֵ אמֹר ַרב לָ כֶ ם ͏שֶׁ בֶ ת ͏בָּ הָ ר הַ ͏זֶּה׃‬ ‫לאמר · רב לכם שבת בהר הזה‬
The only difference between V’s progression and the reconstructed sequence
presented by Kratz is that in V, the phrase ‫ בעבר הירדן‬is preceded by the word
‫ במדבר‬and followed by ‫בערבה‬, whereas in Deuteronomy both words follow ‫בעבר‬
‫ הירדן‬and are not included in the hypothetical original. Every other word of 1b–5
is absent in V. Furthermore, V picks up at the very point that the hypothesized
proto-Deuteronomic narrative does: “YHWH/Elohim our God spoke to us at
Horeb, saying, ‘You have stayed long enough at this mountain’” (Deut 1:6; Va A
1:2–4).
39 Reinhard Kratz, “The Headings of the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Deuteronomy in the

Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Raymond F.
Person, Jr. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 31–46, at 35–36, citing Lothar Perlitt, Deuterono-
mium, BKAT 5/1–5 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990–2008), 6–7; Timo Veijola, Das 5.
Buch Mose: Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2004), 7–8; and Udo Rüterswörden, Das Buch Deuteronomium, NSK.AT 4 (Stuttgart: Katholi-
sches Bibelwerk, 2006), 23.
The realization that verses 1b–5 are extrinsic to the original text had not yet
been made before 1878, when Shapira first shared the text of V. Only in the follow-
ing years did scholars begin to suggest similar ideas, but even these did not corre-
spond with the consensus view held today, which is implicit in V. For instance, in
1880, Valeton raised the possibility that verses 1b–4 (but not 5) are secondary.40
Seven years later, Kuenen proposed that verses 3–4, rather, constitute the sup-
plementary element.41 In 1886, Dillmann posited that the interrupting sequence
is, in fact, 1b–3, and that there was once continuity from 1a to 4–5, which he at-
tributed to Rd.42 Dillmann’s proposal was quite influential, and though rejected
by Driver,43 it was accepted by most scholars, including Bacon (1894),44 Bertho-
let (1899),45 Steuernagel (1900),46 Puukko (1910),47 and Marti (1922).48 In short,
many years passed from the assessment that Shapira’s manuscripts were forgeries
before it became known – as it is today – that the section absent in V is indeed
secondary. In light of this, it is evident that a forger working in 1878 or earlier
would have had no relevant scholarship upon which to base his or her fraudulent
text. It would be remarkable indeed if the first known person to identify 1b–5 as
secondary was the ill-starred forger of the Shapira manuscripts.
A second inference can be drawn from the above evidence. The near perfect
alignment between V here and scholars’ proposed proto-Deuteronomy suggests
that V is not dependent upon Deuteronomy (or the Pentateuch more broadly), as
has been presumed by nearly all scholars, including the few who contemplated,
or argued for, the authenticity of the manuscripts.49 It seems unlikely that a Hel-
lenistic writer of a so-called “rewritten” or “excerpted” Deuteronomy would have
excised precisely the same passage that scholars two millennia later identified
as a series of redactional intrusions. If verses 1b–5 are indeed secondary, it ap-
40Josua J. P. Valeton, “Deuteronomium,” Studiën: theologisch tijdschrift 6 (1880): 304–5. I

thank Tamara Morsel-Eisenberg for her assistance with the Dutch.
41 Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hin-
sichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung. Erster Teil, Erstes Stück: Die Entstehung des Hexa-
teuch (Leipzig, 1887), 115–16.
42 August Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KeH 13 (Leipzig, 1886), 231–32.
In his view, the original text began with verse 6.

43 Samuel R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 2.
44 Benjamin W. Bacon, Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford, CT: Student Publishing
Company, 1894), 255–56.

45 Alfred Bertholet, Deuteronomium, KHC V (Freiburg, 1899), 1.
46 Carl Steuernagel, Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und
Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HK 1/3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900),
1.
47 Antti F. Puukko, Das Deuteronomium. Eine literarkritische Untersuchung, BWAT 5
(Leipzig, 1910), 126–27.

48 Karl Marti, “Das fünfte Buch Mose oder Deuteronomium,” in Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments, vol. 1, ed. Alfred Bertholet (Tübingen, 1922), 258–327, at 261.

49 See §3.1.
pears that V reflects an earlier incarnation of the text than the one preserved in
Deuteronomy.
3.3.2. The Injunction against Idols

In Deut 4:16–18, Moses warns the people of Israel against fashioning idols. The
first several words, particularly “graven image” (‫ )פסל‬and “likeness” (‫)תמונה‬, evoke
the Decalogue’s injunction against idols (Exod 20:4, Deut 5:8): “Thou shalt not
make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness,” etc.50 After the initial phrase,
however, there is a sharp stylistic shift to conspicuously Priestly language. Indeed,
most scholars now agree that the remainder of the passage, 4:16b–18, is predomi-
nantly Priestly or post-Priestly in character.51 Weinfeld, for instance, writes: “The
vocabulary in vv 16–18 is characteristic of the priestly literature in the Pentateuch:
zkr nqbh, spwr knp, and rmś.”52 More explicitly, Dietrich Knapp has remarked:
˙
The expansion in 4:16b ([beginning] with ‫–סמל‬18 of the exegesis of the Second Command-
ment [in 4:16a] distinguishes itself from its context especially in its use of different lan-
guage. In contrast to the surrounding context, which primarily uses terms and phrases
from the domain of Dtr/late-Dtr, there are numerous terms and phrases here that are oth-
erwise typical of Priestly usage.53
The observation that 4:16b–18 is of Priestly or post-Priestly origin does not ap-
pear to have been made before 1878, when the text of V first became known.54
Only in the following years did scholars begin to note similarities between this
passage and P, let alone to argue for the presence of P-related interpolations.
In his 1893 commentary on Deuteronomy, Samuel Oettli remarked:
50 Cf. also Deut 4:23, 25.

51 The language shifts back to that of the Decalogue in 18b, at the very end of the section,
with the words ‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בַּ ͏מַּ יִ ם ִמ͏תַּ חַ ת לָ אָ ֶרץ‬. See below.
53 Dietrich Knapp, Deuteronomium 4: literarische Analyse und theologische Interpretation,
Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 35 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech, 1987), 88–89. (My
translation. Cf. Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1 [Freiburg: Herder, 2012], 534–35.)
It is not clear why Knapp begins with ‫סמל‬, which is not attested elsewhere in the Enneateuch.
Perhaps this is due to the word’s appearance in Ezekiel 8 (vv. 3 and 5), although it is also found
in 2 Chr 33 (vv. 7 and 15). ‫ סמל‬is attested in 8th–7th c. Phoenician (Azatiwada/Karatepe Statue
of Storm-God PhSt/C IV 15, 18–19). Cf. CIS i:11, i:88, i:91, and i:93. See George A. Cooke,
A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean,
Palmyrene, Jewish (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 57, 73, 76–77; Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel Jon-
geling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 2:792–93, s.v.
sml1 .
54 Cf., e.g., Friedrich W. Schultz, Das Deuteronomium (Berlin: Schlawitz, 1859), 229–30;
Carl F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Erster Theil. Die Bücher Mose’s.
Zweiter Band. Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke,
1870), 434; Paul Kleinert, Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker. Untersuchungen zur
alttestamentlichen Rechts- und Literaturgeschichte (Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1872), 49.
[Deut 4:]18: the expressions are mostly in agreement with P and are partly reminiscent of
Gen 1, partly of Exod 20:4.55
One year later, Carl Steuernagel elaborated upon this idea:
[Deut 4:16:] ‫סמל‬, appears in the Old Testament only in Ezek 8:3,5; 2 Chr 33:7,15, but it is
attested also in Phoenician inscriptions and therefore cannot be used as evidence for the
late composition of our section. ‫ זכר או נקבה‬appear together only in P; ‫ נקבה‬alone only in
the interpolated passage in Jer 31:22.
17: ‫צפר כנף‬, appears only in exilic and post-exilic passages (Ezek 17:23, 39:4,17; Gen 7:14,
Psa 148:10).
18: With LXX, read ‫ כל ֶרמֶ ͏שׂ רֹמֵ ͏שׂ‬and cf. P usage: Gen 1:26, etc.56
Writing at the same time as Steuernagel, Willy Staerk went further still, arguing
explicitly that verses 15–18 not only exhibit P-like language but were indeed writ-
ten by a different author than the surrounding verses. Although he noted that the
Priestly terms were concentrated in verses 16–18, he included verses 15–16a in
his proposed unit, in contrast to more recent scholars:
v. 15ff cannot belong to v. 10ff, due to the peculiar use of language reminiscent of P (see
especially verses 16–18), and due to the repetition of “on the day YHWH spoke to you at
Horeb out of the fire.”57
This brings us to V, which contains a corresponding pericope in D 3:5–7. Strik-

ingly, the very words that scholars have come to identify as (post-)Priestly are
absent in V:

Deut 4:16a ‫ֲ͏שׂיתֶ ם לָ כֶ ם ͏פֶּ סֶ ל‬
ִ ‫͏פֶּ ן ͏תַּ ְ͏שׁ ִחת͏וּן ַוע‬ ‫השמרו לכם פן תשכחו ועשתם‬
D 3:5–6 ‫ְ͏תּמ͏וּנַת ͏כָּ ל סָ מֶ ל‬ ‫לכם פסל ותמנה תבנת כל סמל‬
Deut ‫͏תַּ ְבנִ ית זָכָ ר אוֹ נְ קֵ בָ ה׃ ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל‬ ‫אשר בשמם ממעל ואשר בארץ‬
4:16b–18 ‫ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בָּ אָ ֶרץ ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל ִצ͏פּוֹר‬ · ‫מ]תח[ת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ‬
D 3:6–7 ‫͏כָּ נָף אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏תָּ ע͏וּף ͏בַּ ͏שָּׁ מָ יִ ם׃ ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל‬
‫רֹמֵ ͏שׂ ͏בָּ א ֲָדמָ ה ͏תַּ ְבנִ ית ͏כָּ ל ָ͏דּגָה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬
‫͏בַּ ͏מַּ יִ ם ִמ͏תַּ חַ ת לָ אָ ֶרץ׃‬
55 Samuel Oettli, Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Josua und Richter (Munich, 1893),
35. (My translation.) See also Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 17. For more on this
passage’s affiliation with Gen 1, see Michael Fishbane, “Varia Deuteronomica,” Zeitschrift für
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84, no. 3 (1972): 349–52, at 349. In 1886, Dillmann observed that
‫ תבנית‬and ‫ זכר ונקבה‬are characteristic of P (or “A,” in his nomenclature), while noting that other
phrases in the passage have parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Dillmann found some
of these correspondences to be superficial, arguing that the respective authors used the term
‫ תבנית‬differently. (Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 255–56.) See also Bertholet,
Deuteronomium, 17.
56 Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 17. (My translation.)
57 Staerk, Das Deuteronomium, 79n3. (My translation.)
While the language in the Deuteronomic version shifts abruptly from

Decalogue-like to Priestly after 4:16a, V’s text evokes the Decalogue – and noth-
ing else – throughout.58 As in the previous example, we may draw two inferences
from this set of facts – one regarding authenticity, and one regarding V’s rela-
tionship to Deuteronomy. As to authenticity, a forger working in 1878 or earlier
would not have had any scholarly hypothesis upon which to base a decision to
excise Deut 4:16b–18 and replace it with new material. Although we now know
these verses to be Priestly or post-Priestly, this was not the case when V first came
to light.
In addition, our comparison of V and Deuteronomy here supports the prior-
ity of the former. The very section that recent scholars have shown to be sec-
ondary is absent in V, and the alternative text in V coheres with 4:16a in its
Decalogue-like nature.59 The parsimonious explanation is thus that V preserves
the pre-supplementation state of the text.
3.3.3. The Stone Tablets and the Wooden Ark

In Deut 10:1a, Moses recounts the divine commandments to prepare a second
pair of stone tablets and ascend the mountain. This is followed in verses 1b–2 by
his report of the command to build a wooden ark and place the tablets inside it.
In the next three verses, Moses describes his fulfillment of these commandments
and receipt of the divinely inscribed stones, followed by his descent from the
mountain and placement of the tablets in his newly fashioned ark.
As brief as this pericope may be, it is not free of difficulties. For one, it is not
clear why the commandment to build an ark should appear here, alongside the
decree to craft the second pair of tablets. According to Deut 9:17 (cf. Exod 32:19),
Moses broke the first tablets in a spontaneous act; the divine plan was never for
there to be a second pair. Why then does YHWH’s command to build an ark not
appear either in Deuteronomy 9, before Moses’s first ascent of the mountain, or at
the end of this episode, after he finally returns with intact tablets?60 Even within
the context of the pericope itself, this commandment appears at an unusual point,
coming after the instruction to climb the mountain, rather than before it.
As Reinhard Achenbach has observed:
58 ‫ אשר בשמ)י(ם ממעל‬appears elsewhere only in the Decalogue (Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8) – indeed
in the context of the injunction against idols. The same is true for ‫ואשר בארץ מתחת‬. None of the
Priestly language found in Deut 4:16b–18 appears in V. Notably, the phrase ‫)ו(אשר במים מתחת‬
‫ לארץ‬features in both V and Deuteronomy’s P-inflected version; it too appears nowhere else but
in the Decalogue.
59 It is worth noting that though the Deuteronomic version contains much language that
modern scholars identify as Priestly, there is nothing characteristically Priestly about the subject
matter. It is therefore unlikely that V reflects an anti-Priestly revision of Deuteronomy. Likewise,
Deut 4:16b–18 is as smooth and unproblematic a text as is V here, ruling out the possibility that
the latter is an ancient harmonization of the former.
60 I am grateful to Raanan Eichler for this insight.
The command to construct the ark in Deuteronomy 10:1b fits poorly into the logic of the
account and probably derives from a deliberate Deuteronomic intervention that sought to
combine the ark tradition with the law.61
Similarly, Eckart Otto writes:

In Deut 10:1–2 the commandment to construct the ark is inappropriately not tied to the
commandment to fashion the tablets, but instead follows the commandment to ascend the
mountain.62
These difficulties stem from the secondary insertion of ark-construction elements

into an earlier text that lacked them. As noted by several scholars, this passage
betrays the influence of Pentateuchal P material. For instance, in his book on the
evolution of the biblical ark traditions, Peter Porzig writes:
One cannot dispel the suspicion that the author of these verses was familiar with the Sinai
episode in its Priestly garb. This is further corroborated by the mention of the building
material, acacia wood (‫)עצי שטים‬. Outside of Deut 10:3, this material appears exclusively
in P – 23 instances there versus this single instance.63
Since Porzig sees evidence of Priestly influence, on the one hand, but does not
identify any internal literary difficulties, on the other, he concludes that the en-
tire unit must be post-P.64 But the internal difficulties noted above are inescapable,
as is Achenbach’s conclusion that the post-Priestly elements relating to the ark’s
construction are Fortschreibungen. This also explains the absence of the ark-
construction motif in Exodus 34, which otherwise aligns closely with Deut 10:1–
5.65 As Otto has argued, following Achenbach:
Rather, in Deut 10:1–5, the Deuteronomistic tablet motif and the [Priestly] ark motif have
been brought together only in the post-exilic Fortschreibung […] which in Deut 10:3a is di-
rectly connected to acacia-wood ark motif of Exod 25:10 (PS), and was associated with the
Levite etiology in Deut 10:8–9, with which the authors of the post-exilic Fortschreibung
continue the narrative, together with the etiology of priests and Levites in Deut 10:6–9.66
With these observations in mind, it is worth comparing the Deuteronomic

pericope to its counterpart in V:
61 Reinhard Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot. Literarkritische Untersuchun-
gen zu Deuteronomium 5–11 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991), 369. (My translation.) See
also idem, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kon-
text von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 190–94.
62 Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 949. (My translation.)
63 Peter Porzig, Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 49. (Emphasis in the original; my translation.)

64 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 181.
65 The older consensus, following Driver, was that Exod 34 originally contained an ark-
construction element, as in Deuteronomy 10, but it was subsequently deleted by a redactor.

See Driver, Deuteronomy, 117–18.
66 Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 950–51. (My translation.)
Deuteronomy (MT) Valediction of Moses (Vb )

Deut 10:1a ‫͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא אָ מַ ר יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ְ͏פּסָ ל ְלָך‬ ‫בעת ההוא אמר אלהם אלי ]פסל‬
G 2:3–4 ‫ְ͏שׁנֵי לֻ וחֹת אֲבָ נִ ים ͏כָּ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים ַועֲלֵ ה‬ ‫ל[ך ש]נ[י לחת אבנם ֯כ ֯רא֯ שנם‬
‫אֵ לַ י הָ הָ ָרה‬ ‫ועלה אלי ההרה‬
֯
Deut ‫וְ עָ ִ͏שׂיתָ ְ͏לָּך אֲרוֹן עֵ ץ׃ וְ אֶ ְכ͏תֹּב עַ ל‬
10:1b–3a ‫הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת אֶ ת הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הָ י͏וּ עַ ל‬
Absent in V ָ‫הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת הָ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏שׁ͏בַּ ְר͏תּ‬
‫וְ ͏שַׂ ְמ͏תָּ ם ͏בָּ אָ רוֹן׃ וָאַ עַ ͏שׂ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵ י‬
‫ִ͏שׁ ִ͏טּים וָאֶ ְפסֹל ְ͏שׁנֵי לֻ חֹת אֲבָ נִ ים‬
‫͏כָּ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים‬
Deut 10:3b–4 ‫͏וּ͏שׁנֵי הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת ְ͏בּי ִָדי׃‬
ְ ‫וָאַ עַ ל הָ הָ ָרה‬ · ‫בידי‬
֯ ‫ואעל ההרה ושני הלחת‬
G 2:4–6 ‫וַ͏יִּ ְכ͏תֹּב עַ ל הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת ͏כַּ ִ͏מּ ְכ͏תָּ ב הָ ִרא͏שׁוֹן‬ ‫ויכתב אלהם על הלחת א]ת‬
‫אֵ ת עֲ͏שֶׂ ֶרת הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה‬ ‫עשרת[ הדברם אשר דבר אלכם‬
‫אֲלֵ יכֶ ם ͏בָּ הָ ר ִמ͏תּוְֹך הָ אֵ ͏שׁ ְ͏בּיוֹם‬ ‫֯ב ֯ה ֯ר ביום הקהל ויתנ]ם[ אלי‬
‫הַ ͏קָּ הָ ל וַ͏יִּ ְ͏תּנֵם יְ הוָה אֵ לָ י׃‬
Deut 10:5a ‫וָאֵ פֶ ן וָאֵ ֵרד ִמן הָ הָ ר וָאָ ִ͏שׂם אֶ ת‬ ‫והנם בארן אשר עשתי‬
G 2:6 ‫יתי‬
ִ ‫הַ ͏לֻּ חֹת ͏בָּ אָ רוֹן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ִ͏שׂ‬
Deut 10:5b ‫וַ͏יִּ ְהי͏וּ ͏שָׁ ם ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וַּנִ י יְ הוָה׃‬
Absent in V
The version of this episode preserved in V is very similar to that of Deut 10.
However, V contains neither the command to build an ark nor any fulfillment
thereof. The instruction to climb the mountain with stone tablets in hand (V G
2:3–4; cf. Deut 10:1a) is followed immediately – and naturally – by a report of that
instruction’s execution by Moses (V G 2:4; cf. Deut 10:3b): “At that time Elohim
said to me, ‘Carve out two tablets of stone like the former ones, and come up to
me on the mountain.’ So I ascended the mountain with the two tablets in hand.”
Likewise, after Moses describes his receipt of the inscribed tablets in V, he
simply states: “and they are in the ark that I built.” This stands in contrast with
the corresponding passage in Deut 10:5, where Moses places the tablets in the
ark that he built “where they remain, as YHWH commanded me.” Since there is
no such commandment in V, it is no surprise that there is also no report of its
fulfillment. Also, considering that Moses broke the first tablets spontaneously in
the non-Priestly narrative, it is natural that in this tradition Moses would have
only built an ark after descending with the second pair of tablets, as is implicit in
V.
The argument that Deut 10:1–5 contains post-Priestly insertions had not been
made in Shapira’s lifetime and could not have served as inspiration for forgery.
Even the idea that the passage shows signs of Priestly influence had not been
proposed before Oettli in 1893. And his argument was not that post-Priestly
Fortschreibungen were added to an earlier Deuteronomic text, but rather that
Deuteronomy presupposes P.67 The insight that the Priestly language is associ-
ated with supplements that were added to an earlier Deuteronomic text does not
appear to have been made before Achenbach, who wrote more than a century
after the Shapira manuscripts were declared forgeries.
The view that this passage contains post-Priestly Fortschreibungen is sup-
ported by the presence of insertions in the directly adjacent verses. As Richard
Nelson observes:
[Deut 10:6–7] A proper priestly succession carries on in spite of Aaron’s death. These
supplementary verses relate to the itinerary of Num 33:30–34 (P) and break into the
speech of Moses. […]
[Deut 10:8–9] The addition of these verses (cf. “at that time”) seems to have been occa-
sioned by the catchword “ark” in v. 5. They seem to presuppose knowledge of the loyalty
of Levites reported in Exod 32:25–29. Perhaps the reference of the citation formula is the
promise of Num 18:20 (P).68
Like the post-P supplements in verses 1–5, those in verses 6–9 are altogether ab-
sent from V:

Deut 10:6–9 ‫͏וּבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל נ ְָסע͏וּ ִמ ְ͏בּאֵ רֹת ְ͏בּנֵי ַיעֲקָ ן‬
ְ
Absent in V ‫הרֹן וַ͏יִּ ͏קָּ בֵ ר ͏שָׁ ם‬

ֲ ַ‫מוֹסֵ ָרה ͏שָׁ ם מֵ ת א‬
‫וַיְ כַ הֵ ן אֶ ְלעָ זָר ְ͏בּנוֹ ͏תַּ ְח͏תָּ יו׃ ִמ͏שָּׁ ם נ ְָסע͏וּ‬
‫͏וּמן הַ ͏גּ ְֻד͏גּ ָֹדה י ְָטבָ תָ ה אֶ ֶרץ‬
ִ ‫הַ ͏גּ ְֻד͏גּ ָֹדה‬
‫ַנחֲלֵ י מָ יִ ם׃ ͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא ִה ְב ִ͏דּיל יְ הוָה‬
‫אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ בֶ ט הַ ͏לֵּ וִ י לָ ͏שֵׂ את אֶ ת אֲרוֹן‬
‫עמֹד ִל ְפנֵי יְ הוָה‬
ֲ ַ‫ְ͏בּ ִרית יְ הוָה ל‬
‫͏וּלבָ ֵרְך ִ͏בּ ְ͏שׁמוֹ עַ ד הַ ͏יּוֹם‬
ְ ֹ‫ְל͏שָׁ ְרתו‬
‫הַ ͏זֶּה׃ עַ ל ͏כֵּ ן ל ֹא הָ יָה ְללֵ וִ י חֵ לֶ ק‬
ֹ‫וְ ַנחֲלָ ה ִעם אֶ חָ יו יְ הוָה ה͏וּא ַנחֲלָ תו‬
‫͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לוֹ׃‬
Deut 10:10 ‫וְ אָ נ ִֹכי עָ מַ ְד ִ͏תּי בָ הָ ר ͏כַּ ͏יּ ִָמים הָ ִרא͏שֹׁנִ ים‬ ‫ובקדש ברנע באמר אלי אלהם‬
G 2:6–9 ‫אַ ְר͏בָּ ִעים יוֹם וְ אַ ְר͏בָּ ִעים לָ יְ לָ ה וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁמַ ע‬ ‫עלו ורשו את הארץ ממרם היתם‬
‫יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ͏גַּם ͏בַּ ͏פַּ עַ ם הַ ִהוא ל ֹא אָ בָ ה‬ ‫את אלהכם ולא עלתם ולא שמעתם‬
Cf. Deut ‫יְ הוָה הַ ְ͏שׁ ִחיתֶ ָך׃‬ ‫בקלו ֯וי֯א֯ ֯מ ֯ר אלהם להשמד‬
9:23–25 [‫א]תכ[ם ואת]נ[פל בעדכם בעמד]י‬
‫ל[לה‬
֯ ‫֯ם ]ואר[בע]ם‬
֯ ‫בהר ארבעם ֯יו‬
‫בעדכם וישמע אל]הם גם בפעם‬
· ‫ההוא ולא השחת[ את]כם כ[רגע‬
67
Oettli, Deuteronomium und Josa und Richter, 49. Cf. Bertholet’s response in Deuterono-
mium, 32–33.
68 Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 128. See also Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy,”
in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014), 368. Not all of this post-Priestly material was introduced at the same
time; the Fortschreibung of vv. 6–7 was evidently added after that of vv. 8–9. See Porzig, Die
Lade, 44–45.
V continues with material corresponding to Deut 10:10 and 9:23–25, both of

which describe the same event, and neither of which betrays any signs of Priestly
influence.69
In summary, it appears that Deuteronomy 10 contains a number of post-
Priestly supplements, none of which has any parallel in V. As in the previous
examples, our comparison of the stone tablet pericope in Deuteronomy and the
Valediction of Moses suggests two conclusions. First, the fact that the version in
V lacks precisely the elements that scholars have since identified as post-Priestly
Fortschreibungen suggests that a forger would not have been able to model his
or her fraudulent text upon these insights. Second, this comparison also suggests
that V reflects an earlier incarnation of the Deuteronomic text, and not vice versa.
3.3.4. The Rebellion at Kadesh Barnea

Deuteronomy 1:19–39 recounts the story of the spies sent from Kadesh Barnea
to scout the land of Israel. There are several notable differences between this ac-
count and that of the hybrid Priestly/non-Priestly version in Numbers 13–14.
First, in Deuteronomy, it is the Israelites who propose sending spies, whereas
in Numbers (13:1–15; P), it is YHWH’s initiative. In his commentary on
Deuteronomy, Abravanel highlights this discrepancy:
But why did our master Moses, in this story, not want to report how blessed God com-
manded him to send [the spies] by saying (Num 13:2) “Send men…” – instead attributing
it to [the people] and to himself by saying (Deut 1:22–23) “All of you came to me […] The
plan seemed good to me…”?70
The non-Priestly strand of the account in Numbers 13–14 lacks an introduc-

tion, making it difficult to determine to whom the author of that version at-
tributed the initiative of the spies.71 In any event, there is no counterpart in Num-
bers for the people’s proposal to send spies and Moses’s consent, as described in
Deut 1:22–23.
69 Von Rad, among others, has noted the connection between Deut 10:10 and the narrative at
the end of Deut 9 “[10.10–11] Here now at last (removed by several interpolations from its orig-
inal position immediately after the intercessory prayer in 9.26–29) comes the announcement
that Yahweh had granted the prayer. The forgiveness vouchsafed is expressed still more effec-
tively by the order to Moses to prepare for departure and for a journey towards the promised
land” (Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, The Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster,
1964], 80).
70 My translation. More recently, see, e.g., Abraham Kuenen, The Pentateuch and Book
of Joshua Critically Examined, trans. J. W. Colenso (London: Longman, 1865), 95; Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy 1–11, 144.
71 Some scholars have suggested that it likely paralleled the Deuteronomic telling, as it does
elsewhere. See, e.g., Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, AB 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 347.
Second, in Deut 1:29–33, it is Moses who responds to the Israelites’ faithless

complaint, unlike in the non-P section in Numbers, where only Caleb is said to
have done so (Num 13:30).72 Notably, several recent scholars have argued that
these verses in the Deuteronomic account are part of a post-Priestly interpolation.
For example, Otto writes:
In contrast to the brief addition of the note about Kadesh (Deut 1:19b), with Deut 1:28–33
we have an extensive text block that was inserted into the base narrative. Moses’s encour-
agement of the people in verses 29–33 is not a fitting response to their rejection of the
commandment (verses 27, 28a), and also YHWH’s reaction after the speech of Moses in
verses 34ff comes too late. In Deuteronomy 1:28b–33 we are dealing with an author who
has in mind the Deuteronomic law, the exodus and desert wandering narratives in Exodus
and Numbers, as well as the post-Priestly Sinai pericope (Exod 19:4).73
More recently, Lothar Perlitt added 28a to this hypothetical supplement, thus
expanding its scope to verses 28–33.74
Third, in Deut 1:37 Moses tells the Israelites that YHWH prevented him from
entering Canaan on their account. Nothing to this effect appears in the non-P el-
ement of Numbers 13–14, however. Rather, this verse appears to be related to the
tradition of Meribah (which is, notably, associated with Kadesh) in Num 20:1–
13.75 This verse too has been identified in recent years as a secondary insertion.76
The following table juxtaposes the versions of Deuteronomy and the Valedic-
tion of Moses:
72 Notably, it is unclear who is speaking in Num 14:8–9 (non-P). In the final composite text,
it is construed as being Joshua and Caleb, but this may not have always been the case.
73 Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch, 21. (My translation.)
74 Lothar Perlitt, Deuteronomium 1–6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 90–
91: “Ultimately, even the casual reader is struck by discrepancies in verses 19–46, which, with
proper literary-critical analysis, show that this text was written by several hands. […] But the
clear and appropriate connections of 26f to 34f and 35 to 39aβ,b also make verses 28–33 and
36–39aα easily recognizable as supplements […] These supplements are by no means random
glosses, but rather, in the case of 28–33, they are theologically substantive and give the entire
text a different weight.” (My translation.)
75 This was observed by several medieval scholars. See, e.g., Bekor Shor, Nachmanides, and
Gersonides, ad loc. Note that Meribah is associated with Kadesh in Num 20:1b, 27:14; Deut
32:51; and Ezek 47:19; 48:28. Tantalizingly, the sinners of V’s sin at Kadesh are called ‫אנשי המרבה‬
(Va B 1:8–9). (Num 20:1–13 is an amalgam of P and non-P.)
76 See Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 1, 397–98.
‫‪3.3. The Absence of P in V ’s Historical Exposition‬‬ ‫‪65‬‬
‫)‪Deuteronomy (MT‬‬ ‫) ‪Valediction of Moses (Va‬‬

‫‪Deut 1:19–21‬‬ ‫וַ͏נִּ ͏סַּ ע מֵ ח ֵֹרב ַו͏נֵּלֶ ְך אֵ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר‬ ‫ונסע מחרב ונלך א]ת כ[ל המדבר‬
‫‪A 1:5–9‬‬ ‫͏נּוֹרא הַ ה͏וּא אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְר ִאיתֶ ם‬
‫הַ ͏גָּדוֹל וְ הַ ָ‬ ‫֯ה]גד[ל והנרא הזה אשר ראתם‬
‫אמ ִֹרי ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה‬
‫ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ר הָ ֱ‬ ‫ונבא ]עד[ קדש ]ברנע · ו[אמר‬
‫אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ אֹתָ נ͏וּ ַו͏נָּב ֹא עַ ד קָ ֵד͏שׁ ͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע׃‬ ‫אלכם באתם היום עד הר האמ]רי[‬
‫אמ ִֹרי‬
‫ָואֹמַ ר אֲלֵ כֶ ם ͏בָּ אתֶ ם עַ ד הַ ר הָ ֱ‬ ‫ע]לו ור[שו את הארץ כאשר דבר‬
‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃ ְראֵ ה‬ ‫אלה ֯ם ]אלהי אבתכם לכם ·[‬
‫֯‬
‫נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך ְלפָ נֶיָך אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ‬
‫עֲלֵ ה ֵר͏שׁ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ י‬
‫ירא וְ אַ ל ͏תֵּ חָ ת׃‬
‫אבֹתֶ יָך לָ ְך אַ ל ִ͏תּ ָ‬
‫ֲ‬
‫‪Deut 1:22–25‬‬ ‫ֹאמר͏וּ‬
‫ו ִַ͏תּ ְק ְרב͏וּן אֵ לַ י ͏כֻּ ְ͏לּכֶ ם וַ͏תּ ְ‬
‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫ָ͏שׁים ְלפָ נֵינ͏וּ וְ י ְַח ְ͏פּר͏וּ לָ נ͏וּ‬
‫אנ ִ‬
‫נִ ְ͏שׁ ְלחָ ה ֲ‬
‫ָ͏שׁב͏וּ אֹתָ נ͏וּ ָ͏דּבָ ר אֶ ת‬
‫אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ וְ י ִ‬
‫הַ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ַנעֲלֶ ה ͏בָּ ͏הּ וְ אֵ ת הֶ עָ ִרים‬
‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָב ֹא אֲלֵ יהֶ ן׃ וַ͏יִּ יטַ ב ְ͏בּעֵ ינַי‬
‫ָ͏שׁים‬
‫אנ ִ‬
‫הַ ָ͏דּבָ ר וָאֶ ͏קַּ ח ִמ͏כֶּ ם ְ͏שׁנֵים עָ ͏שָׂ ר ֲ‬
‫ִאי͏שׁ אֶ חָ ד לַ ͏שָּׁ בֶ ט׃ וַ͏יִּ ְפנ͏וּ ַו ַ͏יּעֲל͏וּ‬
‫הָ הָ ָרה ַו ָ͏יּבֹא͏וּ עַ ד נַחַ ל אֶ ְ͏שׁ͏כֹּל וַיְ ַר͏גְּ ל͏וּ‬
‫אֹתָ ͏הּ׃ וַ͏יִּ ְקח͏וּ ְבי ָָדם ִמ ְ͏פּ ִרי הָ אָ ֶרץ‬
‫ָ͏שׁב͏וּ אֹתָ נ͏וּ ָדבָ ר‬
‫ַ͏יּוֹרד͏וּ אֵ לֵ ינ͏וּ ַו͏יּ ִ‬
‫ו ִ‬
‫ֹאמר͏וּ טוֹבָ ה הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה‬
‫וַ͏יּ ְ‬
‫אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃‬
‫‪Deut 1:26–27‬‬ ‫וְ ל ֹא א ֲִביתֶ ם לַ עֲֹלת וַ͏תַּ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ת ִ͏פּי‬ ‫ותא֯ ֯מרו‬
‫]ולא[ א֯ ֯ב ֯ת ֯ם לעלת ותרגנו ֯‬
‫‪A 1:9–B 1:1‬‬ ‫יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ וַ͏תֵּ ָרגְ נ͏וּ ְבאָ הֳלֵ יכֶ ם‬ ‫בש]נאת אלהם אתנו נתן אתנו ביד‬
‫הוֹציאָ נ͏וּ‬
‫ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר͏וּ ְ͏בּ ִ͏שׂנְ אַ ת יְ הוָה אֹתָ נ͏וּ‬
‫וַ͏תּ ְ‬ ‫האמרי[ לאבדנו‬
‫מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם לָ תֵ ת אֹתָ נ͏וּ ְ͏בּיַד‬
‫ידנ͏וּ׃‬
‫אמ ִֹרי ְלהַ ְ͏שׁ ִמ ֵ‬
‫הָ ֱ‬
‫‪Deut 1:28–33‬‬ ‫אנ ְַחנ͏וּ עֹ ִלים אַ חֵ ינ͏וּ הֵ מַ ͏סּ͏וּ אֶ ת‬
‫אָ נָה ֲ‬
‫‪Absent in V‬‬ ‫ְלבָ בֵ נ͏וּ לֵ אמֹר עַ ם ͏גָּדוֹל ו ָָרם ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ‬

‫͏וּבצ͏וּרֹת ͏בַּ ͏שָּׁ מָ יִ ם וְ גַם‬
‫עָ ִרים ͏גְּ דֹֹלת ְ‬
‫ענ ִָקים ָר ִאינ͏וּ ͏שָׁ ם׃ ָואֹמַ ר אֲלֵ כֶ ם‬
‫ְ͏בּנֵי ֲ‬
‫ירא͏וּן מֵ הֶ ם׃ יְ הוָה‬
‫ל ֹא תַ עַ ְרצ͏וּן וְ ל ֹא ִת ְ‬
‫אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם הַ הֹלֵ ְך ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם ה͏וּא יִ ͏לָּ חֵ ם‬
‫לָ כֶ ם ְ͏כּכֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שָׂ ה ִא ְ͏תּכֶ ם‬
‫ְ͏בּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ְלעֵ ינֵיכֶ ם׃ ͏וּבַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬
‫ָר ִאיתָ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נְ ͏שָׂ אֲָך יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך‬
‫͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ͏שָׂ א ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת ְ͏בּנוֹ ְ͏בּכָ ל הַ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬
‫͏בּאֲכֶ ם עַ ד הַ ͏מָּ קוֹם‬
‫אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הֲלַ ְכ͏תֶּ ם עַ ד ֹ‬
‫הַ ͏זֶּה׃ ͏וּבַ ָ͏דּבָ ר הַ ͏זֶּה אֵ ינְ כֶ ם מַ א ֲִמינִ ם‬
‫͏בַּ יהוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ הַ הֹלֵ ְך ִל ְפנֵיכֶ ם‬
‫חנ ְֹתכֶ ם‬
‫͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך לָ ת͏וּר לָ כֶ ם מָ קוֹם לַ ֲ‬
‫͏בָּ אֵ ͏שׁ לַ יְ לָ ה לַ ְרא ְֹתכֶ ם ͏בַּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬
‫͏תֵּ ְלכ͏וּ בָ ͏הּ ͏וּבֶ עָ נָן יוֹמָ ם׃‬

Deut 1:34–40 ‫וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁמַ ע יְ הוָה אֶ ת קוֹל ִ͏דּ ְב ֵריכֶ ם‬ ‫וי]חר[ אף אלהם וי]שבע[ לאמר חי‬
B 1:1–8 ‫וַ͏יִּ ְקצֹף וַ͏יִּ ͏שָּׁ בַ ע לֵ אמֹר׃ ִאם יִ ְראֶ ה ִאי͏שׁ‬ ‫]אני[ כי כל העם הראם את אתתי‬
‫ָ͏שׁים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה הַ ͏דּוֹר הָ ָרע הַ ͏זֶּה אֵ ת‬
ִ ‫אנ‬
ֲ ָ‫͏בּ‬ ‫ואת מפתי אשר עשתי זה עשר‬
Cf. Num ‫הָ אָ ֶרץ הַ ͏טּוֹבָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נִ ְ͏שׁ͏בַּ ְע ִ͏תּי לָ תֵ ת‬ ‫פעמם ולא ֯הא֯ ֯מ ֯נ ֯ו ולא שמעו בקלי‬
14:21–25 ‫אבֹתֵ יכֶ ם׃ ז͏וּלָ ִתי ͏כָּ לֵ ב ͏בֶּ ן יְ פֻ ͏נֶּה ה͏וּא‬
ֲ ַ‫ל‬ ‫אם יראו את הארץ הטב]ה א[שר‬
‫יִ ְראֶ ͏נָּה וְ לוֹ אֶ ͏תֵּ ן אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫נשבעתי לתת לאבתהם בלתי‬
‫͏וּלבָ נָיו יַעַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִמ͏לֵּ א‬
ְ ‫ָ͏דּ ַרְך ͏בָּ ͏הּ‬ ‫]עבדי כלב[ בן יפנה ויהשע בן נן‬
‫אַ ח ֲֵרי יְ הוָה׃ ͏גַּם ִ͏בּי ִה ְתאַ ͏נַּף יְ הוָה‬ ‫֯בא֯ ֯ו שמה ולהם‬
֯ ‫העמד לפנך המה י‬
‫ִ͏בּגְ לַ ְלכֶ ם לֵ אמֹר ͏גַּם אַ ͏תָּ ה ל ֹא תָ ב ֹא‬ ‫אתננה · ואתם פנו ]ל[כם וסעו‬
‫͏שָׁ ם׃ יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע ִ͏בּן נ͏וּן הָ עֹ מֵ ד ְלפָ נֶיָך‬ ‫המ]דברה[ דרך ים סף עד תם כל‬
‫ה͏וּא יָב ֹא ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה אֹתוֹ חַ ͏זֵּק ִ͏כּי ה͏וּא‬ ‫הדר א]נ[שי המרבה מק]ר[ב‬
‫יַנְ ִחלֶ ͏נָּה אֶ ת יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל׃ וְ טַ ְ͏פּכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬ ‫המחנה‬
‫͏וּבנֵיכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא‬
ְ ‫אֲמַ ְר͏תֶּ ם לָ בַ ז יִ ְהיֶה‬
‫י ְָדע͏וּ הַ ͏יּוֹם טוֹב ו ָָרע הֵ ͏מָּ ה ָיבֹא͏וּ ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה‬
‫יר͏שׁ͏וּ͏הָּ ׃ וְ אַ ͏תֶּ ם ְ͏פּנ͏וּ‬
ָ ִ‫וְ לָ הֶ ם אֶ ְ͏תּ ֶנ͏נָּה וְ הֵ ם י‬
‫͏וּסע͏וּ הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ָרה ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך יַם ס͏וּף׃‬
ְ ‫לָ כֶ ם‬
V contains little of significance that is absent in Deuteronomy, and it substan-

tially parallels the Deuteronomic pericope. Nevertheless, there are two short pas-
sages that appear in Deuteronomy but not in V – verses 22–25 and 28–33 – and
these have a transformative impact on the story. Together, they encompass the
spies motif in its entirety. Without them, the Israelites’ faithless response follows
immediately and spontaneously upon Moses’s command to enter the land, rather
than coming after the spies’ report.
As noted above, the second of the two passages has been identified as a post-
Priestly interpolation in Deuteronomy, and like the previous examples, this is
difficult to reconcile with V being post-Pentateuchal, whether ancient or modern.
But what about the first passage? If it too is late, this would mean that the entire
spies motif is a secondary expansion – a breathtaking case of literary revision. By
the same token, a Hellenistic writer seeking to excerpt Deuteronomy or smooth
over its infelicities would not have been likely to remove these two passages, since
doing so would have upended the story and eliminated its central theme: the spies
themselves.
Suggestively, it appears that a verse in Deuteronomy 9 reflects V’s narrative,
rather than that of Deuteronomy. Deut 9:23 reads:
‫͏וּר͏שׁ͏וּ אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ִ͏תּי לָ כֶ ם וַ͏תַּ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ת ִ͏פּי יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם וְ ל ֹא‬
ְ ‫ֹלח יְ הוָה אֶ ְתכֶ ם ִמ͏קָּ ֵד͏שׁ ͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע לֵ אמֹר עֲל͏וּ‬
ַ ‫͏וּב ְ͏שׁ‬
ִ
‫הֶ אֱמַ נְ ͏תֶּ ם לוֹ וְ ל ֹא ְ͏שׁמַ ְע͏תֶּ ם ְ͏בּקֹלוֹ׃‬
When YHWH sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, “Go up and possess the land that I
have given you,” you rebelled against the command of YHWH your God, neither trusting
him nor obeying him.
In this verse, Moses recalls the Israelites being commanded to enter the promised
land from Kadesh, and the people’s summary refusal to do so. It is certainly curi-
ous that this synopsis of the spies episode neglects to mention the spies. Scholars
have, naturally, been troubled by Deut 9:23. For example, Weinfeld writes:
And when YHWH sent you on from Kadesh-Barnea. The verb “send” here looks peculiar,
but the author wants to allude to the spies who were sent to explore the land (cf. 1:22;
Num 13:2), and it was the spies who “have taken the heart out of ” the Israelites (1:28).
The whole verse looks like an epitome of the episode of the spies in Deut 1:19b–32.77
In a radical departure from the plain meaning of the text, Weinfeld is compelled
to suggest here that Moses saying to the people “YHWH sent you” in fact suggests
that YHWH sent spies. This is further complicated by the fact that Deut 9:23 states
that the people in question were commanded to “go up and possess the land” (‫עֲל͏וּ‬
‫͏וּר͏שׁ͏וּ אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ‬
ְ ). Clearly, territorial possession applies to the people of Israel, and
not to the spies. No such contortions are necessary if we acknowledge that this
verse is a vestige of V’s spy-less narrative of rebellion at Kadesh.78
Shortly before this book was set to go to press, I encountered the following
discussion of the Deuteronomic spies narrative by David Frankel:
The key to restoring the original Deuteronomic text lies in a careful reading of Dt. 9:23,
‫ובשלח ה׳ אתכם מקדש ברנע לאמר עלו ]ורשו[ את הארץ אשר נתתי לכם ]ותמרו[ את פי ה׳ אלהיכם ולא‬
‫האמנתם לו ולא שמעתם בקלו‬. It is striking that this verse makes no mention whatsoever of the
sending of the scouts. God is here said to have sent the entire nation from Kadesh Barnea,
calling upon it to go up and conquer the land (‫)רשו‬, not to go up and look at the land
(‫ ;ראו‬cf. Num. 13:17b–18). The Israelites, lacking trust in God, are said to have refused
to comply with this command. Thus, the sin of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea was the
refusal to comply with the divine command to take up the conquest. This portrayal of
events is highly laconic and at first look, inaccurate. The Israelites did not immediately
refuse to conquer the land. Rather, it was only after the fearful report of the scouts that
they refused to attack. How are we to explain this verse? It seems that Dt. 9:23 reflects the
earliest form of the Deuteronomic tradition, reflected also in Dt. 1. The Israelites did not
need to hear a fearful report from scouts in order to fear taking up the conquest. The task
was sufficiently daunting without any official scouts report. Thus, the early Deuteronomic
tradition was unaware of any scouting mission. This contention is affirmed when we return
to examine Dt. 1 in light of 9:23. We have already noted that Dt. 1:22–25 betrays awareness
of late priestly material. These verses belong to the section that deals with the scouts. If we

78 Ps 95:8–11 may preserve a similar vestige of V’s spy-less tradition. This sequence is quite
distinct from its surroundings and may be a fragment of an acrostic, each of its four verses
beginning with an aleph. Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler remark: “[These four verses are] an
unusual case where divine speech, perhaps spoken through a religious official, is quoted in
psalms. […] This psalm connects the forty years of wandering to rebellion at [Meribah and
Massah], in contrast to Num. 14.33–34; 32.13, which connect the forty years to the sin of the
spies” (Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, “Psalms,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin
and Marc Zvi Brettler, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014], 1375). V too connects
the period of wandering to the rebellion of the people, ‫אנשי המרבה‬, at Kadesh (the locus of
Meribah) – not to the sin of the spies.
remove verses 22–25, we find that verses 26–27 follow upon verse 21 perfectly and create
a striking parallel to Dt. 9:23.79
Frankel, who published his analysis in 2002, is the first scholar to realize that the
spies motif in Deuteronomy 1 is a secondary element. And yet V reflects the very
same premise. Frankel proposes deleting verses 22–25, thus creating the follow-
ing sequence:
‫אמ ִֹרי ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ‬

ֱ ָ‫͏נּוֹרא הַ ה͏וּא אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְר ִאיתֶ ם ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ר ה‬
ָ ַ‫וַ͏נִּ ͏סַּ ע מֵ ח ֵֹרב ַו͏נֵּלֶ ְך אֵ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר הַ ͏גָּדוֹל וְ ה‬
‫אמ ִֹרי אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ נֹתֵ ן לָ נ͏וּ׃ ְראֵ ה נָתַ ן יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך‬
ֱ ָ‫אֹתָ נ͏וּ ַו͏נָּב ֹא עַ ד קָ ֵד͏שׁ ͏בַּ ְרנ ֵַע׃ ָואֹמַ ר אֲלֵ כֶ ם ͏בָּ אתֶ ם עַ ד הַ ר ה‬
‫וְ ל ֹא‬ [omitted material] ‫ְלפָ נֶיָך אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ עֲלֵ ה ֵר͏שׁ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בֶּ ר יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ י ֲאבֹתֶ יָך לָ ְך אַ ל ִ͏תּ ָירא וְ אַ ל ͏תֵּ חָ ת׃‬
‫הוֹציאָ נ͏וּ מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬
ִ ‫ֹאמר͏וּ ְ͏בּ ִ͏שׂנְ אַ ת יְ הוָה אֹתָ נ͏וּ‬
ְ ‫א ֲִביתֶ ם לַ עֲֹלת וַ͏תַּ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ת ִ͏פּי יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ וַ͏תֵּ ָרגְ נ͏וּ ְבאָ הֳלֵ יכֶ ם וַ͏תּ‬
‫ידנ͏וּ׃‬
ֵ ‫אמ ִֹרי ְלהַ ְ͏שׁ ִמ‬
ֱ ָ‫לָ תֵ ת אֹתָ נ͏וּ ְ͏בּיַד ה‬
Minor stylistic variations notwithstanding, Frankel’s reconstructed original is ef-

fectively identical to the account in V (A 1:5–10), which lacks the very same con-
tent that Frankel omits from his reconstructed original:
‫ונסע מחרב ונלך א]ת כ[ל המדבר ֯ה]גד[ל והנרא הזה אשר ראתם ונבא ]עד[ קדש ]ברנע · ו[אמר אלכם באתם‬
‫אלה ֯ם ]אלהי אבתכם לכם · ולא[ א֯ ֯ב ֯ת ֯ם לעלת ותרגנו‬
֯ ‫היום עד הר האמ]רי[ ע]לו ור[שו את הארץ כאשר דבר‬
‫ותא֯ ֯מרו בש]נאת אלהם אתנו נתן אתנו ביד האמרי[ לאבדנו‬
֯
Surely no forger working in the 1870s could have anticipated Frankel’s analysis
from the 2000s.
The Numbers Version

It is also worth noting that parts of V’s narrative are more similar to the non-
Priestly element in Numbers than to the Deuteronomic version. This is especially
true for YHWH’s response to the people’s rebellion. There is, however, a striking
difference between the passages in V and in Numbers. In Num 14:21, YHWH’s
oath formula is somewhat convoluted. From a survey of the use of ‫ חי אני‬in the
Hebrew Bible, we would expect YHWH’s next word to be ‫ אם‬or ‫כי‬. For instance,
in Jer 46:18, we find: ‫͏וּככַ ְרמֶ ל ͏בַּ ͏יָּם יָבוֹא‬ ְ ‫חַ י אָ נִ י נְ אֻ ם הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך יְ הוָה ְצבָ אוֹת ְ͏שׁמוֹ ִ͏כּי ְ͏כּתָ בוֹר ͏בֶּ הָ ִרים‬. A
‫ כי‬element does indeed appear in Numbers 14, but it is interrupted by the phrase
‫וְ יִ ͏מָּ לֵ א ְכבוֹד יְ הוָה אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל הָ אָ ֶרץ‬. In V, this phrase is nowhere to be found. V also contains
a minor but salient variant in its counterpart to verse 22: Instead of ‫הראים את כבדי‬
‫ואת אתתי‬, it reads ‫( הראם את אתתי ואת מפתי‬V B 1:2).
79 David Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacer-
dotal Lore, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 147. See also Jaeyoung
Jeon, “The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period,” Journal
of Biblical Literature 139, no. 2 (2020): 255–74, at 260–63.
Numbers (MT) Valediction of Moses (Va )

Num 14:21aα ‫וְ א͏וּלָ ם‬ ‫וי]חר[ אף אלהם וי]שבע[ לאמר‬
B 1:1
Num 14:21aβ ‫חַ י אָ נִ י‬ [‫חי ]אני‬
B 1:1
Num 14:21b ‫וְ יִ ͏מָּ לֵ א ְכבוֹד יְ הוָה אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל הָ אָ ֶרץ׃‬
Absent in V
Num ‫ָ͏שׁים הָ ר ִֹאים אֶ ת ְ͏כּב ִֹדי‬
ִ ‫אנ‬
ֲ ָ‫ִ͏כּי כָ ל ה‬ ‫כי כל העם הראם את אתתי ואת‬
14:22–23a ‫יתי ְב ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬
ִ ‫וְ אֶ ת ֹאתֹתַ י אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ִ͏שׂ‬ ‫מפתי אשר עשתי זה עשר פעמם‬
B 1:2–5 ‫͏וּבַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר וַיְ נַ͏סּ͏וּ א ִֹתי זֶה עֶ ͏שֶׂ ר ְ͏פּעָ ִמים‬ ‫ולא ֯הא֯ ֯מ ֯נ ֯ו ולא שמעו בקלי אם‬
‫קוֹלי׃ ִאם יִ ְרא͏וּ אֶ ת‬
ִ ‫וְ ל ֹא ͏שָׁ ְמע͏וּ ְ͏בּ‬ ‫יראו את הארץ הטב]ה א[שר‬
‫אבֹתָ ם‬
ֲ ַ‫הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נִ ְ͏שׁ͏בַּ ְע ִ͏תּי ל‬ ‫נשבעתי לתת לאבתהם‬
Num 14:23b ‫וְ כָ ל ְמ ַנאֲצַ י ל ֹא יִ ְרא͏וּהָ ׃‬
Absent in V
Num ‫ר͏וּח אַ חֶ ֶרת‬
ַ ‫וְ עַ ְב ִ͏דּי כָ לֵ ב עֵ קֶ ב הָ יְ תָ ה‬ ‫בלתי ]עבדי כלב[ בן יפנה ויהשע‬
14:24–25a ‫ֲביא ִֹתיו אֶ ל‬
ִ ‫ִע͏מּוֹ וַיְ מַ ͏לֵּ א אַ ח ֲָרי ַוה‬ ‫֯בא֯ ֯ו שמה‬
֯ ‫בן נן העמד לפנך המה י‬
B 1:5–6 ‫יוֹר͏שֶׁ ͏נָּה׃‬

ִ ֹ‫הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏בָּ א ͏שָׁ ͏מָּ ה וְ ז ְַרעו‬ · ‫ולהם אתננה‬
‫וְ הָ עֲמָ לֵ ִקי וְ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י יוֹ͏שֵׁ ב ͏בָּ עֵ מֶ ק‬
Num 14:25b ‫͏וּסע͏וּ לָ כֶ ם הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬
ְ ‫מָ חָ ר ְ͏פּנ͏וּ‬ [‫ואתם פנו ]ל[כם וסעו המ]דברה‬
B 1:7 ‫יַם ס͏וּף‬ ‫דרך ים סף‬
Claus Westermann was the first to identify the ‫ כבוד‬elements in Num 14:21–22
as post-P supplements,80 and his proposal has been met with wide acceptance in
recent years.81 Indeed, each of the other twelve instances of ‫ כבוד יהוה‬in the Pen-
tateuch is Priestly.82 Once again, we find that the narrative in the Valediction of
Moses lacks any sign of Priestly language, and, as in the earlier examples, schol-
ars in Shapira’s lifetime had not yet identified the post-Priestly interpolations as
such.83
80 Westermann refers to these as “nachpriesterliche ‘Weiterbildungen.’ ” Claus Westermann,

“‫כבד‬,” Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (1971), 1:808.
81 See, e.g., Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie:
Beobachtungen zur Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Penta-
teuch,” Vetus Testamentum 32, no. 2 (1982): 183–84; Olivier Artus, Études sur le livre des Nom-
bres. Récit, Histoire et Loi en Nb 13,1–20,13, OBO 157 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1997), 141, et passim; Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch, 41; Reinhard
Achenbach, “Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri
13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs,” Zeitschrift für altoriental-
ische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9 (2003): 115.
82 Exod 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; 40:34, 35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6.
83 For a survey of the various analyses over the years, see the appended table in Norbert
Rabe, Vom Gerücht zum Gericht. Revidierte Text- und Literarkritik der Kundschaftererzählung
Numeri 13.14 als Neuansatz in der Pentateuchforschung (Tübingen, 1994).
3.4. Summary
It is clear from even a cursory reading of the Valediction of Moses that it is in-
timately related to Deuteronomy. Determining the precise relationship between
these two books is paramount for understanding the nature of each, as well as
their respective times of composition. The philological analysis above set out to
investigate these matters, and it led to a firm conclusion: Not only is the Valedic-
tion of Moses authentic, it is indeed more ancient than the book of Deuteron-
omy.84 From this it follows that V is almost certainly a pre-exilic text.85 It is time
to lay to rest the notion that the Shapira manuscripts are forgeries or that they
are based on the Pentateuch in its current form.86
The Valediction of Moses lacks the Deuteronomic laws and poems, which were
added only later along the path of V’s evolution into Deuteronomy. The secondary
incorporation of the law code led not only to the bizarre bifurcation of the Ger-
izim and Ebal pericope but also to the introduction of new literary tension be-
tween narrative and law. It is plainly problematic to have Moses command one
thing and do another, as was initially the case with regard to the battle with Sihon,
which violated the Mosaic law of Deuteronomy 20. This state of affairs, in turn,
led to the editing of the now-problematic narratives, bringing them in line with
the newly introduced law code. Similarly, with the introduction of Priestly texts
and ideas, it became necessary to update the Valedictoric/Deuteronomic text to
create more harmony between it and the Priestly traditions. These nomistic and
post-P edits are widespread in the canonical text of Deuteronomy, and scholars
have identified numerous examples, none of which is present in V. One can thus
characterize the book of Deuteronomy as an updated version of V that has been
edited to include a substantial law code and two large poems and then edited to
smooth over the resulting unevenness. But Deuteronomy is more than that. It re-
flects decades or even centuries of literary growth and evolution – some ideolog-
84There are many more such comparisons to undertake, with similar implications for both
authenticity and the relationship between V and Deuteronomy. I outline two more here. The
verses following the Deuteronomic spies episode, Deut 1:41–46, recount the incident of the
temerarious people. These verses too are absent in V and have been identified as secondary.
See Josef G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum
Deuteronomium (Bonn: Hanstein, 1967), 44. In addition, V’s version of the Beth Pe’or/Phinehas
episode (Va D 2:5–D 3:3) is striking in its similarity to the non-Priestly element of Num 25, on
the one hand, and the total absence of any of the P language present in the Numbers version,
on the other. Indeed, just as V’s version of the spies narrative lacks the spies, its account of the
“Phinehas story” lacks the protagonist himself.
85 See excursus in chapter 6 for linguistic evidence supporting this conclusion.
86 The conclusion that V preserves the earlier literary forms of several passages – and indeed
of the book in toto – does not mean that V, as we have it, was necessarily created ex nihilo.
Indeed, there is little question that the text of V contains interpolations. (See, e.g., the cursed
man corresponding to the proclamation regarding adultery in Vb G 5:12–13.) It is therefore
worthwhile to subject V itself to source-critical analysis to better ascertain the scope and nature
of its own evolution.
3.4. Summary 71
ical, some pragmatic, some aesthetic – and the final result is an elegant tapestry,
the artistry of which is now coming into clear view for the first time.
The Valediction of Moses is sui generis. Never before has a proto-biblical book
been unearthed, and the benefit that scholars can now derive from the availability
of such a text is incalculable.
4. Biblical Intertexts
There are a great number of intertexts between the Valediction of Moses and the
Hebrew Bible. While this topic is too vast to cover in the present book, I will
briefly discuss two passages whose biblical intertexts are instructive: the Valedic-
toric versions of the Decalogue and the Gerizim-Ebal pericope. We will see that
the Valediction of Moses, or a text very similar to it, was familiar to several biblical
authors. Besides further underscoring V’s authenticity, this conclusion has mani-
fest implications for the the dating of V, as well as for the composition history of
the Bible.
Considering that there are substantial overlaps between V and Deuteronomy,
it is important to distinguish between Deuteronomic intertexts and Valedictoric
ones. As we will presently see, in some cases, there are correspondences between
biblical passages and features that are unique to V.
4.1. The Decalogue

The Decalogue in the Valediction of Moses differs from all known versions, both
canonical and otherwise. Beside some differences in order, the primary structural
divergence between V’s Decalogue and its biblical counterparts is the appearance
of ‫“ אנך אלהם אלהך‬I am Elohim, your god” in V as a refrain after each proclama-
tion; there is nothing comparable in any other known version of the Decalogue.1
Another difference is that in V, all proclamations are spoken in the first person,
whereas the familiar versions are primarily in the third person.
In terms of content, there are several deviations, of which I will discuss two.
First, instead of the canonical proclamation beginning with ‫ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם יְ הוָה‬
‫“ אֱֹלהֶ יָך לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א‬You shall not take the name of YHWH, your god, in vain” (Exod
20:7; Deut 5:11), in V we find ‫“ לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬You shall not swear in my
name falsely” (E 4:1). Second, V contains an otherwise unattested proclamation:
‫“ לא תשנא את אחך ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך‬You shall not hate your brother in your he[ar]t” (E 4:8).
Before proceeding to explore the biblical intertexts, it is important to realize
that in V, the Decalogue is one strand in a threefold cord. In G 3–H 1, V lists those
worthy of blessings and curses, in the form of “Blessed/Cursed is the man who X.”
Only the maledictive series has a counterpart in Deuteronomy. In the Valediction
1 The first instance of V’s refrain is preserved vestigially in Exod 20:5/Deut 5:9. Compare
‫ ל ֹא ִת ְ͏שׁ͏תַּ ְחוֶה לָ הֶ ם וְ ל ֹא תָ עָ ְב ֵדם ִ͏כּי אָ נ ִֹכי יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֵ ל קַ ͏נָּא וגו׳‬with ‫לא תשתחו · להם · ולא תעבדם · אנך · אלהם‬
· ‫· אלהך‬ (E 2:5–7).
4.1. The Decalogue 73
of Moses, on the other hand, both series are straightforward V-Decalogue com-
plements. To illustrate, V’s fourth proclamation (‫“ לא תר]צח[ את נ֯פש אחך‬Do not
sl[ay] the soul of your brother” [E 3:6]) finds parallels in the fourth blessed man
(‫“ ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו‬Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge
or exact retribution for the soul of his brother” [G 4:3]), as well as in the fourth
cursed man (‫“ ארר מכה רעהו בסתר‬Cursed is he who strikes down his fellow in se-
cret” [G 5:11]). Similarly, V’s ninth proclamation (‫לא תחמד אשר ]רעך[ עבדו ואמתו‬
‫“ וכל אשר לו אנך אלהם אלהך‬You shall not desire the wife of [your fellow], his male
slave, his female slave, or anything that is his” [E 4:6]) corresponds to the ninth
blessed man (‫“ ברך אשר לא נשא עינו אל ]כל נפ[ש רעהו‬Blessed is he who does not lust
after an[yone be]longing to his fellow” [G 4:7–8]) and also to the ninth cursed
man (‫“ ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא֯ ֯ע ֯נ ֯ו אל אשת רעהו אל בתו ואמת]ו[ ולכל אשר לו‬Cursed
is the man who desires and lusts after the wife of his fellow, his daughter, [his]
female slave, or anything that is his” [H 1:3–4]). For this reason, we may speak
of V’s Decalogical constellation and compare other biblical passages to each of its
components as well as to the constellation in toto.2
Cursed Men Blessed Men Decalogue

‫ארר האיש אשר יעשה פסל‬ [‫ברך האיש אשר יה]יה‬ ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך · אשר‬
‫ומסכה מעשה ידי חרש‬ ‫אלהם אלהו ולו לבדו ישתחו‬ · ‫· החרתך · מארץ · מצרם‬
‫ואתו לבדו יעבד‬ [· ‫מבת · עבדם · לא יה]יה‬
‫לכם · אלהם · אחרם · לא‬
· ‫תעש]ו[ · לכם · פסל · וכל‬
· ‫תמנה · אשר · בשמם‬
· ‫ממעל · ואשר · בארץ‬
· ‫מתחת · ואשר · במים‬
· ‫מתחת · לארץ · לא תשתחו‬
· ‫להם · ולא תעבדם · אנך‬
· ‫אלהם · אלהך‬
‫ארר האיש אשר יעשה‬ ‫ברך הא]יש אשר י[קדש את‬ · ‫קדש · ]את יום · השבעי‬
‫מלאכה ביום השבעי‬ ‫היום השבעי וישבת בו‬ ‫ושבת · בו · כי · ש[שת · ימם‬
‫· עשתי · את השמם · ואת‬
· ‫הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם‬
‫ושבתי · ביום · השבעי · על‬
· ‫· כן · תשבת · גם · אתה‬
· ‫ובהמתך · וכל · אשר · לך‬
· ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬
‫ארר מקלה אבו ואמו‬ ‫]ברך[ מכבד אבו ואמו‬ · ‫כבד · את אבך · ואת אמך‬
· ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬
2 Josh 8:34 may be a reference to this constellation: ‫הַ ְ͏בּ ָרכָ ה‬ ‫͏תּוֹרה‬
ָ ַ‫וְ אַ ח ֲֵרי כֵ ן קָ ָרא אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי ה‬
‫͏תּוֹרה‬
ָ ַ‫“ וְ הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ְ͏כּכָ ל הַ ͏כָּ ת͏וּב ְ͏בּסֵ פֶ ר ה‬Afterward he read all the words (or proclamations) of the teaching,
the blessings, and the curses, according to all that is written in the book of the teaching.’ ’
‫‪74‬‬ ‫‪4. Biblical Intertexts‬‬
‫‪Cursed Men‬‬ ‫‪Blessed Men‬‬ ‫‪Decalogue‬‬

‫ארר מכה רעהו בסתר‬ ‫ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם‬ ‫לא תר]צח[ · את נ֯פש · אחך‬
‫ולא יטר את נפש אחו‬ ‫· אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬
‫ארר האיש אשר יקרב אל‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא יטמא‬ ‫לא תנאף · את אשת · רעך ·‬
‫ינאף‬
‫֯‬ ‫כל שאר בשרו ואשר‬ ‫את אשת רעהו‬ ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬
‫]את אש[ת רעהו ואשר יבעל‬
‫עם כל בהמה‬
‫ארר מסג גבל רעהו‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא י]נ[ה את‬ ‫לא תגנב · את הן · אחך ·‬
‫רעהו‬ ‫אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬
‫ארר האיש אשר ישבע בשמי‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא ישבע‬ ‫לא תשבע · בשמי · לשקר ·‬
‫לשקר‬ ‫בשמי לשקר‬ ‫כי · אנך · אקנא · את עון ·‬
‫אבת · על · בנם · על ·‬
‫שלשם · ועל · רבעם ·‬
‫֯לנשאי · שמי · לשקר · אנך ·‬
‫אלהם · אלהך ·‬
‫לה]עד[‬
‫ארר לקח ש]חד[ ֯‬ ‫ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש‬ ‫לא תענו · באחך · עדת ·‬
‫֯ע ֯דת שקר בעמת]ו[‬ ‫]י[שקר ברעהו‬
‫֯‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫שקר · אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬
‫ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא֯‬ ‫ברך אשר לא נשא עינו אל‬ ‫לא תחמד · אשת · ]רעך[ ·‬
‫֯ע ֯נ ֯ו אל אשת רעהו אל בתו‬ ‫]כל נפ[ש רעהו‬ ‫עבדו · ואמתו · וכל · אשר ·‬
‫ואמת]ו[ ולכל אשר לו‬ ‫לו · אנך · אלהם · אלהך ·‬
‫ארר האיש אשר ישנא ]א[ת‬ ‫]ברך[ האיש אשר יאהב את‬ ‫לא תשנא · את אחך ·‬
‫אחו ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב ֯ו‬ ‫רעהו‬ ‫֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך · אנך · אלהם ·‬
‫אלהך ·‬
‫‪Table 2. The Decalogue constellation in V.‬‬
‫‪With this in mind, let us turn to several established Decalogue intertexts in the‬‬
‫‪Hebrew Bible.‬‬
‫‪4.1.1. Jeremiah 7:9‬‬

‫‪It is well established that Jer 7:9 is a Decalogue intertext. It reads as follows:‬‬
‫ֱֹלהים אֲחֵ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ל ֹא יְ ַד ְע͏תֶּ ם׃‬

‫ה ָגנֹב ָרצ ַֹח וְ ָנאֹף וְ ִה͏שָּׁ בֵ ַע לַ ͏שֶּׁ קֶ ר וְ קַ ͏טֵּ ר לַ ͏בָּ עַ ל וְ הָ ֹלְך אַ ח ֲֵרי א ִ‬
‫ֲ‬
‫‪Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and make offerings to Baal,‬‬
‫?‪and go after other gods that you have not known‬‬
‫ֱֹלהים ‪The second part of this verse – from “make offerings” – recalls‬‬
‫ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶה ְלָך א ִ‬
‫‪ “you shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3; Deut 5:7) and‬אֲחֵ ִרים עַ ל ͏פָּ נָי‬
‫וְ ל ֹא תָ עָ ְב ֵדם‬
‫‪“and you shall not worship them” (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9), while the‬‬
‫‪first three sins listed in Jer 7:9 are precise Decalogical matches, as is universally‬‬
‫”‪ “you shall not steal‬ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב ‪ֲ “will you steal” corresponds to‬ה ָגנֹב ‪acknowledged.3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪See, e.g., Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah, The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westmin-‬‬
‫‪ster John Knox, 2008), 96; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, The Anchor Bible (New York: Dou-‬‬
(Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19), ‫“ ָרצ ַֹח‬kill” to ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּ ְרצָ ח‬you shall not kill” (Exod 20:13;
Deut 5:17), and ‫“ וְ ָנאֹף‬and commit adultery” to ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּנְ אָ ף‬you shall not commit
adultery” (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18).
Whereas the first three sins are essentially verbatim Decalogue intertexts, the
same cannot be said for the fourth one: ‫“ וְ ִה͏שָּׁ בֵ ַע לַ ͏שֶּׁ קֶ ר‬and swear falsely.” The closest
match among the canonical versions is ‫“ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א‬you shall not
take the name of YHWH, your god, in vain” (Exod 20:7; 5:11). William Holladay,
for instance, grapples with this issue in his commentary on Jeremiah:
“Swear falsely” (‫ שבע‬nip‘al + ‫ )לשקר‬has already occurred in 5:2. Beyond these two occur-
rences in Jer the phrase occurs in Lev 5:24; 19:12; Zech 5:4; and Mal 3:5; it is thus not a
Deuteronomistic phrase but appears to come out of priestly rhetoric. It has already been
noted that the corresponding expression in Hos 4:2 is a different one, and it must also be
pointed out that the Decalogue offers neither expression. Nevertheless there is reason to
connect the prohibition here and in Hos 4:2 with the commandment in the Decalogue,
“You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain” (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11): [The
Peshitta] translates the law in the Decalogue with “You shall not swear falsely by the name
of the Lord your God,” and this tradition is found in Jewish circles as well and is followed
in the NJV. It is difficult to pinpoint the abuse of Yahweh’s name at various periods that
gave rise to these contrasting formulations; “swear falsely” (that is, swear an oath insin-
cerely or dishonestly) may have been one center of meaning, but the implication may have
broadened later to include “curse someone by a misuse of Yahweh’s name” (so, evidently,
the implication of the word in Hos 4:2).4
Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman also draw attention to the fourth
sin’s unclear Decalogical correspondence.
The fourth sin in Jeremiah’s list (hiššābēaʿ laššeqer) uses a verb not in either Exodus 20
or Hosea 4, although laššeqer is similar to laššāwʾ in the Decalogue, and the phrase could
mean swearing by a false god. Jeremiah’s fourth accusation could correspond to either the
third or the ninth commandment.5
This hazy picture becomes dramatically clearer when we compare the Jeremiah
passage to V’s Decalogue, instead of to the canonical ones. V lacks altogether the
familiar ‫ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א‬commandment (the second or third proclamation, depending on
bleday, 1999), 465; Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 925; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commen-
tary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, ed. Paul D. Hanson, Hermeneia 24A
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), 244–45; Carly L. Crouch, An Introduction to the Study of
Jeremiah, T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 15.
4 Holladay, Jeremiah, 244–45.
5 Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea, The Anchor Bible (New York:
Doubleday, 1996), 337.

76 4. Biblical Intertexts
the counting scheme) and instead includes the following as its seventh proclama-
tion (E 4:1–3):
· ‫לא תשבע · בשמי · לשקר · כי · אנך · אקנא · את עון · אבת · על · בנם · על · שלשם · ועל · רבעם · לנ֯שאי‬
· ‫שמי · לשקר · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬
You shall not swear in my name falsely, for I shall avenge the transgression of fathers against
sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for those who bear my name falsely. I am Elohim,
your god.
The Valedictoric proclamation is a precise match for Jeremiah’s Decalogue allu-

sion; ‫“ וְ ִה͏שָּׁ בֵ ַע לַ ͏שֶּׁ קֶ ר‬and swear falsely” could hardly be a more explicit transgression
of ‫“ לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬you shall not swear in my name falsely.” It thus stands to
reason that the prophet was familiar with a version of the Decalogue that resem-
bled that of V – at least with regard to this feature – rather than the recensions of
Exodus and Deuteronomy.6
4.1.2. Jeremiah 29:23

[‫͏יּוֹד ַע‬
ֵ ַ‫יתם וְ אָ נ ִֹכי הוידע ]ה‬
ִ ִ‫יַעַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ נְ בָ לָ ה ְ͏בּיִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וַיְ ַנאֲפ͏וּ אֶ ת נְ ͏שֵׁ י ֵרעֵ יהֶ ם וַיְ ַד ְ͏בּר͏וּ ָדבָ ר ִ͏בּ ְ͏שׁ ִמי ͏שֶׁ קֶ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לוֹא ִצ͏וּ‬
‫וָעֵ ד נְ אֻ ם יְ הוָה׃‬
Because they have perpetrated outrage in Israel and have committed adultery with their
fellows’ wives, and have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them; I
am the one who knows and bears witness, says YHWH.
Again we find a reference to false proclamations said in the name of YHWH,

which corresponds to V’s ‫( לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬E 4:1). The other transgression is
reminiscent of V as well. Unlike the biblical versions of the Decalogue, where
‫ נאף‬takes no direct or indirect object, here we have ‫“ וַיְ ַנאֲפ͏וּ אֶ ת נְ ͏שֵׁ י ֵרעֵ יהֶ ם‬and have
committed adultery with the wives of their fellows,”7 precisely as we find in the
Valedictoric proclamation:
· ‫לא תנאף · את אשת · רעך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬
You shall not commit adultery with the wife of your fellow. I am Elohim, your god. (E 3:7)
6 In a future publication I will discuss Jeremiah’s intimate affiliation with the Valediction of
Moses, including a shared perception of the (extremely limited) scope of Mosaic-era lawgiving.
7 The particle ‫ את‬here probably does not mean “with” but is rather the nota accusativi. Cf.
Prov 6:32 (discussed in §4.1.5): ‫“ נֹאֵ ף ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬he who ‘adulterates’ a woman,” as it were; “a woman”
is clearly the direct object.
4.1.3. Hosea 4:2

Hosea 4:2 is very reminiscent of Jer 7:9, and it too has obvious Decalogue paral-
lels.8
‫אָ ֹלה וְ כַ חֵ ͏שׁ וְ ָרצ ַֹח וְ ָגנֹב וְ ָנאֹף ͏פָּ ָרצ͏וּ וְ ָד ִמים ְ͏בּ ָד ִמים ָנגָע͏וּ׃‬
Swearing, deceiving, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out; bloodshed follows
bloodshed.
However, despite this verse’s clear affinity with the Decalogue, the correspon-
dences are not all clear. As Andersen and Freedman write in their commentary
on Hosea:
The list of sins in v 2 is in two parts, each of which uses different grammatical forms. The
first part uses five infinitive absolutes; in the second part two perfect verbs are used. The
first list reads like an excerpt from the Decalogue. The Masoretic placement of zāqēf qāṭōn
separates the first two sins from the rest, to reflect the fact that the third, fourth, and fifth
transgressions are based directly on Exod 20:13–15 (= Deut 5:17–19), whereas connections
between the first two and specific commandments of the tradition are harder to trace.9
Indeed, the Decalogue does not contain a proclamation that straightforwardly

addresses either of the first two sins – oaths (‫ )אָ ֹלה‬and deceptions (‫)וְ כַ חֵ ͏שׁ‬. The
closest match for the first sin is Exod 20:7/Deut 5:11, which reads:
‫ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א ִ͏כּי ל ֹא יְ נַ͏קֶּ ה יְ הוָה אֵ ת אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ͏שָּׂ א אֶ ת ְ͏שׁמוֹ לַ ͏שָּׁ וְ א׃‬
You shall not take the name of YHWH, your god, in vain, for YHWH will not acquit anyone
who takes his name in vain.
As discussed above, V lacks a ‫ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א‬proclamation and instead features ‫לא תשבע‬
‫ בשמי לשקר‬as its seventh proclamation. This is an unambiguous match for ‫אָ ֹלה‬. Re-
garding the second sin (‫“ וְ כַ חֵ ͏שׁ‬deceiving”), V’s eighth blessed man, corresponding
to the eighth proclamation (E 4:4–5), reads as follows:
· ‫ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש ולא ]י[שקר ברעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן‬
“Blessed is the man who does not deceive or [l]ie to his fellow.” And all the people shall
call out “Amen.” (G 4:6–7)
Not only does this match Hosea’s sin of deceit in content, it contains the very
same verb: ‫“ כחש‬deceive.” Thus, Hosea’s list of offenses reflects the fourth, fifth,
8 See, e.g., Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea,
ed. Paul D. Hanson, trans. Gary Stansell, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary
on the Bible 28 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974), 67–68; James Luther Mays, Hosea, The
Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1969), 64; Meir Weiss, “The
Decalogue in Prophetic Literature,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed.
Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi (Magnes: Jerusalem, 1990), 67–81, at 67, 71, et passim. I
thank Nachum Dershowitz for first bringing this example to my attention.
9 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 336–37. My emphasis.
sixth, seventh, and eighth items in V’s Decalogue constellation, and it betrays a
closer kinship with the Valediction of Moses than with any canonical text.
4.1.4. Psalm 50
Psalm 50 contains a Decalogue intertext in verses 7–20:
‫אוֹכיחֶ ָך וְ עוֹֹלתֶ יָך ְלנֶגְ ִ͏דּי תָ ִמיד׃ ל ֹא‬

ִ ‫ֱֹלהים אֱֹלהֶ יָך אָ נ ִֹכי׃ ל ֹא עַ ל זְ בָ חֶ יָך‬
ִ ‫ידה ͏בָּ ְך א‬
ָ ‫ִ͏שׁ ְמעָ ה עַ ִ͏מּי ַוא ֲַד͏בֵּ ָרה יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וְ אָ ִע‬
‫͏תּ͏וּדים׃ ִ͏כּי ִלי כָ ל חַ יְ תוֹ יָעַ ר ְ͏בּהֵ מוֹת ְ͏בּהַ ְר ֵרי אָ לֶ ף׃ י ַָד ְע ִ͏תּי ͏כָּ ל עוֹף הָ ִרים וְ זִ יז ͏שָׂ ַדי‬
ִ ַ‫יתָך פָ ר ִמ ִ͏מּ ְכ ְלאֹתֶ יָך ע‬
ְ ֵ‫אֶ ͏קַּ ח ִמ͏בּ‬
‫͏תּוֹדה‬
ָ ‫אֹלהים‬
ִ ֵ‫͏תּ͏וּדים אֶ ְ͏שׁ͏תֶּ ה׃ זְ בַ ח ל‬
ִ ַ‫ירים וְ ַדם ע‬
ִ ‫͏וּמֹלאָ ͏הּ׃ הַ אוֹכַ ל ְ͏בּ͏שַׂ ר אַ ִ͏בּ‬
ְ ‫ִע͏מָּ ִדי׃ ִאם אֶ ְרעַ ב ל ֹא אֹמַ ר לָ ְך ִ͏כּי ִלי תֵ בֵ ל‬
‫יתי‬
ִ ‫ֱֹלהים מַ ה ְ͏לָּך ְלסַ ͏פֵּ ר חֻ ͏קָּ י ו ִַ͏תּ͏שָּׂ א ְב ִר‬
ִ ‫͏וּתכַ ְ͏בּ ֵדנִ י׃ וְ לָ ָר͏שָׁ ע אָ מַ ר א‬
ְ ‫͏וּק ָראֵ נִ י ְ͏בּיוֹם צָ ָרה אֲחַ ͏לֶּ ְצָך‬
ְ ‫וְ ͏שַׁ ͏לֵּ ם ְלעֶ ְליוֹן נְ ָד ֶריָך׃‬
ָ‫עֲלֵ י ִפיָך׃ וְ אַ ͏תָּ ה ͏שָׂ נֵאתָ מ͏וּסָ ר וַ͏תַּ ְ͏שׁלֵ ְך ְ͏דּבָ ַרי אַ ח ֲֶריָך׃ ִאם ָר ִאיתָ ַג͏נָּב ו ִַ͏תּ ֶרץ ִע͏מּוֹ וְ ִעם ְמ ָנא ֲִפים חֶ ְלקֶ ָך׃ ִ͏פּיָך ͏שָׁ לַ ְח͏תּ‬
‫͏וּל͏שׁוֹנְ ָך ͏תַּ ְצ ִמיד ִמ ְרמָ ה׃ ͏תֵּ ͏שֵׁ ב ְ͏בּאָ ִחיָך ְת ַד͏בֵּ ר ְ͏בּבֶ ן ִא ְ͏מָּך ִ͏תּ͏תֶּ ן ͏דּ ִֹפי׃‬
ְ ‫ְב ָרעָ ה‬
Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. Elohim, your god,
am I. Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before
me. I will not accept a bull from your house, or goats from your folds. For every wild
animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the air
and all that moves in the field is mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world
and all that is in it is mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer
to Elohim a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to Elyon. Call on me in the day
of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me. But to the wicked Elohim says:
What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips? For you hate
discipline, and you cast my words behind you. You make friends with a thief when you
see one, and you keep company with adulterers. You give your mouth free rein for evil,
and your tongue frames deceit. You sit and speak against your kin; you slander your own
mother’s child.
The connection between this psalm and the Decalogue was identified in the early
thirteenth century by David Kimhi:
‫כי קבלת אותי לאלוה כשאמרתי לך תחילה אלהים אלהיך אנכי כ"ש אנכי י"י אלהיך‬
For you accepted me as your god when I first said to you “Elohim, your god, am I” (Ps
50:7), as it says “I am YHWH, your god” (Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6).
This correspondence is widely acknowledged today. For instance, Marko Martilla

writes:
Psalm 50.7 thus comprises a direct address to the people of Israel. […] In Ps. 50.16–21 the
psalmist discernibly alludes to the Decalogue. Psalm 50.18a shares the root ‫ גנב‬with the
commandment ‘You shall not steal’ (‫)לא תגנב‬, and Ps. 50.18b uses the root ‫ נאף‬precisely as
its counterpart in the Decalogue: ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (‫)לא תנאף‬. Furthermore,
vv. 19–20 speak of a deceitful tongue that can harm even one’s own kindred. This is rem-
iniscent of the commandment ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour’,
even though verbatim similarities cannot be pointed to.10
While the similarity to the traditional Decalogue is unmistakable, one difference

is worth consideration. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler draw attention to the
matter of divine names: “the substitution of ‘ʾelohim’ for the Tetragrammaton,
YHVH, is especially noticeable.”11 This feature is particularly interesting in light
of V’s version, which – unlike the canonical versions – is Elohistic and even con-
tains the same three words (in a different order) that introduce the Decalogue
intertext of verses 7–20: ‫“ אנך אלהם אלהך‬I am Elohim, your god” versus ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬
‫“ אֱֹלהֶ יָך אָ נ ִֹכי‬Elohim, your god, am I.”
Psalm 50 belongs to the Elohistic Psalter, whose frequent use of the name Elo-
him is typically attributed to an editorial endeavor to remove appearances of
YHWH.12 I intend to address the composition of the Elohistic Psalter in a future
publication. For now I will note only that there is, in fact, good evidence for the
reverse editorial phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible: Elohim being replaced with
YHWH. This explains the phrase ‫“ אָ כֵ ן יֵ͏שׁ יְ הוָה ͏בַּ ͏מָּ קוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה‬there is indeed YHWH in
this place” in Gen 28:16, where the existential particle ‫ יֵ͏שׁ‬refers problematically
to a proper name. Clearly ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִ ‫“ יֵ͏שׁ א‬there is a god” would be a better fit not only
grammatically but also contextually, considering that this narrative is an etiology
for Bethel, not Bethjah. Notably, the only proper name to ever appear in the He-
brew Bible with ‫ יש‬is YHWH (Gen 28:16; Exod 17:7; Judg 6:13). It seems likely
that all are hypercorrections resulting from a systematic replacement of ‫ֱֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א‬
with ‫ – יְ הוָה‬the opposite of the oft-presumed direction of emendation.13 At any
10 Marko Martilla, “The Deuteronomistic Heritage in the Psalms,” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 37, no. 1 (2012): 67–91, at 77–78. See also Baruch Schwartz, “Psalm 50: Its Sub-
ject, Form and Place” (Hebrew), Shnaton 3 (1979): 95–96; Moshe Weinfeld, “The Uniqueness
of the Decalogue and Its Place,” in Segal and Levi, Ten Commandments, 1–44, at 21–27.
11 Berlin and Brettler, Jewish Study Bible, 1324.
12 For a discussion of the consensus hypothesis and alternatives, see Laura Joffe, “The Elohis-
tic Psalter: What, How and Why?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 15, no. 1 (2001):
142–69.
13 It has often been asserted that ‫ אלהם אלהך‬is a practical impossibility in an authentic text.
For instance: “The expression ‘I am God, thy God,’ is extremely unlikely and would be tautolog-
ical. ‘Jehovah thy God’ or ‘Chemosh thy God,’ would have a meaning; but this is meaningless”
(“Biblical Research: Shapira’s Last Forgery,” The Independent 35 [August 30, 1883], 9). Gins-
burg wrongly asserts that “neither does the phrase ‫אלהם אלהך‬, ‘god, thy god,’ occur in the Old
Testament” (The Athenæum 2911 [Aug. 11, 1883], 179). Besides being obviated by our psalm
and others, this argument confuses the concepts of synonymy and homonymy. ‫“ אלהם‬Elohim”
is used here as a proper noun, as in the first chapter of Genesis and countless other biblical pas-
sages, while ‫ אלהך‬is the (suffixed) common noun “god.” There is thus nothing tautological about
the phrase ‫“ אלהם אלהך‬Elohim, your god.” While one might object to the aesthetics of a sentence
such as “She is content with the content,” it is not redundant. Incidentally, parallel arguments
have been made for the secondariness of the name Elohim in the Elohistic Psalter, with phrases
such as the one in question described as “tautological monstrosities”; these assertions should be
similarly dismissed. (See Ziony Zevit, “The Elohistic Psalter,” in The Religions of Ancient Israel:
rate, the shared Elohistic character of Psalm 50 and V’s Decalogue is striking.
4.1.5. Proverbs 6:16–35

Proverbs 6:16–35 contains parallels with the Shema and the Decalogue, the latter
of which is our current focus.14
‫͏שֶׁ ͏שׁ הֵ ͏נָּה ͏שָׂ נֵא יְ הוָה וְ ͏שֶׁ בַ ע תועבות ]͏תּוֹעֲבַ ת[ נ ְַפ͏שׁוֹ׃ עֵ ינַיִ ם ָרמוֹת ְל͏שׁוֹן ͏שָׁ קֶ ר וְ י ַָדיִ ם ͏שׁ ְֹפכוֹת ָ͏דּם נ ִָקי׃ לֵ ב ח ֵֹר͏שׁ מַ ְח ְ͏שׁבוֹת‬
‫͏וּמ͏שַׁ ͏לֵּ ַח ְמ ָדנִ ים ͏בֵּ ין אַ ִחים׃ נְ צֹר ְ͏בּנִ י ִמ ְצוַת אָ ִביָך וְ אַ ל ִ͏תּ͏טֹּ͏שׁ‬
ְ ‫יח ְ͏כּז ִָבים עֵ ד ͏שָׁ קֶ ר‬
ַ ‫אָ וֶן ַרגְ לַ יִ ם ְממַ הֲרוֹת לָ ר͏וּץ לָ ָרעָ ה׃ י ִָפ‬
‫͏תּוֹרת ִא͏מֶּ ָך׃ קָ ְ͏שׁ ֵרם עַ ל ִל ְ͏בָּך תָ ִמיד עָ נְ ֵדם עַ ל ͏גּ ְַר͏גְּ רֹתֶ ָך׃ ְ͏בּ ִה ְתהַ ͏לֶּ ְכָך ͏תַּ נְ חֶ ה אֹתָ ְך ְ͏בּ͏שָׁ ְכ ְ͏בָּך ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁמֹר עָ לֶ יָך ַוה ֲִקיצוֹתָ ִהיא‬
ַ
‫תוֹרה אוֹר וְ ֶד ֶרְך חַ ͏יִּ ים ͏תּ ְֹכחוֹת מ͏וּסָ ר׃ ִל ְ͏שׁמָ ְרָך מֵ אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ָרע מֵ חֶ ְלקַ ת לָ ͏שׁוֹן נ ְָכ ִר͏יָּה׃ אַ ל ͏תַּ ְחמֹד‬
ָ ְ‫ְת ִ͏שׂיחֶ ָך׃ ִ͏כּי נֵר ִמ ְצוָה ו‬
‫הי ְַח͏תֶּ ה ִאי͏שׁ‬
ֲ ‫י ְָפיָ͏הּ ִ͏בּ ְלבָ בֶ ָך וְ אַ ל ִ͏תּ͏קָּ חֲָך ְ͏בּעַ ְפעַ ͏פֶּ יהָ ׃ ִ͏כּי ְבעַ ד ִא͏שָּׁ ה זוֹנָה עַ ד ִ͏כּ͏כַּ ר לָ חֶ ם וְ אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ִאי͏שׁ נֶפֶ ͏שׁ יְ קָ ָרה תָ צ͏וּד׃‬
‫͏וּבג ָָדיו ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ ַר ְפנָה׃ ִאם יְ הַ ͏לֵּ ְך ִאי͏שׁ עַ ל הַ ͏גֶּחָ ִלים וְ ַרגְ לָ יו ל ֹא ִת͏כָּ וֶינָה׃ ͏כֵּ ן הַ ͏בָּ א אֶ ל אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ ל ֹא יִ ͏נָּקֶ ה‬
ְ ֹ‫אֵ ͏שׁ ְ͏בּחֵ יקו‬
‫͏כָּ ל הַ ֹ͏נּג ֵַע ͏בָּ ͏הּ׃ ל ֹא יָב͏וּז͏וּ לַ ַ͏גּ͏נָּב ִ͏כּי יִ גְ נוֹב ְלמַ ͏לֵּ א נ ְַפ͏שׁוֹ ִ͏כּי יִ ְרעָ ב׃ וְ נִ ְמצָ א יְ ͏שַׁ ͏לֵּ ם ִ͏שׁ ְבעָ תָ יִ ם אֶ ת ͏כָּ ל הוֹן ͏בֵּ יתוֹ יִ ͏תֵּ ן׃ נֹאֵ ף ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬
‫חֲסַ ר לֵ ב מַ ְ͏שׁ ִחית נ ְַפ͏שׁוֹ ה͏וּא ַיעֲ͏שֶׂ ͏נָּה׃ ֶנגַע וְ קָ לוֹן יִ ְמצָ א וְ חֶ ְר͏פָּ תוֹ ל ֹא ִת͏מָּ חֶ ה׃ ִ͏כּי ִקנְ אָ ה חֲמַ ת ͏גָּבֶ ר וְ ל ֹא י ְַחמוֹל ְ͏בּיוֹם נָקָ ם׃‬
‫ל ֹא יִ ͏שָּׂ א ְ͏פּנֵי כָ ל ͏כֹּפֶ ר וְ ל ֹא י ֹאבֶ ה ִ͏כּי תַ ְר͏בֶּ ה ͏שֹׁחַ ד׃‬
There are six things that YHWH hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty
eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked
plans, feet that rush to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows
discord in a family. My child, keep your father’s commandment, and do not forsake your
mother’s teaching. Bind them upon your heart always; tie them around your neck. When
you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you
awake, they will talk with you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light,
and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you from the wife of another,
from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and
do not let her capture you with her eyelashes; for a prostitute’s fee is only a loaf of bread,
but the wife of another stalks a man’s very life. Can fire be carried in the bosom without
burning one’s clothes? Or can one walk on hot coals without scorching the feet? So is he
who sleeps with his neighbor’s wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. A thief
who steals only to satisfy his appetite when hungry is not not despised. Yet if caught, he
pays sevenfold; he forfeits all the wealth of his house. He who commits adultery with a
woman has no sense; he who does it destroys himself. He will get wounds and dishonor,
and his disgrace will not be wiped away. For jealousy arouses a husband’s fury, and he
shows no restraint when he takes revenge. He will accept no compensation, and refuses a
bribe no matter how great.
This Decalogical intertext includes counterparts to ‫“ ͏כַּ ͏בֵּ ד אֶ ת אָ ִביָך וְ אֶ ת ִא͏מֶּ ָך‬honor
your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; cf. Prov 6:20), ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּנְ אָ ף‬you
shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18; cf. Prov 6:32), ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב‬you
shall not steal” (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19; cf. Prov 6:30–31), and ‫“ ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד‬you shall
A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches [London: Continuum, 2001], 668–78, at 675.) Cf. also the
Islamic shahada, the beginning of which is commonly translated, “There is no god but God.”
14 See, e.g., Christl Maier, “‘Begehre nicht ihre Schönheit in deinem Herzen’ (Prov 6,25):
Eine Aktualisierung des Ehebruchsverbots aus persischer Zeit,” Biblical Interpretation 5, no. 1
(1997): 46–62.
not covet” (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21; cf. Prov 6:25). This passage is, however, closer
to V’s version than the canonical ones in four distinct ways.
First, the word ‫“ הון‬wealth” appears here in the context of the sin of theft (6:31),
unlike the Decalogues of Exodus or Deuteronomy, but precisely as in V (E 3:8):15
· ‫לא תגנב · את הן · אחך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬

You shall not steal the wealth of your brother. I am Elohim, your god.
Second, the verb ‫ חמד‬here relates specifically to lusting after a person (6:25),
rather than asexual coveting. This stands in contrast to the Exodus version, where
‫ חמד‬applies to inanimate objects (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21 is inconclusive), but it
is in perfect consonance with V:
· ‫לא תחמד · אשת · ]רעך[ · עבדו · ואמתו · וכל · אשר · לו · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬
You shall not desire the wife of [your fellow], his male slave, his female slave, or anything
that is his. I am Elohim, your god. (E 4:6–7)
· ‫ברך אשר לא נשא עינו אל ]כל נפ[ש רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן‬
“Blessed is he who does not lust after an[yone be]longing to his fellow.” And all the people
shall call out “Amen.” (G 4:7–8)
· ‫וישא֯ ֯ענ֯ו אל אשת רעהו אל בתו ואמת]ו[ ולכל אשר לו ]וענו כל העם[ ואמרו אמן‬
֯ ‫ארר האיש אשר יחמד‬
“Cursed is the man who desires and lusts after the wife of his fellow, his daughter, [his]
female slave, or anything that is his.” [And all the people shall call] out “Amen.” (H 1:3–4)
The idiom ‫( נשא עיניים אל פלוני‬lit. “cast one’s eyes toward X”) means “lust after.”
Cf. Gen 39:7:
‫דנָיו אֶ ת עֵ ינֶיהָ אֶ ל יוֹסֵ ף וַ͏תּ ֹאמֶ ר ִ͏שׁ ְכבָ ה ִע ִ͏מּי׃‬

ֹ ‫א‬
ֲ ‫וַיְ ִהי אַ חַ ר הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה ו ִַ͏תּ͏שָּׂ א אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת‬
After these occurrences, his master’s wife cast her eyes toward Joseph [or lusted after
Joseph] and said, “Lie with me.”
The phrase is also used figuratively regarding the gods desired by Israel, as in
Ezek 18:12:
‫͏לּ͏וּלים נָ͏שָׂ א עֵ ינָיו ͏תּוֹעֵ בָ ה עָ ͏שָׂ ה׃‬

ִ ִ‫ָ͏שׁיב וְ אֶ ל הַ ͏גּ‬
ִ ‫חבֹל ל ֹא י‬
ֲ ‫עָ נִ י וְ אֶ ְביוֹן הוֹנָה ͏גְּ זֵלוֹת ָ͏גּזָל‬
He oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, casts his
eyes toward the idols [or lusts after the idols], commits abomination.
Third, as is the case in Jer 29:23, discussed above, ‫ נאף‬here takes ‫ אשה‬as its di-
rect object (6:32), as in V but against the canonical versions. Fourth, this unit
concludes with: ‫“ ל ֹא יִ ͏שָּׂ א ְ͏פּנֵי כָ ל ͏כֹּפֶ ר וְ ל ֹא י ֹאבֶ ה ִ͏כּי תַ ְר͏בֶּ ה ͏שֹׁחַ ד‬He will accept no com-
pensation, and refuses a bribe no matter how great” (6:35). While this finds a
15 See discussion of this noun in §6.4.1.
counterpart in neither the Exodic nor the Deuteronomic Decalogue, it has a per-
fect match in the eighth cursed man listed in V, which corresponds to the eighth
proclamation in the Valedictoric Decalogue:
· ‫ארר לקח ש]חד[ ֯לה]עד[ ֯עדת שקר בעמת]ו וענו כל הע[ם ואמ]רו[ אמן‬
“Cursed is he who takes a br[ibe] to g[ive] false judgment against his comr[ade.” And all
the peo]ple [shall call] o[ut] “Amen.” (H 1:2–3)
4.1.6. Leviticus 19
Leviticus 19 contains perhaps the most famous Decalogue parallel in the Hebrew
Bible.16 The correspondences are concentrated in verses 1–4 and 11–18:
‫ֹ͏שׁים ִ͏תּ ְהי͏וּ ִ͏כּי קָ דוֹ͏שׁ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃‬
ִ ‫וַיְ ַד͏בֵּ ר יְ הוָה אֶ ל מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ͏לֵּ אמֹר׃ ַ͏דּ͏בֵּ ר אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ע ֲַדת ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וְ אָ מַ ְר͏תָּ אֲלֵ הֶ ם ְקד‬
‫ילים וֵאֹלהֵ י מַ ͏סֵּ כָ ה ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ לָ כֶ ם‬
ִ ‫ירא͏וּ וְ אֶ ת ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁמֹר͏וּ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְפנ͏וּ אֶ ל הָ א ֱִל‬
ָ ‫ִאי͏שׁ ִא͏מּוֹ וְ אָ ִביו ִ͏תּ‬
‫אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם׃ ]…[ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב͏וּ וְ ל ֹא ְתכַ חֲ͏שׁ͏וּ וְ ל ֹא ְת͏שַׁ ְ͏קּר͏וּ ִאי͏שׁ ͏בַּ ע ֲִמיתוֹ׃ וְ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׁ ְבע͏וּ ִב ְ͏שׁ ִמי לַ ͏שָּׁ קֶ ר וְ ִח͏לַּ ְל͏תָּ אֶ ת ͏שֵׁ ם‬
‫ע͏שֹׁק אֶ ת ֵרעֲָך וְ ל ֹא ִתגְ זֹל ל ֹא תָ ִלין ְ͏פּעֻ ͏לַּ ת ͏שָׂ ִכיר ִא ְ͏תָּך עַ ד ͏בֹּקֶ ר׃ ל ֹא ְתקַ ͏לֵּ ל חֵ ֵר͏שׁ וְ ִל ְפנֵי ִע͏וֵּר‬
ֲ ַ‫אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃ ל ֹא ת‬
‫ל ֹא ִת͏תֵּ ן ִמ ְכ͏שֹׁל וְ י ֵָראתָ ͏מֵּ אֱֹלהֶ יָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃ ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ עָ וֶל ͏בַּ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ט ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א ְפנֵי ָדל וְ ל ֹא תֶ ְה ַ͏דּר ְ͏פּנֵי גָדוֹל ְ͏בּצֶ ֶדק‬
‫יח‬
ַ ‫͏תּוֹכ‬
ִ ‫עמֹד עַ ל ַ͏דּם ֵרעֶ ָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃ ל ֹא ִת ְ͏שׂנָא אֶ ת אָ ִחיָך ִ͏בּ ְלבָ בֶ ָך הוֹכֵ ַח‬
ֲ ַ‫ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁ͏פֹּט ע ֲִמיתֶ ָך׃ ל ֹא תֵ לֵ ְך ָר ִכיל ְ͏בּעַ ͏מֶּ יָך ל ֹא ת‬
‫אֶ ת ע ֲִמיתֶ ָך וְ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׂ א עָ לָ יו חֵ ְטא׃ ל ֹא ִת͏קֹּם וְ ל ֹא ִת͏טֹּר אֶ ת ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מֶּ ָך וְ אָ הַ ְב͏תָּ ְל ֵרעֲָך ͏כָּ מוָֹך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה׃‬
YHWH spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and
say to them: You shall be holy, for I YHWH, your god, am holy. Each of you, your mother
and father you shall revere, and my sabbaths you shall observe: I am YHWH, your god.
Do not turn to idols or make cast images for yourselves: I am YHWH, your god. […] You
shall not steal; you shall not deceive; and you shall not lie to one another. And you shall
not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your god: I am YHWH. You shall
not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the
wages of a laborer until morning. You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling block
before the blind; you shall fear your god: I am YHWH. You shall not render an unjust
judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall
judge your neighbor. You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you
shall not stand upon the blood of your neighbor: I am YHWH. You shall not hate in your
heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself.
You shall not avenge or bear a grudge [alternatively: exact retribution] against any of your
people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am YHWH. (Lev 19:1–4, 11–18)
This intertext was recognized at least as early as R. Levi in Lev. Rab. 24:5, who
listed a long series of parallels. Since R. Levi, many attempts have been made
to find all the correspondences between this chapter and the Decalogue. These
16
See, e.g., Sigmund Mowinckel, “Zur Geschichte der Dekaloge,” Zeitschrift für die alttes-
tamentliche Wissenschaft 55, no. 3–4 (1937): 218–35; Julian Morgenstern, “The Decalogue of
the Holiness Code,” Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955): 1–27; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus
17–22 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1596–1602; Moshe Kline, “‘The Editor Was Nodding’: A
Reading of Leviticus 19 in Memory of Mary Douglas,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8, no. 17
(2008): 1–59; Esias E. Meyer, “The Reinterpretation of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19 and the
Centrality of Cult,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 30, no. 2 (2016): 198–214.
proposals are all similar; they are also similarly incomplete. Nevertheless, the
Decalogical nature of this chapter is inescapable. Parallels include: ‫͏שָׁ מוֹר אֶ ת‬/‫זָכוֹר‬
‫“ יוֹם הַ ͏שַּׁ ͏בָּ ת‬Remember/observe the sabbath day” (Exod 20:8; Deut 5:12) vs. ‫וְ אֶ ת‬
‫“ ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁמֹר͏וּ‬and my sabbaths you shall observe” (Lev 19:3aβ); ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב‬you shall
not steal” (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:19) vs. ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּגְ נֹב͏וּ‬you shall not steal” (Lev 19:11);
‫“ ͏כַּ ͏בֵּ ד אֶ ת אָ ִביָך וְ אֶ ת ִא͏מֶּ ָך‬honor your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut
5:16) vs. ‫“ ִאי͏שׁ ִא͏מּוֹ וְ אָ ִביו ִ͏תּ ָירא͏וּ‬each of you, your mother and father you shall revere”
(Lev 19:3aα); ‫͏כָּ ל ְ͏תּמ͏וּנָה‬/‫“ ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שֶׂ ה ְלָך פֶ סֶ ל וְ כָ ל‬you shall not fashion for yourself any
statue or image/of any image” (Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8) vs. ‫ילים וֵאֹלהֵ י‬ ִ ‫אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְפנ͏וּ אֶ ל הָ א ֱִל‬
‫“ מַ ͏סֵּ כָ ה ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ לָ כֶ ם‬do not turn to idols or make cast images for yourselves” (Lev
19:4).
Moshe Kline summarizes the current state of affairs:
The reason that others have explored the relationship between the Decalogue and Leviti-
cus 19 is that Leviticus 19 contains word for word fragments of some components of the
Decalogue, as well as some less literal allusions. Milgrom lists no less than six different
“attempts to find the Decalogue in this chapter…both ancient and modern.” While the
number of near repetitions has caused Schwartz to pose at least a common source, there
is still no satisfying explanation for the parallels.17
Baruch Schwartz argues that the case for Leviticus 19 being a Decalogue intertext
is often overstated, noting, for example, that there is no parallel for either ‫ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶה‬
‫ֱֹלהים אֲחֵ ִרים עַ ל ͏פָּ נָי‬
ִ ‫“ ְלָך א‬you shall have no other gods before me” (Gen 20:3; Deut
5:7) or ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּ ְרצָ ח‬you shall not kill” (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).18 Indeed, this is
true if one compares Leviticus 19 to the received text and follows the traditional
rabbinic division of proclamations, but it is not the case if we instead juxtapose
the Valediction of Moses. In V there is no independent ‫ ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶה‬proclamation — it
is part of the first proclamation, which begins with ‫“ אנך אלהם אלהך‬I am Elohim,
your god” — meaning that even a comprehensive Decalogue intertext need not
contain a correspondence to that particular sentence. Meanwhile, ‫“ ל ֹא ִ͏תּ ְרצָ ח‬you
shall not kill” does indeed have a parallel in ‫“ ל ֹא ִת͏קֹּם וְ ל ֹא ִת͏טֹּר אֶ ת ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מֶּ ָך‬You shall
not avenge or bear a grudge [alternatively: exact retribution] against any of your
people” (Lev 19:18aα), as is evident from V’s fourth blessed man:
· ‫ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו וענו אמן‬
“Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge or exact retribution for the soul of his brother.”
And they shall respond “Amen.” (G 4:3–4)
As impressive as Leviticus 19 may be as a Decalogue intertext, a comparison

of the chapter to V’s Decalogue constellation dramatically increases the number
of correspondences. I count at least eight additional connections:
17Kline, “The Editor Was Nodding,” 42.

18Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Hebrew)
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 372–74.
1. ‫“ ל ֹא ִת ְ͏שׂנָא אֶ ת אָ ִחיָך ִ͏בּ ְלבָ בֶ ָך‬you shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Lev
19:17a) appears verbatim in V as its tenth proclamation (E 4:8).
2. ‫וְ אָ הַ ְב͏תָּ ְל ֵרעֲָך ͏כָּ מוָֹך‬
“love your fellow as yourself ” (Lev 19:18aβ) has a coun-
terpart in V’s tenth blessed man, corresponding to the tenth proclamation:
‫[“ ]ברך[ האיש אשר יאהב את רעהו‬Blessed] is the man who loves his fellow” (G
4:8–9).
3. ‫“ וְ ל ֹא ִת͏שָּׁ ְבע͏וּ ִב ְ͏שׁ ִמי לַ ͏שָּׁ קֶ ר‬and you shall not swear in my name falsely” (Lev
19:12a) is practically identical to V’s seventh proclamation: ‫לא תשבע · בשמי‬
· ‫“ · לשקר‬you shall not swear in my name falsely” (E 4:1).
4. As noted above, ‫“ ל ֹא ִת͏קֹּם וְ ל ֹא ִת͏טֹּר אֶ ת ְ͏בּנֵי עַ ͏מֶּ ָך‬You shall not avenge or bear a
grudge [alternatively: exact retribution] against any of your people” (Lev
19:18aα) corresponds to the fourth blessed man in V: ‫ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא‬
‫“ יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו‬Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge or exact
retribution for the soul of his brother” (G 4:3).
5. The Levitical injunction, ֹ‫“ וְ ל ֹא ְתכַ חֲ͏שׁ͏וּ וְ ל ֹא ְת͏שַׁ ְ͏קּר͏וּ ִאי͏שׁ ͏בַּ ע ֲִמיתו‬you shall not de-
ceive; and you shall not lie to one another” (Lev 19:11b), is a perfect match
for V’s eighth blessed man: ‫]י[שקר ברעהו‬ ֯ ‫“ ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש ולא‬Blessed
is the man who does not deceive or [l]ie to his fellow” (G 4:6–7).
6. The commandment not to mistreat the alien, ‫וְ ִכי יָג͏וּר ִא ְ͏תָּך ͏גֵּר ְ͏בּאַ ְר ְצכֶ ם ל ֹא תוֹנ͏וּ‬
ֹ‫“ אֹתו‬should an alien reside with you in your land, you shall not oppress the
alien” (Lev 19:33), is reminiscent of V’s sixth blessed man: ‫ברך האיש אשר לא‬
‫“ י]נ[ה את רעהו‬Blessed is the man who does not ch[ea]t his fellow” (G 4:5).
7. A Yahwistic version of the refrain that appears after each proclamation in

V – · ‫“ אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬I am Elohim, your god” – features prominently in
Leviticus 19, e.g., ‫ילים וֵאֹלהֵ י מַ ͏סֵּ כָ ה ל ֹא תַ עֲ͏שׂ͏וּ לָ כֶ ם אֲנִ י יְ הוָה אֱֹלהֵ יכֶ ם‬
ִ ‫אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְפנ͏וּ אֶ ל הָ א ֱִל‬
“Do not turn to idols or make cast images for yourselves. I am YHWH,
your god” (Lev 19:4). In some cases, the abbreviated refrain ‫“ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬I am
YHWH” appears, as in ‫“ ל ֹא תֵ לֵ ְך ָר ִכיל ְ͏בּעַ ͏מֶּ יָך ל ֹא תַ ֲעמֹד עַ ל ַ͏דּם ֵרעֶ ָך אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬You
shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not
stand upon the blood of your neighbor: I am YHWH” (Lev 19:16).
8. Like V’s Decalogue, but unlike the canonical versions, the Decalogical parts
of Leviticus 19 are predominantly spoken by the deity in the first person.
Schwartz goes on to suggest that Leviticus 19 and the canonical Decalogues share
a common ancestor.19 I hereby submit V as candidate for said ancestor.
19 Schwartz, Holiness, 377.

4.1.7. Ezekiel 22:6–12

Chapter 22 of Ezekiel contains a passage that evokes the Decalogue and its coun-
terpart in Leviticus 19:
‫ִה͏נֵּה נְ ִ͏שׂיאֵ י יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ִאי͏שׁ ִלזְ רֹעוֹ הָ י͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם׃ אָ ב וָאֵ ם הֵ קַ ͏לּ͏וּ בָ ְך לַ ͏גֵּר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ בַ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק ְ͏בּתוֹכֵ ְך יָתוֹם וְ אַ ְלמָ נָה‬
‫הוֹנ͏וּ בָ ְך׃ קָ ָד͏שַׁ י ͏בָּ זִ ית וְ אֶ ת ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִח͏לָּ ְל ְ͏תּ׃ אַ נְ ͏שֵׁ י ָר ִכיל הָ י͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם וְ אֶ ל הֶ הָ ִרים אָ ְכל͏וּ בָ ְך זִ ͏מָּ ה עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ‬
‫ְבתוֹכֵ ְך׃ עֶ ְרוַת אָ ב ͏גִּ ͏לָּ ה בָ ְך ְטמֵ אַ ת הַ ͏נִּ ָ͏דּה ִע͏נּ͏וּ בָ ְך׃ וְ ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ עָ ͏שָׂ ה ͏תּוֹעֵ בָ ה וְ ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת ͏כַּ ͏לָּ תוֹ ִט͏מֵּ א ְבזִ ͏מָּ ה‬
‫אחֹתוֹ בַ ת אָ ִביו ִע͏נָּה בָ ְך׃ ͏שֹׁחַ ד לָ ְקח͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם נֶ͏שֶׁ ְך וְ תַ ְר ִ͏בּית לָ קַ חַ ְ͏תּ ו ְַ͏תּבַ ְ͏צּ ִעי ֵרעַ יִ ְך ͏בַּ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק וְ א ִֹתי‬
ֲ ‫וְ ִאי͏שׁ אֶ ת‬
‫דנָי יְ הוִ ה׃‬
ֹ ‫א‬
ֲ ‫͏שָׁ כַ חַ ְ͏תּ נְ אֻ ם‬
The princes of Israel in you, everyone according to his power, have been bent on shedding
blood. Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the alien residing within you
suffers extortion; the orphan and the widow are wronged in you. You have despised my
holy things, and profaned my sabbaths. In you are those who slander to shed blood, those
in you who eat upon the mountains, who commit lewdness in your midst. In you they
uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women in their menstrual periods.
One commits abomination with his neighbor’s wife; another lewdly defiles his daughter-
in-law; another in you defiles his sister, his father’s daughter. In you, they take bribes to
shed blood; you take both advance interest and accrued interest, and make gain of your
neighbors by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the lord, YHWH. (Ezek 22:6–12)
Moshe Weinfeld lists this pericope’s Decalogical parallels, as well as some less-
than-perfect matches:
The Book of Ezekiel also contains, in chapter 22. 6–12, another similar list which resem-
bles the Decalogue even more strongly. That chapter includes the Sabbath and honoring
one’s parents (verses 7–8), as well as the prohibition of bloodshed and illicit sex (9–11).
But alongside these there is also reference to cheating and bribery (7 and 12) usury (12)
and matters relating to ceremonial and sacred things (8 and 9) as well as ritual purity and
impurity. Actually all the subjects correspond remarkably to the content of Leviticus 19.20
Let us review the verses cited by Weinfeld as poor complements for the Deca-
logue:
‫אָ ב וָאֵ ם הֵ קַ ͏לּ͏וּ בָ ְך לַ ͏גֵּר עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ בַ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק ְ͏בּתוֹכֵ ְך יָתוֹם וְ אַ ְלמָ נָה הוֹנ͏וּ בָ ְך׃‬
Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the alien residing within you suffers
extortion; the orphan and the widow are wronged in you. (Ezek 22:7)
As Weinfeld notes, the first part of this verse correlates with ‫͏כַּ ͏בֵּ ד אֶ ת אָ ִביָך וְ אֶ ת ִא͏מֶּ ָך‬
“honor your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). The second part
addresses cheating, and it includes the verb ‫הונה‬. This is comparable to the sixth
20 Weinfeld, “Uniqueness of the Decalogue,” 17–18.

blessed man in V (corresponding to the ‫ לא תגנב‬proclamation), which features the

same verb:
[· ‫ברך האיש אשר לא י]נ[ה את רעהו וענו כל ה]עם ואמרו אמן‬

“Blessed is the man who does not ch[ea]t his fellow.” And all the [people] shall call [out
“Amen.” ] (G 4:5)
The next verse listed by Weinfeld as containing non-Decalogical elements is

22:12, specifically its references to bribery and usury:
‫דנָי יְ הוִ ה‬
ֹ ‫א‬
ֲ ‫͏שֹׁחַ ד לָ ְקח͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם נֶ͏שֶׁ ְך וְ תַ ְר ִ͏בּית לָ קַ חַ ְ͏תּ ו ְַ͏תּבַ ְ͏צּ ִעי ֵרעַ יִ ְך ͏בַּ עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק וְ א ִֹתי ͏שָׁ כַ חַ ְ͏תּ נְ אֻ ם‬
In you, they take bribes to shed blood; you take both advance interest and accrued interest,
and make gain of your neighbors by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the lord,
YHWH. (Ezek 22:12)
Usury would appear to fall under the rubric of ‫עֹ ͏שֶׁ ק‬, which correlates with ‫לא תגנב‬,
as noted above. As for the bribery reference, we have seen that it has a close par-
allel in V’s eighth cursed man:
· ‫ארר לקח ש]חד[ ֯לה]עד[ ֯עדת שקר בעמת]ו וענו כל הע[ם ואמ]רו[ אמן‬
“Cursed is he who takes a br[ibe] to g[ive] false judgment against his comr[ade.” And all
the peo]ple [shall call] o[ut] “Amen.” (H 1:2–3)
Verses 8 and 9, according to Weinfeld, relate to ceremonial matters, sanctity, pu-

rity, and impurity.
‫קָ ָד͏שַׁ י ͏בָּ זִ ית וְ אֶ ת ͏שַׁ ְ͏בּתֹתַ י ִח͏לָּ ְל ְ͏תּ׃ אַ נְ ͏שֵׁ י ָר ִכיל הָ י͏וּ בָ ְך ְלמַ עַ ן ְ͏שׁפָ ְך ָ͏דּם וְ אֶ ל הֶ הָ ִרים אָ ְכל͏וּ בָ ְך זִ ͏מָּ ה עָ ͏שׂ͏וּ ְבתוֹכֵ ְך׃‬
You have despised my holy things, and profaned my sabbaths. In you are those who slander
to shed blood, those in you who eat upon the mountains, who commit lewdness in your
midst. (Ezek 22:8–9)
The first verse, in its entirety, is a good match for V, which frames the observance
of the Sabbath in terms of sanctity:
· ‫קדש · ]את יום · השבעי · ושבת · בו · כי ש[שת · ימם · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם‬
· ‫ושבתי · ביום · השבעי · על · כן · תשבת · גם · אתה · ובהמתך · וכל · אשר · לך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬
Sanctify [the seventh day and rest on it. For in s]ix days I made the heavens and the earth
and all that is in them, and I rested on the seventh day. Therefore you too shall rest, along
with your livestock and all that you have. I am Elohim, your god. (E 2:8–3:4)
· ‫ברך הא[יש אשר י]קדש את היום השבעי וישבת בו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן‬
“Blessed is the m[an who sa]nctifies the seventh day and rests on it.” And all the people
shall call out “Amen.” (G 4:1–2)
Verse 9 contains slander, bloodshed, and licentiousness, all of which have Deca-
logical parallels. In V, these would be the fourth, eighth, and ninth proclamations.
4.2. Gerizim and Ebal 87
The last of these is particularly true for V, where ‫ חמד‬has salient sexual connota-
tions, as discussed above.
In sum, Ezek 22:6–12 is closer to V’s Decalogue than it is to the other known
versions.
4.1.8. Interim Summary

We have seen that many biblical passages long recognized as Decalogue intertexts
are, in fact, more intimately related to the Valediction of Moses than to any other
known text. The common denominator between all these passages is V’s unique
Decalogue constellation. The parsimonious explanation is therefore that they are
based on V or a close relative thereof; it is hard to reconstruct a coherent scenario
in which V is based on any of the biblical Decalogue intertexts.
There is one piece of evidence that Leviticus 19 is based upon a post-V (but
pre-Deuteronomy) tradition. The Deuteronomic version of the list of cursed men
includes a sin relating to the tormenting of the blind that is absent in the Valedic-
tion of Moses: ‫‘“ אָ ר͏וּר מַ ְ͏שׁ͏גֶּה ִע͏וֵּר ͏בַּ ָ͏דּ ֶרְך וְ אָ מַ ר ͏כָּ ל הָ עָ ם אָ מֵ ן‬Cursed is he who misleads
a blind person on the road.’ And all the people shall say ‘Amen’” (Deut 27:18).
Leviticus 19 too lists such a sin: ‫ל ֹא ְתקַ ͏לֵּ ל חֵ ֵר͏שׁ וְ ִל ְפנֵי ִע͏וֵּר ל ֹא ִת͏תֵּ ן ִמ ְכ͏שֹׁל וְ י ֵָראתָ ͏מֵּ אֱֹלהֶ יָך‬
‫“ אֲנִ י יְ הוָה‬You shall not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block before a blind
person. You shall fear your god; I am YHWH” (Lev 19:14). It appears, therefore,
that we can posit an intermediate version of V that still included the “I am Elo-
him/YHWH, your god” refrain, along with the many other V intertexts found
in Leviticus 19, but which had already evolved in at least one way towards the
canonical book of Deuteronomy.
4.2. Gerizim and Ebal

As discussed in chapter 3, the commandment to proclaim blessings and curses
at Gerizim and Ebal appears in V as a single literary unit, whereas it is split in
Deuteronomy between chapters 11 and 27–28. Despite the overwhelming sim-
ilarity between the Deuteronomic and Valedictoric versions – prodigious inter-
ruption notwithstanding – there are several notable divergences. I will elaborate
here upon two of these: the versions’ respective tribal lists, and the location of
Gerizim and Ebal.
4.2.1. The Tribal Lists

The Gerizim and Ebal pericopes in V and Deuteronomy differ subtly with regard
to the tribes that are instructed to gather upon the two hills. Whereas in Deuteron-
omy, the familiar twelve sons of Jacob are listed, V mentions neither Joseph nor
Levi; instead it lists Ephraim and Manasseh. Thus, the twelve tribes according
to V are Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher,
Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin.

Deut ‫אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ ְלבָ ֵרְך אֶ ת הָ עָ ם עַ ל הַ ר‬ ‫ואלה י֯]עמדו על הר עבל[ ראובן‬
27:12–13 ‫͏גְּ ִרזִ ים ְ͏בּעָ ְב ְרכֶ ם אֶ ת הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן‬ ‫זבולן וגד אשר ד]ן[ ונ]פתלי[ ואלה‬
G 3:9–11 ‫͏וּבנְ י ִָמן׃‬
ִ ‫יה͏וּדה וְ יִ ͏שָּׂ שכָ ר וְ יוֹסֵ ף‬
ָ ִ‫וְ לֵ וִ י ו‬ ‫יעמדו על הר גרזם שמען ויהודה‬
‫וְ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה יַעַ ְמד͏וּ עַ ל הַ ְ͏קּלָ לָ ה ְ͏בּהַ ר עֵ יבָ ל‬ ‫וישכר מנשה ואפרם ובנימן‬
‫ְרא͏וּבֵ ן ͏גָּד וְ אָ ͏שֵׁ ר ͏וּזְ ב͏וּלֻ ן ָ͏דּן וְ נ ְַפ͏תָּ ִלי׃‬
While neither Joseph nor Levi is included in the lists of the tribes, the V version
does mention the Levites. Unlike the tribes, all of which are presented by their
associated proper nouns – Reuben, Simeon, etc. – the Levites are designated as
‫“ הלוים‬the Levites,” a plural nisbe with the definite article. The Levites are present,
but they are not a tribe.
Although V’s list of tribes differs from that of its Deuteronomic counterpart, it
is not entirely unfamiliar.21 For instance, in Num 13:1–15, we find the following:
‫ָ͏שׁים וְ יָתֻ ר͏וּ אֶ ת אֶ ֶרץ ְ͏כּנַעַ ן אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אֲנִ י נֹתֵ ן ִל ְבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ִאי͏שׁ אֶ חָ ד ִאי͏שׁ אֶ חָ ד‬
ִ ‫אנ‬
ֲ ‫וַיְ ַד͏בֵּ ר יְ הוָה אֶ ל־מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ͏לֵּ אמֹר׃ ְ͏שׁלַ ח ְלָך‬
‫ָ͏שׁים ָרא͏שֵׁ י ְבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל‬
ִ ‫אנ‬
ֲ ‫ארן עַ ל ִ͏פּי יְ הוָה ͏כֻּ ͏לָּ ם‬
ָ ָ‫ָ͏שׂיא בָ הֶ ם׃ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁלַ ח אֹתָ ם מֹ͏שֶׁ ה ִמ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בַּ ר ͏פּ‬
ִ ‫אבֹתָ יו ִ͏תּ ְ͏שׁלָ ח͏וּ ͏כֹּל נ‬
ֲ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה‬
‫הֵ ͏מָּ ה׃ וְ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה ְ͏שׁמוֹתָ ם‬
‫͏מּ͏וּע ͏בֶּ ן זַ͏כּ͏וּר׃‬
ַ ַ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ְרא͏וּבֵ ן ͏שׁ‬
‫חוֹרי׃‬
ִ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן ͏שָׁ פָ ט ͏בֶּ ן‬
‫ה͏וּדה ͏כָּ לֵ ב ͏בֶּ ן יְ פֻ ͏נֶּה׃‬
ָ ְ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה י‬
‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה יִ ͏שָּׂ שכָ ר יִ גְ אָ ל ͏בֶּ ן יוֹסֵ ף׃‬
‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה אֶ ְפ ָריִ ם הוֹ͏שֵׁ ַע ִ͏בּן נ͏וּן׃‬
‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ִבנְ י ִָמן ͏פַּ ְל ִטי ͏בֶּ ן ָרפ͏וּא׃‬
‫סוֹדי׃‬
ִ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה זְ ב͏וּלֻ ן ͏גּ ִַ͏דּיאֵ ל ͏בֶּ ן‬
‫ס͏וּסי׃‬
ִ ‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה יוֹסֵ ף ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ְמנַ͏שֶּׁ ה ͏גּ ִַ͏דּי ͏בֶּ ן‬
‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה ָדן עַ ִ͏מּיאֵ ל ͏בֶּ ן ͏גְּ מַ ִ͏לּי׃‬
‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה אָ ͏שֵׁ ר ְסת͏וּר ͏בֶּ ן ִמיכָ אֵ ל׃‬
‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה נ ְַפ͏תָּ ִלי נ ְַח ִ͏בּי ͏בֶּ ן ו ְָפ ִסי׃‬
‫ְלמַ ͏טֵּ ה גָד ͏גְּ א͏וּאֵ ל ͏בֶּ ן מָ ִכי׃‬
YHWH said to Moses, “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the
Israelites; from each of their ancestral tribes you shall send a man, every one a leader
among them.” So Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran, according to the com-
mand of YHWH, all of them leading men among the Israelites. These were their names:
From the tribe of Reuben, Shammua son of Zaccur.
From the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat son of Hori.
21
For more on the Hebrew Bible’s tribal schemes and the place of the Levites within them,
see Martin Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, 1930); Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1973), Mark Leuchter, The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite
Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); Andrew Tobolowsky, The Sons of Jacob and
the Sons of Herakles: The History of the Tribal System and the Organization of Biblical Identity
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017).
From the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Jephunneh.

From the tribe of Issachar, Igal son of Joseph.
From the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea son of Nun.
From the tribe of Benjamin, Palti son of Raphu.
From the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel son of Sodi.
From the tribe of Joseph, from the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi son of Susi.
From the tribe of Dan, Ammiel son of Gemalli.
From the tribe of Asher, Sethur son of Michael.
From the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi son of Vophsi.
From the tribe of Gad, Geuel son of Machi.
Despite the instruction being “from each of their ancestral tribes you shall
send a man” (13:2), and despite a total of twelve spies being dispatched, no spy is
sent from the tribe of Levi. Instead, we find that Ephraim and Manasseh – quite
unexpectedly – each have their own spy. Notably, there is no difference in the
presentation of Ephraim, despite it being a “sub-tribe” – the text simply states,
“from the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea son of Nun” (13:8). On the other hand, the
standard phrase “from the tribe of Manasseh” is prefaced, awkwardly, with “from
the tribe of Joseph.” This is evidently an editorial attempt to bring the text in line
with the “traditional” tribal scheme, according to which Joseph is a tribe, rather
than Ephraim and Manasseh.
The same phenomenon can be seen in Num 1:4–15. Again, the list is presented
as including one member from every tribe. Again, Levi is absent. Again, Ephraim
and Manasseh are present. Again, a secondary insertion reflects an attempt to
smooth over the glaring incongruity. The direction of evolution embodied in
both of these Numbers texts is clear, and it supports the idea that the tribal scheme
that includes Joseph and Levi is the later one, whereas Ephraim and Manasseh be-
long to the earlier system. (Literary evidence aside, surely the Priestly corpus did
not evolve away from the idea that there existed a tribe of Levi.) This corresponds
to the evolutionary vector from V to Deuteronomy.
It is worth noting that the alternative list matches the territorial landscape:
Ephraim and Manasseh are depicted as having separate tribal lands, whereas Levi
has none. If not a tribe, though, what were the Levites in the earlier conception?
While the answer to this is not certain, it seems plausible that they were originally
members of a profession or guild. And if the Levites were not originally a tribe, it
should come as no surprise that they lacked tribal territory. This insight may help
clarify difficult passages such as Judg 17:7, where we find a Levite paradoxically
hailing from the family of Judah: ‫ה͏וּדה וְ ה͏וּא לֵ וִ י וְ ה͏וּא‬
ָ ְ‫ה͏וּדה ִמ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ חַ ת י‬
ָ ְ‫וַיְ ִהי נַעַ ר ִמ͏בֵּ ית לֶ חֶ ם י‬
‫“ גָר ͏שָׁ ם‬Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah.
He was a Levite, and he was residing there.”22
22 This apparent oxymoron has perturbed readers for centuries. In his commentary, Rashi
writes that the youth was the son of a Judahite man and a Levite woman. Rashi’s contemporary,
Joseph Kara, suggested the opposite: He was the son of a Judahite woman and a Levite man.
The crux remains unresolved. J. Alberto Soggin sums up the quagmire, ultimately concluding
It seems that the introduction of Levi into the tribal scheme necessitated
a tribal consolidation elsewhere, if the number twelve was to be maintained.
Ephraim and Manasseh were therefore subsumed into a new super-tribe – Joseph
– which, in turn, required some labyrinthine reasoning to reconcile with the real-
ity on the ground (or a memory of such a reality):
‫יתָך ͏וּנְ תַ ִ͏תּיָך‬

ִ ‫עקֹב אֶ ל יוֹסֵ ף אֵ ל ͏שַׁ ַ͏דּי נִ ְראָ ה אֵ לַ י ְ͏בּל͏וּז ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ ְ͏כּנָעַ ן וַיְ בָ ֶרְך א ִֹתי׃ וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֵ לַ י ִהנְ נִ י מַ ְפ ְרָך וְ ִה ְר ִ͏בּ‬
ֲ ‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר ַי‬
‫ִל ְקהַ ל עַ ִ͏מּים וְ נָתַ ִ͏תּי אֶ ת הָ אָ ֶרץ הַ ͏זּ ֹאת ְלז ְַרעֲָך אַ ח ֲֶריָך אֲחֻ ͏זַּת עוֹלָ ם׃ וְ עַ ͏תָּ ה ְ͏שׁנֵי בָ נֶיָך הַ ͏נּוֹלָ ִדים ְלָך ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם עַ ד‬
‫͏וּמנַ͏שֶּׁ ה ִ͏כּ ְרא͏וּבֵ ן וְ ִ͏שׁ ְמעוֹן יִ ְהי͏וּ ִלי׃ ͏וּמוֹלַ ְד ְ͏תָּך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הוֹלַ ְד͏תָּ אַ ח ֲֵריהֶ ם ְלָך יִ ְהי͏וּ עַ ל‬
ְ ‫͏בּ ִֹאי אֵ לֶ יָך ִמ ְצ ַריְ מָ ה ִלי הֵ ם אֶ ְפ ַריִ ם‬
‫͏שֵׁ ם אֲחֵ יהֶ ם יִ ͏קָּ ְרא͏וּ ְ͏בּ ַנחֲלָ תָ ם׃‬
And Jacob said to Joseph, “El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and he
blessed me, and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers;
I will make of you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your offspring after
you for a perpetual holding.’ Therefore your two sons, who were born to you in the land
of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are now mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be
mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are. As for the offspring born to you after them, they
shall be yours. They shall be recorded under the names of their brothers with regard to
their inheritance.” (Gen 48:3–6)
This brings us back to the topic of intertexts. The fulfillment of the Gerizim-
Ebal commandment in Joshua 8 matches the narrative as told in V better than the
canonical version. Whereas in Deuteronomy the Levites are to stand on Gerizim –
considering that they are a tribe like any other – in Joshua 8 we find the “Levitical
priests” (‫ )הַ ֹ͏כּהֲנִ ים הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם‬in the valley between the hills, with “all of Israel” standing
opposite them, on either side:
‫ֹ͏שׂאֵ י אֲרוֹן ְ͏בּ ִרית יְ הוָה ͏כַּ ͏גֵּר ͏כָּ אֶ זְ ָרח‬

ְ ‫͏כּהֲנִ ים הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם נ‬
ֹ ַ‫͏וּמ͏זֶּה לָ אָ רוֹן ֶנגֶד ה‬
ִ ‫ֹט ִרים וְ ͏שׁ ְֹפטָ יו עֹ ְמ ִדים ִמ͏זֶּה‬
ְ ‫וְ כָ ל יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ͏וּזְ קֵ נָיו וְ ͏שׁ‬
‫͏שׁנָה׃‬
ֹ ‫חֶ ְציוֹ אֶ ל מ͏וּל הַ ר ͏גְּ ִרזִ ים וְ הַ חֶ ְציוֹ אֶ ל מ͏וּל הַ ר עֵ יבָ ל ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה מֹ͏שֶׁ ה עֶ בֶ ד יְ הוָה ְלבָ ֵרְך אֶ ת הָ עָ ם יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ͏בָּ ִרא‬
All of Israel, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the
ark opposite the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of YHWH, alien as
well as citizen, half of them in front of (alternatively: upon)23 Mount Gerizim and half of
them in front of (alternatively: upon) Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of YHWH had
commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. (Josh 8:33)
This is presented explicitly as a fulfillment of Moses’s commandment, and it is

indeed precisely the scene dictated by Moses in V. It is not, however, in keeping
that the Judahite heritage is an error (although he does not explain how this error might have oc-
curred): “The Hebrew has gār šām, but should we not perhaps read geršōm, the name of Moses’
son, attested later in 18.30 as the ancestor of the priest in question? As well as corresponding
with an assured piece of later information, this reading reduces the difficulty presented by the
fact that the ‘levite’ was ‘of a Judahite family,’ cf. the commentary; however, the phrase seems
improbable from a stylistic point of view (Gunneweg, 20 n. 3, and Cody, 54 n. 56), and all the
probabilities are that ‘of a Judahite family’ should be deleted, although it is the lectio difficilior”
(J. Alberto Soggin, Judges, ed. G. Ernest Wright et al., The Old Testament Library [Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1981], 266).
23 I intend to address the semantics of ‫ אֶ ל מ͏וּל‬in a future publication.
with what we find in the canonical version of Deuteronomy, where the Levites
are to stand upon Mount Gerizim, shoulder-to-shoulder with their brethren.
4.2.2. The Location of Gerizim and Ebal

Another difference between the Valediction of Moses and Deuteronomy relates to
the location of Gerizim and Ebal within Canaan. In V, this pair of hills is nowhere
near Nablus:

Deut 11:30 ‫הֲל ֹא הֵ ͏מָּ ה ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן אַ ח ֲֵרי ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך‬ ‫הלא המה בעבר ה]ירד[ן דרך‬
G 3:8–9 ‫ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שֶּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י הַ ͏יֹּ ͏שֵׁ ב‬ ‫מבא השמש בארץ הכנעני בע]רבה‬
‫͏בָּ ע ֲָרבָ ה מ͏וּל הַ ͏גִּ ְל͏גָּל אֵ צֶ ל אֵ לוֹנֵי‬ · ‫נג[ד הגלגל אצל אלני מרא‬
‫מ ֶֹרה׃‬
The differences between the Valedictoric and Deuteronomic versions are ex-
tremely subtle, but they make a world of difference. According to V, Gerizim and
Ebal are located “across the [Jord]an westward, in the land of the Canaanites, in
the A[rabah, oppo]site the stone circle, beside the oaks of Moré.” In other words,
near the familiar gilgal in the Jordan Valley.24 Deuteronomy, for its part, places
Gerizim and Ebal not ‫“ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שֶּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬westward,”25 but somehow ‫“ אַ ח ֲֵרי‬beyond”
there.26 Difficult syntax notwithstanding, “beyond” serves to move their location
24 Indeed, it appears that the Hebrew Bible speaks of only a single gilgal, as Israel Finkel-
stein writes: “Yet, though the name sounds generic, I suggest that there was only one Gilgal,
best depicted in Hosea (4:15; 9:15; 12:12) and Amos (4:4; 5:5), who mention it in relation to
Bethel. It is described as a site near Jericho (Josh 4:19; 5:10; 15:7), close to the Jordan (e.g., Josh
4:19; Jud 3:19; 2 Sam 19:16). The reference to what seems to be a different Gilgal (Deut 11:30)
is confused” (Israel Finkelstein, “Jeroboam II’s Temples,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 132, no. 2 [2020]: 250–65, at 254).
25 The translation of V’s idiom ‫ עבר הירדן דרך מבא השמש‬as “across the Jordan westward”
requires some unpacking. First, ‫ מבוא השמש‬is a (flowery) synonym for ‫מערב‬, just as ‫מזרח השמש‬
is a synonym for ‫מזרח‬. This is evident from many biblical passages, including ‫͏וּמֵ אֶ ֶרץ ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שָּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬
“and from the west country” (Zech 8:7) and ‫ב͏וּלכֶ ם‬ ְ ְ‫“ עַ ד הַ ͏יָּם הַ ͏גָּדוֹל ְמבוֹא הַ ͏שָּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ יִ ְהיֶה ͏גּ‬to the Great
Sea in the west shall be your territory” (Josh 1:4). Indeed, ‫ עבר הירדן מזרח השמש‬means “across
the Jordan eastward,” as in ‫“ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָתַ ן לָ כֶ ם מֹ͏שֶׁ ה עֶ בֶ ד יְ הוָה ְ͏בּעֵ בֶ ר הַ ͏יּ ְַר ֵ͏דּן ִמזְ ַרח הַ ͏שָּׁ מֶ ͏שׁ‬which Moses the
servant of YHWH gave you beyond the Jordan eastward” (Josh 1:15; cf. Deut 4:41, 47; Josh
12:1). This leaves ‫דרך‬, which is best translated here as “toward.” While this definition is not
well known, it is nevertheless well attested. For example, ‫“ הַ ͏בֵּ ט ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך יָם‬look toward the sea” (1
Kgs 18:43) or ‫“ ַו ָ͏יּנֻס͏וּ ֶ͏דּ ֶרְך הַ ִ͏מּ ְד͏בָּ ר‬and they fled toward the desert” (Josh 8:15). ‫ דרך‬in this context
is thus functionally equivalent to the directional he, and like its counterpart, it can be omitted.
(Compare ‫[ ַו͏יּ ֵֶרד ִמ ְצ ַריְ מָ ה‬Deut 26:5] and ‫[ ַו͏יּ ְֵרד͏וּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Gen 43:15].) See also 1 Sam 13:18; Ezek
21:2; 40:20, 24, 44; 41:12.
26 “Beyond westward” is not sensible, leading some to harmonistically gloss “some distance
to the west” (NRSV ) and others to interpret the phrase as “beyond the west road” (NJPS). Of
course, considering that Moses and the Israelites were located to the east of the Jordan when this
sentence was spoken, “beyond the west road” is not especially sensible, either, unless Gerizim
away from the Jordan Valley region. Also, it is the Canaanites who reside in the
Arabah – a seeming non sequitur – rather than the hills themselves, again trans-
porting Gerizim and Ebal out of the Arabah. Remarkably, the tradition that Ger-
izim and Ebal are located in the Arabah, and not near Nablus, is attested in antiq-
uity. In the early fourth century CE, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote the following:
It is said that there are two mountains located near Jericho across from each other in close
proximity, one being Gerizim and the other Ebal. But the Samaritans show others that are
near Neapolis. They are mistaken, because those that are shown stand too far apart from
each other, to the extent that it is not possible to hear from one (mountain) the calling
from the other (Onomasticon §307).27
It is quite extraordinary that V’s placement of Gerizim and Ebal in the Arabah,
which seems so idiosyncratic at first glance, is supported by Eusebius’s early tes-
timony. But what about the biblical evidence? It does not seem likely that the
Gerizim–Ebal episode in Joshua 8 occurs anywhere near the Jordan Valley’s gilgal,
or else we would have expected the episode to appear earlier in the story, consid-
ering that the Israelites had previously camped at that very location (Josh 4:19).
As it happens, this is precisely what we find in an intriguing Qumran manuscript
of Joshua. Although this manuscript, 4QJosha , is fragmentary, it is nevertheless
clear that the fulfillment of the Gerizim/Ebal commandment occurs several chap-
ters earlier in this version than it does in the MT and LXX traditions. As Stefan
Schorch writes: “4QJosha most likely originally presented the altar account be-
tween the verses 5:1 and 5:2 (according to the numbering of MT) and therefore
localized the erection of the altar at Gilgal in the Jordan Valley.”28 Thus, in this an-
cient manuscript, the intertext between V and Joshua’s Gerizim–Ebal pericope in-
cludes an additional feature. While the Masoretic and Greek versions agree with V
– against Deuteronomy – on the placement of the Levites, the version of Joshua
in 4QJosha also shares V’s unorthodox ideas regarding the location of Gerizim
and Ebal themselves.
and Ebal were submerged in the Mediterranean Sea.

27 Neapolis is synonymous with Nablus and Shechem. Translation from R. Steven Notley
and Ze’ev Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary (Lei-
den: Brill, 2005), 64. Rabbi Eliezer (or Eleazar) in y. Sot. 7:3 also places Gerizim and Ebal in
the Arabah. I thank Nachum Dershowitz for this reference.
28 Stefan Schorch, “Where Is the Altar? Scribal Intervention in the Book of Joshua and
Beyond,” in Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity
from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions, ed. Benedikt Hensel, Dany Noc-
quet, and Bartosz Adamczewski (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 231–44, at 239. See also
Emanuel Tov, “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX,
and 4QJosha ,” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 65–85;
Eugene Ulrich, “Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 48–65.
4.2.3. Summary
As we saw in the previous section for a series of biblical Decalogue intertexts,
Joshua’s story of the fulfillment of the Gerizim–Ebal narrative has less in com-
mon with Deuteronomy than it does with V’s previously unknown version of the
text. All of the features that make the Valedictoric recension unique – the alterna-
tive tribal list, the positioning of the Levites, and the location of the hills – find
support in other biblical texts. The last two of these features are present in the
Joshua narrative – in one case in the canonical versions, and in another in a frag-
mentary ancient manuscript from Qumran.29 This thick web of connections – in
which V is the central node – is remarkable. Not only does it further establish V
as an authentic ancient text, but it sheds a great deal of light on the history of
the formation of the Bible itself. The Valediction of Moses had a productive exis-
tence in the biblical world in a pre-Deuteronomic form, possibly for centuries –
a tantalizing conclusion.
29 I will discuss the relationship between the book of Joshua and V in future publications.
5. Conclusion
For the past 140 years, one of the greatest manuscript discoveries in history has
been misjudged. The Shapira manuscripts are not forgeries, and the tragedy – hu-
man and intellectual – of their hasty dismissal can hardly be overstated. Shapira
was disgraced and driven to suicide, and his manuscripts were palmed off as mere
curios. The arguments for the manuscripts’ forgery are unconvincing. The story
Shapira told of the manuscripts’ discovery – which had been seen as ludicrous
by his contemporaries – was so uncannily similar to the subsequent discovery
of the Dead Sea Scrolls that some scholars concluded that the latter too must be
a hoax. There is no longer any question that the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in
the mid-twentieth century are authentic. The logical inference must, therefore, be
reversed: The remarkable parallels between the discovery accounts support the
antiquity of Shapira’s manuscripts, not the fraudulence of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Furthermore, we have seen that the more recent paleographic case for forgery is
without merit. Indeed, the little reliable paleographic data we have points to the
manuscripts’ exceptional antiquity. The widespread belief that Shapira forged the
manuscripts, whether alone or with accomplices, is further undercut by his an-
notated transcription, of which scholars were previously unaware. These papers
paint the picture of a man trying to make sense of unfamiliar documents, not a
forger planning or admiring his handiwork. Neither are there any plausible alter-
native culprits; a fraudster working unbeknownst to Shapira would have stood to
gain neither fortune nor fame from the production of these manuscripts.
The fact that the Valediction of Moses lacks the post-Priestly and nomistic
Deuteronomic supplements that recent scholars have identified in Deuteronomy
challenges both the notion of forgery and the idea that it is an abridgment of
Deuteronomy. For a nineteenth-century forger to have constructed a text on the
basis of insights that were first recorded by scholars generations later beggars
belief. The same is true of a hypothetical Hellenistic writer working with the
canonical Pentateuch. With what tools could an ancient editor have surgically re-
moved post-Priestly insertions from Deuteronomy to create V? Shapira’s singular
manuscripts thus have little in common with the so-called “rewritten scripture”
of the Qumran corpus. Having determined that V is a proto-Deuteronomic text,
it is almost certain that V was composed in the First Temple period.
That the Valediction of Moses has intertexts distributed throughout the Bible
suggests that this text, or associated literature, was familiar to several biblical au-
thors. Many passages that were believed to be Decalogical or Deuteronomic in-
5. Conclusion 95
tertexts are, in fact, Valedictoric ones. Needless to say, this has far-reaching rami-
fications.
I have focused primarily on matters of authenticity and literary phylogenetics.
In an excursus (chapter 6) co-authored by Na’ama Pat-El, we discuss the linguis-
tic profile of V, finding it to be consistent with pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew. The
critical edition (chapter 7) includes notes that help situate V from a textual stand-
point, while the English translation (chapter 8) reflects my current understanding
of the text.
I have only touched upon V’s vast importance for our reconstruction of
the Pentateuch’s composition history. This text is a treasure trove not only for
Deuteronomy scholars, but for students of Numbers and Joshua – and the Penta-
teuch/Hexateuch more broadly – as well. In future publications I will explore the
provenance of V, as well as its implications for textual criticism, geography, and
the history of religion.
It is my hope that this extraordinary text will soon be appreciated by all, and
that scholars of all stripes will work to unlock its mysteries for years to come.
6. Excursus: The Linguistic Profile of V
with Na’ama Pat-El
One aspect of the Valediction of Moses that has not received substantial attention
is its linguistic profile.1 Indeed, the language of V includes a number of peculiar
features with the potential to either challenge or substantiate the assessment of the
manuscripts’ authenticity and dating as outlined in Dershowitz’s ZAW article2
and above in the present volume.
The primary treatment of V’s language, prepared by Adolf Neubauer in 1883,
was cursory and is by now quite outdated. Neubauer found the texts to be un-
grammatical and to deviate from the biblical standard.3 This assessment proved
influential and has since been cited as evidence of the manuscripts’ inauthentic-
ity.4 In this section, we offer an analysis of these dispositive features, and our
conclusions are diametrically opposed to those of Neubauer.
Objections to any renewed interest in the manuscripts have been based in
part on the absence of the objects themselves. The multiple extant copies of the
manuscripts, however, provide us with more than enough material to analyze the
text’s language and orthography. We find the text of V to reflect a dialect of Hebrew
that differs somewhat from Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) prose but is gener-
ally consistent with pre-exilic Hebrew, especially as reflected in the epigraphic
corpus. Several epigraphic analogues for features found in V were unknown in
the nineteenth century and therefore could not have served as models for forgery
1 This chapter benefited from the helpful comments and references provided by Tania
Bhattacharyya, Steven Fassberg, Jan Joosten, Geoffrey Khan, Maria Metzler, Tamara Morsel-
Eisenberg, Paris Spies-Gans, and Shani Tzoref.
2 Idan Dershowitz, “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy
Fragments,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133, no. 1 (2021).

3 Neubauer described V’s constituent passages as “most illogical,” “blunders,” and “an ig-
norant amalgamation […] as incorrect as only school-boys can make it.” Neubauer concluded:
“Let us hope […] that there will soon be an end of the publication of these forged texts and their
useless commentaries, unless they are intended as exercises for beginners in Hebrew, for whom
practice in the correction of bad grammar may be desirable” (Adolf Neubauer, “The Shapira
Mss. of Deuteronomy,” The Academy 590 [August 25, 1883], 130).
4 See, for example, Rabinowicz: “It was the voice of Professor Neubauer, and his extensive
analysis in the Academy, that sounded the death knell for the Shapira fragments. He proved
the unclassical and ungrammatical nature of the Hebrew text as reproduced by Dr. Ginsburg”
(Oskar K. Rabinowicz, “The Shapira Forgery Mystery,” Jewish Quarterly Review 47, no. 2 [1956]:
170–83, at 179).
6.1. Orthography 97
at that time. We also find no evidence of Second Temple or modern linguistic fea-
tures. We conclude that the linguistic evidence does not support either the claims
of modern forgery or those of Hellenistic composition. The linguistic evidence,
rather, accords with the main thesis of this book, namely that V is a very ancient
precursor to Deuteronomy.
In what follows, we review V’s orthography, verbal morphosyntax, nominal
syntax, and lexicon in the light of comparative linguistics, internal biblical evi-
dence, and the epigraphic record. We address Neubauer’s principal arguments
in detail and also discuss features that we or others have identified as potentially
diverging from biblical Hebrew norms. We conclude with some methodological
comments.
6.1. Orthography
The orthography of V differs dramatically from that of the Masoretic Text (MT)
and all known Hebrew manuscripts. Instead, it has much in common with epi-
graphic Hebrew. By Masoretic standards, V’s spelling is extremely defective; final
vowels are typically indicated, but medial vowels are far less likely to be marked
by matres lectionis in V than in MT. However, just as in many First Temple–era
inscriptions, such as the Arad and Lachish ostraca and the Siloam tomb inscrip-
tion, medial vowels are occasionally indicated with a yod or vav.5
6.1.1. Diphthongs
In some cases, V’s defective orthography is not merely conservative but rather
reflects possible phonological variants vis-à-vis MT, especially in the realm of
monophthongization. James Barr has noted that with very few exceptions *ay > ē
in MT is written with a yod, while *i > ē is not.6 For example, the construct forms
bēt ‫“ ͏בֵּ ית‬house,” yēn ‫“ יֵין‬wine,” the interrogative ʾēk ‫“ אֵ יְך‬how,” and the negative
existential ʾēn ‫אֵ ין‬, among others, are always written with a yod, while ḥēṣ ‫“ חֵ ץ‬ar-
row,” qēn ‫“ קֵ ן‬nest,” and šēn ‫“ ͏שֵׁ ן‬tooth” are never written with a yod. Many words
whose counterparts in MT are typically written with a historical vav or yod lack
these matres in V. This is true not only when MT pointing and other evidence
suggests monophthongization, such as ‫( עוֹד‬in V: ‫ )עד‬or ֹ‫( מוֹתו‬in V: ‫)מתו‬, but also
when MT pointing reflects a shift to hiatus. For example, where MT has ‫ ְ͏דּלָ תַ יִ ם‬,
5 See further in Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. John El-
wolde (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 66.
6 James Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1989), 138ff.
98 6. The Linguistic Profile of V
and ‫אֶ ְפ ַריִ ם‬, V has ‫דלתם‬, ‫שמם‬, and ‫אפרם‬.7 In addition, V has ‫ ללה‬against MT’s
‫͏שָׁ מַ יִ ם‬,
diphthonged ‫לַ יְ לָ ה‬. Some words show contraction in their inflected forms; ‫ עין‬but
‫( ענך‬cf. Deut 19:13 ‫)עֵ ינְ ָך‬.8 Another example is ‫( בין‬E 1:6, 8) “between,” which is
inflected as ‫בנכם‬.9
Variation in the spelling of diphthongs is well attested in the epigraphic record.
The word ‫ בית‬is always spelled with a yod in Hebrew inscriptions (although not
in Moabite, Phoenician, etc.), but ‫“ יין‬wine” is always spelled ‫ ין‬in the Samaria
ostraca.10 Likewise, the Hebrew inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud contain the
spelling ‫ תמן‬for ‫“ תימן‬south.”11
-w 3ms Suffix on Plural Nouns (A 1:4 [‫]שכנו‬, et passim)

In V, the 3ms pronoun on plural nouns is always spelled -w (e.g., ‫)שכנו‬, whereas
the common spelling in MT is -yw (e.g., ‫)שכניו‬.
Early scholars thought that ‑yw was the older of the two forms. For example,
Bauer and Leander suggested that the glide in the original form *‑ay‑hū was con-
tracted, giving way to a new form, *‑a‑hū > *‑aū > ‑aw.12 They pointed to the nom-
inal base with the 3mp possessive suffix as evidence of the originality of *‑ay‑, e.g.,
dibrē‑hem. According to this theory, the spelling ‑yw represents the older form,
while the Masoretic vocalization (‑aw) and the spelling ‑w – which appears oc-
casionally in MT – represent innovations. The suggestion of a contraction of the
glide in this context is, however, ad hoc and is otherwise unattested in Hebrew.
As the decades passed and inscriptions featuring the spelling ‑w were discovered,
the position that the short form was a late development became increasingly un-
tenable. (See Lachish 3:18, ‫“ אנשו‬his men”; cf. Mhsh 1:13, ‫“ אלו‬to him.” ) Conse-
quently, Cross and Freedman suggested that the singular ending, *a-hū > *aw >
7 ‫מים‬,
on the other hand, is written with a yod in V (D 3:7, E 2:5). While this discrepancy
may seem unusual at first, Ugaritic presents precisely the same state of affairs: “water” is my in
the singular and mym in the plural; heaven is šmm. Since ‫ מים‬is not attested in V in any inflected
form, we cannot know if the yod would have been contracted in such a context.
8 Similar to V, in Isa 3:8 a construct plural is spelled ‫עֵ נֵי‬.
9 There are two possible instances of ‫ בין‬without a yod in MT: Job 16:21 (‫ ;͏וּבֶ ן אָ ָדם ְל ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ‬the
pointing of ‫ בן‬with a segol reflects an apparent attempt to make sense of the defective spelling)
and in some Masoretic manuscripts of Hos 13:15 (‫)͏בֵּ ן אַ ִחים י ְַפ ִריא‬. See James Barr, “Some Notes
on bēn ‘between’ in Classical Hebrew,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23, no. 1 (1978): 1–22. Numer-
ous manuscripts, including the Aleppo Codex, have the plene spelling for the Hosea passage;
for Job, the plene is attested in Kennicott 1 and 147.
10 The diphthong in construct ‫בית‬, like analogous forms, is contracted in the Masoretic and
Samaritan reading traditions but not in the written text. (The absolute form of ‫ בית‬also reflects
monophthongization in the Samaritan oral tradition.) In V, the yod is elided.
11 Outside Hebrew, we find variant spellings in, e.g., the Mesha inscription, where “his
house” is spelled ‫ בתה‬in line 7 and ‫ ביתה‬in line 25.

12 Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Al-
ten Testaments (Halle: Niemeyer, 1918–22), §25ℓ.

6.1. Orthography 99
ō, was generalized to the plural.13 According to their analysis, the plene spelling
-yw represents a northern variant with a diphthong collapse *‑ayhū > *‑ēhū > ‑ēw,
and the MT represents a Judahite variant ‑aw.14 While Cross and Freedman took
*‑ay‑hū to be the original form in Northwest Semitic, they emphasized that, given
the consistent spelling in the epigraphic material, *-aw must be a very early Ju-
dahite form.15 Garr similarly proposed that the original nominal ending before
the suffix was ‑ay, and that the 3ms suffixed form developed into -aw already in
the second millennium BCE via the following series of changes: *‑ay‑hū > *-aw-hū
> *-aw-wū > *-aw-w > -aw [āw].16
In a later work, Cross argued for the existence of an old Semitic plural ending
‑aw, a reflex of which was retained in Hebrew before pronouns: thus, *‑aw‑hū >
*‑awhu > *‑aw‑h > ‑aw.17 Wilson-Wright, however, argues that -aw was clipped
from the broken plural form of III-weak nouns, like *ʾabaw (< *ʾbw) and reana-
lyzed as a plural morpheme.18 This innovation took place in West Semitic, since
-aw is attested as a plural morpheme in Ge‘ez, Syriac, and Arabic, but not in Akka-
dian and Eblaite.
There is additional evidence for the primacy of the spelling ‑w: on the hundred-
odd occasions that this spelling appears in the MT ketiv, the marginal qere –
which routinely features secondary forms – consistently has -yw. For example,
in Lev 16:21, the ketiv is ‫ )שתי( ידו‬while the qere has the expected form, ‫ידיו‬. The
common spelling -yw in MT can be explained as a later graphic leveling on anal-
ogy to the other forms in the paradigm (e.g., 3fs *ay‑hā > ‑ehā, spelled ‑yh), rather
than an improbable proto–Northwest Semitic atavism.
It is now clear that the spelling ‑w is very ancient and that ‑yw came to replace
it in the Masoretic orthographic tradition. But since nineteenth-century schol-
ars believed -w to be a relatively late innovation, we might have expected a con-
temporary forger attempting to simulate a First Temple–era text to include the
13 Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of
the Epigraphic Evidence (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1952), 47, 54.
14 Note that Albright treats a final ‑w (yrḥ‑w) in the Gezer calendar as representing ‑ēw (W.
F. Albright, “The Gezer Calendar,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 92, no.
1 [1943]: 16–26, at 22). He assumed that ‑aw was influenced by Aramaic (ibid., n27).
15 Ibid., 68.
16 Randall W. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 BCE (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1985), 108. The same process accounts for the Byblian form ‫ימו‬, according to Garr
(ibid., 106).
17 Frank Moore Cross, “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention
to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [‑âw],” in Leaves from an Epig-
rapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy,
HSS 51 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 351–56. See also Rebecca Hasselbach, “External
Plural Markers in Semitic: A New Assessment,” in Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics
Presented to Gene B. Gragg, ed. Cynthia L. Miller (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2007), 123–
38.
18 Aren Wilson-Wright, “Father, Brother, and Father-in-Law as III-w Nouns in Semitic,” Bul-
letin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 79, no. 1 (2016): 23–32.
seemingly historical yod. The fact that V never has these yods is consistent with
what we now know to be the CBH convention, but not with what earlier scholars
believed that convention to be.19
6.1.2. Word Division

Throughout the manuscripts, the text of V is written scriptio continua, with no
spaces or marks between words. The only exception is the Decalogue, where
words are terminated by dots and statements by paragraph breaks (petuḥot).
Therefore, our ability to infer how the scribe perceived word divisions is lim-
ited to the lexical repertoire of V’s Decalogue. There we find that two words are
consistently treated as prefixes: ‫ לא‬and ‫את‬.
Notably, both of these words are attested in the epigraphic record as prefixes.
In Ugaritic and Aramaic inscriptions, ‫ לא‬is often written without an aleph and
appended to the following word. However, in some cases, the negation appears
with the aleph and is nevertheless prefixed, as it is in V.20 In MT, ‫ לא‬is frequently
prepended to the following word with a maqqeph, and it has been proposed that
the written tradition of MT preserves cases of preformative aphetic ‫לא‬.21 Similarly,
in several documents from the Judean desert, the nota accusativi is contracted to a
tav and treated as a prefix.22 First Temple–era inscriptions provide some support
for the existence of this practice at an even earlier date. For instance, although
word-separating dots are quite common in the Arad ostraca, it appears that the
nota accusativi and ‫ לא‬are never followed by one.23
In the Mesha Stele, upon which the Shapira manuscripts are often said to have
been modeled, the word division scheme differs from both the scriptio continua
of most of V and the demarcation scheme found in its Decalogue. In Mesha, ‫את‬
is consistently followed by a word-separating dot,24 and sentences are divided by
19 It is worth noting that the form in V also differs from the Moabite convention attested in
the Mesha Stele, which allegedly served as a blueprint for forgery. There we find ‑h in the same
context. For instance, ‫“ ימה‬his days” (Mesha 8) and ‫“ רשה‬his commanders” (Mesha 20).
20 See Eleazar L. Sukenik, “An Epitaph of Uzziahu King of Judah” (Hebrew), Tarbiẓ 2 (1931):
288–92, 382, at 290.

21 See, especially, Raphael Weiss, “On the Use of the Negative ‫ לא‬in the Bible” (Hebrew),
Eretz-Israel 14 (1978): 148–54. Weiss also notes (148n1) that other short negations are some-
times treated as prefixes in the Hebrew Bible.
22 See Mur22, 5/6Hev44, 5/6Hev46. An analogue may be found in Punic and Neo-Punic,
where the nota accusativi is often written as a proclitic tav when followed by a definite arti-
cle (which is usually, but not always, elided). See Charles R. Krahmalkov, A Phoenician-Punic
Grammar (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 281. The same phenomenon is also attested in spoken mod-
ern Hebrew. See, e.g., Rina Ben-Shahar, “The Phonetic Representation of Spoken Language in
Modern Hebrew Literature,” Traduction, terminologie, rédaction 8, no. 2 (1995): 249–73, at 262.
23 For the nota accusativi, see Arad 5, 12, 16, 24 (the semantics of the ʾet in line 19 are dis-
puted), 40, 111 (?). The one instance of negative ‫ לא‬in the Arad ostraca (16:10) likewise has no
visible dot following it.
24 See, e.g., Mesha line 5 (‫מאב‬.‫את‬.‫)ויענו‬, line 6 (‫מאב‬.‫את‬.‫)אענו‬, and line 9 (‫בעלמען‬.‫את‬.‫)ואבן‬.
6.1. Orthography 101
means of vertical strokes. Nevertheless, both schemes found in V are supported

by epigraphic and biblical evidence.
6.1.3. Miscellaneous Orthographic Features

‫( ישכר‬G 3:11)
The name Issachar appears once in V (G 3:11), where it is spelled with a single
sin; in MT, the name is almost always spelled with two sins. V’s orthography is,
however, attested in 4Q522, as well as in some Masoretic manuscripts of 1 Chr
2:1.25 It is also reflected in MT’s standard qere perpetuum of the name, in which
one sin is unpointed, and in LXX’s transliteration of the name (Ισσαχαρ), which
suggests a single elongated consonant in this position, which would ordinarily be
represented by a sole Hebrew grapheme.26
‫( אנך‬E 1:3, et passim)

Throughout V, the independent 1cs pronoun is written as ‫אנך‬. This may be con-
trasted with the Hebrew Bible, where we find either ‫ אָ נ ִֹכי‬or ‫אֲנִ י‬. On the other hand,
‫ אנכי‬with a yod is unattested in Hebrew and Moabite inscriptions27 and is found
only in a small minority of Phoenician inscriptions.28 The spelling ‫ אנך‬is, there-
fore, the standard form throughout the Northwest Semitic epigraphic record.
Regarding the pronunciation of Moabite ‫אנך‬, Aḥituv writes:
The absence of a final ‫ י‬could mean that the vocalization was ʾanōḵ but the 1 common
singular suffix on the qatal verbal pattern suggests that the first common singular inde-
pendent pronoun may also have been vocalized ʾa nōḵī as in Hebrew. The verbal person
marker is probably on analogy with the independent pronoun where the shift took place
first: ʾanâḵu > *ʾanōḵu > *ʾanōḵi > ʾanōḵī.29
25 See note in BHS ad loc.

26 Cf., e.g., ‫( ִצ͏לָּ ה‬Σελλα) and ‫( חַ ͏נָּה‬Αννα).
27 In Lachish 6, line 8, the letters ‫ אנכ‬can be made out, but the area to the left of the kaph
is not legible. It is therefore unclear whether or not the word was spelled with a yod here. See
Shmuel Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period
(Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), 80.
28 This does not mean that the Phoenician 1cs pronoun did not end with a high vowel.
Poenulus transcribes 1cs perfects with a final -thi (e.g., Poen 940a/930). The change of the per-
fect ending from *-tū̌ to -tı̄̌ reflects an earlier rounding and raising in the pronoun from ʾanākū̌
to ʾanōkū̌ to ʾanōkı̄̌ (see Na’ama Pat-El and Aren Wilson-Wright, “The Features of Canaanite:
A Reevaluation,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 166 [2016]: 41–55, at
42–43). The spelling ‫ אנכי‬is also attested in Samalian alongside ‫( אנך‬KAI 215:19; cf. KAI 214:1;
see Josef Tropper, Die Inschriften von Zincirli: Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des
phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1993], 189).
29 Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 395. On the Phoenician and Punic pronunciations of the
pronoun, see Krahmalkov, Phoenician-Punic Grammar, 38–40.

In addition, a-nu-ki is attested in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters.30 ‫ אנך‬in V

may therefore be a purely orthographic variant, rather than reflecting a different
pronunciation of the pronoun. Be that as it may, this spelling is entirely without
parallel in the known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible and is instead in line with
the epigraphic norm.
‫( ותשתחו‬D 2:8)
In V, we find the plural form ‫ ותשתחו‬where we might expect to find ‫ ותשתחוו‬with
two vavs. This anomalous orthography for the plural is, in fact, attested four times
in the ketiv of MT: Gen 27:29a, 43:28; 1 Kgs 9:9; Neh 8:6. In each case, the qere
reflects the conventional form.31 Similarly, most MT manuscripts of 1 Sam 1:28
have ‫וישתחו‬, even though its antecedent must either be plural or feminine singular.
Several Hebrew manuscripts read ‫ וישתחוו‬with two vavs;32 the Syriac, Vulgate, and
Lucianic recension of LXX all reflect the plural as well.33
Also notable is the widely attested tendency in biblical Hebrew orthography to
avoid two consecutive vavs. For example, the plural of ‫ מצוה‬appears 123 times in
MT in its various inflections. Despite the feminine plural suffix almost always be-
ing written plene (‫)ות‬, a full 122 occurrences of these 123 are written defectively:
‫מצות‬. The sole exception is found in a decidedly Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) con-
text – the book of Nehemiah (9:14).34 V’s defective spelling of ‫ ותשתח ֻו‬is consistent
with this orthographic convention.35
‫( הוא‬D 2:6, et passim)

Throughout V, the independent third-person singular pronoun is written ‫הוא‬.
This is true irrespective of the gender of the referent. Notably, this orthography
differs from that of V’s supposed model – the Mesha Stele – where the word is
30 Anson F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Di-
alect Used by the Scribes from Canaan, Vol. 1: Orthography, Phonology, Morphosyntactic Analysis
of the Pronouns, Nouns, Numerals (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 48.
31 This is hardly an isolated phenomenon. The form ‫ עתה‬appears more than 400 times in MT,
whereas the common spelling in the epigraphic record is ‫עת‬. The archaic form is attested twice
in the ketiv (Ezek 23:43; Ps 74:6); in both cases, the qere provides the conventional form. For
more on the modernizing tendency of the qere, see Maimon Cohen, The Kethib and Qeri System
in the Biblical Text (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007), 312–13; Sáenz-Badillos, History of the
Hebrew Language, 67.
32 Kennicott 4, 95, 173.
33 In 4Q51, the word in the position of ‫ וישתחו‬is mostly illegible, while an additional verb,
seemingly ‫ותשתחו‬, appears nearby: [‫ותשתח]ו‬ ̇ ‫]…[הו שם‬

̇ .
34 We thank Geoffrey Khan for bringing this phenomenon to our attention.
35 See also the ketiv ‫( ויצו‬qere ‫ )וַיְ צַ ͏וּו‬in Judg 21:20. In MT, the tendency to avoid dual vavs is
even more prominent in medial positions. Compare, for instance, ‫ ְ͏תּצַ ͏וֻּם‬in Deut 32:46 and ‫ְ͏תּצַ ͏וֻּנִ י‬
in Isa 45:11 with ‫ ַו͏יַּ͏כּ͏וּם ַו͏יּ ְַ͏כּת͏וּם‬in Num 14:45.
6.1. Orthography 103
spelled ‫הא‬. The defective spelling is also found in all other known inscriptions
prior to the fifth-century BCE Aramaic Elephantine papyri.36
In most of the books of the Hebrew Bible, we find ‫ הוא‬for masculine and ‫היא‬
for feminine, with almost no exceptions. In the Masoretic text of the Pentateuch,
on the other hand, the pronoun pointed as hī is spelled with a medial vav 192
times vs. 19 times with a yod. (In SP, these are almost always spelled ‫היא‬.)
In a recent article, Steven Fassberg provides new evidence that femi-
nine/common ‫ הוא‬reflects an early dialectal feature. He concludes:
Because the 3fs Kethiv ‫ הוא‬is for all intents and purposes limited to the Pentateuch, and
because the Pentateuch crystallized earlier than the Prophets and the Writings, one must
deduce that the Kethiv ‫ הוא‬is evidence for an early dialectal form that later disappeared in
Biblical Hebrew.37
The presence of the form ‫ הוא‬for both male and female in V is consistent with
Fassberg’s analysis.38 This spelling is not attested in known Hebrew inscriptions
from the First Temple period. However, in the Old Aramaic inscription from
Bukân, which Lemaire dates to ca. 700 BCE, we find a single instance of plene
‫ הוא‬alongside three examples of defective ‫הא‬.39
‫( לקראת‬D 1:2, 2:1, 7; H 1:7)

Most scholars believe the preposition ‫ לקראת‬is derived from the root qry.40 The
word is attested only once in the epigraphic record, where it is written without
an aleph (Siloam 4, ‫)אש לקרת רעו‬. In all known versions of the Hebrew Bible, it is
written systematically with an aleph.41 The orthography in V here is thus consis-
tent with that of Biblical Hebrew, but not with the sole attestation of the word in
the ancient epigraphic corpus.
36 The spelling in the Elephantine corpus is almost always ‫ הו‬for male and ‫ הי‬for female.
37 Steven E. Fassberg, “The Kethiv/Qere ‫ ִהוא‬, Diachrony, and Dialectology,” in Diachrony in
Biblical Hebrew, ed. Cynthia L. Miller and Ziony Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012),
171–80, at 177–78.
38 That ‫ הוא‬was used for both male and female referents in antiquity was suggested at least
as early as 1861. See William Henry Green, A Grammar of the Hebrew Language (New York:
John Wiley, 1861), 96. For more literature, see the history of research cited in Fassberg, “The
Kethiv/Qere ‫ ִהוא‬,” 171–73.
39 See André Lemaire, “Une inscription araméenne du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. trouvée à Bukân
(Azerbaïdjan iranien),” Studia Iranica 27, no. 1 (1998): 15–30, at 21, et passim. The plene in-
stance is at the end of a sentence, while the other three are not.
40 See, e.g., BDB and HALOT, ad loc.
41 1QIsaa typically includes the aleph, with Isa 14:9 being the single exception. In the Ma-
soretic vocalization scheme, this aleph is not articulated.

6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax

In this section we discuss various verbal morphosyntactic features in V that differ
from the norm in the Hebrew Bible.
6.2.1. The wəqāṭal Construction

In D 2:6–3:3, V has a series of wəqāṭal forms indicating what appears to be the
simple/narrative past tense, which is more commonly indicated by a wayyiqṭōl
verb in CBH:
‫וְ י ְָצא͏וּ בעת ההוא בנת מאב ונשי מדין ]…[ וחרה אף אלהם עלכם ויגף בכם בעת ההוא מגפה גדלה · ושלחתי‬
· ‫מכם אנשם ללחם את המדינם והכתם אתם לפי חרב ושבתם מאתם שבי הרבה למאד ותעצר המגפה‬
At that time, the daughters of Moab and women of Midian came out […] Elohim’s anger
then burned against you, and he inflicted upon you at that time a great plague. I sent from
among you people to fight the Midianites, and you smote them by the sword’s edge, and
you took from them a great many captives. The plague then ended.
Likewise, in E 3:2, we find the wəqāṭal verb ‫ ושבתי‬in a context in which we

might have expected either ‫ ואשבת‬or ‫וביום השבעי שבתי‬:42
· ‫]כי · ש[שת · ימם · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם · ושבתי · ביום · השבעי‬
[For in s]ix days I made the heaven and the earth and all that is in them, and I rested on
the seventh day.
The use of non-iterative simple past wəqāṭal is very rare in LBH, and nonexis-
tent in postbiblical Hebrew.43 Joosten argues that non-iterative past tense wəqāṭal
is an internal Hebrew innovation that concludes in the Hellenistic period, and ac-
cordingly wəqāṭal and wayyiqṭōl “must be regarded as free variants representing
different, though overlapping, periods of the Hebrew Bible.”44 Therefore, the ap-
pearance of wəqāṭal in V to express non-iterative simple past may appear to be
late, or even modern.45
The use of wəqāṭal to indicate non-iterative simple past is, however, attested
in the Hebrew Bible, as noted by a number of scholars, including Joosten, who
42 Cf. Exod 20:11 (‫ ) ִ͏כּי ͏שֵׁ ͏שֶׁ ת י ִָמים עָ ͏שָׂ ה ]…[ ַו ָ͏יּנַח‬and Exod 31:17 (‫יעי‬
ִ ‫ִ͏כּי ͏שֵׁ ͏שֶׁ ת י ִָמים עָ ͏שָׂ ה ]…[ ͏וּבַ ͏יּוֹם הַ ְ͏שּׁ ִב‬
‫)͏שָׁ בַ ת וַ͏יִּ נָפַ ͏שׁ‬. The suffix conjugation ‫ ושבתי‬could in fact be a perfect form preceded by a vav, rather
than a simple past wəqāṭal. The verbs used in the passages leading up to the Decalogue in
Deuteronomy also use the suffix conjugation (‫)͏כָּ ַרת … ִ͏דּ͏בֵּ ר‬.
43 Jan Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis
of Classical Prose, Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10 (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012); Kasper Siegismund,
“Anterior Weqatal in the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran Documents,” Hebrew Studies 58 (2017):
199–220.
44 Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 225.
45 Adolf Neubauer, “The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” The Academy 589 (August 18,
1883), 116; Rabinowicz, “Shapira Forgery Mystery,” 179; Jan Joosten, personal communication.
Neubauer also argued (“Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116) that the verb ‫ שבת‬is semantically
inapt here: “The root shaboth does not mean ‘to rest’ but ‘to cease from work,’ and in this sense
only it is found in the Old Testament. The forger made a blunder in not leaving the root noah
6.2. Verbal Morphosyntax 105
observes that wəqāṭal can indicate a single event in the past.46 The following are
examples of wəqāṭal being used for the simple past in biblical narration:47
‫ֹ͏שׂאֵ י הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏כָּ ן׃‬

ְ ‫͏וּבנֵי ְמ ָר ִרי נ‬
ְ ‫ה͏וּרד הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏כָּ ן וְ נ ְָסע͏וּ ְבנֵי ג ְֵר͏שׁוֹן‬
ַ ְ‫ו‬
And the tabernacle was taken down, and the Gershonites and the Merarites, carriers of
the tabernacle, set out. (Num 10:17)
‫ַו͏יָּב ֹא עַ ד הָ אֹהֶ ל ַו͏יַּ͏כֵּ ה͏וּ וַ͏יִּ ͏פֹּל ַו͏יַּהַ ְפכֵ ה͏וּ ְלמַ ְעלָ ה וְ נָפַ ל הָ אֹהֶ ל׃‬
It came to the tent and hit it. It turned it upside down, and the tent collapsed. (Judg 7:13)
There is some internal biblical evidence that past-tense wəqāṭal is a compara-

tively early feature that was displaced in later stages. One such example is found
in 2 Kgs 18:36, which has wəqāṭal ‫וְ הֶ ח ֱִרי͏שׁ͏וּ‬:
‫ענֻה͏וּ׃‬
ֲ ַ‫וְ הֶ ח ֱִרי͏שׁ͏וּ הָ עָ ם וְ ל ֹא עָ נ͏וּ אֹתוֹ ָ͏דּבָ ר ִ͏כּי ִמ ְצוַת הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך ִהיא לֵ אמֹר ל ֹא ת‬
And the people kept silent and did not answer a word, for the king’s command was, “Do
not answer him.”
In the parallel passage in MT Isa 36:21, we find the standard wayyiqṭōl – ‫ַו ַ͏יּח ֲִרי͏שׁ͏וּ‬
– in what is likely an instance of linguistic updating:
‫ענֻה͏וּ׃‬
ֲ ַ‫ַו ַ͏יּח ֲִרי͏שׁ͏וּ וְ ל ֹא עָ נ͏וּ אֹתוֹ ָ͏דּבָ ר ִ͏כּי ִמ ְצוַת הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך ִהיא לֵ אמֹר ל ֹא ת‬
And they kept silent and did not answer a word, for the king’s command was, “Do not
answer him.”
The ancient editor responsible for this emendation in MT Isaiah may have
shared the evaluation of Bernhard Stade, who wrote in 1886: “‫וְ הֶ ח ֱִרי͏שׁ͏וּ הָ עָ ם וְ ל ֹא עָ נ͏וּ‬
as in the received text.” Neubauer may have overlooked Gen 2:2–3 and especially Exod 31:17,
in both of which the verb ‫ שבת‬is applied to YHWH/Elohim in precisely the same context. In the
latter of these two, ‫ שבת‬takes no complement (e.g., ‫אכ͏תּוֹ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר עָ ͏שָׂ ה‬
ְ ַ‫ ) ִמ͏כָּ ל ְמל‬and is fully analogous
to V’s version. If the text in Exod 31:17 is not a blunder, then neither is that of V. Furthermore,
as noted in all modern lexicons, ‫ שבת‬can indeed mean “rest,” rather than “cease” – especially in
relation to the Sabbath.
46 Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 223–25. See also Arie Rubinstein, “The Anoma-
lous Perfect with Waw-Conjunctive in Biblical Hebrew,” Biblica 44, no. 1 (1963): 62–69, at 68n2:
“It is difficult to accept Driver’s view that our anomalous construction [wəqāṭal] occurs only on
‘exceedingly rare occasions’ in the early books of the O. T. According to his own enumeration
(Tenses, pp. 161–62), the construction occurs 36 times in the early books of the O. T. The two
articles by Stade contain at least another 12 certain instances of the anomalous construction
in 2 Kings. […] We thus obtain a total of 49 in the early books, which is not by any means a
negligible number. Nor is our enumeration exhaustive (cf. GK, loc. cit.).”
47 Other examples are Gen 15:6, 21:25, 31:7, 38:5; Exod 39:3; Num 10:17–18, 21–22, 25;
Judg 16:18, 19:8; 1 Sam 1:12, 17:38; 2 Sam 13:18, 12:31, 13:18.
[ist] eine barbarische Construction.”48 1QIsaa , for its part, shows no sign of such
updating:
‫והחרישו ולוא ענו אותוה דבר כיא מצות המלך היה לאמור לוא תענוהו׃‬
The version in 2 Kings provides clear precedent for the forms we find in V,
and the Isaiah version illustrates how the biblical text undergoes updating. One
can only speculate how many early and uncommon biblical Hebrew forms are
unknown to us due to this process. Additional support for the existence of an-
terior wəqāṭal in Hebrew may be found in the epigraphic record. For instance,
Arad 16, an early monarchic text, contains a temporal clause referring to a single
past event followed by a wəqāṭal verb:
· ‫צאת ֗י ֗מביתך · ושלחתי את ֗ספ]ר[ ז֗כה‬

֗ ‫֗כ‬
When I left your house, I sent a written receipt.49
In biblical Hebrew, when past events are described, the temporal clause is
never followed by a past-tense wəqāṭal, as it is in Arad 16:3.50 See the follow-
ing biblical examples, where the temporal clause is followed by a wayyiqṭōl verb
indicating a single event in the past.
‫ִ͏כּ ְ͏שׁמ ַֹע עֵ ͏שָׂ ו אֶ ת ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי אָ ִביו וַ͏יִּ ְצעַ ק ְצעָ קָ ה ͏גְּ דֹלָ ה ͏וּמָ ָרה עַ ד ְמאֹד וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר ְלאָ ִביו ͏בָּ רֲ כֵ נִ י גַם אָ נִ י אָ ִבי׃‬
When Esau heard his father’s words, he cried out a terribly great and bitter cry, and he
said to his father, “Bless me too, father!” (Gen 27:34)
‘5
‫הוֹציאָ ם אֶ ת הַ ְ͏מּלָ ִכים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה אֶ ל יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע וַ͏יִּ ְק ָרא יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ִאי͏שׁ יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֶ ל ְק ִצינֵי אַ נְ ͏שֵׁ י הַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה‬
ִ ‫וַיְ ִהי ְ͏כּ‬
‫ארי הַ ְ͏מּלָ ִכים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה‬
ֵ ְ‫הֶ הָ ְלכ͏וּא ִא͏תּוֹ ִק ְרב͏וּ ִ͏שׂימ͏וּ אֶ ת ַרגְ לֵ יכֶ ם עַ ל צַ ͏וּ‬
When they brought out these kings to Joshua, Joshua called all the Israelites, and he said
to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, “Come hither and put your feet on
the necks of these kings.” (Josh 10:24a)
Another non-biblical example of anterior wəqāṭal is found in the Yavne-Yam

ostracon, lines 4–5:51
48 Bernhard Stade, “Miscellen,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1886):
122–89, at 183.
49 Arad 16:3–5. Transcription and translation following Anat Mendel-Geberovich et al., “A
Brand New Old Inscription: Arad Ostracon 16 Rediscovered via Multispectral Imaging,” Bul-
letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 378 (2017): 113–25, at 114–18. See discussion
of tense in ibid., 117.
50 When wəqāṭal is used, it is modal and refers to future actions. See, for example, Jer 51:61:
‫באֲָך בָ בֶ ל וְ ָר ִאיתָ וְ קָ ָראתָ אֵ ת ͏כָּ ל הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים הָ אֵ ͏לֶּ ה‬

ֹ ‫“ וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר יִ ְר ְמיָה͏וּ אֶ ל ְ͏שׂ ָריָה ְ͏כּ‬And Jeremiah said to Seraiah:
When you come to Babylon, see that you read all these words.”
51 Mhsh 1:5. Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 159.
‫ויקצר עבדך ויכל ואסם כימם · לפני שבת‬
And your servant harvested and finished/measured and stored in the granary as always
before the Sabbath.
A number of scholars have struggled to explain the form ‫ואסם‬. Naveh proposed
that it is a 1cs imperfect form, but the shift from third person (‫ויקצר‬, ‫ )ויכל‬to
first makes this interpretation unlikely.52 Dobbs-Allsopp et al.53 suggested that
this is either an infinitive absolute54 or a conjunction with the suffix conjugation,
namely wəqāṭal for a single past event.
Rainey and Aḥituv argue for a different explanation. Rainey takes the verb
‫ ואסם‬to be a third-person suffix conjugation, but he interprets the verbal string as
“measure in order to store.”55 According to this understanding, the wəqāṭal does
not follow chronologically upon the preceding wayyiqṭōl. Aḥituv elaborates upon
this idea:
There is no biblical verb from this root [...] The attested form in this present text [...] is most
likely third person form [sic] of the suffix conjugation, joined by the simple conjunction to
the preceding verb ‫וְ אָ סַ ם‬. By this means the forms represent an action that is coeval with the
measuring. One measured in order to store. The storing was not looked upon as a further
step in the process but as part of the same process (cf. Gen. 2:6).56
Rainey and Aḥituv both appear to be struggling here with the possibility that
wəqāṭal might indicate anteriority, considering the widespread view that this
function is reserved exclusively for wayyiqṭōl in Classical Biblical Hebrew. This
interpretation is, however, improbable. There is no reason to suggest that the act
of storing is coeval with the act of measuring (or with the completion of harvest-
ing). The activities indicated in the inscription are successive actions in the past:
“your servant harvested, measured, and stored.”
The use of wəqāṭal to indicate simple past is not surprising from a comparative
Semitic point of view. Past-tense qāṭal is an innovation of West Semitic57 and is
52 Joseph Naveh, “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C.,” Israel Exploration Jour-
nal 10 (1960): 129–39.

53 F. W. Dobbs-Allsop et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monar-
chy with Concordance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 361.
54 Following Frank Moore Cross, Jr.,, “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the
Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C.: II. The Murabbaʿât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-
yam,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962): 34–46, at 44n43.
55 Anson F. Rainey, “Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis in the Hashavyahu Ostracon,” Journal
of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27, no. 1 (2000): 75–79, at 78.
56 Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 161. Rainey (“Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis,” 78) similarly
interprets the verbal string as “measure in order to store.”

57 John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El, “Introduction to the Semitic Languages and Their
History,” in The Semitic Languages, ed. John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El, 2nd ed. (Milton:
Routledge, 2019), 1–21, at 7.
attested in related languages as well as in our earliest Canaanite records,58 and

as shown above, it is also found in Classical and epigraphic Hebrew. The use of
wəqāṭal for iterative past is likely an internal Hebrew development.59 Past-tense
wəqāṭal is, therefore, not necessarily a sign of lateness, but rather it can indicate
conservativeness.
Neubauer suggested that V’s use of wəqāṭal for past tense was evidence of
forgery, writing sarcastically: “Evidently the Moabite writer did not make use of
Dr. Driver’s excellent work on the Hebrew tenses.”60 True enough. Neither did
the author of Arad 16, for that matter, or those of the other ancient texts in which
past-tense wəqāṭal is found.
6.2.2. The (wə-)yiqṭōl Construction

V’s use of wəqāṭal where MT would typically have wayyiqṭōl is mirrored in its
use of (wə-)yiqṭōl where the Masoretic norm is wəqāṭal. In MT, future events
(whether indicative or subjunctive) are typically indicated with wəqāṭal verbs in
initial position. For instance, in Gen 13:16 we find: ‫“ וְ ͏שַׂ ְמ ִ͏תּי אֶ ת ז ְַרעֲָך ͏כַּ עֲפַ ר הָ אָ ֶרץ‬I
will make your offspring like the dust of the earth,” and in Isa 11:1: ‫וְ יָצָ א חֹטֶ ר ִמ ֵ͏גּזַע‬
‫“ יִ ͏שָׁ י‬A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse.” This is generally true also
for the Hebrew of V, as in the following example:
‫וענו כל הע]ם[ ואמרו אמן‬
And all the peo[ple] shall call out “Amen.” (G 4:1, et passim)
Nevertheless, there are several cases in which V instead has (wə-)yiqṭōl for
future events:
[‫ויספו הלוים ויענו ויאמרו בקל ]רם‬
The Levites shall continue and call out in a [loud] voice.61 (G 4:10–11)
58 In Amarna, statives of transitive verbs are used to mark the past, which is not their func-
tion in Akkadian (William L. Moran, “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected
in the Amarna Tablets” [PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1950], 51). In the Deir ʿAlla in-
scription, which dates to the ninth or eighth century BCE, we find a series of wəqāṭal verbs that
are understood to be preterites: ‫“ אל]ה[ן · אתיחדו ונצבו · שדין · מועד · ואמרו‬The go[d]s congregated;
SHDYN stood in assembly. And they said…”
59 See Jan Joosten, “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal
System,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspec-
tives, ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 135–48, at
136–37 for a possible path.
60 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116.
61 It is not impossible that ‫ ויספו‬is wəqāṭal ‫וְ י ְָספ͏וּ‬, but the other verbs are unambiguously prefix
conjugation. Furthermore, in serial verb chains with two finite verbs, such as these, all verbs
typically agree in form. It is, therefore, likely that all verbs in this example are in fact prefix
conjugation.
‫ויתרך אלהם רק לטבה על האדמה ]הטבה אשר אלהם אלהי א[בתכם נתן לכם‬
Elohim will make you abound only in goodness upon the [good] land [that Elohim, god
of your fa]thers, is giving you. (G 5:6–7)
‫ויסבו הלוים את פנהם נגד הר עב]ל[ ויענו ויאמרו בקל רם‬

The Levites shall then turn to stand opposite Mount Eb[al] and call out in a loud voice.
(G 5:7–8)
‫ויספו הלוים לקרא בקל רם ויאמרו‬
The Levites shall continue calling out in a loud voice and say… (H 1:7)
Fortuitously, these passages have counterparts in Deuteronomy, allowing us to

straightforwardly compare the forms. Indeed, where V has (wə-)yiqṭōl, Deuteron-
omy has wəqāṭal:62
‫וְ עָ נ͏וּ הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם וְ אָ ְמר͏וּ אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ִאי͏שׁ יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל קוֹל ָרם׃‬
The Levites shall then call out in a loud voice to all the Israelites. (Deut 27:14)
‫אבֹתֶ יָך לָ תֶ ת לָ ְך׃‬

ֲ ַ‫͏וּב ְפ ִרי אַ ְדמָ תֶ ָך עַ ל הָ א ֲָדמָ ה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נִ ְ͏שׁ͏בַּ ע יְ הוָה ל‬
ִ ‫͏וּב ְפ ִרי ְבהַ ְמ ְ͏תָּך‬
ִ ‫הוֹת ְרָך יְ הוָה ְלטוֹבָ ה ִ͏בּ ְפ ִרי ִב ְטנְ ָך‬
ִ ְ‫ו‬
YHWH shall make you abound in goodness, in the fruit of your womb, in the fruit of your
livestock, and in the fruit of your ground in the land that YHWH swore to your ancestors
to give you. (Deut 28:11; cf. Deut 30:9)
The functional overlap between wəqāṭal and (wə-)yiqṭōl in MT is well docu-

mented. Joosten notes not only the various functions these two forms share, but
also the fact that they often co-occur.63 Since the two are never in functional op-
position, he concludes that they are allomorphs, occupying different positions in
the sentence: “WEQATAL occupies the first position in the clause, YIQTOL in
62 It must be noted that the first in the series of four speech acts by the Levites in V appears
with wəqāṭal verbs, unlike the following three. Deuteronomy, which lacks the list of blessed
behaviors and puts the blessings and curses themselves in Moses’s mouth, preserves only one
of the four Levitical speech acts.
63 Jan Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis
of Classical Prose (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012), 263.

principle a non-first position.”64 There are, however, examples of initial future

(wə‑)yiqṭōl in MT. For instance:
‫וְ ַיעֲ͏שׂ͏וּ ְבנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל אֶ ת הַ ͏פָּ סַ ח ְ͏בּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃‬
The Israelites shall keep the passover at its appointed time. (Num 9:2)
‫ֹ͏שׁבֵ י הָ אָ ֶרץ וְ נָסַ ͏בּ͏וּ עָ לֵ ינ͏וּ וְ ִה ְכ ִרית͏וּ אֶ ת ְ͏שׁמֵ נ͏וּ ִמן הָ אָ ֶרץ ͏וּמַ ה ͏תַּ עֲ͏שֵׂ ה ְל ִ͏שׁ ְמָך הַ ͏גָּדוֹל׃‬
ְ ‫וְ יִ ְ͏שׁ ְמע͏וּ הַ ְ͏כּ ַנעֲנִ י וְ כֹל י‬
The Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it, and surround us, and
cut off our name from the earth. Then what will you do for your great name? (Josh 7:9)
‫חנֵה יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל יִ ͏תֵּ ן יְ הוָה ְ͏בּיַד ְ͏פּ ִל ְ͏שׁ ִ͏תּים׃‬

ֲ ַ‫וְ יִ ͏תֵּ ן יְ הוָה ͏גַּם אֶ ת יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ִע ְ͏מָּך ְ͏בּיַד ְ͏פּ ִל ְ͏שׁ ִ͏תּים ͏וּמָ חָ ר אַ ͏תָּ ה ͏וּבָ נֶיָך ִע ִ͏מּי ͏גַּם אֶ ת מ‬
YHWH will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines; and tomorrow you
and your sons shall be with me; YHWH will also give the army of Israel into the hands of
the Philistines. (1 Sam 28:19)
‫ָ͏שׂימ͏וּ ַואֲנִ י אֶ עֱ͏שֶׂ ה אֶ ת הַ ͏פָּ ר‬

ִ ‫ָ͏שׂימ͏וּ עַ ל הָ עֵ ִצים וְ אֵ ͏שׁ ל ֹא י‬
ִ ‫וְ יִ ְ͏תּנ͏וּ לָ נ͏וּ ְ͏שׁנַיִ ם ͏פָּ ִרים וְ יִ ְבחֲר͏וּ לָ הֶ ם הַ ͏פָּ ר הָ אֶ חָ ד וִ ינ ְַ͏תּחֻ ה͏וּ וְ י‬
‫הָ אֶ חָ ד וְ נָתַ ִ͏תּי עַ ל הָ עֵ ִצים וְ אֵ ͏שׁ ל ֹא אָ ִ͏שׂים׃‬
Two bulls shall be given to us; they shall choose one bull for themselves, they shall cut it
in pieces, and they shall lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. I will prepare the other
bull and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. (1 Kgs 18:23)
‫וְ יָב ֹא ͏שׁ ֵֹדד אֶ ל ͏כָּ ל ִעיר וְ ִעיר ל ֹא ִת͏מָּ לֵ ט וְ אָ בַ ד הָ עֵ מֶ ק וְ נִ ְ͏שׁמַ ד הַ ִ͏מּי͏שֹׁר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ מַ ר יְ הוָה׃‬
The destroyer shall come upon every town, and no town shall escape; the valley shall
perish, and the plain shall be destroyed, as YHWH has spoken. (Jer 48:8)
‫͏וּלחֶ ְר͏פָּ ה ͏בַּ ͏גּוֹיִ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְס ִביבוֹתָ יִ ְך ְלעֵ ינֵי ͏כָּ ל עוֹבֵ ר׃‬
ְ ‫וְ אֶ ְ͏תּנְֵך ְלחָ ְר͏בָּ ה‬
I will make you a desolation and an object of mocking among the nations around you, in
the sight of all that pass by. (Ezek 5:14)
That the future/modal semantics of both yiqṭōl and wəqāṭal forms is to be

dated to proto-Hebrew is not in question.65 Notarius demonstrates that most oc-
currences of yiqṭōl in archaic biblical poetry express the “imperfective,” which
covers present/immediate future.66 In any case, occurrences of prospective fu-
ture, and future more generally, are not very common in the MT.67 Like MT, V
64
Ibid., 264.
65
Tania Notarius, “Prospective ‘weqatal’ in Biblical Hebrew: Dubious Cases or Unidentified
Category?” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34, no. 1 (2008): 39–55; Bo Isaksson, “The
So-called we-qatal Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew Once Again,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur
Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19 (2015): 71–117.
66 Tania Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Histor-
ical Investigation of the Tense System (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 282. Notarius further argues that
the prospective uses of qāṭal in her corpus (e.g., in Deut 32:22) is discourse conditioned, for
example, within a prophetic poetic speech (ibid., 268).
67 Notarius, “Prospective ‘weqatal,’” 41.
preserves some archaic functions of these forms. And although yiqṭōl is not com-
mon in V, it nevertheless appears in contexts where MT would generally have a
wəqāṭal verb.
Already in LBH, the use of yiqṭōl increases at the expense of wəqāṭal, foreshad-
owing the disappearance of wəqāṭal in Mishnaic Hebrew. The first semantic fea-
ture to be lost was iterative wəqāṭal,68 followed by the decline and subsequent
disappearance of modal and prospective wəqāṭal in postbiblical Hebrew.69 In
Mishnaic Hebrew, yiqṭōl and qāṭal are in functional opposition; wəqāṭal does
not indicate futurity/modality, but rather a combination of the coordinating par-
ticle wə- and a following past tense verb.70 The only context in which qāṭal can
have non-past reference in Mishnaic Hebrew is in conditional sentences.71
It is worth noting that the use of yiqṭōl for future is attested in the epigraphic
record. For example:
‫[ וידקן גבנם‬...] ‫[ וימסן הרם‬...]‫ובזרח אל בר‬

When El rises […] the mountains shall melt […] the peaks shall be crushed. (Kuntillet
ʿAjrud 15:1–3)
Were this a biblical (MT) text, we would expect to find ‫ונמסו הרים‬, etc., in the
wəqāṭal. For instance, Isa 34:2 contains the very same idiom, reading: ‫וְ חַ ְללֵ יהֶ ם‬
‫͏וּפגְ ֵריהֶ ם ַיעֲלֶ ה בָ ְא͏שָׁ ם וְ נָמַ ͏סּ͏וּ הָ ִרים ִמ ָ͏דּמָ ם‬
ִ ‫ֻ͏שׁלָ כ͏וּ‬
ְ ‫י‬, “Their slain shall be cast out, the stench
of their corpses shall rise, and the mountains shall melt from their blood.”72
Since the future semantics of yiqṭōl and verb-first word order are both West
Semitic features, it is possible that the prevalence of the non-initial position of
yiqṭōl in MT is an innovation of standard Biblical Hebrew.
In summary, V’s use of the (wə-)yiqṭōl is somewhat anomalous in an MT con-
text but is plausible for a First Temple–era text.
68Joosten, “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL,” 135–48.

69Edward Yechezkel Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), 269; Uri Mor, Judean Hebrew: The Language of the He-
brew Documents from the Judean Desert (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew
Language, 2015), 280–81; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill,
2018), 369–70.
70 Moses H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 150.
71 Moshe Azar, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: The Academy of the
Hebrew Language, 1995), 7.

72 See also Samaria 111:3. In many cases, V has yiqṭōl + (wə-)yiqṭōl, where the familiar He-
brew Bible manuscripts would have yiqṭōl + wəqāṭal. Compare H 1:3–4 ( ֯‫ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא‬
‫“ ֯ע ֯נ ֯ו אל אשת רעהו‬Cursed is the man who desires and lusts after the wife of his fellow”) and Josh
6:26 (ֹ‫“ אָ ר͏וּר הָ ִאי͏שׁ ִל ְפנֵי יְ הוָה אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יָק͏וּם ͏וּבָ נָה אֶ ת הָ ִעיר הַ ͏זּ ֹאת אֶ ת יְ ִריחו‬Cursed before YHWH is the man
who rises and builds this city, Jericho”). Cf. also G 4:1–2 vs. Lev 20:18 and H 2:2 vs. Isa 27:6.
There are no conclusive examples of yiqṭōl + wəqāṭal in the epigraphic record. (See Sandra
Landis Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 262–63.)
6.2.3. ‫( ללחם‬D 3:1)

In V (D 3:1), we find ‫ ללחם‬in the G-stem (qal), not the expected N-stem (niphal)
‫להלחם‬.73 The use of G in the Hebrew Bible for this root (in the sense “to do battle”)
is exclusive to BH poetry (Pss 35:1; 56:2, 3). This is consistent with the form be-
ing an ancient one, considering that even late poems often preserve archaic forms,
due to the conservative nature of the genre.74 More direct evidence is found in the
epigraphic record: the G is attested in the ninth-century BCE Phoenician KLMW
inscription,75 while the Gt is attested in the ninth-century BCE Mesha Stele76 and
apparently also the Aramaic Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the same pe-
riod.77 In LBH, the root is always in N, with the exception of one or two G forms
in Qumran.78 Typically, N has been seen as originally a middle or reflexive stem,
which acquired a passive meaning as the G passive became increasingly rare and
eventually disappeared. Since the N-stem produces low transitivity verbs,79 the
preference for G in V, if it is diachronically meaningful, could be an indication of
the early use of this stem.80
73 We thank Peter Machinist for bringing this example to our attention.

74 Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syn-
tax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 58–59.
75 ‫“ בת אבי · במתכת · מלכם · אדרם · וכל · שלח · יד לל]ח[ם‬My father’s house was in the midst
of great kings, and each of them was about to fight” (KLMW 5–6). We find the suggestion that
‫ לחם‬here refers to bread or eating unlikely. (See Terence Collins, “The Kilamuwa Inscription: A
Phoenician Poem,” Die Welt des Orients 6, no. 2 [1971]: 183–88, at 184n8.) The KLMW inscrip-
tion was discovered during the 1888–1902 German expedition to Sam’al, after V was already
known in Europe. KLMW shares other features with V: 1cs pronoun ‫אנך‬, contracted diphthong
in ‫בית‬, word-separating dots, etc.
76 ‫( ואהלך · בללה · ואלתחם · בה · מבקע · השחרת · עד · הצהרם‬l. 15), “I went by night and fought
against it from the crack of dawn till noon.”

77 ‫אבי · יסק ]· עלוה · בה[תלחמה‬, “my father went against him as they did battle” (Tel Dan 2).
78 There is one certain and one potential instance of G among the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q468g
f1 2:4–5 ([ -- ]‫הכרכים‬
֯ ‫ [ לחם את‬-- ]‫פלטת‬
֯ ‫ )בני קטורא‬and 4Q161 f5 6:10 (‫)בעלותו מבקעת עכו ללחם ב ׄי‬.
An elision of the aspirant of the N infinitive may explain the latter example (for more on this
phenomenon, see Eric D. Raymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonol-
ogy, and Morphology [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013], 100ff.; Elisha Qimron, A
Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2018], 178–
80), but the verb ‫( לחם‬4Q468g f1 2:4–5) must be G. While aspirant elision cannot be ruled out
for KLMW, this would seem to be uncharacteristic for the period. Such elision would likewise
be out of place in V’s orthographic/phonological scheme. Be that as it may, the forms in V and
KLMW are identical, against MT’s 43 instances of ‫ להלחם‬and zero instances of ‫ללחם‬.
79 Øyvind Bjøru, “Transitivity and the Binyanim,” in Proceedings of the Oslo-Austin Work-
shop in Semitic Linguistics, ed. Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2014), 48–63, at 55ff.
80 According to Staps’s recent survey of the biblical evidence on ‫( לחם‬Camil Staps, “A Case
Study of Reciprocal Middles in Biblical Hebrew: The Niphal of ‫לחם‬,” Orientalia 87, no. 2 [2018]:
159–87), direct objects designating humans are found exclusively with the qal form of the verb
(ibid., 163). The same correspondence is evident in V; the qal verb ‫ לחם‬is followed by the direct
object marker ‫את‬, rather than the preposition bə- that is found with the N-stem (niphal) verb
6.2.4. Negation of the Jussive

In V, we find ‫ לא‬negating the jussive, rather than the typical BH ‫אל‬. For example, V
has ‫( לא תצרם ולא תתגר בם מלחמה‬D 1:6–7; cf. C 1:2, 6–7), whereas the correspond-
ing Deuteronomic passage has ‫( אַ ל ְ͏תּצֻ ֵרם וְ אַ ל ִ͏תּ ְת͏גָּר ͏בָּ ם‬Deut 2:19; cf. 2:5, 9). Since
the jussive is typically negated with ‫אַ ל‬, the use of ‫ ל ֹא‬could be seen as problematic
for the claim that V is an ancient Hebrew text.81
The jussive is, however, attested with ‫ לא‬in CBH. See, for example, ‫( ל ֹא תָ ͏שֵׁ ב‬Gen
24:8), ‫( ל ֹא תָ חֹס‬Deut 7:16), and ‫( וְ ל ֹא יָמֵ ר‬Ezek 48:14).82 While some instances of
the jussive in MT have been claimed to be a result of reanalysis,83 others – such as
the aforementioned three examples – are unlikely to be mispointed indicatives.84
The possible usage of both ‫ אַ ל‬and ‫ ל ֹא‬with the jussive is noted in a number of
grammatical works.85 Joosten notes that “there is a certain amount of amalgama-
tion” between the indicative and jussive.86 He mentions the use of the negation ‫ל ֹא‬
with jussive forms, against expectations, as one of the clear signs of this merger.
Furthermore, the negation of the volitive jussive in LBH is ‫אַ ל‬, although the
syntax is freer: while negated jussives in CBH are overwhelmingly clause-initial,
in LBH they are clause-internal in 50 percent of cases.87 This is essentially the only
context in which the jussive is kept functionally distinct from the indicative; in
other positions they are largely conflated. In that sense, the syntax of the negated
volitive subjunctive in V differs from LBH and is more similar to the syntax of
CBH.
‫נלחם‬ in the Hebrew Bible. It is possible that orthographic ambiguity allowed some qals to be
reinterpreted in MT as niphals, e.g., ‫ וילחם את אפרים‬in Judg 12:4 and ‫ וילחמו את יואב‬in 2 Sam 11:17.
(Both the verb forms and the ‫ את‬particles in these examples are ambiguous.)
81 Thus Jan Joosten, personal communication.
82 There are significantly more examples than are acknowledged in Ahouva Shulman, “The
Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” Zeitschrift
für Althebraistik 13, no. 2 (2000): 168–80, at 169n7). Others are found in Gen 4:12; Deut 7:16,
13:1, 9, 18:16; 1 Sam 14:36; 1 Kgs 2:6; Hos 9:15; Ezek 5:11, 48:14; Joel 2:2. Most of these are
listed in Gesenius, along with non-negated jussives for which the indicative is expected (§109d).
83 At least some C-stem forms of the root ysp (‫ )יֹסֵ ף‬are assumed to be an original qal imperfect
indicative (*yawsup), which through a series of sound changes ended up merging with the C-
stem indicative yōsip (Gesenius §109d).
84 All three verbs are written defectively, despite being hollow roots; plene spelling is typical
for such roots in the indicative.

85 E.g., Gesenius §109d; Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax,
567d; Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 156–57; Steven E. Fassberg, An Introduction to
the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2019), 77 (§170).
86 Joosten, Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, 334–35.
87 Jan Joosten, “The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective,”
in The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of
His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Angelika Berlejung and Pierre van Hecke (Leuven: Peeters, 2007),
47–61, at 53.
6.2.5. Verbal Forms Following ‫“ עד‬Until”

There are a number of instances in V where the particle is followed by a conju-
gated verb:88 ‫( עד תמו‬B 1:9); ‫( עד אבד יאבד‬G 1:6); and possibly ‫עד לא השאר לו שרד‬
(D 1:3, 2:1–2).89 In CBH, the particle ‫ עד‬is typically followed by an infinitive con-
struct.90 There are, nevertheless, a number of instances of a conjugated verb in
this position in CBH, similar to the usage exhibited in V. For example: ‫עַ ד ͏שָׁ ב͏וּ‬
‫( הָ ר ְֹד ִפים‬Josh 2:22; cf. ‫ עַ ד ͏שׁוֹב הָ ר ְֹד ִפים‬in 2:16) and ‫( עַ ד יָבוֹא‬Hos 10:12).91 Already
in BH, and even more so in later Hebrew chronolects, the tendency is for a rel-
ative pronoun to follow ‫ עד‬when a conjugated verb is used; the use of ‫ עד‬with a
conjugated verb and no relative particle in LBH is very rare. The syntax of the
particle in V is thus consistent with CBH usage, but not with Second Temple or
later Hebrew.92
6.2.6. ‫( ונכה עד‬D 1:3)

The phrase ‫ ונכה עד לא השאר לו שרד‬lacks the expected accusative suffix or ‫ אותו‬and
may therefore be seen as problematic. (The corresponding passage in Deut 2:33
has ֹ‫ ַו͏נְַּך אֹתו‬.)
The absence of accusative suffixes, however, is well attested in all Semitic lan-
guages when the referent is recoverable from context.93 For instance, in 2 Kgs
7:8, we find: ‫͏וּבג ִָדים ַו͏יּ ְֵלכ͏וּ ַו͏יּ ְַט ִמנ͏וּ‬
ְ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׂא͏וּ ִמ͏שָּׁ ם ͏כֶּ סֶ ף וְ זָהָ ב‬, where we might have expected
‫ ַו͏יּ ְַט ִמנ͏וּם‬. See also the ketiv in 1 Sam 7:9: ‫ ;ויעלה עולה‬the qere, ‫ ַו ַ͏יּעֲלֵ ה͏וּ‬, may reflect a
“correction.” The same phenomenon is found in the Yavne-Yam ostracon, a First
Temple–era text:94
…‫כאשר כל ]ע[בדך את קצר ואסם כימם‬
When your [se]rvant had measured <his> harvest and stored <it> in the granary as al-
ways…
88 The form ‫ עד תם‬in B 1:7 is ambiguous due to the defective spelling in V and can be read
as either a suffix-conjugation tām or an infinitive tōm.

89 Cf. MT ‫( ִ͏בּ ְל ִ͏תּי ִה ְ͏שׁ ִאיר‬Deut 3:3) but LXX μη καταλιπειν with an aorist infinitive. The ortho-
graphic form ‫ השאר‬is ambiguous; it can be read as either hišʾir (hiphil, 3ms pf ) or hašʾēr (hiphil,
infAbs).
90 Joüon and Muraoka §166k; Williams §311.
91 See also KAI 224:6: ‫“ והן לי]שב[ן בארקך רקו שם עד אהך אנה וארקהם‬And if they [do] not [dwell]
in your land, placate (them) there, until I come and placate them.” (See Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995], 136–37. Italics in
original; boldface ours.)
92 For more on the antiquity of this construction, see Na’ama Pat-El, “Historical Syntax of
Aramaic: A Note on Subordination,” in Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting, ed. Hol-
ger Gzella and M. L. Folmer (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 55–76, at 60.
93 See Kyoji Tsujita, “The Retrospective Pronoun as Direct Object in Relative Sentences in
Biblical Hebrew,” in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-fifth
Birthday, ed. Alan S. Kaye (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 1577–82.
94 Mhsh 1:5. Aḥituv, Echoes from the Past, 159–60.
6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax 115
6.2.7. ‫( לתת מפת‬E 1:6)

Dershowitz reconstructs ‫ והיו לתת ֯מ ֯פת בין עינך‬in E 1:6 (cf. Deut 6:8, ‫וְ הָ י͏וּ ְלטֹטָ פֹת ͏בֵּ ין‬
‫)עֵ ינֶיָך‬.95 The position of the infinitive construct directly after the verb ‫ היה‬is un-
usual. A more typical formulation is found in ‫יְ ִהי ְמ ֹארֹת ִ͏בּ ְר ִק ַיע הַ ͏שָּׁ מַ יִ ם ְלהַ ְב ִ͏דּיל ͏בֵּ ין הַ ͏יּוֹם‬
‫( ͏וּבֵ ין הַ ͏לָּ יְ לָ ה‬Gen 1:14), for instance, where a noun phrase precedes the infinitive.
Similar constructions are, however, found in MT. For example, ‫וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ִל ְהיֹת לָ הֶ ם‬
‫דרֹתָ ם‬ ֹ ‫( מָ ְ͏שׁחָ תָ ם ִל ְכהֻ ͏נַּת עוֹלָ ם ְל‬Exod 40:15) and ‫עב ַֹדת יְ הוָה‬ ֲ ַ‫( וְ הָ י͏וּ ל‬Num 8:1).96
ֲ ‫עבֹד אֶ ת‬
In addition, Dershowitz’s reading produces a parallel in V between ‫ אות‬and ‫מפת‬:
“Tie them as an ‫ אות‬upon your arms, and they shall serve as a ‫ מפת‬between your
eyes.” ‫ אוֹת‬and ‫ מוֹפֵ ת‬are a common word-pair in the Hebrew Bible – particularly in
Deuteronomy97 – and the pair also appears elsewhere in V (B 1:2). It is notewor-
thy that ‫ נתן‬is the standard verb in the context of ‫מופת‬. For example, ‫וַ͏יִּ ͏תֵּ ן יְ הוָה אוֹתֹת‬
ִ ‫( ͏וּמ ְֹפ ִתים ͏גְּ ד‬Deut 6:22).98
‫ֹלים וְ ָר ִעים ְ͏בּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬
6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax

In this section we review features of nominal morphosyntax that are unusual or
may reflect an erroneous use of Hebrew.
6.3.1. ‫( בלתי טפכם‬B 1:5)

In MT, ‫ בלתי‬may occur with an infinitive as a negation of purpose or result clause
(e.g., ‫ ְל ִב ְל ִ͏תּי ͏שַׁ ְ͏לּחָ ם‬in Exod 19:17), in which case it is equivalent to the simple nega-
tion, ‫לא‬.99 However, it can also negate nouns directly as a privative negation (e.g.,
‫ ִ͏בּ ְל ִ͏תּי ͏כָּ לֵ ב ͏בֶּ ן יְ פֻ ͏נֶּה הַ ְ͏קּנִ ͏זִּ י וִ יהוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע ִ͏בּן נ͏וּן‬in this passage’s analogue in Num 32:11–12).
The same usage is also documented in Phoenician (‫בלתי אנך‬, KAI 13:5). This is
likely the original function of the preposition; it is neither a late innovation nor
is it erroneous.100
95 Previous reconstructions were ‫֯כ ֯ת‬ ֯ ‫( לתתו‬Guthe) and ‫( לתתוהת‬Shapira and Ginsburg). For
more, see the note on this phrase in the critical edition in chapter 7, 141n91.
96 See also Num 7:5, 24:22; Deut 19:3; Judg 3:4, etc.
97 Exod 7:3; Deut 4:34, 6:22, 7:19, 13:1–2, 26:8, 28:46, 29:3, 34:11; Isa 8:18, 20:3; Jer 32:20–
21; Pss 78:43, 105:27, 135:9; Neh 9:10.

98 See also Exod 7:9; Deut 13:1; 1 Kgs 13:3, 5; Isa 8:18; Ezek 12:6; Joel 2:30; Neh 9:10; 2
Chr 32:24. Cf. Deut 28:46, where it is said of those who are cursed for not keeping the laws: ‫וְ הָ י͏וּ‬
‫͏וּלמוֹפֵ ת‬
ְ ‫ ְבָך ְלאוֹת‬. We discuss the semantics of ‫ אות‬and ‫ מ)ו(פת‬in V and the Hebrew Bible in a future
article.
99 This is its only function in Deuteronomy.
100 Na’ama Pat-El (“On Negation in Phoenician,” in Linguistic Studies in Phoenician, ed.
Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron Schade [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013], 47–67, at 56
and 63, table 2) suggests that ‫ בלתי‬is a derivation from the negation particle bal with a final
t, which is resolved in proto-Hebrew as *bilt, and in construct can assume the form biltī. The
particle bal is attested in all branches of Semitic as a nominal negation.
6.3.2. ‫( למאד‬D 3:2; E 1:2–3)

This complex adverb occurs only in 2 Chr 16:14, where the preposition lə- is part
of the complex preposition ʿad lə- (‫“ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׂ ְרפ͏וּ לוֹ ְ͏שׂ ֵרפָ ה ͏גְּ דוֹלָ ה עַ ד ִל ְמאֹד‬they made a
large fire for him”).101 The adverb does not occur in the immediate subsequent
Hebrew chronolects.102
While ‫ למאד‬is a hapax legomenon, the combination of the preposition lə- with
an adverb is not uncommon in biblical texts from any period. See, for example,
‫“ לָ כֵ ן‬therefore,” ‫“ ְלאַ ט‬gently, slowly,” ‫“ ְלמַ חַ ר‬tomorrow,” ‫“ ְלמַ ͏טָּ ה‬below,” and ‫ִל ְב ִלי‬
“without.” The same phenomenon is attested in Northwest Semitic inscriptions
as well.103 The combination of adverbs with prepositions is natural, and the use
of ‫ למאד‬in V is not diachronically significant.
6.3.3. ‫( בעת הזאת‬E 1:9)

A common biblical phrase for far temporal deixis, whether past or future, is ‫בעת‬
‫ההוא‬, and this is found several times in V (D 2:6, 10; D 3:3; G 2:2, 3). There is also
a single instance of ‫ בעת הזאת‬in V: ‫ואנך עמדת בין אלהם ובנכם בעת הזאת כי פחדת מפני‬
‫( האש‬E 1:8–9). In the corresponding passage in Deuteronomy, we find ‫אָ נ ִֹכי עֹ מֵ ד‬
‫( ͏בֵּ ין יְ הוָה ͏וּבֵ ינֵיכֶ ם ͏בָּ עֵ ת הַ ִהוא‬Deut 5:5; cf. Deut 10:10). Is ‫ בעת הזאת‬then a non-CBH
feature? Hardly. Temporal phrases are not referential in the same way that nouns
are, and ‫ זה‬and ‫ זאת‬function as both distal and proximal demonstratives almost
interchangeably. For example, ‫ היום הזה‬and ‫ היום ההוא‬are used in comparable con-
texts: ‫( ͏בַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ה͏וּא ͏כָּ ַרת יְ הוָה אֶ ת אַ ְב ָרם ְ͏בּ ִרית‬Gen 15:18) vs. ‫( ͏בַּ ͏יּוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה ͏בָּ א͏וּ ִמ ְד͏בַּ ר ִסינָי‬Exod
19:1; cf. Gen 7:11). Likewise, for instances such as ‫הוֹציא יְ הוָה אֶ ת‬ ִ ‫וַיְ ִהי ְ͏בּעֶ צֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם הַ ͏זֶּה‬
‫( ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Exod 12:51) one might have expected ‫בעצם היום ההוא‬, just
as we would have expected ‫ בעת ההוא‬in V E 1:9. Similarly, there is no semantic
difference between ‫ בפעם הזאת‬in ‫ַו͏יּ ְַכ͏בֵּ ד ͏פַּ ְרעֹ ה אֶ ת ִל͏בּוֹ ͏גַּם ͏בַּ ͏פַּ עַ ם הַ ͏זּ ֹאת וְ ל ֹא ִ͏שׁ͏לַּ ח אֶ ת הָ עָ ם‬
(Exod 8:28) and ‫ בפעם ההיא‬in ‫( וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁמַ ע יְ הוָה אֵ לַ י ͏גַּם ͏בַּ ͏פַּ עַ ם הַ ִהוא‬Deut 9:19, 10:10).104
6.3.4. Plural of ‫“ אב‬Father”

According to some reports, the two manuscripts of V diverge on the form the
plural of ‫“ אב‬father” takes in E 4:2, with Vb containing the unexpected form ‫אבם‬
101 The book of Chronicles is replete with the ʿad lə- construction, which is absent in V. In-
deed, 21 of 28 examples of ʿad lə- in MT are found in Chronicles.

102 This adverb is attested in the Palestinian piyyut literature (Michael C. Rand, Introduction
to the Grammar of Hebrew Poetry in Byzantine Palestine [Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006], 376),
but as a verbal modifier, unlike the syntax of the adverb in V.
103 E.g., in Phoenician: ‫“ אל יכן לם שרש למט ופר למעל‬They shall not have a root below nor fruit
above” (KAI 14:11–12; early 5th c. BCE).

104 ‫ בעת הזאת‬appears only once in MT, and it is in an LBH text: Esth 4:14. The usage there is
not comparable, however. Unlike in V, where the phrase means “then” (far deixis), in Esther it
means “now” (near deixis).
6.3. Nominal Morphosyntax 117
ʾăbīm and Va the typical ‫ אבת‬ʾăbōt.105 The latter is the attested plural of this noun
in all stages of Hebrew. The noun “father” is marked with a “feminine” plural in
many other Semitic languages, including Aramaic (e.g., BibA ʾăbāhātā, Qumran
ʾbhtʾ) and Sabaic (ʾbwt “elders” /ʾabawāt/?).106 The only exceptions are Akkadian
abbū107 and Syriac, which allows a less common form ʾabāhe – likely a backfor-
mation from ʾabāhātā. While it is possible that ‫ אבם‬too is a backformation, it is
not unlikely that it is erroneous, either a mistaken reading on the part of modern
transcribers108 or possibly an ancient scribal error.
6.3.5. Plural of Ethnonyms

In V, we find two plural construct chains in which an ethnonym is pluralized: ‫נשי‬
‫( המדינם‬D 2:9) and ‫( ערי הפרזם‬D 2:3). For the first example, “Midianite women,”
one would expect either ‫ נ ִָ͏שׁים ִמ ְדיָנִ יוֹת‬or ‫( נְ ͏שֵׁ י ִמ ְדיָן‬cf. Num 31:9). The second ex-
ample requires some unpacking. In MT, the resh is pointed with a qamets, ‫ ְ͏פּ ָרזִ י‬,
giving us a phrase meaning “unwalled cities.” However, in all but one of its other
24 occurrences in MT, ‫ פרזי‬unambiguously refers to the Perizzites and is pointed
‫ ְ͏פּ ִר͏זִּ י‬.109 One of these occurrences is particularly instructive; Josh 17:15 includes
the phrase “the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaites”:
‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֲלֵ יהֶ ם יְ הוֹ͏שֻׁ ַע ִאם עַ ם ַרב אַ ͏תָּ ה עֲלֵ ה ְלָך הַ ͏יּ ְַע ָרה ͏וּבֵ ֵראתָ ְלָך ͏שָׁ ם ְ͏בּאֶ ֶרץ הַ ְ͏פּ ִר͏זִּ י וְ הָ ְרפָ ִאים ִ͏כּי אָ ץ ְלָך הַ ר‬
‫אֶ ְפ ָריִ ם׃‬
And Joshua said to them, “If you are indeed a large people, go up to the forest, and clear
an area for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaites, since the hill
country of Ephraim is too narrow for you.”
Compare this with D 2:3–5 in V:
‫לבד מערי הפרזם הרבה מאד וכל ערי המשר וכל הגלעד וכל הבשן עד סלכה ואדרעי · ארץ רפאם י ֯֯ק ֯רא֯ גם‬
‫הוא כי עג מלך הבשן מיתר הרפאים נשאר‬
Besides the ‫ פרזם‬cities, very many, and all the towns of the tableland, the whole of the
Gilead, and all of the Bashan, as far as Salecah and Edrei. (It too is called a land of
Rephaites, for Og, King of the Bashan, had been one of the last remaining Rephaites.)
105See, e.g., Ginsburg, who wrote: “Instead of ‫ ]…[ אבת‬one recension seems to have ‫”אבם‬
(Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2911 [August
11, 1883], 178). For more on the two manuscripts of V, see critical edition of V (chapter 7).
106 The plural is not attested in Ugaritic.
107 For the gemination, see Wilson-Wright, “Father, Brother, and Father-in-Law,” 28.
108 Hermann Guthe (Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Worte an die
Kinder Israel, mitgeteilt und geprüft von Hermann Guthe [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883], 79)
considers ‫ אבם‬but opts for the reading ‫ אבך‬with a kaph. Shapira wrote in a letter that the gene-
sis of the reading ‫ אבם‬was an erroneous transcription on his part (BL Ms. Add. 41294 [Papers
relative to M. W. Shapira’s forged MS. of Deuteronomy], 28r).
109 Gen 13:7, 15:20, 34:30; Exod 3:8, 17, 23:23, 33:2, 34:11; Deut 7:1, 20:17; Josh 3:10, 9:1,
11:3, 12:8, 17:15, 24:11; Judg 1:4–5, 3:5; 1 Kgs 9:20; Ezra 9:1; Neh 9:8; 2 Chr 8:7. The exception
is 1 Sam 6:18. For similar forms, see Judg 5:7,11; Ezek 38:11; Zech 2:8; Esth 9:19.
V here places “the cities of the ‫ ”פרזם‬in the list of conquered territories in a
“land of the Rephaites.”110 In light of Josh 17:15, it seems likely that ‫ ערי הפרזם‬does
not mean “unwalled cities,” but rather “Perizzite cities,” even if the Perizzites may
themselves have been associated with unfortified settlements.111
Having determined that the pluralized head nouns in both ‫ ערי הפרזם‬and ‫נשי‬
‫ המדינם‬are ethnonyms, we may compare them to the biblical Hebrew norm. Since
head nouns in such construct chains are typically singular in the Hebrew Bible
(e.g., ‫ ְלבַ ד מֵ עָ ֵרי הַ ְ͏פּ ָרזִ י‬in Deut 3:5), V’s pluralized forms may be seen as curious.112
But plural ethnonyms are, in fact, attested in the Bible, including in comparatively
early texts. Examples include ‫( אֶ ֶרץ הָ ִע ְב ִרים‬Gen 40:15), ‫( אֶ ֶרץ הַ ִח ִ͏תּים‬Josh 1:4; Judg
1:26), ‫( עָ ֵרי הַ ְלוִ ͏יִּ ם‬Lev 25:32–33; Josh 21:41), and ‫( מַ ְלכֵ י הַ ִח ִ͏תּים‬1 Kgs 10:29; 2 Kgs
7:6; 2 Chr 1:17).113 V’s forms are thus consistent with CBH.
6.3.6. Disagreement of Suffixed Pronoun with Its Referent

D 3:5 has ‫ולא תגרעו ממנו לא תספו אל מצות ֯י‬. The expected form is ‫מהן‬, considering that
the pronoun refers to the feminine plural ‫מצות ֯י‬. However, in the Hebrew Bible, the
suffixed pronoun on ‫ ממנו‬does not always agree with its referent in terms of gender
and number. See, for instance:
‫צע ֲִקים‬
ֹ ‫͏כּנֶת הַ ְ͏לּבֵ נִ ים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הֵ ם עֹ ִ͏שׂים ְ͏תּמוֹל ִ͏שׁ ְל͏שֹׁם ͏תָּ ִ͏שׂימ͏וּ עֲלֵ יהֶ ם ל ֹא ִתגְ ְרע͏וּ ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ ִ͏כּי נִ ְר ִ͏פּים הֵ ם עַ ל ͏כֵּ ן הֵ ם‬
ֹ ‫וְ אֶ ת מַ ְת‬
‫לֵ אמֹר נ ְֵלכָ ה נִ זְ ְ͏בּחָ ה לֵ אֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ׃‬
And their previous quota of bricks [fs] you shall impose upon them; do not lessen it [ms],
for they are slackers. This is why they cry, “Let us go sacrifice to our god.” (Exod 5:8)
‫͏כֵּ ן ͏תָּ ִרימ͏וּ גַם אַ ͏תֶּ ם ְ͏תּר͏וּמַ ת יְ הוָה ִמ͏כֹּל מַ ְע ְ͏שׂרֹתֵ יכֶ ם אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏תּ ְקח͏וּ מֵ אֵ ת ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל ͏וּנְ תַ ͏תֶּ ם ִמ͏מֶּ ͏נּ͏וּ אֶ ת ְ͏תּר͏וּמַ ת יְ הוָה‬
‫הרֹן הַ ͏כֹּהֵ ן׃‬
ֲ ַ‫ְלא‬
In this way you too shall set apart the gift for YHWH from all your tithes [fp] that you take
from the Israelites; from it [ms] you shall give the gift for YHWH to Aaron, the priest.114
(Num 18:28)
Although we have seen that the same phenomenon is attested numerous times
in MT, the Deuteronomic passages corresponding to this V text (Deut 4:2, 13:1)
110Gen 15:20 also juxtaposes the Perizzites with the Rephaites.
111It has been suggested that “Perizzites” originally denoted people living in exposed towns.
See, e.g., Tomoo Ishida, “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite
Nations,” Biblica 60, no. 4 (1979): 461–90, at 478–79 and the literature cited therein.
112 Jan Joosten, personal communication. Note that the singular construction is also found
in V (‫ נשי מדין‬D 2:7).

113 Note that we are only referring to plural of the ethnonym in a construct. For evidence that
the pluralization of head and dependent is attested in other Northwest Semitic languages, see
Stanley Gevirtz, “Of Syntax and Style in the ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’ – ‘Old Canaanite’ Connec-
tion,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 18 (1986): 25–29, at 28.
114 See also Exod 25:15; Lev 6:7–8; Num 18:28; Josh 1:7, 23:14. The pattern ‫אל … ממנו‬/‫לא‬,
which is found in the V passage, is also overrepresented in these biblical examples. We thank
Noah Feldman for this observation.
6.4. Lexicon 119
have masculine singular ‫דבר‬, rather than the feminine plural ‫ מצות‬found in V. It
is possible that these are instances of linguistic updating, bringing the somewhat
anomalous text of V in line with the contemporary norm.
6.4. Lexicon
In the following we offer comments on possible instances of lexical deviation
from normative Classical Biblical Hebrew.
6.4.1. ‫( הון‬E 3:8)

‫“ הון‬wealth” occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in exilic and post-exilic contexts
(Ezek 27:12; Prov 1:13). Its appearance in V has thus been cited as evidence that
it cannot be a pre-exilic composition.115
However, we have no reason to assume a priori that the word’s attestation in
the exilic book of Ezekiel marks its terminus post quem in the Hebrew language.
The etymology of this word is unclear; Koehler-Baumgartner’s suggestion that
it is related to Aramaic hawn “mind” is unlikely. Despite their superficial conso-
nantal similarity, the lexemes have nothing in common semantically, calling into
question the etymological association.116 This lexeme also appears in Qumran
Hebrew prose,117 but is not attested in other post-Biblical Hebrew chronolects
and the date of its entrance into the lexicon cannot be confidently determined.118
It, therefore, cannot be used as a mark of late texts, as its origin and distribution
remain a desideratum.
6.4.2. ‫( יבעל עם כל בהמה‬G 5:12)

There are two potential issues with the use of the verb ‫ בעל‬in this phrase. First,
the verb is transitive in MT, but in V it occurs with the preposition ‫עם‬. Second,
most dictionaries suggest that the primary meaning of the word is “to own,” with
a secondary meaning of “to marry, to take possession of a woman.”119 In V, on
115 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116; Jan Joosten, personal communication.
116 See Benjamin J. Noonan (Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Lan-
guage Contact [University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019]), who does not list ‫ הוֹן‬as a borrowed
lexeme.
117 Joosten (“The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudo-
classicisms,” in Miller and Zevit, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 286) lists ‫ הוֹן‬as a poetic biblical
lexeme, which alternates with the more common ‫ מָ מוֹן‬in Qumran.
118 ‫ הוֹן‬is not listed as a late term in Avi Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew:
Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period, Supplements to Vetus Testa-
mentum 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
119 Koehler-Baumgartner, vol. 1, 142b.
the other hand, ‫ בעל‬carries an evident sexual connotation, which is similar to its
use in post-biblical Hebrew.
Regarding the first matter, free alternation of direct object and the preposition
“with” is well attested for a number of Hebrew verbs, such as ‫ ִ͏דּ͏בֵּ ר‬.120 Notably, the
same is true for the verb ‫͏שָׁ כַ ב‬, the common biblical verb denoting “to lie with.”
This verb can occur with either a direct object (e.g., Gen 34:2; Lev 15:18; Num
5:19, etc.) or the preposition “with” (Gen 39:7; Exod 22:15; Deut 22:22).121 The
MT parallel to G 5:12 uses a similar construction to V, but with the expected
biblical verb: ‫( אָ ר͏וּר ͏שֹׁכֵ ב ִעם ͏כָּ ל ְ͏בּהֵ מָ ה‬Deut 27:20). It is, therefore, likely that the
verb ‫ בעל‬could occur with the same syntactic alternates.
As for the semantics of the verb, there are several passages in the Hebrew Bible
in which ‫ בעל‬likely has a sexual implication, as it clearly does in V. An example is
found in the slave laws of Deut 21:10–14:
[…] ‫ִ͏כּי תֵ צֵ א לַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה ]…[ וְ ָר ִאיתָ ͏בַּ ִ͏שּׁ ְביָה אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת יְ פַ ת ͏תֹּאַ ר וְ חָ ͏שַׁ ְק͏תָּ בָ ͏הּ וְ לָ קַ ְח͏תָּ ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה׃ ַוהֲבֵ אתָ ͏הּ אֶ ל ͏תּוְֹך ͏בֵּ יתֶ ָך‬
‫͏וּבעַ ְל͏תָּ ͏הּ וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה׃‬
ְ ָ‫ָ͏שׁבָ ה ְ͏בּבֵ יתֶ ָך ]…[ י ֶַרח י ִָמים וְ אַ חַ ר ͏כֵּ ן ͏תָּ בוֹא אֵ לֶ יה‬
ְ ‫וְ י‬
When you go to war […] should you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and
desire her and take her to be a wife, you shall bring her to your house […] and she shall
stay in your house […] for a month, after which you shall draw near to her and have sex
with her; then she shall become your wife.
This passage discusses the legal procedure by which an Israelite man could ac-
quire a captive woman for sexual purposes. According to this law, she must first
be allowed to mourn her old life for a month, after which the man has sex with
ְ ), and she becomes his wife or concubine (‫)וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬.122 It thus
her (‫͏וּבעַ ְל͏תָּ ͏הּ‬
appears that ‫͏וּבעַ ְל͏תָּ ה‬
ְ is not synonymous with ‫וְ הָ יְ תָ ה ְלָך ְל ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬. Rather than denoting
marriage, ‫ בעל‬here suggests the consummation of marriage.
Another possible example is found in Deut 22:22–24, where two cases of ex-
tramarital sex are discussed. In the first, the man lies with “a ‫ ְבעֻ לַ ת ͏בַּ עַ ל‬woman”;
in the second, the woman is defined as ‫“ ַנע ֲָר ְבת͏וּלָ ה ְמא ָֹר͏שָׂ ה ְל ִאי͏שׁ‬a virgin betrothed
to a man.” The difference between these cases appears to be that in the first, the
woman has already had sex with her husband, while in the second, the marriage
120 Aren Wilson-Wright, “A Reevaluation of the Semitic Direct Object Markers,” Hebrew
Studies 57 (2016): 7–15, at 10–11.

121 Mishnaic Hebrew only allows direct objects with this verb.
122 ‫ ִא͏שָּׁ ה‬does not always refer to a legal wife. (See Bernard S. Jackson, “The ‘Institutions’ of
Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of Semitic Studies 56, no. 2 [2011]: 221–51,
esp. 234–35.) The inferior status of the woman is clear from v. 14, which specifies that if the
man decides to end the relationship, he should set the woman free rather than sell her. Relying
in part on this passage, Jay Caballero has recently argued that in the Deuteronomic law code,
concubinage is possible only for unmarried female slaves, but not for debt slaves (Jay Caballero,
“When a Man Wrongs a Woman: Slavery, Concubinage, and Divorce in the Covenant Code and
Deuteronomy” [paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San
Diego, CA, November 2019]). The verb ‫ ִע͏נָּה‬is used elsewhere in Deuteronomy in reference to
forced sex (Deut 22:24, 29).
6.4. Lexicon 121
has not yet been consummated, and the woman is still a virgin when she has
illicit (but presumed consensual) intercourse.123 That intercourse, rather than
marriage, is the distinguishing factor between the cases is inferable from the fact
that the second woman, who is said to be ‫“ ְמא ָֹר͏שָׂ ה ְל ִאי͏שׁ‬betrothed to a man,” is
also described as ‫“ אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֵ ה͏וּ‬the wife of his fellow” (v. 24). As Tigay writes: “she
is considered her fiancé’s wife (v. 24), and sexual relations with another man are
considered adulterous.”124
These examples suggest that one need not turn to rabbinic or later literature
to find comparanda for V’s usage of the verb ‫בעל‬.
6.4.3. ‫( החרתך‬E 2:1)

The root ‫ חרר‬is only attested in nominal forms in MT (1 Kgs 21:8, 11; Isa 34:12;
Jer 27:20, 39:6; Eccl 10:17; Neh 2:16, 4:14, 19, 5:7, 6:17, 7:5, 13:17). The absence
of any biblical instances of this root in verbal forms has been cited as evidence for
the forgery of V.125 There are two objections to this assessment. First, the morphol-
ogy of the verb in V is what we would expect for a Hebrew geminate root in the
C-stem (hiphil). Furthermore, it is likely that verbs derived from this root were in
use in Hebrew without being attested in MT, since in Mishnaic Hebrew the root
is found as a qal participle (‫“ חרור‬freed slave”; e.g., m. Qidd. 4:1), a pual participle
(‫“ מחורר‬free asset”; baraita cited in b. Ketub. 51b), and in various derivations of
šif ʿel (e.g., m. Yebam. 11:5). This diverse usage indicates that the root was quite ac-
tive in some Hebrew dialects with a meaning associated with the nominal forms
found in MT.126 Second, the root is productive in other Semitic languages, includ-
ing Arabic (ḥurrun), Ethiopic (ḥarrāwī), and Aramaic (ḥērē),127 and is therefore
likely a shared inheritance. Therefore, the root and its inflection should be con-
sidered native Hebrew.
123 Bruce Wells (personal communication) suggests that the verb ‫ בעל‬in Prov 30:23 (‫תַ חַ ת ְ͏שׂנ͏וּאָ ה‬
‫) ִ͏כּי ִ͏תּ͏בָּ עֵ ל‬
also means sexual relations. He notes that ‫ שנואה‬typically refers to the lower ranking
wife (Gen 29:31; Deut 21:15). Thus, in the upside-down world described in Prov 30:21–23, the
detested wife becomes sexually desirable. (Cf. DCH, which includes the definition “take woman
as sexual partner.” )
124 Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1996), 207. Tigay adds that “the same view is found in Mesopotamian law” (ibid.).
125 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116; Rabinowicz, “Shapira Forgery Mystery,”
179.
126 Semantically, V’s version corresponds to Deut 7:8 (‫)וַ͏יִּ ְפ ְ͏דָּך ִמ͏בֵּ ית עֲבָ ִדים‬, Deut 13:6 (‫וְ הַ ͏פּ ְֹדָך‬
‫) ִמ͏בֵּ ית עֲבָ ִדים‬, and Mic 6:4 (‫יתיָך‬

ִ ‫͏וּמ͏בֵּ ית עֲבָ ִדים ְ͏פּ ִד‬
ִ ).
127 See Carl Brockelmann (“Semitische Analogiebildungen,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor-
genländischen Gesellschaft 67, no. 1 [1913]: 107–12, at 108) for the Aramaic form, and Chaim
Rabin (“The Nature and Origin of the šaf ʿel in Hebrew and Aramaic,” Eretz-Israel 9 [1969]:
148–58, at 149) for ‫ חרר‬in Semitic.
6.4.4. ‫לו‬/‫( וכל אשר לך‬E 3:3–4, 4:6–7)

Neubauer, who believed the Shapira manuscripts to be clumsy forgeries, argued
as follows: “The expressions ‘and all thou hast’ [‫ ]וכל אשר לך‬and ‘anything that is
his’ [‫ ]וכל אשר לו‬are not classical Hebrew.”128 It is unclear what Neubauer found
troubling about these ordinary CBH formulations. Both are attested in the Bible
with identical forms and syntax, complete with pronominal suffixes and initial
vav conjunctions. Some Pentateuchal examples follow:
‫וְ עַ ͏תָּ ה הָ ͏שֵׁ ב אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת הָ ִאי͏שׁ ִ͏כּי נ ִָביא ה͏וּא וְ יִ ְת͏פַּ ͏לֵּ ל ͏בַּ עַ ְדָך ו ְֶחיֵה וְ ִאם אֵ ינְ ָך מֵ ִ͏שׁיב ַ͏דּע ִ͏כּי מוֹת ͏תָּ מ͏וּת אַ ͏תָּ ה וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לָ ְך׃‬
Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet. He will pray for you, and you will live. But
if you do not return her, know that you will surely die – you and all that you have. (Gen
20:7)
‫עבֹר אֶ ת הַ ͏נָּהָ ר ַו͏יָּ͏שֶׂ ם אֶ ת ͏פָּ נָיו הַ ר הַ ͏גִּ ְלעָ ד׃‬

ֲ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְב ַרח ה͏וּא וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לוֹ ַו͏יָּקָ ם ַו ַ͏יּ‬
And he fled – he and all that he had. He started and crossed the river, and he set his face
toward the hill country of Gilead. (Gen 31:21)
‫יתָך וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לָ ְך׃‬

ְ ֵ‫וְ ִכ ְל͏כַּ ְל ִ͏תּי א ְֹתָך ͏שָׁ ם ִ͏כּי עוֹד חָ מֵ ͏שׁ ͏שָׁ נִ ים ָרעָ ב ͏פֶּ ן ִ͏תּ͏וּ ֵָר͏שׁ אַ ͏תָּ ה ͏וּב‬
I will provide for you there, for there remain five years of famine, so that you, your house-
hold, and all that you have will not become destitute. (Gen 45:11)
‫וַ͏יִּ ͏סַּ ע יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל וְ כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר לוֹ ַו͏יָּב ֹא ְ͏בּאֵ ָרה ͏שָּׁ בַ ע וַ͏יִּ זְ ͏בַּ ח זְ בָ ִחים לֵ אֹלהֵ י אָ ִביו יִ ְצחָ ק׃‬
Israel set out with all that he had, then he arrived in Beer-sheba, and he offered sacrifices
to the God of his father Isaac. (Gen 46:1)
Indeed, even the canonical Decalogues include the idiom, with only the com-
plement following the lə- preposition differing:
‫חמֹרוֹ וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְל ֵרעֶ ָך׃‬

ֲ ‫ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד ͏בֵּ ית ֵרעֶ ָך ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֶ ָך וְ עַ ְב͏דּוֹ ַואֲמָ תוֹ וְ ͏שׁוֹרוֹ ַו‬
You shall not covet your fellow’s house; you shall not covet your fellow’s wife, or his male
slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your fellow’s. (Exod
20:17)
‫חמֹרוֹ וְ כֹל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ְל ֵרעֶ ָך׃‬

ֲ ‫וְ ל ֹא תַ ְחמֹד אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת ֵרעֶ ָך וְ ל ֹא ִת ְתאַ ͏וֶּה ͏בֵּ ית ֵרעֶ ָך ͏שָׂ ֵדה͏וּ וְ עַ ְב͏דּוֹ ַואֲמָ תוֹ ͏שׁוֹרוֹ ַו‬
And you shall not covet your fellow’s wife, and you shall not desire your fellow’s house,
his field, or his male slave, or his female slave, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is
your fellow’s. (Deut 5:21)
More generally, the use of ‫ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר‬to nominalize a prepositional phrase is very
common in Biblical Hebrew (e.g., ‫[ ַואֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִא͏תּוֹ ͏בַּ ͏תֵּ בָ ה‬Gen 7:23], ֹ‫[ וְ אֶ ל כָ ל אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִע͏מּו‬Gen

6.4. Lexicon 123
35:2]).129 These expressions are attested in many Semitic languages, including

Classical Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Arabic.130
6.4.5. ‫( עדת שקר‬E 4:4; H 1:2)

In the biblical versions of the Decalogue, we find ‫( ל ֹא תַ ֲענֶה ְב ֵרעֲָך עֵ ד ͏שָׁ קֶ ר‬Exod 20:16)
and ‫( וְ ל ֹא תַ ֲענֶה ְב ֵרעֲָך עֵ ד ͏שָׁ וְ א‬Deut 5:20). V, on the other hand, has ‫ עדת שקר‬in this
context (E 4:4; H 1:2). The word in question has been parsed by scholars as the
abstract noun ‫עֵ ד͏וּת‬. This, in turn, was deemed by Neubauer to be impossible in a
pre-rabbinic context.131 Neubauer wrote: “The word eduth, ‫עדות‬, is […] a rabbini-
cal form.”132 This is incorrect; the form ‫ עדות‬appears in the Hebrew Bible, as well
as in Sirach (see below). Others have made a more nuanced claim, namely that
while the form ‫ עדות‬is attested in the Bible, it never conveys “testimony” in that
corpus, as it commonly does in post-biblical Hebrew (e.g., ‫“ פסולי עדות‬unfit for
testimony” Ket. 2:3), but rather connotes “covenant,” “law,” etc. Martin Heide, for
instance, writes: “‫ עדות‬in the general meaning of ‘evidence’ or ‘testimony’ occurs
for the first time in post-biblical Hebrew, such as Sirach utters [sic] the invitation
‫‘ תן עדות למראש מעשיך‬give evidence of your deeds of old’ (Sir 36:15).”133 According
to this interpretation, V uses an abstract noun “testimony,” whereas MT prefers
the concrete noun “witness.” The ostensible fact that the meaning “testimony”
is unattested in early texts has similarly been cited as evidence that the Shapira
manuscripts are forged.
We suggest that this matter is moot; the word in question should be read as
‫( ע ֲַדת‬construct of ‫“ )עֵ ָדה‬judgment, judicial decision,” and not ‫“ עֵ ד͏וּת‬testimony.”134
The prohibition in V is against perverting court decisions by a presiding judge,
not perjury by a witness. There are several internal and external lines of support
for this position.
129 That the relative particle can introduce an independent clause is quite well established.
See Gesenius §138e.

130 Na’ama Pat-El and Alexander Treiger, “On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases
and Adverbs in Semitic,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 158, no. 2
(2008): 265–83.
131 Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 116; Rabinowicz, “Shapira Forgery Mystery,”
179. For a critique of this argument, see also Menahem Mansoor, “The Case of Shapira’s Dead
Sea (Deuteronomy) Scrolls of 1883,” Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 47 (1958):
183–225, at 211–12.
133 Martin Heide, “The Moabitica and Their Aftermath,” in New Inscriptions and Seals Re-
lating to the Biblical World, ed. Meir Lubetski (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012),
193–241, at 226.
134 This noun should be kept distinct from the ‫“ עֵ ָדה‬congregation,” which is derived from the
root ‫יעד‬, not ‫עוד‬. The pattern of the proposed noun ‫ עֵ ָדה‬is *qitl > *qīl for II-weak roots > *qil(-at)
(cf. ‫ > )גֵר‬Hebrew qēl, fs. qēlā.
First, the cursed man corresponding in V to E 4:4 reads as follows: ‫ארר לקח‬
‫( שחד לה]עד[ עדת שקר בעמתו‬H 1:2–3).135 Courtroom bribery is consistently associ-
ated in the Bible with judges, not witnesses.136 This curse also appears to include
the same construct noun, ‫עדת‬, but a different verb, the causative of ‫עוד‬.137 Typ-
ically, verbs (like nouns) derived from the root ‫ עוד‬are assumed to mean “to be
a witness.” The causative stem, however, often describes the acts of judgment or
commandment, in the sense of giving law, rather than the act of testifying. See,
for example, ‫( ִ͏שׂימ͏וּ ְלבַ ְבכֶ ם ְלכָ ל הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר אָ נ ִֹכי מֵ ִעיד ͏בָּ כֶ ם הַ ͏יּוֹם‬Deut 32:46), where
‫ הַ ְ͏דּבָ ִרים‬refers to the law, which is elaborated in the second part of the verse as ‫͏כָּ ל‬
‫͏תּוֹרה הַ ͏זּ ֹאת‬ ָ ַ‫ ִ͏דּ ְב ֵרי ה‬. Another example is ‫ע͏וּריָך‬ ֶ ְ‫( עַ ל ִ͏כּי יְ הוָה הֵ ִעיד ͏בֵּ ינְ ָך ͏וּבֵ ין אֵ ͏שֶׁ ת נ‬Mal 2:14),
where “judge” is a far better fit than the common interpretation “witness,” espe-
cially considering that the concomitant preposition is ‫בין‬.138 In Exod 19:23, we
find ‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר מֹ͏שֶׁ ה אֶ ל יְ הוָה ל ֹא י͏וּכַ ל הָ עָ ם לַ עֲֹלת אֶ ל הַ ר ִסינָי ִ͏כּי אַ ͏תָּ ה הַ עֵ דֹתָ ה ͏בָּ נ͏וּ לֵ אמֹר הַ גְ ͏בֵּ ל אֶ ת הָ הָ ר‬
ֹ‫וְ ִק ַ͏דּ ְ͏שׁ͏תּו‬, with ‫ הַ עֵ דֹתָ ה‬meaning “commanded.” 2 Kgs 17:15 is clearer still: ‫וַ͏יִּ ְמאֲס͏וּ אֶ ת‬
‫“ חֻ ͏קָּ יו וְ אֶ ת ְ͏בּ ִריתוֹ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ͏כָּ ַרת אֶ ת אֲבוֹתָ ם וְ אֵ ת עֵ ְדוֹתָ יו אֲ͏שֶׁ ר הֵ ִעיד ͏בָּ ם‬They despised his statutes,
and his covenant that he made with their ancestors, and the commandments that
he commanded them.”139
This brings us to the noun ‫ עֵ ָדה‬in the Hebrew Bible. This lexeme is attested
in MT only in the plural ‫עֵ דֹת‬/‫עֵ ְדוֹת‬.140 Lexicographers disagree on the form and
135 While V’s blessings and curses (better: lists of blessed and cursed men) clearly correspond
to the ten proclamations, it is worth noting that the behaviors listed in the former are not always
precise fulfillments/transgressions of the laws included in the latter. For example: ‫לא תשנא את‬
‫( אחך ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך‬E 4:8) vs. ‫( ]ברך[ האיש אשר יאהב את רעהו‬G 4:8–9); one can refrain from hating his
fellow without loving him. Likewise, the blessed man corresponding to ‫( לא תענו באחך עדת שקר‬E
4:4) is ‫]י[שקר ברעהו‬֯ ‫( ברך האיש אשר לא יכחש ולא‬G 4:5–7), which is not necessarily an instance of
either false testimony or false judgment.
136 Exod 23:6–8, Deut 10:17–18; 16:17–20; 1 Sam 8:1–3; 2 Chr 19:5–7. Similar prohibitions
are known from other ancient Near Eastern law codes. In Egyptian sources, judicial corrup-
tion was punishable at the same level as conspiracy to assassinate the king. (See Russ VerSteeg,
Law in Ancient Egypt [Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2002], 154–55.) In Mesopotamian
sources, judges who mishandled cases were penalized with disbarment and a heavy fine. (See
Raymond Westbrook, “Judges in the Cuneiform Sources,” Maarav 12, no. 1–2 [2005]: 27–39;
Samuel Greengus, Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the
Ancient Near East [Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011], 280–81.)
137 Also, within V, the prohibition against false witness may be covered by ‫לא תשבע בשמי לשקר‬
(E 4:1) and the corresponding curse ‫( ארר האיש אשר ישבע בשמי לשקר‬H 1:1–2). If court testimony
was taken under oath, then the prohibition in E 4:4 is redundant.
138 See also, especially, Gen 43:3; Exod 19:23; Jer 6:10; 11:17; 32:10, 25, 44; Zech 3:6–7. In 1
Sam 8:9 (‫) ִ͏כּי הָ עֵ ד ͏תָּ ִעיד ͏בָּ הֶ ם וְ ִה͏גּ ְַד͏תָּ לָ הֶ ם ִמ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ ט הַ ͏מֶּ לֶ ְך אֲ͏שֶׁ ר יִ ְמֹלְך עֲלֵ יהֶ ם‬, Samuel is instructed to impart
the royal decree, i.e., law (‫)משפט‬, rather than bear witness. (The familiar translation “warn” is
never as apt as “command.” )
139 Timo Veijola (“Zu Ableitung und Bedeutung von hēʿîd im Hebräischen: ein Beitrag zur
Bundesterminologie,” Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976): 343–51, at 349, et passim) makes a very

similar argument.
140 See previous note. A possible instance of singular ‫ עדת‬from the root ‫ עוד‬may be found in
Ps 82:1. That psalm is set in a (divine) courtroom, and the counterpart of ‫ בעדת אל‬is the verb
6.4. Lexicon 125
meaning of ‫עֵ דֹת‬: HALOT assumes that it is a variant of ‫ עֵ ֻדת‬and translates “tes-
timony,” accordingly. BDB acknowledges that the underlying form is a singular
‫ עֵ ָדה‬but still translates “testimony.” DCH, on the other hand, offers the meaning
“statute.”141 Support for this meaning can be restored from the context in which
the lexeme is used. The plural ‫ עֵ דֹת‬occurs with one or both nouns ‫“ חֹק‬statute”
and ‫“ ִמ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ ט‬judgment, law.” For example, ‫מָ ה הָ עֵ דֹת וְ הַ חֻ ִ͏קּים וְ הַ ִ͏מּ ְ͏שׁ͏פָּ ִטים אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִצ͏וָּה יְ הוָה‬
‫( אֱֹלהֵ ינ͏וּ אֶ ְתכֶ ם‬Deut 6:20).142 In addition, the repeated use of this noun as the ob-
ject of verbs such as ‫( ͏שָׁ מַ ר‬e.g., 2 Kgs 23:3) and ‫( נָצַ ר‬e.g., Ps 119:2) is illogical if
we assume the lexeme means “testimony.” Note especially the following where
the noun is paired with “covenant”: ‫( כָ ל אָ רחוֹת יהוה חֶ סֶ ד וְ אֱמֶ ת ְלנ ְֹצ ֵרי ְב ִריתוֹ וְ עֵ דֹתָ יו‬Ps
25:10). The lexeme should, therefore, be understood in both MT and V as “de-
cree,” which – like the noun ‫ – ִמ ְ͏שׁ͏פַּ ט‬refers to a judiciary decision or law, not to the
statement of a participant in a legal process.143 The proposed noun ‫“ עֵ ָדה‬decree”
is therefore semantically grounded in both MT and V.
We thus see that the form ‫ עדת‬in V is appropriate in its context; it simply means
something other than what has been presumed.
6.4.6. ‫( חגהן‬D 2:7–8)

In D 2:8, sacrifices are referred to using the common term ‫זבח‬, which is inflected
as ‫מזבחהן‬. Just a few words earlier, however, we find a partially reconstructed word
that may have read ‫מחגהן‬. This reading is uncertain; Shapira and Ginsburg both
transcribe ‫ מזבחהן‬there too. Guthe’s reading, ‫מחג֯]*[הן‬
֯ , has the benefit of being the
lectio difficilior. Guthe himself notes in his comments that such usage is unat-
tested.144 It may well be that Guthe’s tentative reconstruction is incorrect. Nev-
ertheless, it should be noted that ‫ חג‬is occasionally used in the Hebrew Bible to
mean “sacrificial animal.” See especially Exod 23:18 (‫ל ֹא ִתזְ ͏בַּ ח עַ ל חָ מֵ ץ ַ͏דּם זִ ְב ִחי וְ ל ֹא‬
‫ישפט‬.
141 See also David Talshir (“‫ אָ חוֹת‬and ‫ עֵ דוֹת‬in Ancient Hebrew,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 15–
16 [2002–3]: 108–23), who argues that the form ‫ עֵ ד͏וּת‬derives secondarily from ‫עֵ דוֹת‬, a plurale
tantum, which means “decrees.” Talshir also argues that the change of ‫ עֵ דֹת‬to ‫ עֵ ֻדת‬is late. This
is supported by the ancient translations, which do not distinguish between ‫ עֵ דֹת‬and ‫ עֵ ֻדת‬and
translate both as ‫עֵ ֻדת‬. Talshir further shows that the original ‫ עֵ דֹת‬was reanalyzed at a later point
as ‫עֵ ֻדת‬.
142 Deut 4:45, 6:7; Ps 99:7.
143 See also Ps 119:2, 22, 146, 167, 168; 132:2. David Talshir (“Is the Jehoash Inscription
Genuine? A Philological Analysis” [Hebrew], Leshonenu La’am 54, no. 1 [2003]: 3–10, at 8–9)
argues that all occurrences of ‫ עדת‬in MT have this meaning, whereas the meaning “testimony” is
not biblical. Elisha Qimron (“Waw Denoting a Glide” [Hebrew], in Homage to Shmuel: Studies
in the World of the Bible [Hebrew], ed. Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan (Beer
Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001), 362–75, at 375) demonstrates that the
/ū/ is more likely to be represented plene, while the opposite is true for /ō/, which is far more
likely to be written defectively. He therefore suggests that the spelling ‫ עדת‬should be read ‫עֵ דֹת‬
throughout, and not ‫עֵ ֻדת‬.
‫י ִָלין חֵ לֶ ב חַ ͏גִּ י עַ ד ͏בֹּקֶ ר‬ “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything
leavened, or let the fat of my offering remain until the morning;” cf. Exod 34:25),
Mal 2:3 (‫יתי פֶ ֶר͏שׁ עַ ל ְ͏פּנֵיכֶ ם ͏פֶּ ֶר͏שׁ חַ ͏גֵּיכֶ ם וְ נָ͏שָׂ א אֶ ְתכֶ ם אֵ לָ יו‬
ִ ‫“ וְ ז ִֵר‬I will strew dung upon your
faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be carried out to it”), and Ps 118:27
(‫“ ִא ְסר͏וּ חַ ג ͏בַּ ֲעב ִֹתים עַ ד קַ ְרנוֹת הַ ִ͏מּזְ ͏בֵּ ַח‬bind the offering with cords to the horns of the
altar”).145
6.4.7. ‫( שארתך‬G 5:1 [?]; H 1:9)

MT uses a nominal derivation with a prefix m-, ‫“ ִמ ְ͏שׁאֶ ֶרת‬kneading trough” (Deut
28:5, 17). The word found in this position in V, ‫ ְ͏שׁאֵ ִרת‬, is common in MT, although
the meanings of biblical ‫ ְ͏שׁאֵ ִרית‬and ‫ ִמ ְ͏שׁאֶ ֶרת‬are quite different, raising the distinct
possibility that V refers in these verses to something other than vessels. Be that as
it may, V’s form is likely a derivation from a nominal pattern without the prefor-
mative. Variants with and without preformative m- are well attested in Hebrew,
and the noun without the preformative is sometimes older.146
We should note that nominal derivations from II-ʾ roots show reduction of the
medial glottal stop in Hellenistic and post-biblical Hebrew,147 and the word ‫שארית‬
is often spelled ‫שרית‬.148 V reflects the earlier orthography.
6.4.8. ‫( גם‬E 3:3)

In V, the reasoning for the Sabbath law is given as follows (E 2:8–3:4):
‫]כי · ש[שת · ימם · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הארץ · וכל · אשר · בם · ושבתי · ביום · השבעי · על · כן · תשבת‬
· ‫· גם · אתה · ובהמתך · וכל · אשר · לך‬
[For in s]ix days I made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and I rested on
the seventh day. Therefore you too shall rest, along with your livestock and all that you
have.149
Neubauer argued that this is problematic: “The word gam ought to be repeated
according to classical Hebrew.”150 That is, Neubauer’s view of correct Hebrew is
145 Cf. Kennicott 131, 133, 681; T-S AS 110.121; BL Or. 5557A.74 – all of which read ‫על‬, rather
than MT’s ‫עד‬, rendering: “Bind the ‫ חג‬with cords to the horns of the altar.”
146 One such example is early ‫ ֵדעָ ה‬or ‫ ַדעַ ת‬vs. LBH ‫מַ ָ͏דּע‬. This word is likely a loan from Aramaic
or is at least influenced by the Aramaic nominal pattern (Hurvitz, Concise Lexicon, 159–60).
Another such example is ‫ חֹ͏שֶׁ ְך‬vs. ‫“ מַ ְח͏שָׁ ְך‬darkness.” The propensity to replace simple nouns and
adjectives with m-prefixed ones is also related to the increase in the use of the pual participle
in post-biblical Hebrew (e.g., CBH ‫ ַרב‬vs. PBH ‫) ְמ ֻר͏בֶּ ה‬.
147 Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew, 322–33.
148 Viz. ‫ ͏שֵׁ ִרית‬in 1 Chr 12:39 (LBH), ‫ ושריתו‬in 1QIsaa (MT Isa 44:17 ֹ‫͏וּ͏שׁאֵ ִריתו‬ְ ), and ‫ שרית‬in 1QS,
1QHa , 4Q158, 4Q280, 4Q374, 4Q381, 4Q427, 4Q431, and 4Q496. The other noun in this pair,
‫טֶ נֶא‬, is regularly spelled without the aleph in Rabbinic Hebrew (‫)טני‬. In V the spelling matches
MT.
149 The translations in this section render Hebrew ‫ גם‬literally as “also.”
6.4. Lexicon 127
that ‫ גם‬should precede not only ‫ אתה‬but also ‫ בהמתך‬and ‫כל אשר לך‬.151 As proof, he
cited Exod 12:31–32:152
‫͏וּלכ͏וּ ִע ְבד͏וּ אֶ ת יְ הוָה ְ͏כּ ַד͏בֶּ ְרכֶ ם׃‬
ְ ‫הרֹן לַ יְ לָ ה וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר ק͏וּמ͏וּ ְ͏צּא͏וּ ִמ͏תּוְֹך עַ ִ͏מּי ͏גַּם אַ ͏תֶּ ם ͏גַּם ְ͏בּנֵי יִ ְ͏שׂ ָראֵ ל‬
ֲ ַ‫͏וּלא‬
ְ ‫וַ͏יִּ ְק ָרא ְלמֹ͏שֶׁ ה‬
‫͏גַּם צ ֹאנְ כֶ ם ͏גַּם ְ͏בּקַ ְרכֶ ם ְקח͏וּ ͏כַּ אֲ͏שֶׁ ר ִ͏דּ͏בַּ ְר͏תֶּ ם וָלֵ כ͏וּ ͏וּבֵ ַר ְכ͏תֶּ ם ͏גַּם א ִֹתי׃‬
And he summoned Moses and Aaron at night and said, “Get up and withdraw from amidst
my people, also you and also the Israelites. Go, worship YHWH, as you said. Take also
your flocks and also your herds, as you said, and leave. And bless me too.”
But verses where the syntax of ‫ גם‬is similar to V’s are quite frequent in the
Bible.153 Contra Neubauer, it is not necessary to repeat the conjunction before
each constituent as in Exod 12:31 above. For example:
‫וְ גַם עֵ ֶרב ַרב עָ לָ ה ִא͏תָּ ם וְ צ ֹאן ͏וּבָ קָ ר ִמ ְקנֶה ͏כָּ בֵ ד ְמאֹד׃‬
Also a mixed multitude went up with them, and sheep and cattle, very heavy livestock.
(Exod 12:38)
‫ו ִַ͏תּ͏גַּ͏שׁ ͏גַּם לֵ אָ ה וִ ילָ ֶדיהָ וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁ͏תַּ חֲו͏וּ וְ אַ חַ ר נִ ͏גַּ͏שׁ יוֹסֵ ף וְ ָרחֵ ל וַ͏יִּ ְ͏שׁ͏תַּ חֲו͏וּ׃‬
Also Leah and her children drew near and bowed down; finally Joseph and Rachel drew
near and bowed down. (Gen 33:7)
‫ֲמוֹרינ͏וּ וְ גַם לֶ חֶ ם ָויַיִ ן יֶ͏שׁ ִלי וְ לַ אֲמָ תֶ ָך וְ לַ ͏נַּעַ ר ִעם עֲבָ ֶדיָך אֵ ין מַ ְחסוֹר ͏כָּ ל ָ͏דּבָ ר׃‬
ֵ ‫וְ גַם ͏תֶּ בֶ ן ͏גַּם ִמ ְס͏פּוֹא יֵ͏שׁ לַ ח‬
We have also straw and also fodder for our donkeys, and also bread and wine for me and
your handmaiden and the pageboy with your servants. Nothing is lacking. (Judg 19:19)
‫וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֵ לָ יו ָ͏דּוִ ד מֶ ה הָ יָה הַ ָ͏דּבָ ר הַ ͏גֶּד נָא ִלי וַ͏יּ ֹאמֶ ר אֲ͏שֶׁ ר נָס הָ עָ ם ִמן הַ ִ͏מּ ְלחָ מָ ה וְ גַם הַ ְר͏בֵּ ה נָפַ ל ִמן הָ עָ ם ַו͏יָּמֻ ת͏וּ וְ גַם‬
‫͏שָׁ א͏וּל וִ יהוֹנָתָ ן ְ͏בּנוֹ מֵ ת͏וּ׃‬
And David said to him, “What happened? Tell me!” And he told him how the people had
fled the battle, and also many of the people had fallen and died, and also Saul and his son
Jonathan were dead. (2 Sam 1:4)
The syntax of ‫ גם‬is altogether more flexible than Neubauer suggests. For in-
stance, ‫ גם‬is not necessarily positioned before the first constituent in a sequence,
either:
‫וְ ִאם ͏שׁוֹר ַנ͏גָּח ה͏וּא ִמ ְ͏תּמֹל ִ͏שׁ ְל͏שֹׁם וְ ה͏וּעַ ד ִ͏בּ ְבעָ לָ יו וְ ל ֹא יִ ְ͏שׁ ְמ ֶר͏נּ͏וּ וְ הֵ ִמית ִאי͏שׁ אוֹ ִא͏שָּׁ ה הַ ͏שּׁוֹר יִ ͏סָּ קֵ ל וְ גַם ְ͏בּעָ לָ יו י͏וּמָ ת׃‬
And if it is a goring ox from before, and its owner has been warned but has not guarded it,
and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be executed.
(Exod 21:29)
The variation highlighted above obscures a contextual factor, which provides

additional support for the absence of the word ‫ גם‬before ‫ בהמתך‬and ‫כל אשר לך‬.
151On Neubauer’s objection to the phrase ‫כל אשר לך‬, see §6.4.4.
152Erroneously given as Exod 17:31–32.
153 Waltke and O’Connor (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 663) note that the use of
‫ גם‬and other coordinators is much more flexible than the roles typically assigned to them in
Hebrew grammars.
When ‫ גם‬does appear in biblical texts, it often creates an appositional structure. In

the aforementioned example from Gen 33:7, for instance, ‫ גם‬precedes the phrase
ָ‫ לֵ אָ ה וִ ילָ ֶדיה‬to indicate that not only the handmaidens and their children (who are
mentioned in the previous verse) bowed before Esau, but Leah and her children
did as well. The operative units in that passage are [mother-cum-children]. Had a
‫ גם‬appeared before ָ‫יְ לָ ֶדיה‬, it would have changed the emphasis; rather than juxta-
pose [handmaidens-cum-children] with [Leah-cum-children], it would instead
have inaptly juxtaposed [Leah] with [children]. Likewise, the relevant units in
V’s Sabbath law are Elohim, on the one hand, and [man-cum-possessions], on
the other. Breaking up the latter unit with additional ‫ גם‬particles would therefore
have been particularly gratuitous.
6.4.9. ‫( מעלם‬C 1:4, 8; D 1:8)

It has been suggested that V’s use of ‫ מעלם‬where Deuteronomy has ‫ לפנים‬is prob-
lematic. Thus, Lemaire writes:
The text contains variants from the standard Hebrew text known as the Masoretic text
that are easily explained as having been made under the influence of the Mesha Stele. For
example, in the Shapira strips Deuteronomy 2:12 reads “The Horites lived in Seir from of
old (M‘LM),” instead of the Masoretic text’s “at one time (LPNYM).” This is based on line
10 in the Mesha Stela, which reads “The men of Gad lived in the land of Ataroth from of
old (M‘LM).”154
There is some circularity to this argument. True, if V is a modern forgery and

the forger used the Mesha Stele as a template, he or she might have copied ‫מעלם‬
from that document. But ‫ מעלם‬is an archaic phrase. In addition to the Mesha
Stele, the term appears in biblical passages from all periods,155 and it is apparently
attested also in eighth-century BCE Aramaic.156 If V is a genuine ancient text, we
should not be surprised by the appearance of an attested ancient form in precisely
the place context calls for it.
The use of the phrase ‫ מעלם‬in V is thus not an aberration. The suggestion that
its presence in this text is due to the influence of the Mesha Stele presupposes that
the Shapira manuscripts are forgeries; it is not evidence of inauthenticity.
154 André Lemaire, “Paleography’s Verdict: They’re Fakes!” Biblical Archaeology Review 23,
no. 3 (1997): 36–39, at 38. See also Neubauer, “Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy,” 130.
155 Gen 6:4; Josh 24:2; 1 Sam 27:8; Isa 42:14, 46:9, 57:11, 63:16, 19; 64:3; Jer 2:20, 5:15, 7:7,
25:5; Ezek 26:20; Pss 25:6, 90:2, 93:2, 103:17, 119:52; Prov 8:23; 1 Chr 29:10.
156 KAI 224:23–24. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (Rome: Pontif-
ical Biblical Institute, 1995), 160. ‫[“ ]ותלאי[ם וכפריה ובעליה וגבלה לאבי ול]ביתה מן[ עלם‬Tal’ay]im, its
villages, its lords, and its territory (once belonged) to my father and to [his house from] of old.”
The preposition ‫ מן‬is reconstructed.
6.5. Summary 129
6.5. Summary
The linguistic evidence discussed here accords with the conclusions of Der-
showitz’s literary-critical analysis of the Shapira Deuteronomy manuscripts in
this volume and corroborates a monarchic date for V.
According to the principle of consilience, as recently laid out by Hendel and
Joosten,157 a given claim regarding the date of a text is validated by the conver-
gence of diverse lines of evidence. They write, “Consilience in our scholarly mod-
els is the best we can achieve, and it is enough,”158 commenting on their own
argument that “the linguistic and historical inferences are consilient, indicating
the correctness of the theory.”159 Similarly, the linguistic and literary data in the
case of V are convergent, attesting to the likely correctness of the hypothesis that
it antedates the biblical Deuteronomy.
Furthermore, nothing in the language of the Valediction of Moses is suggestive
of either forgery or Hellenistic composition. On the contrary, the language of V is
consistent with pre-exilic Hebrew, especially as attested directly in the epigraphic
corpus. Moreover, the text includes no obvious late features or Aramaisms, which
is especially notable, considering how difficult it would have been for anyone edu-
cated in Hebrew in the Hellenistic period (or the nineteenth century) to do so.160
Since the 1960s, research on Late Biblical Hebrew has exposed a large number of
lexical, orthographic, and morphosyntactic features that first appear in Persian
period texts, and our understanding of the grammar of LBH and post-biblical
Hebrew has likewise expanded and changed. These post-exilic features and their
relevance for dating biblical texts were largely unknown to scholars in the nine-
teenth century, yet V contains none of them. This weighs strongly against the
possibility of a forgery.
The orthography of V is also significant. Almost no Hellenistic period
manuscripts are orthographically conservative, and post-biblical texts consis-
tently present fuller and more liberal spelling practices than their MT parallels.161
V, on the other hand, presents an orthography that is considerably more conser-
157 Ronald S. Hendel and Jan Joosten, How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and
Historical Study (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 98–125.
158 Ibid., 122.
159 Ibid., 125.
160 Aramaic had a significant impact on the lexicon and syntax of LBH (Avi Hurvitz, “Hebrew
and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the
Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, ed. Ian Young, JSOT-
Sup 369 [London: T&T Clark, 2003], 24–37) and postbiblical Hebrew (Frank H. Polak, “Soci-
olinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Empire,” in Judah and the
Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 589–
628; Talya Shitrit, “Aramaic Loanwords and Borrowing,” Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan et al. [2013]).
161 Aaron Hornkohl, “Hebrew Diachrony and the Linguistic Periodisation of Biblical Texts:
Observations from the Perspective of Reworked Pentateuchal Material,” Journal for Semitics 25,
no. 2 (2016): 1004–63, at 1025.
vative and defective than MT, and it is similar, with only minor variations, to the
monarchic epigraphic material. This too constitutes a strong counterargument to
claims of a Hellenistic composition.
Despite many similarities outlined above, the Hebrew of the Valediction of
Moses nevertheless deviates from that of the Masoretic Text in various ways and
appears to reflect a dialect other than standard CBH. This is to be expected, es-
pecially if the Shapira manuscripts are pre-exilic artifacts, which would leave lit-
tle opportunity for V to have undergone the sort of linguistic updating that is so
prevalent in the texts of later Hellenistic, let alone Masoretic, biblical manuscripts.
When the apparent linguistic anomalies in V correspond to attested ancient us-
age – particularly when this ancient usage was not known to nineteenth-century
scholars – it militates against forgery. Furthermore, we should be careful before
concluding that a feature is anachronistic just because it is otherwise attested only
in later texts. To illustrate, Arad 1:4 and 5:2, both of which date to the First Temple
period, contain the noun ‫“ עוד‬surplus.” This noun is never found in the Hebrew
Bible, even in LBH texts, but it is attested later in Mishnaic Hebrew (m. Ter. 4:7).
Surely our conclusion should not be – and indeed is not – that the Arad ostraca
are modern forgeries. Rather, these ancient inscriptions add a new piece of infor-
mation to the unfolding story of Hebrew.
A similar cautionary lesson may be learned from previously unverified texts
that have stood the test of time, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1953, Solomon
Zeitlin argued on linguistic grounds that a Bar Kokhba letter could not be ancient:
The letter begins with the word ‫“ משמעון‬from Simon.” This opening word of address proves
beyond any shadow of doubt that this letter was neither written by Simon the leader of the
revolt against the Romans, nor by any one of that period. We have a considerable number
of letters which have come down to us from antiquity [...] None of them has the prefixal
mem to indicate “from.” […] The letter mem prefixed to the author’s name came into use
in the Middle Ages. Hence we may say with certainty that the word ‫“ משמעון‬from Simon”
shows that this letter was written in the Middle Ages.162
Zeitlin may well have been correct that prefixed mems were unattested in the
relevant period, but the conclusion he drew from this fact was dramatically wrong,
as we now know. Given the severe paucity of data regarding early Hebrew, count-
less features that were alive and well at the time – many of which are attested in
later Hebrew chronolects – are unknown to us due to accidents of history. Occa-
sionally, we are lucky enough to make discoveries that, if not incautiously disre-
garded, fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge.
The Valediction of Moses – being neither a late forgery nor a Hellenistic com-
position, but rather a pre-biblical book – is of immense value for establishing the
early history of the Hebrew language. The work we have done here on V’s lin-
guistic character is preliminary; we expect that future linguistic studies will shed
much light on the both the Valediction of Moses and Classical Biblical Hebrew.
162 Solomon Zeitlin, “The Fiction of the Recent Discoveries near the Dead Sea,” Jewish Quar-
terly Review 44, no. 2 (1953): 85–115, at 89–90.
7. Annotated Critical Edition
7.1. Manuscripts
Among the leather fragments purchased by Moses Wilhelm Shapira were substan-
tial portions of at least two manuscripts containing a literary work affiliated with
parts of the Pentateuch, especially the narrative portions of Deuteronomy. I refer
to the two known manuscripts of the Valediction of Moses – neither of whose
whereabouts are known today – as “Va ” and “Vb .”1 Both are written in Paleo-
Hebrew script, with words routinely broken between lines. With the exception of
the Decalogue, the text is written scriptio continua with no spaces and with dots
to mark the ends of sentences. The Decalogue (only the version of Va is known
to have been transcribed) is presented uniquely; it is written in larger script, with
dots between words, and paragraph breaks (petuḥot) before and after each divine
proclamation (‫)דבר‬. The spelling throughout is highly defective (ḥaser), although
it is not necessarily conservative, per se. Indeed, historically consonantal vav and
yod are often elided in the text of V, attesting to an updated orthography follow-
ing a process of monophthongization (e.g., ‫ללה‬, rather than ‫)לילה‬.2 Although the
manuscripts are commonly referred to as the “Shapira scrolls,” neither is, in real-
ity, a scroll. Rather, both manuscripts were consistently described and depicted
as folded up like accordions – with creases between the columns – showing no
signs of previous rolling.3 Vertical dry-point lines were scored into the leather on
either side of the creases. The manuscripts were found with linen backing, with a
sticky black substance binding the leather to the fabric.4 In all extant photographs
and drawings of Va (Fragment E), the manuscript is substantially warped.5 The
1 Each of the manuscripts appears to have covered most of the text of V. (Hermann Guthe,
Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Worte an die Kinder Israel, mitgeteilt
und geprüft von Hermann Guthe [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883], 63.) However, in most
cases, transcriptions of only one or the other are available.
2 For more on this and other linguistic phenomena in V, see excursus in chapter 6.
4 Guthe, Lederhandschrift, 4, 9; “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript,” The Times (August 8, 1883), 11.
Cf. Roland de Vaux, “Post-Scriptum: La Cachette des Manuscrits Hébreux,” Revue Biblique 56,
no. 2 (1949): 235.
5 British Library Ms. Add. 41294, “Papers relative to M. W. Shapira’s forged MS. of
Deuteronomy,” 33–38; Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The
Athenæum 2915 (September 8, 1883), 305; idem, “The Shapira Manuscript of Deuteronomy,”
The Graphic (September 1, 1883), 224.
132 7. Annotated Critical Edition
one known drawing of Vb , on the other hand, shows no signs of such warping.6
The fragments of the two manuscripts range in height between 7.6 cm and 9.7
cm,7 with Va segments at the shorter end and Vb segments at the longer end. The
width of columns, from fold to fold, is 15 to 18 cm, with Va fragments again re-
flecting the lower end of the spectrum. The scribes of the two manuscripts main-
tained substantially straight margins, although the dry-point lines were ignored,
with the exception of the right margin of the first column – the beginning of the
manuscript.8
Va contains ten unruled lines per column, barring the Decalogue, which is
written in larger script that allows for fewer lines. The columns of Vb typically
contain twelve wider unruled lines.9 The two manuscripts differ from one an-
other in terms of handwriting, paleography, and text.10 Care has been taken to
reconstruct the layout of each column in the critical edition that follows. In some
cases, which are noted below, the exact position of the line break is uncertain.
7.2. Sources and Method

In preparing the critical edition below, I made use of several resources. The pub-
lished transcriptions of Hermann Guthe11 and Christian David Ginsburg12 are
the most comprehensive, although neither is complete. I supplemented these with
an annotated rough transcription by Moses Wilhelm Shapira, leaves of which I
found scattered throughout an unpublished volume consisting primarily of his
catalogs of manuscripts for sale.13 I also made use of Ginsburg’s unpublished par-
6 William Simpson (artist), “Alleged Text of Deuteronomy,” The Illustrated London News
(August 25, 1883), 181–82.

8 Ibid. (Guthe may be referring solely to Va , which is what he transcribes in this section.)
Dry-point lines were also ignored in several Dead Sea Scrolls, including all or parts of 1QS, 11Q
Templea (11Q19), 1QpHab, 4Q Shirot ʿOlat HaShabbat (4Q405), and 11QPaleoLeva (11Q1).
9 The layout of the Decalogue in Vb is unknown. As discussed in notes 132 and 208, it
appears that Vb G 5 contained thirteen lines, rather than the twelve that typify this manuscript.
10 Christian David Ginsburg: “We mentioned on a former occasion that part of the matter is
in duplicate, there being two hand-writings of the same archaic script. It now appears that there
is also a difference of form between the two copies. In one copy the columns consist of ten lines,
in the other of twelve. There are also variations between them” (“Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript,” The
Times (August 17, 1883), 8).
11 See note 1. Some parts (F, G 1–2, and H) were transcribed by Eduard Meyer (Guthe,
Lederhandschrift, 20–21).
12 Christian David Ginsburg, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2911 (Au-
gust 11, 1883), 178–79; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2912 (Au-
gust 18, 1883), 206; idem, “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy,” The Athenæum 2913 (August 25,
1883), 242–44.
13 Staatsbibliothek, Ms. or. fol. 1342, Eigenhändiges Verzeichnis der von Shapira gesammelten
hebräischen Handschriften (henceforth Verzeichnis). This handwritten transcription appears to

be quite preliminary (see chapter 2). The extant portions include Fragments A–D of Va , as well
7.2. Sources and Method 133
tial transcription,14 Shapira’s letters and notes,15 a drawing of Fragment E (Va )

published by Ginsburg in The Athenæum,16 and multiple drafts of a drawing of
the same fragment, which are currently housed at the British Library.17 Lastly,
Ginsburg’s and Guthe’s translations, as well as Guthe’s column of biblical corre-
spondences, were useful for detecting occasional editing errors in the transcrip-
tions. I follow the transcribers’ secure and tentative readings but not their brack-
eted reconstructions – except to assist in ascertaining the letters that were visible
to each of them, when that is in doubt.
Where available, I generally give preference to the transcriptions of Guthe and
Shapira, since both were comparatively diligent about indicating uncertain read-
ings and reconstructions. Ginsburg’s published transcription leaves several recon-
structions unmarked; his unpublished partial transcription, however, is meticu-
lous.18
Letters that seem to have been unclear to all the transcribers are marked with a
superscript circlet. My reconstructions appear between square brackets, and dis-
agreements with the previous transcribers are noted. Where Guthe, Shapira, or
Ginsburg in his unpublished transcription provides a confident reading, I typi-
cally refrain from using brackets. In these cases, it is likely that only one of the tran-
scribers was able to make out the black ink against the blackened leather.19 Where
the unbracketed reading appears only in Ginsburg’s less detailed Athenæum tran-
scription, I generally follow the others. Exceptions to this heuristic are discussed
in the footnotes.20
as a hybrid Va –Vb transcription of E 1:1–4:2.

14 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39–40. This transcription is more detailed than the one published in
The Athenæum and follows Vb exclusively.

15 BL Ms. Add. 41294, passim.
16 Ginsburg, Athenæum 2915, 305.
17 BL Ms. Add. 41294, 33–38.
18 It appears that Guthe and Ginsburg were occasionally influenced by Shapira’s readings
and transcriptions. Guthe reported (Lederhandschrift, 63) that he had access to two transcrip-
tions by Shapira – one from 1878 and another from 1883 – and Shapira is known to have con-
versed and corresponded with Ginsburg during the latter’s preparation of his transcription.
19 Guthe describes his method: “We were only able to read small parts without any kind of
aid. Usually, we applied some alcohol (spirit) with a small brush to sections of the manuscript
and then tried to identify the letters that glistened from the moisture. Unfortunately, this was not
always possible, even with help of a magnifying glass. This explains the various large and small
gaps that the reader will encounter when reading the text of the leather manuscript” (Lederhand-
schrift, 21; translation mine). Only a few of the lacunae were due to holes in the manuscripts,
and these are noted.
20 Depending on perspective, this edition can be viewed as either diplomatic or eclectic.
At any given point, I present a single manuscript in the main body – Va for Fragments A–E;
Vb for Fragments F–H – with variants discussed in the notes. However, in the absence of the
originals, the nineteenth-century transcriptions may be viewed as quasi-manuscripts, making
this an eclectic enterprise.
7.3. Text and Notes

Fragment A, column 1 of 1 ( V a )21
‫]אלה הדב[רם אשר דבר משה על פי יהוה אל כל בני‬ 1
‫]י[שראל במ]דב[ר בעבר הירדן ]בע[רבה · אלהם אל‬ 2
‫הנו דבר אל]נו[ בחרב לאמר · רב לכם שבת בהר הז‬ 3
‫ה פנו וסעו ]לכ[ם ובאו הר האמרי ואל כל שכנו בע‬ 4
‫ א‬22 ‫רבה בהר וב]שפ[לה ובחף הים · ונסע מחרב ונלך‬ 5
‫ ראתם ונבא‬24 ‫ כ[ל המדבר ֯ה]גד[ל והנרא הזה אשר‬23 ‫ת‬ 6
‫]עד[ קדש ]ברנע · ו[אמר אלכם באתם היום עד הר‬ 7
‫אלה ֯ם‬
֯ ‫האמ]רי[ ע]לו ור[שו את הארץ כאשר דבר‬ 8
֯ ‫ אבתכם לכם · ולא[ א֯ ֯ב ֯ת ֯ם לעלת ותרגנו‬25 ‫]אלהי‬
‫ותא֯ ֯מ‬ 9
26
[‫ רו בש]נאת אלהם אתנו נתן אתנו ביד האמרי‬10
Fragment B, column 1 of 1 ( V a )27

[‫ אלהם וי]שבע[ לאמר חי ]אני‬28 ‫לאבדנו וי]חר[ אף‬ 1
21 Sources for transcription: primarily Shapira (Verzeichnis, 213) and Ginsburg (Athenæum
2912, 206). Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 22–23) was able to read very little of this column. All three
were reading from Va and do not appear to have consulted Vb . From Guthe (Lederhandschrift,
64–65) and Shapira (Verzeichnis, 207, 213), it appears that the handwriting of Va , Fragments C
and D, differs from the remainder of Va . However, Guthe notes that the differences are minute
and may be due to different textures of leather, different seating positions, etc. The script of Vb ,
on the other hand, differs substantially from that of Va .
22 Guthe had difficulty reading this phrase and reconstructs, rather improbably, ‫ונסע ֯כ ֯ל ֯ח ֯ת‬
‫֯לך‬
֯ ‫ונ‬.
23 Shapira reconstructs ‫ונלך א]לכ[ל‬.
24 Guthe reconstructs ‫[ ֯האשר‬..] ‫[ל הנרא‬....]‫כל המדבר ֯ה‬, incorrectly assigning the final he of ‫הזה‬
to the following word.

25 Reconstruction based on Deut 1:21. Shapira proposes ‫ ֯ל ֯כ ֯ם‬as the first word of the lacuna,
but this would produce an anomalously short line.

26 Reconstruction based on Deut 1:27, accounting for space constraints. Alternative recon-
struction: [‫בש]נאת אלהם אתנו הצא אתנו מארץ מצרם‬.

27 Sources for transcription: primarily Shapira (Verzeichnis, 213) and Ginsburg (Athenæum
2912, 206). Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 22–23) could read only line 2 and first two words of line
3. All three read from Va and do not appear to have consulted any other manuscripts.
28 Possibly ‫( וינאף‬metathesis of ‫)ויאנף‬. This is what Shapira settled on in his transcription, and
he may have proposed this reading to Ginsburg. The same metathesis in hithpael form, ‫ויתנאף‬, is
attested twice in the mss.: once in Kennicott 221, a Samaritan ms. of Deut 9:8 (corresponding in
part to this section of V ), and once in Kennicott 96 on 2 Kgs 17:18. Two graphically similar alter-
natives are ‫ וינאץ‬and ‫ויקצף‬, the latter of which has the benefit of appearing in the corresponding
passage in Deut 1:34. The most probable reconstruction, in my view, is ‫ויחר אף‬, which is the final
of three readings proposed by Shapira, this one in a letter to Edward Bond, chief librarian of
the British Museum, currently found in BL, Ms. Add. 41294, 21, after the manuscripts had been
deemed forgeries. Guthe could not read the first line of this fragment at all, and Shapira first
considered ‫( וימאר‬metathesis of ‫ויאמר‬, it would seem), before opting for ‫וינאף‬. In multiple letters,
Shapira wrote that the nun was a reconstruction, meaning that he could read only ‫[אף‬...]‫וי‬. In his
7.3. Text and Notes 135
‫ אשר עשתי‬29 ‫כי כל העם הראם את אתתי ואת מפתי‬ 2

‫ פעמם ולא ֯הא֯ ֯מ ֯נ ֯ו ולא שמעו בקלי‬30 ‫זה עשר‬ 3
‫אם יראו את הארץ הטב]ה א[שר נשבעתי לת‬ 4
‫ בן יפנה ויהשע‬32 [‫ בלתי ]עבדי כלב‬31 ‫ת לאבתהם‬ 5
· ‫֯בא֯ ֯ו שמה ולהם אתננה‬
֯ ‫בן נן העמד לפנך המה י‬ 6
‫ואתם פנו ]ל[כם וסעו המ]דברה[ דרך ים סף עד תם‬ 7
33
[‫כל הדר א]נ[שי המרבה מק]ר[ב המחנה ו]נסע מ‬ 8
‫קדש ברנע עד תמו אנשי המרבה למת מקרב ה‬ 9
34
[‫ מחנה ]ונפן ונסע קדשה · ויאמר אלהם אלי‬10
Fragment C, column 1 of 1 ( V a )35

‫אתם עברם היום את גבל בני עשו הישבם‬ 1
‫]בש[עיר לא תצרם ולא תתגר בם מלחמה כי לא‬ 2
‫ · כי לבני עשו נתתה ירשה‬36 ‫אתן מארצם לכם ירשה‬ 3
‫ בה ובני עשו ירשם וישבו תחת‬37 ‫֯ה ֯ח ֯ר ֯ם מעלם ישבה‬ 4
letter to Bond, Shapira wrote that upon careful inspection, he found there to be sufficient space
for two damaged letters – there were no spaces or other word dividers here – one of which he
thought might be a resh. Shapira therefore proposed reconstructing ‫חר‬. It would indeed seem
that ‫ ויחר אף‬is a perfect fit. Cf. Num 32:10–12, where we find the same sequence in the same
context: ‫ויחר אף יהוה ביום ההוא וישבע לאמר אם יראו האנשים וגו׳‬.
29 Following Shapira and Ginsburg, neither of whom notes any difficulty reading this section.
Guthe reconstructs ‫את אתתי ו ֯֯מ ֯כתי‬.

30 Guthe suggests ‫ עט ֯ן‬and notes that he can read no further in Fragment B.
31 For this form, see, e.g., 1 Kgs 14:15, Jer 19:4.
32 Guthe did not read or reconstruct this section. Ginsburg, who often did not mark recon-
structions, has ‫בלתי טפכם וכלב‬. Shapira has the same, but he writes ‫ וכלב‬in pencil and marks ‫טפכם‬
in three distinct ways: a superscript line, a subscript question mark, and parentheses (which he
uses nowhere else). This reading seems to be an incorrect reconstruction under the influence
of the phrase ‫וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה‬, which appears verbatim in both Num 14:31 (P; cf. Num
14:3) and Deut 1:39 (widely acknowledged as a post-P insertion in Deut; it is absent in LXX).
Although ‫ טפכם‬is apt in the biblical passages, both which are spoken (or to be spoken) by Moses
to the Israelites, it does not fit the context of V, where these are Elohim’s words to Moses. In V,
any reference to the Israelites’ children would be in the third – not second – person.
33 Identical error in the transcriptions of Ginsburg and Shapira: ‫ו]תשבו ב[קדש‬, following Deut
1:46. The commandment was to journey until the people of the conflict had all died off – not
to settle in Kadesh.
34 Reconstruction based on Deut 2:1–4.
35 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 207) and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2912,
206), both of whom read from the same manuscript. Guthe was unable to read any of this col-
umn.
36 SP (ad loc. and in the corresponding plus in Num 20:13) and Syriac also have ‫ירשה‬, which
is absent in MT.
37 ‫ ישבה‬appears to be ungrammatical; ‫ – ישבו‬as in Va C 1:8 and Va D 1:8 – would be expected.
This could be a case of proleptic dittography, given that the following two letters – which are
not separated with spaces or other dividers – are also ‫בה‬. Alternatively, cf. Deut 21:7: ‫ידינו לא‬
‫( שפכה‬MT ketiv; the qere, 4Q33, etc. read ‫)שפכו‬.
‫ · ונפן ונעבר את מדבר מאב · ויאמר אלהם אלי אתם‬38 ‫ם‬ 5

‫עברם היום את גבל מאב לא תצרם ולא תתגר בם מל‬ 6
‫חמה כי לא אתן מארצם לכם ירשה כי לבני לט נת‬ 7
‫ והמאבם יקראו‬39 ‫תי ער ירשה · רפאם מעלם ישבו בה‬ 8
‫להם אמם וישמדם אלהם וישבו תחתם · ונפן‬ 9
‫ ונעבר את נחל זרד ויאמר אלהם אלי לאמר קמו‬10
Fragment D, column 1 of 3 ( V a )40

‫ועברו את נחל ארנן היום החלתי לתת לפנך את סיחן מ‬ 1
‫ ואת ארצו · ונצא לקראת סיחן יהצ‬41 ‫לך חשבן האמרי‬ 2
‫ שרד ונלכד את כל ערו מערער א‬44 ‫ עד לא השאר לו‬43 ‫ ונכה‬42 ‫ה‬ 3
‫ נחל ארנן עד הגלעד ועד נחל יבק הכל נתן אלה‬45 ‫שר על שפת‬ 4
‫ם אלהנו לפננו · ונפן ונעבר דרך נחל יבק ויאמר אלהם‬ 5
‫אלי לאמר אתם עברם היום את גבל ארץ בני עמן לא תצ‬ 6
‫ כי לבני לט נתתי ארץ בני עמן ירשה‬46 ‫רם ולא תתגר בם מלחמה‬ 7
‫ יקראו להם עזמזמם וישמ‬47 ‫]רפ[אם מעלם ישבו בה והעמנם‬ 8
‫ · ויאמר אלהם אלי שלח אנ‬50 ‫ מפנהם וישבו תחתם‬49 ‫ אלהם‬48 ‫]ד[ם‬ 9
‫ את יעזר ונלכד את יעזר ונשב בערי האמרי · ויצא‬51 ‫ שם לרגל‬10
38 Shapira transcribes ‫תתחם‬, perhaps reflecting a scribal error in the original. See note 50.
39 SP lacks part of the plus appearing here in MT (viz. ‫)רפאים יחשבו אף הם כענקים‬, bringing
SP into closer accord with V.
40 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 213), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 24–29),
and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2912, 206; Athenæum 2913, 242–43), all of whom read from the same
manuscript.
41 LXX and SP have “king of Heshbon, the Amorite” – contra MT, and with V.
42 Following Shapira for line break; Guthe places it after the he. Given that Guthe marks line
breaks with an easily misplaced “|” and keeps the word intact, whereas Shapira breaks the word
and places the he at the beginning of the next line, Shapira’s transcription seems more reliable
on this point.
43 Shapira’s note: ‫לא יש ואו בסוף ]״ונכה״[ אבל במקומות אחרים יש ואפשר שיש בכאן טעות סופר‬.
44 Various SP mss. have ‫השאיר לו‬, rather than ‫השארנו‬, with V.
45 Guthe read this as ‫ ;שגת‬in the script of these mss., gimel and pe were similar. It is possible
that Guthe read correctly and that the error was already present in Va . While ‫ שפת‬is absent in
MT here, it is present in SP. LXX has χείλους, which may reflect the same Vorlage.
46 LXX, Neofiti, and Ps-J all reflect ‫מלחמה‬, which is absent in MT.
47 Following Guthe and Ginsburg; Shapira transcribes ‫ והעמנים‬with a yod.
48 Shapira erroneously reconstructs ‫]את[ם‬, thinking ‫ וישמ‬a complete word, due to ‫ וישמדם‬be-
ing broken between two lines and there being no terminal letterforms in Paleo-Hebrew script.
Ginsburg reconstructs ‫וישמ]ד[ם‬, and Guthe transcribes [...]‫ וישמ‬with a medial mem.
49 Following Guthe and Ginsburg; Shapira read ‫אלהים‬.
50 According to Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 79), this word was misspelled in Va as ‫תתחם‬, with
an interlinear correction appearing above the middle two letters. It is possible that Guthe con-
fused this appearance of the word with the one in C 1:4–5, which Shapira transcribes without
comment as ‫תתחם‬. See note 38.
51 Guthe and Ginsburg both read ‫לרגל‬. Shapira reconstructs ‫ ֯וי֯רגלו‬, with the first two letters
marked as uncertain.

‫עג מלך הבשן לקראתנו למלחמה ונכהו עד לא השאר לו ש‬ 1
‫ הארגב בצרת חמה דלת‬53 ‫רד ונלכד מאתם ששם ער כל גבל‬ 2
‫ ערי המשר‬55 ‫ · לבד מערי הפרזם הרבה מאד וכל‬54 ‫ם ובריחם‬ 3
57
֯‫ סלכה ואדרעי · ארץ רפאם י ֯֯ק ֯רא‬56 ‫וכל הגלעד וכל הבשן עד‬ 4
‫ נשאר · ונפן‬58 ‫גם הוא כי עג מלך הבשן מיתר הרפאם‬ 5
‫ בעת ההוא בנת‬59 ‫ונסע נגבה ונשב מול בת פער · ויצאו‬ 6
‫ לאכל מחג‬60 ‫מאב ונשי מדין לקראתכם ותקראן לכם‬ 7
and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–43), all of whom seem to have been reading from Va .
53 This was read as ‫ כבל‬by Ginsburg and Guthe, as well as Shapira in his transcription. In
a letter, Shapira later proposed ‫ – גבל‬gimel and kaph being quite similar – and this is a more
probable reading. In the notes to his preliminary transcription, Shapira writes: “so [‫ ]כבל‬and
not ‫חבל‬.” Despite claims to the contrary, ‫ כבל‬is not a logical misspelling of ‫ חבל‬for a European
Jew, since it does not follow a vowel and would therefore have been perceived as reflecting the
phoneme /k/. Mansoor wrote that a BM photograph supports the reading ‫גבל‬, but it is not clear
what he was referring to. ‫ גבול‬and ‫ חבל ארגב‬appear together in Deut 3:14. Cf. Judg 11:22: ‫ויירשו‬
‫את כל גבול האמרי‬.
54 Guthe and Shapira – both reading from Va – transcribe ‫ ובריחם‬here, but Ginsburg’s tran-
scription lacks the yod.

55 Kennicott 232 has ‫וכל‬, as here, as opposed to ‫כל‬, as in most MT mss.
56 Shapira has ‫על‬.
57 Shapira transcribes ‫֯ק ֯רא֯ ֯ו‬
֯ ‫י‬, with the final vav crossed out; Ginsburg and Guthe only note
an illegible word. Cf. Deut 3:13.
58 Following Ginsburg; Guthe and Shapira transcribe a yod, but this word never appears
elsewhere with a plene spelling in V. Indeed, the masculine plural suffix is never transcribed by
all three with a yod; when they disagree, it is likely that one or two inserted the yod out of habit.
59 This verb appears to be wəqāṭal, not wayyiqṭōl. Cf. ‫( וחרה‬Va D 2:10), ‫( ושלחתי‬Va D 3:1),
‫( והכתם‬Va D 3:1–2), etc. See discussion in §6.2.1.

60 MT of Num 25:2 reads ‫לעם‬. However, LXX there reads αὐτοὺς, reflecting a Vorlage of ‫להם‬,
in agreement with V (accounting for the requisite alternation in person).

‫ לאלה‬64 ‫ ותשתחו‬63 ‫מנס ֯חהן‬

֯ ‫ מזבחהן ותשתו‬62 ‫ ותאלו‬61 ‫הן‬ 8
‫ ותצמדו לבעל פער ביום‬65 ‫הן ותזנו את נשי המדינם‬ 9
‫ ההוא‬66 ‫ ההוא וחרה אף אלהם עלכם ויגף בכם בעת‬10

‫ את המדינם ו‬68 ‫מגפה גדלה · ושלחתי מכם אנשם ללחם‬ 1
61 Shapira and Ginsburg transcribe ‫מזבחהן‬, which is possible. Guthe’s reading, ‫מחג֯]*[הן‬ ֯ , has
the benefit of being the lectio difficilior. Guthe notes in his comments (Lederhandschrift, 81)
that such usage is unattested. ‫ חג‬is, however, occasionally used to mean “sacrificial animal,” or
something to that effect, in the Hebrew Bible. See, especially, Exod 23:18 (cf. Exod 34:25), Mal
2:3, and Ps 118:27 (cf. Kennicott 131, 133, 681; T-S AS 110.121; BL Or. 5557A.74 – all of which
read ‫על‬, rather than MT’s ‫עד‬, rendering: “Bind the ‫ חג‬with cords to the horns of the altar”). See
further in §6.4.6.
62 In a comment on his transcription (Verzeichnis, 207), Shapira addresses the apparent
scribal error here: “perhaps ‫ ותאכלו‬and only ‫טעות סופר‬.” Guthe transcribes ‫ותא]*[לו‬, possibly indi-
cating, in this case, that ‫ ותאלו‬lacked an expected letter. Alternatively, perhaps Guthe believed
that the kaph had been written by the scribe of Va but was illegible due to damage. Ginsburg
reads ‫ותאכל‬, which – as the lectio facilior – is likely imprecise.
63 Abnormal orthography: khet replaces kaph in the transcriptions of Shapira (who does
not comment on the anomaly) and Ginsburg. Such substitutions are attested in ancient times –
‫ לתך‬corresponds to Ugaritic ltḥ, for instance, and 4Q540 has ‫ כסר‬for ‫ – חסר‬and here we also have
‫מזבחהן‬, which too could have had an influence, given its final three letters (and corresponding
phonemes). Perhaps, however, it is an error of transcription, which would explain why Shapira
does not note the unusual spelling here, as he does elsewhere. Guthe, working from the same
manuscript, transcribes ‫מנת]*[הן‬֯ , indicating that the letter in question was entirely illegible to
him. (The third letter was damaged and unclear; the top of a samek in the Paleo-Hebrew script
of V looks like a tav, which is what Guthe transcribes.) Given that Shapira and Ginsburg are
known to have conversed while the latter prepared his transcription, it is possible that an error of
Shapira’s was propagated in Ginsburg’s version, as appears to have happened with the seemingly
incorrect reconstruction ‫ וי]נ[אף‬in Va B 1:1.
64 This anomalous orthography for the plural is attested four times in the ketiv of MT: Gen
27:29a, 43:28, 1 Kgs 9:9, Neh 8:6. In each case, the qere reflects the conventional form. 1 Sam
1:28 may reflect a similar phenomenon; in most MT mss., the verb there is spelled ‫וישתחו‬, even
though its antecedent must either be plural or feminine singular. Indeed, several Hebrew mss.
read ‫ וישתחוו‬with two vavs (Kennicott 4, 95, 173); the Syriac, Vulgate, and Lucianic recension of
LXX all reflect the plural as well. (In 4Q51, the word in the position of ‫ וישתחו‬is mostly illegible,
while an additional verb, apparently ‫ותשתחו‬, appears close by: [‫ותשתח]ו‬
̇ ‫]…[הו שם‬.)
̇
65 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribed ‫המדין‬.
66 Shapira could not read past the bet and suggests either ‫ עת‬or ‫יום‬. Neither Guthe nor Gins-
burg indicate any uncertainty in their readings, and Guthe – who appears to have been quite
precise about marking reconstructions – was reading from the same manuscript (Va ) as Shapira.
and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–43), all of whom were reading from Va .
68 The niphal might have been expected for this verb. The qal is, however, attested in Ps 35:1,
56:2–3, as well as line 6 of the KLMW inscription (KAI 24).

‫ ות‬70 ‫ למאד‬69 ‫הכתם אתם לפי חרב ושבתם מאתם שבי הרבה‬ 2
‫עצר המגפה · ואתי צוה אלהם בעת ההוא ללמד אתכם חקם ומ‬ 3
‫ עברם שמה לרשתה · השמרו לכם‬72 ‫ בארץ אשר‬71 ‫שפטם לעשתם‬ 4
‫ · השמרו לכם פן תשכחו ו‬75 ‫ ולא תגרעו ממנו‬74 ‫ מצות ֯י‬73 ‫לא תספו אל‬ 5
‫ ותמנה תבנת כל סמל אשר בשמם ממעל ואשר באר‬76 ‫עשתם לכם פסל‬ 6
79
[‫ בכם וא֯ שמ]ד‬78 ‫ מ]תח[ת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ · וחרה אפ ֯י‬77 ‫ץ‬ 7
‫ הארץ הטבה ֯הזאת · וידעת היום ו‬80 ‫]את[כם מהרה מן‬ 8
‫ למען יטב לכם ו‬81 ‫]שמ[רת את חקתו ומצותו‬ 9
‫ ימם על האדמה אשר אלהם אלהך‬82 ‫ למען תארכו‬10
69 Following Ginsburg. Parsed by Guthe as ‫שביה רבה‬, which is possible. (It is not entirely
clear if Shapira writes ‫ שבי הרבה‬or leaves the question open by writing ‫ שביהרבה‬without a space.)
70 ‫ למאד‬appears once more in V (Va E 1:2–3). It is also attested once in MT (2 Chr 16:14).
71 Kennicott 129 has ‫לעשתם‬, as opposed to ‫לעשתכם‬, as in MT mss. Kennicott 81 does not
have ‫ אתם‬before ‫בארץ‬, as here.

72 The expected word, ‫אתם‬, is absent.
73 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫על‬.
74 Tentatively following Guthe; Shapira and Ginsburg transcribe ‫מצותו‬, which may indeed
be the correct reading here. See notes on ‫ אפ ֯י‬and [‫ וא֯ שמ]ד‬in line 7, below.
75 ‫ ממנו‬does not always agree with its antecedent in terms of gender and number. See, e.g.,
Exod 5:8, 25:15; Lev 6:7–8; Num 18:28; Josh 1:7.

76 Guthe reads ‫ועשת]**[ כל פסל‬. Given that he counts two letters after the tav and before the
kaph, it seems most likely that the letter Guthe takes for a lamed was in fact a mem, as read by
Ginsburg.
77 Shapira reconstructs [‫בא¶]רץ‬, with the line breaking one letter before it does in Guthe’s
transcription. Since Shapira was unable to read past the aleph, while Guthe indicates no such
difficulty, I have followed the latter. It is possible that the first of the two letters that were illegible
to Shapira appears at the end of line 6, while the second begins line 7.
78 Following Ginsburg, who transcribes ‫אפי‬, and Shapira, who initially read ‫ אפו‬but then
modified the vav to a yod. Guthe transcribes ‫אפ ֯ו‬, with the vav marked as uncertain.
79 Following Shapira, who corrects [...]‫ והשמ‬to [...]‫ואשמ‬.
80 Tentatively following Shapira, who reconstructs ‫ ֯מ ֯ן‬, and Ginsburg, who firmly transcribes
the same. Guthe has ‫מעל‬.

81 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫חקו ואת מצותו‬.
82 Following Shapira and Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫תארכן‬.
Fragment E, column 1 of 4 ( V a )83

‫ · שמע ישראל אלהם אלהנו אלהם אחד‬84 ‫נתן לכם‬ 1
‫ את אלהם אלהך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך למ‬85 ‫ואהבת‬ 2
‫ והיו הדברם האלה אשר אנך מצוך היו‬87 ‫ מאד‬86 ‫אד‬ 3
89
‫ בנך ודברת אתם בשבת‬88 ‫ם על לבבך ושננתם לכל‬ 4
‫ ובקמך וקשרת‬90 ‫ך בבתך ובלכתך בדרך בשכבך‬ 5
Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–43), and Ginsburg’s drawings. Both manuscripts for this sec-
tion were extant. Guthe’s transcription is of Va , as are Ginsburg’s drawings. Shapira’s transcrip-
tion is a hybrid (and he therefore does not indicate line breaks), and Ginsburg’s appears to be
one as well.
84 Guthe transcribes ‫]*[תן ]*[ך‬. Both Shapira and Ginsburg record a mem.
85 Shapira appears to have transcribed ‫ואהבתי‬.
86 ‫ למאד‬appears once more in V (Va D 3:2), and it appears also in 2 Chr 16:14. Whereas ‫מאד‬
as an adverb is attested 298 times in MT, it appears as a noun only in the corresponding verse
(Deut 6:5) and in 2 Kgs 23:25, which may well be dependent on the Deuteronomic passage:
‫וכמהו לא היה לפניו מלך אשר שב אל יהוה בכל לבבו ובכל נפשו ובכל מאדו ככל תורת משה ואחריו לא קם כמהו‬.
87 Following Shapira, Ginsburg, and Ginsburg’s drawings; Guthe has ‫[מת‬.....]¶‫למ‬.
88 Guthe parses this as ‫לך לבנך‬, which is not impossible. It seems that Vb lacks ‫( כל‬or ‫ )לך‬and
reads ‫ושננתם לבנך‬. Guthe’s transcription and Ginsburg’s drawings have those two letters, while
the transcriptions of Shapira and Ginsburg do not.
89 Following what appears to be the final draft of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294,
34) for line break. (The earlier drafts are inconsistent with the final one and with Guthe and
appear to be imprecise with regard to layout.) In Guthe’s transcription, the break appears one
letter earlier. Shapira’s transcription of this section is a hybrid and therefore does not indicate
line breaks.
90 Vb apparently had ‫ובשכבך‬, with the initial vav. The transcriptions of Shapira and Ginsburg
have the letter vav, while Guthe’s transcription and the third (lower image) and final drafts of
Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34) do not. The other versions and earlier drafts,
which do not appear to be as accurate (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 35, 37; Athenæum 2915, 305), also
have the vav, perhaps under the influence of MT.
‫ וכת‬92 ‫ בין ענך‬91 ‫ם אתם לאות על ידך והיו לתת ֯מ ֯פת‬ 6

‫ כי אלהם כרת עמ‬94 ‫ על מזזת בתך ושערך‬93 ‫בת אתם‬ 7
91 Guthe transcribes ‫לתתו ֯֯כ ֯ת‬, marking the three letters after ‫ לתת‬as damaged. Shapira suggests
‫לתתוהת‬. Ginsburg alternates between ‫( לתתוהת‬Athenæum 2913, 242) and ‫( לתתהות‬Athenæum
2915, 304), although the latter may be an editing error. All these options are unintelligible and
morphologically suspect. ‫לתת מפת‬, on the other hand, is coherent and aptly fits the context.
There are no word dividers in this section, so these six letters could very well have represented
two lexemes. The likelihood of this is increased by the prevalence of the infinitive construct verb
‫ לתת‬in V and throughout the Hebrew Bible. All three nineteenth-century transcribers agree on
the first three letters, and Guthe does not mark them as damaged, so we may be reasonably
confident that this part of the sequence in question was read correctly. This leaves the partially
illegible final three letters, which Shapira, Guthe, and Ginsburg transcribe variously as ‫וכת‬, ‫והת‬,
or ‫הות‬. These reconstructions all have the final tav in common. The two remaining letters – vav
and he, vav and kaph, or mem and pe – have descenders in Paleo-Hebrew and could have been
confused if damaged, which Guthe indicates they indeed were. Some of Ginsburg’s drawings
supply important data regarding the forms of the letters in question. In particular, the upper
image in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 36 indicates that the letters read by Ginsburg as vav and he were
somewhat unclear. The top of the putative vav includes a horizontal stroke extending to the
left of the descender, and the bottom of the descender curves to the left. In addition, Ginsburg
(or the artist he commissioned) could make out only one of two medial horizontal strokes on
the presumptive he. These features bring the characters in question into closer alignment with
mem and pe, respectively. The transcribers were likely influenced here, as elsewhere, by MT,
where only a single word appears in this position, and the presence of two holems in MT may
have also impacted their reconstruction of a vav here. ‫ אות‬and ‫ מופת‬are a common word-pair
in the Hebrew Bible – especially in Deuteronomy – appearing in Exod 7:3; Deut 4:34, 6:22,
7:19, 13:1–2, 26:8, 28:46, 29:3, 34:11; Isa 8:18, 20:3; Jer 32:20–21; Pss 78:43, 105:27, 135:9;
Neh 9:10; and the pair also appears elsewhere in V (Va B 1:2). All this is especially pertinent in
light of the parallelistic construction here. Also, it is noteworthy that ‫ נתן‬is the standard verb in
the context of ‫מופת‬. (Cf. Exod 7:9; Deut 6:22, 13:1; 1 Kgs 13:3, 5; Isa 8:18; Ezek 12:6; Joel 2:30;
Neh 9:10; 2 Chr 32:24.) Cf. especially Deut 28:46, where it is said of those who are cursed for
not keeping the laws: ‫והיו בך לאות ולמופת‬. The word ‫ טוטפות‬is difficult and of unclear etymology,
and it is attested in the Hebrew Bible only in the corresponding verse (Deut 6:8) and in the
parallel passages in Deut 11:18 and Exod 13:16. An additional parallel text reads: ‫והיה לך לאות‬
‫( על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך‬Exod 13:9). Here, too, the corresponding (singular) noun, ‫זכרון‬, is an
attested word-pair together with ‫ – אות‬like ‫מופת‬, but unlike ‫( טוטפות‬cf., e.g., Num 17:3–5; Josh
4:6–7). All of this raises the possibility that the word in question is the consequence of an early
scribal error. See further in §6.2.7.
92 Following Guthe and all of Ginsburg’s drawings. Guthe also addresses this word’s defec-
tive spelling in his discussion (Lederhandschrift, 74). Ginsburg’s transcription in The Athenæum
and Shapira’s handwritten one both have ‫ עינך‬with a yod, probably under the influence of MT
or standard orthography.
93 Following Guthe and the third (lower image) and final drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL
Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34). (Other versions of his drawing do not contain text in this section.)
Ginsburg reconstructs ‫ ;וכתב]תם[ על‬Shapira reconstructs ‫וכתבתם ]אתם[ על‬, although he places
the reconstructed aleph beneath the final mem, perhaps indicating that the mem reading was
insecure.
94 Kennicott 69 (cf. LXX and Vulgate) reads ‫ושעריך‬, with V.
‫ עמדתי בין אלהם‬97 ‫ בחרב ביום הקהל ואנך‬96 ‫ ֯ב ֯ר ֯ת‬95 ‫ך‬ 8

[‫ מפני האש ולא ]עלתם‬99 ‫ בעת הזאת כי פחדת‬98 ‫ובנכם‬ 9
[vacat] 102 ‫ דבר אלהכם לאמר‬101 ‫ להגד לכם‬100 ‫ההר‬
֯ 10
‫ · מא‬104 ‫ אנך · אלהם · אלהך · אשר · החרתך‬1

95 Shapira reads ‫עמנו‬, possibly under the influence of MT.
96 Shapira tentatively reconstructs plene ‫( ברית‬marking either the yod or the entire word
with a question mark), again perhaps influenced by MT.
97 Shapira transcribes ‫ ואנכי‬with a yod, possibly under the influence of MT. 4Q41, 4Q129, and
4Q134 read ‫ ואנכי‬with the initial vav, in agreement with V. 4Q134 also has ‫ אלהים‬here, rather than
the Tetragrammaton, and it lacks the words: ‫להגיד לכם את דבר יהוה כי יראתם מפני האש ולא עליתם‬
‫בהר‬.
Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34) for orthography. Earlier drafts leave the beginning of line 9 blank, due
to illegibility, and Ginsburg’s transcription reads ‫ ובינכם‬with a yod. Shapira’s transcription reads
[...]‫וב‬, and some of Ginsburg’s drawings place those two letters at the end of line 8. Guthe tran-
scribes ‫[בנכם‬...] for the start of line 9. The later versions of Ginsburg’s drawings do not indicate
the vav.
Ms. Add. 41294, 36, 34). Earlier drafts, as well as his and Shapira’s transcriptions, read ‫פחדתם‬.
100 Following Shapira; Ginsburg’s transcription reads ‫ ההד‬with a dalet. This does not appear
to be a printing or editing error, given that several of Ginsburg’s drawings indicate a (Paleo-
Hebrew) dalet as well. It therefore seems most likely that Ginsburg could not make out the
descender of the resh. Alternately, a scribal error may be present in Va , in which case Shapira ei-
ther glosses over it, or else he follows the reading of Vb . (As noted above, Shapira’s transcription
of this section is a Va –Vb hybrid.) As discussed below, Guthe appears to have read this letter as
a qoph, supporting the case for a (partially damaged) resh, considering the relative similarity of
these two letters. For ‫ההר‬, rather than ‫ ההרה‬or ‫בהר‬, cf. Hag 1:8: ‫עלו ההר‬. Cf. also Vb G 3:8: ‫שם‬,
according to Guthe; ‫שמה‬, per Ginsburg.
101 Guthe, who had great difficulty reading this section, transcribes [...] ‫[ הקל ]*[גדל‬...], seem-
ingly mistaking the resh of ‫ ההר‬for a qoph, and then parsing accordingly. Guthe may have been
influenced by Deut 5:22. Guthe also transcribes a lone tav between here and the end of the line;
the rest was illegible to him.
102 Shapira’s transcription and Ginsburg’s drawings end the column here. Ginsburg’s tran-
scription includes an ellipsis after ‫לאמר‬, but this is likely simply to mark the elided Decalogue,
which had been published in a previous issue of The Athenæum.
Ginsburg (Athenæum 2911, 178–79). Both manuscripts for this section were extant. The Deca-
logue appears in larger script than that of the other text, and it features dots after all words, with
the notable exception of ‫ את‬and ‫לא‬. Each proclamation begins a new line in Va .
104 This reading – “freed you,” rather than “brought you out” (MT ‫ ;הוצאתיך‬LXX ἐξαγαγών) –
is unattested in extant manuscripts. However, the Nash Papyrus – which is damaged in the mid-
dle of the corresponding word – could not have read ‫הוצאתיך‬, despite having been reconstructed
as such, in accordance with the familiar versions, since Cook in 1903. (Stanley A. Cook, “A Pre-
Massoretic Biblical Papyrus,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 25 [1903], plate
2.) The space between the he and tav there is insufficient for ‫וצא‬, and no corrections above the
line are apparent. (A defective spelling such as ‫ הצתיך‬or ‫ הוצתיך‬is unlikely, given the plene or-
· ‫ לכם‬105 [· ‫רץ · מצרם · מבת · עבדם · לא יה]יה‬ 2

‫ · תמ‬107 ‫ · לכם · פסל · וכל‬106 [‫אלהם · אחרם · לא תעש]ו‬ 3
‫נה · אשר · בשמם · ממעל · ואשר · בארץ · מ‬ 4
‫תחת · ואשר · במים · מתחת · לארץ · לא תש‬ 5
· ‫ · להם · ולא תעבדם · אנך · אלהם‬108 ‫תחו‬ 6
[vacat] · ‫אלהך‬ 7
110 [‫ · ]את יום · השבעי · ושבת · בו · כי · ש‬109 ‫קדש‬ 8
‫ · עשתי · את השמם · ואת הא‬112 ‫שת · ימם‬ 1

· ‫ · השבעי‬113 ‫רץ · וכל · אשר · בם · ושבתי · ביום‬ 2
· ‫על · כן · תשבת · גם · אתה · ובהמתך · וכל · אשר‬ 3
[vacat] · ‫לך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ 4
· ‫ · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬114 ‫כבד · את אבך · ואת אמך‬ 5
thography that typifies the papyrus – especially considering that the vav and aleph are both
historical consonants here.) V’s reading would fit comfortably in the available space. While ‫החר‬
– a cognate of Aramaic (and Mishnaic Hebrew) ‫ – שחרר‬does not appear in MT, it is what would
be expected in BH, and the root is well represented throughout the Semitic languages. ‫חר‬, mean-
ing “freeman” or “nobleman,” is widely attested in MT (1 Kgs 21:8, 11; Isa 34:12; Jer 27:20, 39:6;
Eccl 10:17; Neh 2:16, 4:14, 19, 5:7, 6:17, 7:5, 13:17). In addition, the passive qal participle ‫חרור‬
and the pual participle ‫ מחורר‬are both attested in Mishnaic Hebrew. Semantically, V’s version
corresponds to Deut 7:8 (‫)ויפדך מבית עבדים‬, Deut 13:6 (‫)והפדך מבית עבדים‬, and Mic 6:4 (‫ומבית‬
‫)עבדים פדיתיך‬.
105 Alternatively: ‫יהיו‬. Guthe notes a hole here, which is also visible in photographs and in
Ginsburg’s drawings.
106 Shapira and Ginsburg both reconstruct ‫ תעשה‬in the singular, following MT. However, in
MT, this verb agrees with the singular ‫ לך‬that follows it, as opposed to the plural ‫ לכם‬found
here. I have opted, provisionally, for an internally consistent reading. Guthe notes a hole here,
and damage is also indicated in Ginsburg’s drawings.
107 MT does not have a vav here, but Exod 20:4 and several Dead Sea Scrolls on this verse in
Deut (4Q41, 4Q134, 4Q137, XQ3) read ‫ וכל‬with an initial vav.

108 See note 64.
109 This word is recorded in the transcriptions of Shapira and Ginsburg, but not in Ginsburg’s
drawings or in Guthe’s transcription.

110 Reconstruction based on parallel in Vb G 4:1–2.
111 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 3), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 36–39), and
Ginsburg (Athenæum 2911, 178–79).

112 Following Guthe, Ginsburg, and Ginsburg’s drawings; Shapira transcribes ‫ ימים‬with a yod.
113 Ginsburg’s transcription lacks this word separator, although it appears in Guthe’s edition.
Some of Ginsburg’s drawings include it and others do not.

114 Vb : plus · ‫למען · יארכן · ימך‬. The phrase ‫ – ולמען ייטב לך‬which appears in MT Deut 5:16
but is present in neither Va nor Vb – is also absent in the MT Exodus version of the Decalogue
and in 4Q134, where the Decalogue appears in a Deuteronomic context. These two phrases
appear in reverse order in the LXX versions of Exod 20:12 and Deut 5:16, as well as in the Nash
· ‫ · אחך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬115 ‫ לא תר]צח[ · את נ֯פש‬6

[vacat] · ‫ · רעך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬116 ‫ לא תנאף · את אשת‬7
[vacat] · ‫ · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬117 ‫ לא תגנב · את הן · אחך‬8
‫ לא תשבע · בשמי · לשקר · כי · אנך · אקנא · את‬1
Papyrus. All of this is consonant with ‫ ולמען ייטב לך‬being a secondary (or tertiary) insertion,
perhaps under the influence of Va D 3:9–10: ‫למען יטב לכם ולמען תארכן ימם וגו׳‬.
115 Guthe transcribes ‫את‬, and Ginsburg reconstructs it between brackets. The ellipsis in
Shapira’s transcription seems to allow enough space to accommodate the word. However, Gins-
burg’s drawings lack the word and do not have a sufficiently wide gap for these two letters.
Ginsburg’s original transcription reads ‫( נפשי‬Athenæum 2911, 178), but he later writes that a
word-separating dot had been erroneously transcribed as a yod (Athenæum 2912, 206).
116 In his final Athenæum installment, Ginsburg writes that he had recently realized that in
line 7, an alternate form of ‫ לא תגנב‬was written and crossed out: · ‫[ הן · רעך · אנך‬..]‫[ מן מ‬...] ‫לא‬
‫( אלהם · אלהך‬Athenæum 2915, 304). (This same reading is reflected in several of his drawings.)
Ginsburg apparently mistook a partially illegible fifth proclamation (‫ )לא תנאף‬for an alternate
version of the sixth (‫)לא תגנב‬. His early drawings are consonant with Guthe’s transcription of
Proclamation 5, and in the illustration that accompanies Ginsburg’s final Athenæum report,
the supposedly canceled line takes the place of ‫לא תנאף‬, which is nowhere represented visually,
despite being transcribed in the texts of Ginsburg, Shapira, and Guthe. The evidence suggests
that there was only ever one version of the ‫ לא תגנב‬injunction in Va .
117 Guthe reads ‫ר]*[ך‬, possibly confusing a partially illegible aleph for a resh. Both Ginsburg
and Shapira read ‫אחך‬.

118 Sources for transcription: Shapira (Verzeichnis, 3, covering the first ten words of the
column), Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 38–39), and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2911, 178–79). Both
manuscripts for this section were extant. Guthe consulted this column’s corresponding section
in Vb (Lederhandschrift, 63).
‫ · רבעם · ל ֯נ‬120 ‫ · על · בנם · על · שלשם · ועל‬119 ‫עון · אבת‬ 2

[vacat] · ‫ · שמי · לשקר · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬121 ‫שאי‬ 3
‫ · אנך · אלהם · אל‬124 ‫ · שקר‬123 ‫ · באחך · עדת‬122 ‫לא תענו‬ 4
[vacat] · ‫הך‬ 5
‫ · ואמתו · וכל · אש‬125 ‫לא תחמד · אשת · ]רעך[ · עבדו‬ 6
[vacat] · ‫ר · לו · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ 7
· ‫לא תשנא · את אחך · ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב]ב[ך · אנך · אלהם · אלהך‬ 8
126 [‫את עשרת הדברם הא]ל[ה דבר ]אלהם עמכם בהר מתך האש‬ 9
Fragment F, column 1 of 4 ( V b ?)127

............................................................................... 1
128
[‫ ]כשמעכם את הקל‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
119 Vb may have read ‫אבם‬, which is an otherwise unattested plural form of ‫אב‬. Cf. ‫͏דּוֹר‬, which
is occasionally pluralized as ‫͏דּוֹרים‬

ִ (Isa 51:8; Ps 72:5, 102:24). In both a note on his transcription
and a letter to Hermann Strack preserved in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 5, Shapira indicates that while
the mem was not altogether clear, it seems that one of the manuscripts indeed read ‫אבם‬. Mem
and tav are not especially similar in Paleo-Hebrew. Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 79) suggests the
reading ‫אבך‬, although he notes that the final letter could have been a mem. Alternatively, it may
be that damage to this section of Vb led both Guthe and Shapira to misread the text (somewhat
differently from one another). Shapira’s transcription after this point is not extant.
120 Following Ginsburg and the second, third, and final drafts of Ginsburg’s drawing (BL Ms.
Add. 41294, 35, 36, 34); this word-separating dot is not indicated in Guthe’s transcription or in
the other versions of Ginsburg’s drawing.
121 Guthe transcribes ‫ לנשאי‬and Ginsburg ‫לנשא‬. However, Ginsburg’s drawings show a large
space after the aleph of this word and before the sin of the next, befitting an illegible letter. Cf.
MT ‫( לשנאי‬Exod 20:5, Deut 5:9).
122 This may be a case of grammatical disagreement between the verb and the singular suffix
of the next word. This phenomenon is attested elsewhere in V, e.g., Vb G 1:9–10: ‫ממרם הית]ם[ את‬
‫אלהם אלהך‬. Alternatively, the vav of ‫ תענו‬could be a 3ms pronominal suffix, as in Exod 2:6: ‫ותפתח‬
‫ותראהו את הילד‬.
123 See discussion of this word in §6.4.6.
124 Exod 20:16 in MT and XQ3 have ‫שקר‬, rather than ‫ שוא‬of MT here, and the same is reflected
in LXX.
125 Guthe identifies only three illegible letters between ‫ אשת‬and ‫ואמתו‬, but Ginsburg’s drawings
clearly indicate a larger lacuna, and he transcribes ‫[ · עבדו · ואמתו‬..] · ‫ אשת‬in that space. Guthe’s
reading would produce an anomalously short line.
126 Reconstruction based on Deut 5:22 and Vb G 1:11.
127 Source for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 38–41; transcribed by Eduard Meyer).
The scope and position of this fragment are not entirely certain. Only an extremely incomplete
transcription by Meyer is available. Guthe and Meyer note that they switched here to the second
manuscript (ibid., 38, n. 1) – in other words, Vb . They also write that Fragment F is followed by
Fragment G (ibid., 40), suggesting that both belonged to the same manuscript. As discussed in
the notes below, Fragments G–H derive from Vb . Presuming Fragment F indeed derives from
the second manuscript, this suggests that the illegible columns 2–4 are lost and do not overlap
with the transcribed portion of Va .
128 Reconstructions in this fragment are speculative and are based on Exod 20:19–20; Deut
[‫ עמ]נו אל‬129 ‫]מתך האש ותאמרו אלי דבר א[תה עמנ]ו ונשמ[ע וא֯ ]ל[ ידבר‬ 3
[‫ ולא נ֯מת · וישמע אלהם את ֯דבר]כם בדברכם אלי בעת ההוא ויא‬130 ‫]ה[ם‬ 4
[‫ · מי י]תן והיה לבבם זה ליראה אתי ולשמר את כל מ‬131 ‫מ]ר הטבו אשר דב[רו‬ 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[‫]צותי כל ה[ימם ]ל[מען ל]א‬ 6
............................................................................... 7
............................................................................... 8
............................................................................... 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fragment F, column 2 of 4 ( V b ?)
............................................................................... 1
............................................................................... 2
............................................................................... 3
............................................................................... 4
............................................................................... 5
............................................................................... 6
............................................................................... 7
............................................................................... 8
............................................................................... 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
............................................................................... 1
............................................................................... 2
............................................................................... 3
............................................................................... 4
............................................................................... 5
............................................................................... 6
............................................................................... 7
............................................................................... 8
............................................................................... 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5:23–29, 18:16–17.
129 Meyer transcribes ‫וא֯ ידבר‬, without reconstructing the lamed; this is likely an editing error.
130 Meyer reconstructs a provisional kaph where I conjecturally propose a he, based on con-
text. My reconstruction of ‫ אלהם‬here agrees with that in Meyer and Guthe’s translation.
131 Meyer: ‫ ֯דבר]*[רו‬.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
............................................................................... 1
............................................................................... 2
............................................................................... 3
............................................................................... 4
............................................................................... 5
............................................................................... 6
............................................................................... 7
............................................................................... 8
............................................................................... 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Fragment G, column 1 of 5 ( V b )132

[‫ על ֯הא֯ דמה אשר נשבעתי לתת להם ולבנהם אחרהם · שמע יש]ראל‬133 ‫]מ[ם‬ 1
‫גדלת ובצ‬
֯ ‫אתם עברם היום את הירדן לבא לרשת גוים רבם ועצמם ערם‬ 2
‫ מה‬135 ‫ לא תא֯ מרו בלבבכם ֯רבם המה הגוים האלה לא נכל להרשם לא תירא‬134 ‫רת חמה‬ 3
· ‫ם זכר א֯ ֯ת אשר ֯ע ֯שה אלהם לפרעה ולכל מצרם כן יעשה אלהם לכל איבך‬ 4
‫לפ‬
֯ ‫אכ ֯לה הוא · הוא ישמדם ויכנעם מהרה‬
֯ ‫לפנך אש‬
֯ ‫כי א֯ ֯ל ֯ה ֯ם הוא העבר‬ 5
‫מלפ‬
֯ ‫אבד יאבד הנ ֯֯סתרם הנשארם‬
֯ ‫ עד‬137 ‫ ישלח ]אל[הם בם‬136 ‫נך · גם את ה]צ[רעת‬ 6
132 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 40–43; transcribed by Eduard

Meyer), Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–44), and Ginsburg’s more detailed unpublished alter-
nate transcription in BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39–40. As noted above, Fragments G and H (Vb ) are
different in form from the others (Va ): rather than ten short lines, they had twelve longer ones.
(Vb G 5 may have had thirteen lines; see note 208.) In Ginsburg’s unpublished transcription,
this is (by inference; see note on next column) column 3, not 1, and he was clearly reading from
Vb in the alternate transcription, given its agreement with that of Guthe and Meyer vis-à-vis
line numbers, line breaks, and damage. This is difficult to make sense of and may be an error
on the part of Ginsburg or an assistant. Ginsburg’s transcription in The Athenæum may be a
conflation of the two manuscripts, considering their occasional agreement regarding damage,
on the one hand, and substantial divergence in readings (and disagreement regarding damage),
on the other.
133 Meyer marks one illegible letter at the beginning of this line, which I have reconstructed
as a mem (‫)ימם‬. Another possibility is he (‫)ימהם‬.

134 Following Ginsburg; Meyer transcribes [...]‫ובצ¶רת ֯כ ֯מ‬.
135 Ginsburg reads ‫ תרא‬here.
136 Ginsburg transcribes ‫צרעת‬..‫ ה‬in his Athenæum transcription, but his alternate transcrip-
tion has ‫ה]צ[רעת‬, and Meyer transcribes ‫ה]**[עת‬, indicating just two letters between the he and
the tsade. MT (Deut 7:20) reads ‫צרעה‬. Ibn Ezra ad loc. (cf. Exod 23:28): “A bodily affliction.
From the form ‫( ”צרעת‬my translation).
137 Meyer transcribes a dot, but it is not recorded in either of Ginsburg’s transcriptions.
‫ ומשפטו וחקתו אשר אנך מצוך היום ו‬139 [‫ את מצ]ותו‬138 ‫נך ֯רק אם תשמרו‬ 7
‫ אלהם אלהך נתן לפנך את הארץ הזאת לרשתה‬142 [‫ כי לא בצדקת]ך‬141 ‫ היום‬140 ‫ידעת‬ 8
‫כי עם קשה ערף הית מן היום אשר י֯צאת ממצרם עד היום ממרם הית‬ 9
144 143
‫ועלה ֯ם‬
֯ ‫חרב ֯ביום עלתי ההר לקחת את שני לחת האבנם‬
֯ ‫ ]ם[ את אלהם אלהך · ֯ב‬10
‫ עמכם בהר מתך האש ביום הקהל‬147 ‫אלהם‬
֯ 146
[‫ ]כל הדברם אשר דבר‬145 ‫ כתבם‬11
150
‫ הבער כאש‬149 ‫ ]ואתנפל לפני אלהם ב[הר‬148 ‫ ]ה[קצפתם ]את אלהם ועשתם לכם עגל מ[סכה‬12
138 Meyer transcribes ‫תשמר‬, while Ginsburg’s Athenæum transcription (Athenæum 2913, 242)
and unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 39) both have ‫תשמרו‬.
139 While Ginsburg does not bracket these letters in his transcription in The Athenæum, they
are marked as a reconstruction in his unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294,
39). The same letters are marked as illegible by Meyer.
140 Meyer notes an illegible letter after the tav, but Ginsburg makes no such indication in
either transcription.
141 MT lacks the word ‫היום‬, whereas LXX has σήμερον (today), in agreement with V.
142 Ginsburg does not bracket the final letter of this word in his Athenæum transcription, but
it is marked as a reconstruction in his unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294,
39). Meyer marks the same letter as illegible.
143 Following Ginsburg; Meyer reads ‫לח]**[בנם‬. If Meyer’s count of illegible letters is correct,
this suggests the reading ‫לחת אבנם‬.

144 Meyer indicates that he identified an illegible character following the mem, but given the
context, this seems unlikely.

145 Meyer indicates that he identified another illegible character before the the kaph, which
seems improbable as well.

146 While Ginsburg does not bracket these four words in his Athenæum transcription, they
are marked as a reconstruction in his unpublished alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294,
40). Meyer marks the same sequence as illegible, as well as the final mem of ‫כתבם‬.
147 Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40) has ‫ אלהך‬as the first word after
the lacuna, but it is absent in the transcription he published in The Athenæum (as well as the
translation there). In Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 42), the mem is marked as uncertain. It therefore
seems likely that Ginsburg initially misread a damaged mem as a kaph, given their similarity
in the Paleo-Hebrew script of V. Alternatively, the text may have read ‫אלהם אלהך‬. Cf. notes 203
and 219.
148 Brackets follow Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40).
149 Brackets follow Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms. Add. 41294, 40).
150 Following Ginsburg in both his transcriptions. Meyer, who had great difficulty reading
this line, transcribes ‫באש‬, in accordance with MT. Ginsburg has an ellipsis following this word in
his Athenæum transcription, but no lacuna is noted in his more detailed alternate transcription,
nor is there one in Meyer’s transcription.

‫ לע‬154 ‫ ואשבר את שני הלחת‬153 ‫ בידי וארא חטאתכם‬152 ‫ושני לחת‬ 1
‫ינכם וא֯ תפלל בעדכם בעת ההוא ארבעם יום וארבעם ללה · ובתבערה‬ 2
‫ובמסה ובקברת התאוה ממרם היתם את אלהכם · בעת ההוא אמר אל‬ 3
‫ אלי ההרה ואעל ההרה ושני‬155 ‫ועלה‬
֯ ‫הם אלי ]פסל ל[ך ש]נ[י לחת אבנם ֯כ ֯רא֯ שנם‬ 4
‫בידי · ויכתב אלהם על הלחת א]ת עשרת[ הדברם אשר דבר אלכם ֯ב ֯ה ֯ר בי‬
֯ ‫הלחת‬ 5
158
‫ בארן אשר עשתי ובקדש ברנע באמר אלי אלה‬157 ‫ הקהל ויתנ]ם[ אלי והנם‬156 ‫ום‬ 6
‫ עלו ורשו את הארץ ממרם היתם את אלהכם ולא עלתם ולא שמעתם בק‬159 ‫ם‬ 7
֯ ‫ בהר ארבעם ֯יו‬162 [‫ בעדכם בעמד]י‬161 ‫ ואת]נ[פל‬160 ‫לו ֯וי֯א֯ ֯מ ֯ר אלהם להשמד א]תכ[ם‬
‫֯ם‬ 8
· ‫ אל]הם גם בפעם ההוא ולא השחת[ את]כם כ[רגע‬164 ‫ וישמע‬163 ‫ל[לה בעדכם‬
֯ ‫]ואר[בע]ם‬ 9
‫[ רק ]חשק אלהם[ באב‬.........] 165 ‫ לא בצדקתך אלהך נתן לך כח לעשת חיל‬10
‫ תכם לאהבה אתם ויבחר ב]זר[עם אחר]הם[ מכל ]העמ[ם · כ]י אלה[ם‬11
151 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 44–47; transcribed by Eduard

Meyer), Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–44), and Ginsburg’s alternate transcription (BL Ms.
Add. 41294, 40), according to which this is column 4.
152 Meyer notes the presence of a missing letter before ‫לחת‬, which would be a he, but he could
not clearly see the two previous letters, so this may be conjectural. Ginsburg has no he.
153 Meyer has a plus here: ‫ואקצף‬. However, this word is absent in Ginsburg’s alternate tran-
scription, which follows Vb . It is also absent in Ginsburg’s Athenæum transcription (which may
conflate the two manuscripts) and in his translation.
154 ‫ לחת‬in Ginsburg’s Athenæum transcription, although in his notes (BL Ms. Add. 41294,
40), he reconstructs the he.

155 Meyer marks an additional line break after the vav of ‫ועלה‬, likely in error.
156 Meyer reads ‫וביום‬.
157 Meyer transcribes ‫והם‬, although he had difficulty reading this part of the fragment.
158 Precise line break location unknown. Meyer’s transcription is incomplete and does not
indicate the line break here, Shapira’s transcription is not extant, drawings are unavailable, and
Ginsburg does not record line breaks.
159 Meyer had difficulty reading this section and reconstructs ‫[בראהם‬..] ֯ ֯‫]…[בא‬
֯ ‫ובקדש ֯ה‬. My re-
construction follows Ginsburg.
160 Ginsburg reads ‫להשמדכם‬, which may be a variant. While Meyer had great difficulty read-
ing this line, Ginsburg reconstructs it almost in its entirety. Alternatively, rather than variants,
these may simply be divergent reconstructions.
161 Ginsburg reads ‫ואתפלל‬, possibly a variant. Considering that Meyer was able to read very
little from this point till the end of the line, I follow Ginsburg for this section.
162 Only Ginsburg reconstructs this word, and he does not record the expected yod. However,
his English translation appears to reflect ‫בעמדי‬.

163 Meyer reads ‫באכם‬ ֯ , and Ginsburg marks the word with a question mark, perhaps due to
this word’s redundancy here.
164 Meyer transcribes ‫וישע‬.
165 Following Ginsburg. Meyer had much difficulty reading this section and unintelligibly
transcribes [.............]‫[אבשמר‬..].
‫ והנרא הו]א ת[הלתך‬167 [‫ וא]ד[נ֯]י ה[אדנם ]האל הגבר‬166 ‫ אלהכם הוא אל האלהם‬12

‫ למצר‬170 ‫ את הגדלת ואת הנראת · בשבעם נפש ירדו אבתך‬169 ‫והוא אשר עשה אתך‬ 1
‫ ה‬173 ‫ א]ת[ כל ה]מ[צוה אשר אנך צותך‬172 ‫ לעם עצם ורב · כי א֯ ם תשמ]ר[ן‬171 ‫היתם‬
֯ ‫]ם וע[תה‬ 2
‫ ללכת בכל דרכו ובכל חקתו · והרש א]ל[הם את כ‬176 ‫ לאהבה את אלהכם‬175 ‫ לעשתה‬174 ‫יום‬ 3
[‫ כי ]פחדכ‬178 ‫בפנכם‬
֯ ‫ ֯כ ֯ף רגלכם בו · ]ל[א יתיצב איש‬177 ‫]ל אנשי[ המקם כל אשר תדרך‬ 4
‫תדרכו בו · ראה אנך נת]ן לפנ[כם היום בר‬
֯ ‫ם ומראכם יהיה על פני כל הארץ אשר‬ 5
‫ והקללה אם לא תשמעו וסרתם‬179 ‫כה וקללה את הברכה אם תשמעו אל מצות אלהם‬ 6
‫ את‬180 ‫מהדרך אשר אנך מצוה אתכם היום ]· והיה כי יב[אך אלהם אל הארץ אשר‬ 7
‫ והקללה על הר עבל · הלא המה‬182 [‫ לרשתה ונתת את הברכה על הר ]גרזם‬181 ‫ה בא שמה‬ 8
‫בעבר‬
166 Following Meyer; Ginsburg reads ‫אלה]?[ אלהם‬, suggesting he was unsure what the correct
parsing was. In Guthe’s discussion of this phrase (Lederhandschrift, 71), he too wavers on the
parsing of these two words. I have opted for ‫אל האלהם‬, given that it is a closer parallel to ‫ואדני‬
‫ האדנם‬than ‫ אלה אלהם‬is. The latter phrase is also grammatically atypical.
167 Ginsburg transcribes these two words without brackets; Meyer transcribes ....... ֯‫א‬.
168 Sources for transcription: Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 242–44) and Guthe (Lederhand-
schrift, 46–51), which is less complete. Guthe notes (Lederhandschrift, 21) that he was unable
to review his transcription of G 3–5 due to poor light during a thunderstorm.
169 Guthe indicates a line break here. This is likely a printing error, given that this would
produce two unusually short lines, which together make up the length of a single line.
170 Ginsburg transcribes ‫אבתכם‬, possibly reflecting a variant in Va .
171 Ginsburg transcribes ‫הית‬, possibly reflecting a variant in Va , although Guthe marks the
mem as partially illegible.

172 Following Guthe; Ginsburg reconstructs [‫כי אך ]אם[ תשמר]ו‬.
173 Ginsburg reads ‫מצוה‬, perhaps following Va .
174 The word ‫היום‬, which is absent in MT, appears in SP. LXX has σήμερον (=today), likely
reflecting the same Vorlage.

175 Ginsburg’s transcription lacks the he.
176 Following Ginsburg; Guthe could not read the end of the word clearly and reconstructs
‫אלהם‬
֯ .
177 Guthe transcribes ‫ ֯ת ֯קם‬.
178 Following Guthe. Ginsburg reads ‫לפנכם‬, which corresponds to SP, against MT. Cf. Josh
1:5.
179 Ginsburg reconstructs [‫מצות]י וחקתי‬, but Guthe appears to have been able to read both
words and transcribes ‫מצות אלהם‬.

180 Following Ginsburg. ‫ אשר‬is absent in Guthe’s transcription, but the word is underlined in
his column of biblical correspondences, suggesting that this is an editing error.

181 Guthe transcribes ‫שם‬.
182 Guthe indicates a hole here.
‫ · ואלה‬184 ‫ אצל אלני מרא‬183 ‫ה]ירד[ן דרך מבא השמש בארץ הכנעני בע]רבה נג[ד הגלגל‬ 9
[‫י֯]עמדו‬
186
‫ · ואלה יעמדו על הר גרזם שמ‬185 [‫ ]על הר עבל[ ראובן זבולן וגד אשר ד]ן[ ונ]פתלי‬10
‫ הלוים נגד הר גרזם ו‬189 ‫ · ועמדו‬188 ‫ מנשה ואפרם ובנימן‬187 ‫ ען ויהודה וישכר‬11
‫ ולו לבדו ישתחו ואתו‬192 ‫ אלהם אלהו‬191 [‫ ברך האיש אשר יה]יה‬190 ‫ ]ענ[ו ואמרו בקל רם‬12

‫ אמן · ברך הא]יש אשר י[קדש את היום השבעי‬194 ‫לבדו יעבד וענו כל הע]ם[ ואמרו‬ 1
183 Following primarily Guthe, who transcribes ‫[ הגלגל‬.....]‫בארץ הכנעני בע‬. Ginsburg recon-
structs ‫בארץ הכנעני ]נג[ד גלגל‬. I tentatively accept Ginsburg’s ‫ – נגד‬as opposed to ‫מול‬, as in MT,
SP, 1QDeuta (1Q4), and 1QDeutb (1Q5) – due to the fact that he saw a dalet there. Unlike
Guthe, Ginsburg does not record a he before ‫גלגל‬. The two transcriptions of this passage are
not altogether reconcilable.
184 Following Ginsburg. Guthe transcribes ‫ אלן ]*[רא‬with a single asterisk. Given the absence
of final forms and word dividers, it seems probable that Ginsburg – who expresses no reserva-
tions about his reading here – was able to make out two letters where Guthe saw traces of only
one. SP and Kennicott 69 read ‫מרא‬, with V.
185 Structure of V matches LXX and SP, against MT: A, B, ve-C.
186 Precise line break location unknown. Guthe marks a break in this general area, but he is
unable to make out the text near the margins.

187 Vb ’s spelling of Issachar is attested in 4Q522 and some mss. of 1 Chr 2:1. It is also re-
flected in the qere perpetuum of many MT mss., in which one sin is unpointed, and in LXX’s
transliteration of the name.
188 Following Ginsburg, who appears to have had little difficulty reading this sentence and
transcribes it without brackets. The idiosyncratic orthography of Issachar suggests that Gins-
burg was not merely reconstructing from context. Guthe’s less complete reconstruction is in
full accordance with Ginsburg’s readings.
189 Following Ginsburg. Guthe tentatively reconstructs ‫֯ע ֯ד ֯ו‬
֯ ‫ו‬, although his German translation
of this word is “anheben,” which corresponds to ‫וענו‬.
190 Following Ginsburg from the beginning of this line. He indicates only two illegible letters,
whereas Guthe was unable to read much of the text.

191 Ginsburg has ‫ ;יאהב‬Guthe reads [**]‫יה‬. Guthe’s reading is more plausible, given the absence
of the object marker ‫את‬, which would be expected following ‫יאהב‬, and given its correspondence
to this blessed man’s counterpart in Va E 2:2.
192 Following Guthe; Ginsburg transcribes ‫אלהנו‬.
schrift, 50–53), which is less complete. Both manuscripts for this section were extant at the
time. Guthe consulted this column’s corresponding section in Va (Lederhandschrift, 63).
194 Following Ginsburg; Guthe transcribes ‫כלה ואמרו‬ ֯ ‫וענו‬. In his discussion, Guthe notes that
the sequence ‫כלה‬, rather than ‫כל העם‬, appears three times in this fragment. However, Ginsburg
reads ‫ כל ה]ע[ם‬here, and in the other two cases (Vb G 4:2,5), Guthe was unable to read the
characters following the he, allowing for the standard idiom to have, in fact, appeared.
197
‫ ואמרו אמן · ]ברך[ מכבד אבו ואמו וענו כל ה‬196 ‫ כל העם‬195 ‫וישבת בו וענו‬ 2
198
‫עם ואמרו אמן · ברך ]ה[איש אשר לא יקם ולא יטר את נפש אחו ו‬ 3
‫ענו אמן · ברך האיש אשר לא יטמא את אשת רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו א‬ 4
‫ את רעהו וענו כל ה]עם ואמרו אמן ·[ ברך האיש‬199 ‫מן · ברך האיש אשר לא י]נ[ה‬ 5
‫אשר לא ישבע בשמי לשקר וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ברך האיש אשר לא‬ 6
‫ אשר לא נשא‬200 ‫]י[שקר ברעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ברך‬
֯ ‫יכחש ולא‬ 7
‫ רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ]ברך[ האיש אשר יאה‬201 ‫עינו אל ]כל נפ[ש‬ 8
‫ב את רעהו וענו כל העם ואמ]ר[ו אמן · ברך האיש אשר יקם את כל דב‬ 9
‫ רי התרה הזאת לעשת אתם וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ויספו הלוי‬10
‫ ם ויענו ויאמרו בקל ]רם[ ראה א]ם[ שמע תשמע בקל אלהך לשמר לעש‬11
‫ ת את כל מצותו ובאו עלך כל הברכת האלה ברך אתה בער ברך אתה‬12

[‫בשדה ברך טנאך ]ו[שארתך · ברך פרי בטנך ופרי אדמתך שג]ר א‬ 1
203
[‫לפך ועשתרת צאנך ברך אתה בבאך וברך אתה בצאתך · יתן אלה]ם‬ 2
‫את איבך נגפם לפנך · יצו אלה]ם[ את הברכה בכל מעשה י]ד[ך · יק‬ 3
[‫מך אלהם לו לעם קדש וראו כל עמי הארץ ]ו[יראו ממך · יפתח אלה]ם‬ 4
195 Guthe has ‫ וענו‬here, as appears throughout the lists of blessed and cursed men. Ginsburg
has ‫ ויענו‬in his Hebrew transcription, perhaps reflecting a (wə-)yiqṭōl construction, as in ‫ ויספו‬in
line 10 of this fragment, et passim. See §6.2.2.
196 Guthe could not read between the he of ‫ העם‬and the end of line 4. The text here is therefore
based on Ginsburg’s version, which is the only extant transcription.

197 Precise line break location unknown.
198 Precise line break location unknown. We have only Ginsburg’s transcription here, which
lacks the words ‫ כל העם ואמרו‬in both the Hebrew and the translation.
199 Ginsburg reconstructs ‫ ]ינ[ה‬and Guthe transcribes [***]‫י‬, indicating that he perceived traces
of a fourth letter.
200 Following Guthe; Ginsburg reconstructs [‫ ]האיש‬after ‫ברך‬, but it is possible that this is a
word he thought was intended by the author or scribe, rather than one physically present in
the manuscript. Alternately, it may be that Guthe neglects to indicate an illegible four-letter
sequence.
201 Guthe reads ‫[כש‬...]‫ ה‬and Ginsburg apparently reconstructs ‫ה]ר[כש‬, although in print, the
first letter looks like a khet. (This printing issue occurs elsewhere in Ginsburg’s Athenæum tran-
scriptions.) ‫ הרכש רעהו‬seems implausible, prima facie. I suggest that the he is erroneous, and we
should read ‫ כל נפש‬or perhaps ‫כל רכש‬. Cf. the same transcription error with regard to the he of
‫ אלהם‬in Vb F 1:4; pe and kaph are similar in the scripts of the V mss. ‫ כל נפש‬accords with V’s
version of the concomitant proclamation and curse: In both the concern appears to be lusting
after people belonging to others, not coveting their objects. See note 213.
schrift, 52–57), which is less complete. Both manuscripts for this section were extant. Ginsburg
may have been working from Va . Guthe worked from Vb but consulted this column’s corre-
sponding section in Va (Lederhandschrift, 63).
203 Guthe was unable to read this letter, marking it with an asterisk; Ginsburg transcribes a
kaph. However, kaph and mem are very similar in the Paleo-Hebrew script of these manuscripts,
and the graphic confusion was perhaps compounded by damage to the letter. ‫ אלהם‬is the ex-
pected form. Cf. notes 147 and 219.
‫בעת ֯ו ו֯הלות גוים רבם ואתה לא תלו‬

֯ ‫לך את השמם ]ל[תת מטר ארצך‬ 5
205
[‫ למעלה ]ולא[ תהיה למטה ויתרך אלהם רק לטבה על האדמה ]הטב‬204 ‫ה והית רק‬ 6
‫ נתן לכם · ויסבו הלוים את פנהם נגד הר עב‬206 ‫]ה אשר אלהם אלהי א[בתכם‬ 7
///////
[‫השבעי וענו‬
/////////‫ביום‬ ////////// ‫ ויענו ויאמרו בקל רם ארר האיש אשר יעשה‬207 [‫]ל‬
///////‫]מלאכה‬ 8
‫ פסל ומסכה מעשה ידי חרש וענו כל העם ואמרו‬208///‫אמן‬
[· //////‫ואמרו‬
////////‫העם‬
9//////‫]כל‬
/////
[‫ וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ארר מקל]ה‬209 ‫ אמן · ארר האיש אשר יעשה מלאכה ביום השבעי‬10
‫אבו ואמו ו‬
‫ ענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ארר מכה רעהו בסתר וענו כל העם ואמ‬11
‫ינאף‬
֯ ‫ רו אמן · ארר האיש אשר יקרב אל כל שאר בשרו ואשר‬12
‫ העם ואמרו אמן · ארר‬210 ‫ ]את אש[ת רעהו ואשר יבעל עם כל בהמה וענו‬13
Fragment H, column 1 of 2 ( V b )211

‫מסג גבל רעהו וענו כל העם ואמרו אמן · ארר האיש אשר ישבע‬ 1
‫לה]עד[ ֯ע ֯דת שקר בעמ‬
֯ [‫בשמי לשקר וענו כל ה]עם[ ו]אמר[ו אמן · ארר לקח ש]חד‬ 2
‫ אל אשת ר‬213 ‫ וענו כל הע[ם ואמ]רו[ אמן · ארר האיש אשר יחמד וישא֯ ֯ע ֯נ ֯ו‬212 ‫ת]ו‬ 3
204 The word ‫ רק‬is absent in Ginsburg’s transcription, perhaps reflecting a variant.
205 Precise line break location unknown; Guthe could not read any text near the margins.
206 Reconstruction based on the correlation of Guthe’s and Ginsburg’s partial readings here.
Guthe, working primarily from Vb but consulting Va , reads: ‫למטה ויתרך אלהם רק לטבה על האדמה‬
‫[ נתן לכם · ויסבו הלוים‬......] ¶ [...]. Ginsburg read ‫[ ]ו[יסבו הל]ו[ים‬....] ‫ א[בתכם‬....]‫[מה‬...] ‫]ל[מטה‬.
207 Guthe has an extended ellipsis after this word, to which only the lamed in Ginsburg’s
transcription corresponds.
208 Guthe has an ellipsis here, but there is no corresponding word or ellipsis in Ginsburg’s
transcription, nor is there an ellipsis in Guthe’s own translation. Notably, the Hebrew text here
runs smoothly, making missing text seem, prima facie, improbable. Guthe also indicates a line
break after ‫ יעשה‬on line 8, which produces the two shortest lines in the fragment, as well as
an anomalous thirteenth line. These features might be explicable as the product of corrected
parablepsis: the scribe of Vb accidentally skipped from the words ‫ ארר האיש אשר יעשה‬in the first
curse to the same four words in the second, leading to the omission of the text in between.
Upon realizing the error, the scribe scratched out the erroneous text and then continued from
the correct word. This accounts for Guthe’s ellipsis, which indicates illegible text, and also for
the length of lines 8 and 9, which would otherwise be inexplicably short. One might further
speculate that the scribe sought to complete each fragment or column at a particular point in
the text, leading him or her to write line 10 – which contains more text than the other lines – in
smaller and denser script, so as to not run out of space on account of the error. The fragment’s
final three lines are considerably shorter. This supposition may be supported by Fragment D 3
(Va ), where the final two lines are substantially shorter than those that precede it.
209 Ginsburg has a plus here, perhaps reflecting a variant: ‫לחללו‬.
210 Ginsburg has a plus here, perhaps reflecting a variant: ‫כל‬.
211 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 55–61; transcribed by Eduard Meyer)
and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 243–44).

212 Guthe indicates that he saw traces of an illegible letter before the tav.
213 Ginsburg, who had some difficulty reading this section, reconstructs ‫ארר האיש אשר י]שא‬
‫עינ[ו‬. For ‫ נשא עין‬as “lust after,” as it seems to be used here, cf. Gen 39:7. The idiom is also used
figuratively regarding the gods desired by Israel. See, e.g., Ezek 18:12.
‫ ולכל אשר לו ]וענו כל העם[ ואמרו אמן · ארר האי‬216 [‫ ואמת]ו‬215 ‫ בתו‬214 ‫עהו אל‬ 4
‫ש אשר ישנא ]א[ת אחו ֯ב ֯ל ֯ב ֯ו וענו כל ]הע[ם ואמרו אמן · ארר האיש אש‬ 5
· ‫ אמן‬218 ‫ דברי התרה ה]ז[את לעשת אתם וענו כל העם ואמרו‬217 ‫ר לא יקם את כל‬ 6
‫ לש‬219 ‫ויספו הלוים לקרא בקל רם ויאמרו ו]הי[ה אם לא תשמע בקל אלהם‬ 7
‫מר לעשת את כל מצותו ]ו[חקתו ו֯באו עלך כל הקללת האלה ארר אתה בע‬ 8
‫ר וא]רר[ אתה בש]דה ארר טנאך[ ושארתך ארר פרי בטנך ופרי אדמת‬ 9
‫ ך שגר אלפך ו]עשתרת צאנ[ך · ארר אתה בב]א[ך וארר אתה בצאתך · ית‬10
‫ את המארה בכל מעשה י]ד[ך יתנך‬220 ‫ נך אלהם נ]גף לפני[ איבך ישל]ח[ אלהם‬11
‫הש ֯מ ֯ם‬
֯ ‫]ל[מ ֯ש ֯ל ולשננה בכל עמי הארץ יעצר אלהם את‬
֯ ‫ אלהם לשמה‬12
Fragment H, column 2 of 2 ( V b )221

‫ ילוך‬224 ‫תר ֯ד מטה מטה הוא‬
֯ ‫ ואתה‬223 ‫ יעלה מעלה מעלה‬222 ‫יש ֯ב בקרבך‬
֯ ‫אש ֯ר‬
֯ ‫הגר‬ 1
‫ אשר אתה בא‬226 ‫]ה[אדמה‬
֯ ‫ אלהם אתכם מן‬225 ‫ואתה ]לא תלו[נו יאבד וישמד‬ 2
‫ לצאת ול‬229 [‫ מא֯ ה ועשרם שנה ]א[נך היום לא אכל ע]וד‬228 ‫ בן‬227 [‫שמ ֯ה לרשתה · ]ואמר‬
֯ 3
‫בא לפנכם ואלהם אמר אלי לא תעבר את הירדן יהשע העמד לפנך‬ 4
231
‫ יבא אתכם אל הארץ הטבה אשר ]אתם באם[ ש‬230 ‫]הוא[ יעבר את הירדן והוא‬ 5
‫ כי אלהם אלהכם הוא הה‬232 ‫תחפ]ז[ו‬
֯ ‫מה לרשתה · חזקו ואמצו אל תראו ואל‬ 6
214 Following Meyer; Ginsburg transcribes ‫ואל‬.

215 From context, this appears to mean “his daughter,” not “his house.”
216 Following Meyer; Ginsburg transcribes [‫ואל אמ]תו‬.
217 SP reads ‫ כל‬here, which is absent in MT. LXX reads πᾶσιν, reflecting the same.
218 4Q30 and SP read ‫ואמרו כל העם‬, against MT’s ‫ואמר‬.
219 With Meyer; Ginsburg reads ‫אלהך‬. Cf. notes 147 and 203.
220 ‫ בך‬is absent in Kennicott 75, as in V, against MT mss.
221 Sources for transcription: Guthe (Lederhandschrift, 60–63; transcribed by Eduard Meyer)
and Ginsburg (Athenæum 2913, 243–44). Meyer was unable to read much of this column. Gins-
burg’s transcription is more complete here and appears to indicate reconstructions consistently.
I rely on Ginsburg wherever Meyer’s transcription is lacking.
222 Following Meyer. Ginsburg could not read between the shin of ‫ אשר‬and the second bet of
‫ בקרבך‬and reconstructs ‫הגר אש]ר בקר[בך‬.

223 Following Ginsburg; Meyer reconstructs ‫מא֯ לה‬.
224 Following Meyer; Ginsburg does not transcribe this word.
225 Meyer transcribes [*]‫ ;ו]*[שמ‬Ginsburg reconstructs ‫וי]שמ[ד‬.
226 Ginsburg, who could not read this section clearly, reconstructs ‫את]ך מעל פני הא[דמה‬.
227 Following Meyer, who marks three illegible letters between the dot following ‫ לרשתה‬and
the word ‫בן‬. Ginsburg could not read ‫לרשתה‬, but he reconstructs it from context, without indi-
cating signs of additional illegible letters.
228 Following Meyer. Ginsburg transcribes ‫כן‬, although this may be a printing error; his trans-
lation accords with ‫בן‬.

229 Or perhaps ‫עד‬. Ginsburg does not transcribe this word, and Meyer reconstructs [**]‫ע‬, in-
dicating two illegible letters following the ayin.

230 Meyer, who had more difficulty reading this section, has ‫ הוא‬without the initial vav.
231 Precise line break location unknown. Meyer was unable to read any text near the margins.
232 Ginsburg reads ‫( תחפדו‬not a known word), and Meyer transcribes [**]‫תח‬ ֯ . Possibilities are
‫( תחתו‬cf., e.g., Josh 10:25) and ‫( תחפזו‬Deut 20:3), both of which appear in precisely this context.
Given Ginsburg’s reading, the latter is a better fit here, although Meyer records traces of only
two letters.
233
[‫לך עמכ]ם לא ירפכם ולא יעזבכם · ועתה כתבו לכם את התרה הזאת למ‬ 7
[‫]ען תהיה התרה[ הזאת ]לעד[ לפנכם ]כי לא תשכח מפי זרעכם[ כי ]ידעתי א‬ 8
235
‫ משה את כל‬234 ‫]ת יצרכם אשר אתם עשם ·[ אלה הדברם אשר צוה‬ 9
[vacat] · ‫בני ישראל על פי יהוה בערבת מאב לפני מתו‬ 10
[vacat] 11
[vacat] 12
233 The conjectural reconstructions in lines 7–9 are based in part on Deut 31:6–21.
234 In the Nash Papyrus, a verse corresponding to Deut 4:45 – which is reminiscent of this
verse in V – appears between the Decalogue and the Shema. However, whereas MT there has
‫אלה העדת והחקים והמשפטים אשר דבר משה אל בני ישראל‬, Nash reads ‫]אלה החק[ימ והמשפטים אשר צוה‬
‫משה את ]בני ישראל[ ֯במדבר בצאתם מארץ מצרימ‬. If there is indeed a genetic relationship between
Deut 4:45 (which is otherwise absent in V ) and the present verse in V (which has no direct
counterpart in Deuteronomy), the agreement between Nash and V on the words ‫ צוה‬and ‫את‬
(against all other extant versions) may be significant.
235 Following Meyer; Ginsburg transcribes ‫לכל‬, which is also possible. Cf., e.g., Jer 32:23.
8. English Translation of V
8.1. Introductory Remarks

The translation below occasionally diverges materially from existing interpreta-
tions of the corresponding biblical passages. Some of these divergences are con-
sidered in chapter 6, and others will be discussed in future publications.
8.2. Translation
Fragment A, column 1 of 1 ( V a )
1 [These are the wor]ds that Moses spoke according to the order of YHWH to all
the children of
2 [I]srael in the wil[derne]ss, across the Jordan, [on the p]lain. Elohim, our
3 god, spoke to [us] at Horeb as follows: “You have been settled on this moun-
tain for too long.
4 Turn and journey, going to the Amorite highland, as well as into all the neigh-
boring regions on the pl-
5 ain, the highland, the [low]land, and the seacoast.” So we set out from Horeb
and traveled
6 this [who]le [gre]at and terrible wilderness that you have seen, and we arrived
7 [at] Kadesh[-barnea. And] I said to you, “Today you have arrived at the
Amo[rite]
8 highland – g[o up and take poss]ession of the land, as Elohim,
9 [god of your fathers,] promised [you.” But you did not] assent to go up, and
you complained, sayi-
10 ng, “It is [because Elohim hates us that he is handing us over to the Amorites]
8.2. Translation 157
Fragment B, column 1 of 1 ( V a )
1 to demolish us.” Elohim’s anger then burn[ed], and he [swore] as follows: “As
[I] live,
2 all the people who perceived the declarations and affirmations that I made
3 ten times over and did not have faith or heed my voice,
4 shall not see the goo[d] land [t]hat I swore to gi-
5 ve to their fathers, except [my servant Caleb] son of Jephunneh and Joshua
6 son of Nun who stands before you – they will go there, and to them I shall
give it.
7 And you, turn and journey [to] the wil[derness] toward the Sea of Reeds, until
the death
8 of the whole generation – the peo[p]le of the conflict – from a[mi]d the camp.”
So [we journeyed from]
9 Kadesh-barnea until the people of the conflict had completely died out from
amid the
10 camp. [We then turned and journeyed to Kadesh. And Elohim said to me,]
Fragment C, column 1 of 1 ( V a )
1 “Today you cross the border of the children of Esau who are settled
2 [in Se]ir; do not harass them and do not provoke war with them. For I shall
not
3 give you any of their land as a possession, since I have given it as a possession
to the children of Esau.”
4 (The Horites had once been settled there, but the children of Esau dispos-
sessed them and settled there in their pl-
5 ace.) So we turned and traversed the wilderness of Moab. And Elohim said
to me,
6 “Today you cross the border of Moab; do not harass them and do not provoke
war with th-
7 em. For I shall not give you any of their land as a possession, since I have
given Ar as a possession
8 to the children of Lot.” (Rephaites had once been settled there – the Moabites
call
9 them Emites – but Elohim eradicated them, and they settled there in their
place.) So we turned
10 and crossed Wadi Zered. Then Elohim said to me as follows: “Go up
158 8. English Translation of V
Fragment D, column 1 of 3 ( V a )
1 and cross Wadi Arnon. Today I shall begin to give you Sihon, th-
2 e Amorite king of Heshbon, and his land.” So we attacked Sihon at Jah-
3 az, smiting until no survivor was left to him. We then captured all his cities
from Aroer o-
4 n the edge of Wadi Arnon as far as Gilead and as far as Wadi Jabbok. All this
Eloh-
5 im, our god, set before us. So we turned and crossed via Wadi Jabbok. Elohim
said
6 to me as follows: “Today you cross the border of the land of the children of
Ammon; do not har-
7 ass them and do not provoke war with them. For I have given the land of the
children of Ammon as a possession to the children of Lot.”
8 ([Repha]ites had once been settled there – the Ammonites call them Azamza-
mim – but Elohim
9 erad[icat]ed them from before them and they settled there in their place.)
Then Elohim said to me, “Send peo-
10 ple to infiltrate Jazer.” So we captured Jazer and settled in the cities of the
Amorites. Then
1 Og, king of the Bashan, came out against us to do battle, and we smote him
until no sur-
2 vivor was left to him. We captured from them sixty cities – the entire territory
of the Argov – fortified with walls, double
3 gates, and bolts. Besides the Perizzite cities, very many, and all the cities of
the tableland,
4 the whole of the Gilead, and all of the Bashan, as far as Salecah and Edrei. (It
too is called a land of Rephaites,
5 for Og, king of the Bashan, had been one of the last remaining Rephaites.)
We turned
6 and journeyed southward and settled opposite Beth-peor. At that time, the
daughters
7 of Moab and women of Midian came out toward you and invited you to eat
from their offer-
8 ings. You ate from their sacrifices, drank from their libations, bowed to their
go-
9 ds, and whored with the women of Midian. You yoked yourselves to Baal-
peor on that
10 day. Elohim’s anger then burned against you, and he inflicted upon you at
that time
1 a great plague. I sent from among you people to fight the Midianites, and
2 you smote them by the sword’s edge, and you took from them a great many
captives. The pl-
3 ague then ended. I was commanded by Elohim at that time to teach you
statutes and ord-
4 inances to observe in the land that you are crossing into to possess. Be careful,
5 do not add to my laws and do not take away from them. Be careful, lest you
forget and
6 make for yourselves a carving or image in the form of any figure that is in the
heavens above or upon the ear-
7 th below or in the waters beneath the earth. For my anger would then burn
against you, and I would eradica[te]
8 [y]ou swiftly from upon this good land. Know today and
9 [ke]ep his decrees and commandments, so that it may go well for you and
10 so that you may live long upon the land that Elohim, your god,
Fragment E, column 1 of 4 ( V a )
1 is giving you. Listen, Israel: Elohim, our god, is a single god.
2 So love Elohim, your god, with all your heart and all your soul,
3 very much, and keep these proclamations that I command you tod-
4 ay upon your heart. Teach them to all your children and recite them when
you sit
5 at home, when you go on your way, when you lie down, and when you rise.
Tie
6 them as a declaration upon your arm, and they shall serve as an affirmation
between your eyes. Insc-
7 ribe them upon the posts of your home and gate. For Elohim made a pact
with yo-
8 u at Horeb on the day of the assembly. I stood between Elohim
9 and you at this time – for you were afraid on account of the fire and did not
[climb]
10 the mountain – to tell you the word of your god, as follows:[vacat]
1 I am Elohim, your god, who freed you from t-
2 he land of Egypt, from the slave-house. You shall not ha[ve]
3 any other gods. You shall not mak[e] a carving or any im-
4 age that is in the heavens above or upon the earth be-
5 low or in the waters beneath the earth. You shall not pros-
6 trate yourselves before them, and you shall not serve them. I am
Elohim,
7 your god.[vacat]
8 Sanctify [the seventh day and rest on it. For in s]
1 ix days I made the heavens and the ea-
2 rth and all that is in them, and I rested on the seventh day.
3 Therefore you too shall rest, along with your livestock and all
that
4 you have. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat]
5 Honor your father and your mother. I am Elohim, your god.
6 You shall not sl[ay] the soul of your brother. I am Elohim, your
god.
7 You shall not commit adultery with the wife of your fellow. I am
Elohim, your god.[vacat]
8 You shall not steal the wealth of your brother. I am Elohim, your
god.[vacat]
1 You shall not swear in my name falsely, for I shall avenge
2 the transgression of fathers against sons, grandsons, and great-
grandsons for those who b-
3 ear my name falsely. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat]
4 You shall not submit against your fellow a false judgment. I am
Elohim, your
5 god.[vacat]
6 You shall not desire the wife of [your fellow], his male slave, his
female slave, or anything tha-
7 t is his. I am Elohim, your god.[vacat]
8 You shall not hate your brother in your he[ar]t. I am Elohim,
your god.
9 It is th[es]e ten pronouncements that [Elohim] uttered [to you
upon the mountain from amid the fire.]

1 .....................................................................
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [When you heard the voice]
3 [from amid the fire, you said to me, “Y ]ou [speak] with u[s and we shall
list]en; let [not Elohi]m speak with [us],
4 lest we die.” Elohim heard [what you] said [when you spoke to me at that
time and sa-]
5 i[d, “What they sa]id [is good.] Ma[y their hearts always be so, that they fear
me and keep all my co-]
6 [mmandments for all] time, [so] that [……] n[ot] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 .....................................................................
8 .....................................................................
9 .....................................................................
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 .....................................................................
2 .....................................................................
3 .....................................................................
4 .....................................................................
5 .....................................................................
6 .....................................................................
7 .....................................................................
8 .....................................................................
9 .....................................................................
10 .....................................................................
11 .....................................................................
12 .....................................................................
1 .....................................................................
2 .....................................................................
3 .....................................................................
4 .....................................................................
5 .....................................................................
6 .....................................................................
7 .....................................................................
8 .....................................................................
9 .....................................................................
10 .....................................................................
11 .....................................................................
12 .....................................................................
1 .....................................................................
2 .....................................................................
3 .....................................................................
4 .....................................................................
5 .....................................................................
6 .....................................................................
7 .....................................................................
8 .....................................................................
9 .....................................................................
10 .....................................................................
11 .....................................................................
12 .....................................................................
Fragment G, column 1 of 5 ( V b )
1 [on]g upon the land that I promised to give to them and to their children
after them. Listen, Is[rael],
2 today you cross the Jordan to go and dispossess many powerful nations, great
fortifi-
3 ed cities. Do not say in your hearts, “They are many, these nations; we shall
not manage to dispossess them.” Do not fear th-
4 em. Recall what Elohim did to Pharaoh and to all of Egypt – that is what
Elohim will do to all your enemies.
5 For Elohim is the one who goes before you; he is a consuming fire. He will
eradicate them and swiftly humble them bef-
6 ore you. [Elo]him will also cast l[ep]rosy upon them, till the hiding remnants
are utterly demolished bef-
7 ore you, if only you keep [his] comm[andments], ordinances, and decrees,
which I am commanding you today.
8 Know today that it is not because of [your] righteousness that Elohim, your
god, is setting before you this land to possess,
9 for you have been a stiffnecked people. From the day you left Egypt until
today, [you] have been rebellious
10 against Elohim, your god. At Horeb, on the day I climbed the mountain to
acquire the two stone tablets, upon which
11 are written [all the pronouncements that] Elohim [uttered] to you upon the
mountain from amid the fire on the day of the assembly,

12 you [en]raged [Elohim and made for yourselves a c]ast [calf ]. [I threw myself
down before Elohim on the] mountain that burned like fire
1 with the two tablets in my hands. When I saw your sin, I broke the two tablets
before your e-
2 yes, and I prayed for you at that time for forty days and forty nights. At
Taberah
3 and at Massah and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you were rebellious against your
god. At that time Elohim said
4 to me, “[Carve ou]t t[w]o stone tablets like the first ones, and climb up the
mountain to me,” so I climbed the mountain
5 with the two tablets in my hands. Then Elohim wrote upon the tablets the
[ten] pronouncements that he had uttered to you upon the mountain on
the d-
6 ay of the assembly, and he gave [them] to me. Behold, they are in the ark that
I made. At Kadesh-barnea, when Elohim said to me,
7 “Go up and possess the land,” you were rebellious against your god and did
not go up or heed his
8 voice. Elohim planned to eradicate y[o]u, so I threw [my]self down on your
behalf when [I] stood upon the mountain for forty days
9 [and fo]rt[y ni]ghts on your behalf, and Elo[him] heeded [that time too and
did not annihilate] y[ou at] once.
10 It is not because of your righteousness that your god has given you the means
to acquire wealth [………] It was your fathers whom [Elohim desired],
11 loving them, so he chose their [descend]ants after [them] out of all [the na-
tion]s. For [Elohi]m,
12 your god, is the god of gods and the ma[s]te[r] of masters, [the mighty] and
awesome [god]. H[e] is your glory
1 and he is the one who did for you the great and awesome deeds. Your ances-
tors went down to Egy[pt] with seventy people,
2 [and n]ow you have become a vast and great nation. For if you ke[e]p all of
the [l]aw that I am commanding you to-
3 day to perform, loving your god and walking in all his ways and decrees, then
E[lo]him will dispossess a
4 [ll the people] of the place – everything upon which the soles of your feet
tread. [N]o man will stand up to you, for the [dread]
5 and fear of you will be upon the entire land over which you tread. See, I am
se[tting before] you today a ble-

6 ssing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of Elohim;
and the curse, if you do not obey, but turn
7 from the way that I am commanding you today. [When] Elohim [brings y]ou
into the land that yo-
8 u are going into to possess, you shall give the blessing on Mount [Gerizim]
and the curse on Mount Ebal. Behold, they are across
9 the [Jord]an westward, in the land of the Canaanites, in the A[rabah,
oppo]site the stone circle, beside the oaks of Moré. These sha[ll stand]
10 [on Mount Ebal]: Reuben, Zebulun, and Gad; Asher, Da[n], and Na[phtali].
And these shall stand on Mount Gerizim: Sim-
11 eon, and Judah, and Issachar; Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Benjamin. Then
the Levites shall stand opposite Mount Gerizim and
12 [call o]ut in a loud voice, “Blessed is the man who h[as] Elohim as his god,
and who prostrates himself only to him, and who
1 serves him alone.” And all the peo[ple] shall call out “Amen.” “Blessed is the
m[an who sa]nctifies the seventh day
2 and rests on it.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “[Blessed is he who]
honors his father and his mother.” And
3 all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Blessed is [the] man who does not avenge
or exact retribution for the soul of his brother.” And they shall respond
4 “Amen.” “Blessed is the man who does not defile the wife of his fellow.” And
all the people shall call out “A-
5 men.” “Blessed is the man who does not ch[ea]t his fellow.” And all the [peo-
ple] shall call [out “Amen.” ] Blessed is the man
6 who does not swear in my name falsely.” And all the people shall call out
“Amen.” “Blessed is the man who does not
7 deceive or [l]ie to his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Blessed
is he who does not lust after
8 an[yone be]longing to his fellow.” And all the people shall call out “Amen.”
“[Blessed] is the man who lov-
9 es his fellow.” And all the people shall call o[u]t “Amen.” “Blessed is the man
who upholds all the procla-
10 mations of this teaching to perform them.” And all the people shall call out
“Amen.” The Levites shall continue
11 and call out in a [loud] voice, “See, i[f ] you truly heed the voice of your god,
taking care to d-
12 o all his commandments, then all of these blessings will befall you: Blessed
are you in the city, blessed are you
1 in the field, blessed are your firstling [and] your remnant. Blessed are the fruit
of your loins and the fruit of your land, the wom[bs of your ca-]
2 ttle and the bellies of your sheep. Blessed are you in your coming, and blessed
are you in your going. Eloh[im]
3 will set your enemies – defeated – before you. Eloh[im] will order blessing
upon all your ha[nd]iwork. Elohim will est-
4 ablish you as a holy people; all the peoples of the land will behold [and] fear
you. Eloh[im] will open
5 the heavens for you, [to] give rain for your land in its season. You will lend to
many nations; you will not borr-
6 ow. You will be only on top; you will [not] be on bottom. Elohim will make
you abound only in goodness upon the [good] land
7 [that Elohim, god of your fa]thers, is giving you.” The Levites shall then turn
to stand opposite Mount Eb-
8 [al] and call out in a loud voice, “Cursed is the man who does///////
[work////
on////
the
/////////
seventh//////
day.”//////
And ///
all////
the/////////
people
9 //////
shall ////
call/////
out///////////
“Amen.” ] a carving or a casting, the handiwork of a craftsman.”
And all the people shall call out
10 “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who does work on the seventh day.” And all the
people shall call out “Amen.” “Cursed is he who disgraces his father and
mother.” And
11 all the people shall call out “Amen.” “Cursed is he who strikes down his fellow
in secret.” And all the people shall call o-
12 ut “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who approaches any of his kin, or who com-
mits adultery
13 [with the wif ]e of his fellow, or who copulates with any animal.” And all the
people shall call out “Amen.” “Cursed is
Fragment H, column 1 of 2 ( V b )
1 he who moves the boundary marker of his fellow.” And all the people shall
call out “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who swears
2 falsely in my name.” And all the [people] shall call [ou]t “Amen.” “Cursed is
he who takes a br[ibe] to g[ive] false judgment against his comr-
3 [ade.” And all the peo]ple [shall call] o[ut] “Amen.” “Cursed is the man who
desires and lusts after the wife of his fe-
4 llow, his daughter, [his] female slave, or anything that is his.” [And all the
people shall call] out “Amen.” “Cursed is the ma-
5 n who hates his brother in his heart.” And all [the peo]ple shall call out
“Amen.” “Cursed is the man wh-

6 o does not uphold all the proclamations of t[h]is teaching to perform them.”
And all the people shall call out “Amen.”
7 The Levites shall continue calling out in a loud voice and say, “If you do not
heed the voice of Elohim, taking
8 care to do all his commandments [and] decrees, then all of these curses will
befall you: Cursed are you in the ci-
9 ty, cu[rsed] are you in the fi[eld, cursed are your firstling] and your remnant.
Cursed are the fruit of your loins and the fruit of your land,
10 the wombs of your cattle and [the bellies of ] your [sheep]. Cursed are you in
your co[m]ing, and cursed are you in your going.
11 Elohim will set you – de[feated – before] your enemies. Elohim will cas[t]
the execration upon all your ha[nd]iwork.
12 Elohim will make you an epitaph, a proverb, and a saying among all the na-
tions of the land. Elohim will stop up the heavens.
Fragment H, column 2 of 2 ( V b )
1 The stranger settled in your midst will rise higher and higher; you will de-
scend lower and lower. He will lend to you;
2 you [will not lend to] him. Elohim will demolish and eradicate you from [the]
land that you are going
3 into to possess.” [Then I said], “I am today one hundred and twenty years
old; I can no lo[nger] come and
4 go before you. And Elohim has said to me, ‘You will not cross the Jordan;
Joshua, who stands before you –
5 [he] will cross the Jordan.’ He will bring you into the good land that [you are
going] in-
6 to to possess. Be strong and resolute; do not fear and do not panic. For Elo-
him, your god – he is the one who wa-
7 lks alongside y[ou. He will not let go of you; he will not abandon you. Now,
write down this teaching, so t-
8 hat] this [teaching may be a witness] before you, [since it will not be forgotten
from the mouths of your descendants,] for [I know
9 the schemes that you devise].” These are the words that Moses instructed all
the children of Israel
10 according to the order of YHWH on the plains of Moab before his death.[vacat]
11 [vacat]
12 [vacat]
9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction
9.1. Introductory Remarks

What follows is a Paleo-Hebrew reconstruction of the transcribed manuscript
fragments of Va and Vb . Like the originals, it is presented scriptio continua, except
for the Decalogue, where word-separating dots feature (along with larger script
and petuḥot before and after each proclamation). As an approximation of the orig-
inal manuscripts, it is a useful tool for text-critical questions and for weighing po-
tential reconstructions of the illegible sections. Circlets appear above characters
that were partially legible to the transcribers; outlined characters are reconstruc-
tions.
A word of caution: The Paleo-Hebrew typeface used here is not a perfect match
for the scripts of either Va or Vb .
9.2. Text
Fragment A, column 1 of 1 ( V a )
‫אלההדברםאשרדברמשהעלפייהוהאלכלבני‬ 1
‫ישראלבמדברבעברהירדן בערבה·אלהםאל‬ 2
‫הנודבראלנובחרבלאמר·רבלכםשבתבהרהז‬ 3
‫הפנווסעו לכםובאוהרהאמריואלכלשכנובע‬ 4
‫רבהבהרוב שפלהובחףהים·ונסעמחרבונלךא‬ 5
‫תכלהמדבר̊הגדלוהנראהזהאשרראתםונבא‬ 6
‫עדקדשברנע·ואמראלכםבאתםהיוםעדהר‬ 7
‫האמ ריעלוורשואתהארץכאשרדבראל̊ה̊ם‬ 8
‫אלהיאבתכםלכם·ולא̊א̊ב̊ת̊םלעלתותרגנוו̊ת̊א̊מ‬ 9
‫רובש נאתאלהםאתנונתןאתנובידהאמרי‬ 10
Fragment B, column 1 of 1 ( V a )
‫לאבדנווי חראףאלהםוי שבעלאמרחי אני‬ 1
‫כיכלהעםהראםאתאתתיואתמפתיאשרעשתי‬ 2
‫זהעשרפעמםולא̊ה̊א̊מ̊נ̊וולאשמעובקלי‬ 3
‫אםיראואתהארץהטב האשרנשבעתילת‬ 4
‫תלאבתהםבלתיעבדיכלבבןיפנהויהשע‬ 5
·‫בןנןהעמדלפנךהמה̊י̊ב̊א̊ושמהולהםאתננה‬ 6
‫‪168‬‬ ‫‪9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction‬‬
‫ואתםפנולכםוסעוהמ דברהדרךיםסףעדתם‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫כלהדרא נשיהמרבהמק רבהמחנהו נסעמ‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫קדשברנעעדתמואנשיהמרבהלמתמקרבה‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫מחנה ונפןונסעקדשה·ויאמראלהםאלי‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫) ‪Fragment C, column 1 of 1 ( V a‬‬

‫אתםעברםהיוםאתגבלבניעשוהישבם‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫בשעירלאתצרםולאתתגרבםמלחמהכילא‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫אתןמארצםלכםירשה·כילבניעשונתתהירשה‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫̊ה̊ח̊ר̊םמעלםישבהבהובניעשוירשםוישבותחת‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ם·ונפןונעבראתמדברמאב·ויאמראלהםאליאתם‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫עברםהיוםאתגבלמאבלאתצרםולאתתגרבםמל‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫חמהכילאאתןמארצםלכםירשהכילבנילטנת‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫תיערירשה·רפאםמעלםישבובהוהמאבםיקראו‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫להםאמםוישמדםאלהםוישבותחתם·ונפן‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ונעבראתנחלזרדויאמראלהםאלילאמרקמו‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫) ‪Fragment D, column 1 of 3 ( V a‬‬

‫ועברואתנחלארנןהיוםהחלתילתתלפנךאתסיחןמ‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫לךחשבןהאמריואתארצו·ונצאלקראתסיחןיהצ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫הונכהעדלאהשארלושרדונלכדאתכלערומערערא‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫שרעלשפתנחלארנןעדהגלעדועדנחליבקהכלנתןאלה‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫םאלהנולפננו·ונפןונעברדרךנחליבקויאמראלהם‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫אלילאמראתםעברםהיוםאתגבלארץבניעמןלאתצ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫רםולאתתגרבםמלחמהכילבנילטנתתיארץבניעמןירשה‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫רפאםמעלםישבובהוהעמנםיקראולהםעזמזמםוישמ‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫דםאלהםמפנהםוישבותחתם·ויאמראלהםאלישלחאנ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫שםלרגלאתיעזרונלכדאתיעזרונשבבעריהאמרי·ויצא‬ ‫‪10‬‬

‫עגמלךהבשןלקראתנולמלחמהונכהועדלאהשארלוש‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫רדונלכדמאתםששםערכלגבלהארגבבצרתחמהדלת‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫םובריחם·לבדמעריהפרזםהרבהמאדוכלעריהמשר‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫וכלהגלעדוכלהבשןעדסלכהואדרעי·ארץרפאם̊י̊ק̊ר̊א‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫גםהואכיעגמלךהבשןמיתרהרפאםנשאר·ונפן‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ונסענגבהונשבמולבתפער·ויצאובעתההואבנת‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫מאבונשימדיןלקראתכםותקראןלכםלאכלמחג‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫הןותאלומזבחהןותשתומנ̊ס̊חהןותשתחולאלה‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫הןותזנואתנשיהמדינםותצמדולבעלפערביום‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ההואוחרהאףאלהםעלכםויגףבכםבעתההוא‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪9.2. Text‬‬ ‫‪169‬‬

‫מגפהגדלה·ושלחתימכםאנשםללחםאתהמדינםו‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫הכתםאתםלפיחרבושבתםמאתםשביהרבהלמאדות‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫עצרהמגפה·ואתיצוהאלהםבעתההואללמדאתכםחקםומ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫שפטםלעשתםבארץאשרעברםשמהלרשתה·השמרולכם‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫לאתספואלמצות̊יולאתגרעוממנו·השמרולכםפןתשכחוו‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫עשתםלכםפסלותמנהתבנתכלסמלאשרבשמםממעלואשרבאר‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ץמ תחתואשרבמיםמתחתלארץ·וחרהאפ̊יבכםו̊אשמ ד‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫אתכםמהרהמןהארץהטבה̊הזאת·וידעתהיוםו‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫שמרתאתחקתוומצותולמעןיטבלכםו‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫למעןתארכוימםעלהאדמהאשראלהםאלהך‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫) ‪Fragment E, column 1 of 4 ( V a‬‬

‫נתןלכם·שמעישראלאלהםאלהנואלהםאחד‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ואהבתאתאלהםאלהךבכללבבךובכלנפשךלמ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫אדמאדוהיוהדברםהאלהאשראנךמצוךהיו‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫םעללבבךושננתםלכלבנךודברתאתםבשבת‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ךבבתךובלכתךבדרךבשכבךובקמךוקשרת‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫םאתםלאותעלידךוהיולתת̊מ̊פתביןענךוכת‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫בתאתםעלמזזתבתךושערךכיאלהםכרתעמ‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ך̊ב̊ר̊תבחרבביוםהקהלואנךעמדתיביןאלהם‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ובנכםבעתהזאתכיפחדתמפניהאשולא עלתם‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫הה̊רלהגדלכםדבראלהכםלאמר]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫אנך·אלהם·אלהך·אשר·החרתך·מא‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫יה·לכם·‬
‫רץ·מצרם·מבת·עבדם·לאיהיה‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫אלהם·אחרם·לאתעשו·לכם·פסל·וכל·תמ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫נה·אשר·בשמם·ממעל·ואשר·בארץ·מ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫תחת·ואשר·במים·מתחת·לארץ·לאתש‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫תחו·להם·ולאתעבדם·אנך·אלהם·‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫קדש· אתיום·השבעי·ושבת·בו·כי·ש‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫שת·ימם·עשתי·אתהשמם·ואתהא‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫רץ·וכל·אשר·בם·ושבתי·ביום·השבעי·‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫על·כן·תשבת·גם·אתה·ובהמתך·וכל·אשר·‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫לך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪ 5‬כבד·אתאבך·ואתאמך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·‬
‫צח·את̊נפש·אחך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·‬
‫לאתרצח‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫לאתנאף·אתאשת·רעך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫לאתגנב·אתהן·אחך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫לאתשבע·בשמי·לשקר·כי·אנך·אקנא·את‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫עון·אבת·על·בנם·על·שלשם·ועל·רבעם·ל̊נ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫שאי·שמי·לשקר·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫לאתענו·באחך·עדת·שקר·אנך·אלהם·אל‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫הך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫לאתחמד·אשת·רעך·עבדו·ואמתו·וכל·אש‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ר·לו·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫בך·אנך·אלהם·אלהך·‬ ‫לאתשנא·אתאחך·̊ב̊ל̊בב‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫אלהםעמכםבהרמתך‬
‫להדבראלהםעמכםבהרמתך‬ ‫אתעשרתהדברםהאל‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫)? ‪Fragment F, column 1 of 4 ( V b‬‬

‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‬כשמעכםאתהקל‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫מתךהאשותאמרואלידבראתהעמנ וונשמעו̊א לידברעמ נואל‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫הםולא̊נמת·וישמעאלהםאת̊דבר כםבדברכםאליבעתההואויא‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫מ רהטבואשרדברו·מיי תןוהיהלבבםזהליראהאתיולשמראתכלמ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫צותיכלהימם למעןלא ‪. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪9.2. Text‬‬ ‫‪171‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫‪......................................................‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫) ‪Fragment G, column 1 of 5 ( V b‬‬

‫מםעל̊ה̊אדמהאשרנשבעתילתתלהםולבנהםאחרהם·שמעיש ראל‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫אתםעברםהיוםאתהירדןלבאלרשתגויםרבםועצמםערםגדל̊תובצ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫רתחמהלאת̊אמרובלבבכם̊רבםהמההגויםהאלהלאנכללהרשםלאתיראמה‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫םזכר̊א̊תאשר̊ע̊שהאלהםלפרעהולכלמצרםכןיעשהאלהםלכלאיבך·‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫כי̊א̊ל̊ה̊םהואהעברל̊פנךאשא̊כ̊לההוא·הואישמדםויכנעםמהרהל̊פ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫נך·גםאתהצרעתישלחאלהםבםעדאב̊דיאבדה̊נ̊סתרםהנשארםמל̊פ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫נך̊רקאםתשמרואתמצ ותוומשפטווחקתואשראנךמצוךהיוםו‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ידעתהיוםכילאבצדקתךאלהםאלהךנתןלפנךאתהארץהזאתלרשתה‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫כיעםקשהערףהיתמןהיוםאשר̊יצאתממצרםעדהיוםממרםהית‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫םאתאלהםאלהך·̊בחר̊ב̊ביוםעלתיההרלקחתאתשנילחתהאבנםועל̊ה̊ם‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫כתבםכלהדברםאשרדבראלה̊םעמכםבהרמתךהאשביוםהקהל‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫הקצפתםאתאלהםועשתםלכםעגלמסכהואתנפללפניאלהםבהרהבערכאש‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫ושנילחתבידיואראחטאתכםואשבראתשניהלחתלע‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ינכםו̊אתפללבעדכםבעתההואארבעםיוםוארבעםללה·ובתבערה‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ובמסהובקברתהתאוהממרםהיתםאתאלהכם·בעתההואאמראל‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫הםאלי פסללךש נילחתאבנם̊כ̊ר̊אשנםוע̊להאליההרהואעלההרהושני‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫הלחתבי̊די·ויכתבאלהםעלהלחתא תעשרתהדברםאשרדבראלכם̊ב̊ה̊רבי‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫וםהקהלויתנםאליוהנםבארןאשרעשתיובקדשברנעבאמראליאלה‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫םעלוורשואתהארץממרםהיתםאתאלהכםולאעלתםולאשמעתםבק‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫לו̊ו̊י̊א̊מ̊ראלהםלהשמדא תכםואתנפלבעדכםבעמד יבהרארבעם̊י̊ו̊ם‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫וארבע םל̊להבעדכםוישמעאל הםגםבפעםההואולאהשחתאת כםכרגע·‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫לאבצדקתךאלהךנתןלךכחלעשתחיל‪.........‬רק חשקאלהםבאב‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫תכםלאהבהאתםויבחרב זרעםאחרהםמכלהעמם·כ יאלהם‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫אלהכםהואאלהאלהםוא ד̊ניהאדנםהאלהגברוהנראהואתהלתך‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫והואאשרעשהאתךאתהגדלתואתהנראת·בשבעםנפשירדואבתךלמצר‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫םועתההית̊םלעםעצםורב·כי̊אםתשמרןא תכלהמצוהאשראנךצותךה‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫יוםלעשתהלאהבהאתאלהכםללכתבכלדרכוובכלחקתו·והרשאלהםאתכ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫לאנשיהמקםכלאשרתדרך̊כ̊ףרגלכםבו· לאיתיצבאישב̊פנכםכי פחדכ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫םומראכםיהיהעלפניכלהארץאשרת̊דרכובו·ראהאנךנתןלפנכםהיוםבר‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫כהוקללהאתהברכהאםתשמעואלמצותאלהםוהקללהאםלאתשמעווסרתם‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫מהדרךאשראנךמצוהאתכםהיום·והיהכייבאךאלהםאלהארץאשראת‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫הבאשמהלרשתהונתתאתהברכהעלהר גרזםוהקללהעלהרעבל·הלאהמהבעבר‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ה ירדןדרךמבאהשמשבארץהכנעניבע רבהנגדהגלגלאצלאלנימרא·ואלה̊י עמדו‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫עלהרעבלראובןזבולןוגדאשרד ןונפתלי·ואלהיעמדועלהרגרזםשמ‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫עןויהודהוישכרמנשהואפרםובנימן·ועמדוהלויםנגדהרגרזםו‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ענוואמרובקלרםברךהאישאשריהיהאלהםאלהוולולבדוישתחוואתו‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫לבדויעבדוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךהא ישאשריקדשאתהיוםהשבעי‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫וישבתבווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךמכבדאבוואמווענוכלה‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫עםואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשרלאיקםולאיטראתנפשאחוו‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ענואמן·ברךהאישאשרלאיטמאאתאשתרעהווענוכלהעםואמרוא‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫מן·ברךהאישאשרלאי נהאתרעהווענוכלה עםואמרואמן·ברךהאיש‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫אשרלאישבעבשמילשקרוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשרלא‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫יכחשולא י̊שקרברעהווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךאשרלאנשא‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫עינואלכלנפשרעהווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשריאה‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫באתרעהווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ברךהאישאשריקםאתכלדב‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪9.2. Text‬‬ ‫‪173‬‬
‫ריהתרההזאתלעשתאתםוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ויספוהלוי‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫םויענוויאמרובקלרםראהא םשמעתשמעבקלאלהךלשמרלעש‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫תאתכלמצותוובאועלךכלהברכתהאלהברךאתהבערברךאתה‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫בשדהברךטנאך ושארתך·ברךפריבטנךופריאדמתךשג רא‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫לפךועשתרתצאנךברךאתהבבאךוברךאתהבצאתך·יתןאלה ם‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫אתאיבךנגפםלפנך·יצואלה םאתהברכהבכלמעשהידך·יק‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫מךאלהםלולעםקדשוראוכלעמיהארץ ויראוממך·יפתחאלה ם‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫לךאתהשמםלתתמטרארצךבע̊ת̊ו̊והלותגויםרבםואתהלאתלו‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫הוהיתרקלמעלה ולאתהיהלמטהויתרךאלהםרקלטבהעלהאדמה הטב‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫האשראלהםאלהיאבתכםנתןלכם·ויסבוהלויםאתפנהםנגדהרעב‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ויענוויאמרובקלרםאררהאישאשריעשה‪//////////////////////////‬‬
‫מלאכהביוםהשבעיוענו‬ ‫ל‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪·///////////////////‬פסלומסכהמעשהידיחרשוענוכלהעםואמרו‬
‫כלהעםואמרואמן‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫אמן·אררהאישאשריעשהמלאכהביוםהשבעיוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·ארר‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫מקלהאבוואמווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררמכהרעהובסתרוענוכלהעםואמ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫רואמן·אררהאישאשריקרבאלכלשארבשרוואשרינא̊ף‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫אתאשתרעהוואשריבעלעםכלבהמהוענוהעםואמרואמן·ארר‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫) ‪Fragment H, column 1 of 2 ( V b‬‬

‫מסגגבלרעהווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררהאישאשרישבע‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫בשמילשקרוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררלקחש חדל̊העד̊ע̊דתשקרבעמ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ת ווענוכלהעםואמ רואמן·אררהאישאשריחמדויש̊א̊ע̊נ̊ואלאשתר‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫עהואלבתוואמת וולכלאשרלווענוכלהעםואמרואמן·אררהאי‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫שאשרישנאאתאחו̊ב̊ל̊ב̊ווענוכל העםואמרואמן·אררהאישאש‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫רלאיקםאתכלדבריהתרהה זאתלעשתאתםוענוכלהעםואמרואמן·‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ויספו הלויםלקראבקלרםויאמרווהיהאםלאתשמעבקלאלהםלש‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫מרלעשתאתכלמצותו וחקתו̊ובאועלךכלהקללתהאלהארראתהבע‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫רוארראתהבשדהאררטנאךושארתךאררפריבטנךופריאדמת‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫ךשגראלפךועשתרתצאנך·ארראתהבבאךוארראתהבצאתך·ית‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫נךאלהםנ גףלפניאיבךישלחאלהםאתהמארהבכלמעשהידךיתנך‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫אלהםלשמהל̊מ̊ש̊לולשננהבכלעמיהארץיעצראלהםאתה̊ש̊מ̊ם‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫) ‪Fragment H, column 2 of 2 ( V b‬‬

‫הגרא̊ש̊רי̊ש̊בבקרבךיעלהמעלהמעלהואתהת̊ר̊דמטהמטההואילוך‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ואתהלאתלונויאבדוישמדאלהםאתכםמןהא̊דמהאשראתהבא‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ש̊מ̊הלרשתה·ואמרבןמ̊אהועשרםשנה אנךהיוםלאאכלעודלצאתול‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫באלפנכםואלהםאמראלילאתעבראתהירדןיהשעהעמדלפנך‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫הואיעבראתהירדןוהואיבאאתכםאלהארץהטבהאשראתםבאםש‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫מהלרשתה·חזקוואמצואלתראוואלת̊חפזוכיאלהםאלהכםהואהה‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫לךעמכ םלאירפכםולאיעזבכם·ועתהכתבולכםאתהתרההזאתלמ‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫עןתהיההתרההזאת לעדלפנכם כילאתשכחמפיזרעכםכי ידעתיא‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫תיצרכםאשראתםעשם·אלההדברםאשרצוהמשהאתכלבני‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫עלפייהוהבערבתמאבלפנימתו·]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫]‪[vacat‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
Bibliography
Achenbach, Reinhard. Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot. Literarkritische Untersuchungen

zu Deuteronomium 5–11. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991.
–. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext
von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003.
–. “Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als
Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs.” In: Zeitschrift für altorientalische
und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9 (2003), pp. 56–123.
Aḥituv, Shmuel. Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period.
Jerusalem: Carta, 2008.
Albright, William Foxwell. “The Gezer Calendar.” In: Bulletin of the American Schools of Orien-
tal Research 92.1 (1943), pp. 16–26.
Allegro, John Marco. The Shapira Affair. New York: Doubleday, 1965.
Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. 1st ed. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.
Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary. 1st ed. The Anchor Bible 24. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974.
“Archæological Frauds in Palestine.” In: St. James Gazette (Jan. 2, 1885), pp. 6–7.
Artus, Olivier. Études sur le livre des Nombres. Récit, Histoire et Loi en Nb 13,1–20,13. OBO 157.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.
Azar, Moshe. The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew. Hebrew. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew
Language, 1995.
Bacon, Benjamin W. Triple Tradition of the Exodus. Hartford, CT: Student Publishing Company,
1894.
Barr, James. “Some Notes on ben ‘between’ in Classical Hebrew.” In: Journal of Semitic Studies
23.1 (1978), pp. 1–22.
–. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten
Testaments. Halle: Niemeyer, 1918.
Begg, Christopher T. “The Significance of the ‘Numeruswechsel’ in Deuteronomy: The ‘Pre-
history’ of the Question.” In: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 55 (1979), pp. 116–24.
Bélis, Mireille. “The Unpublished Textiles from the Qumran Caves.” In: The Caves of Qumran.
Ed. by Marcello Fidanzio. Leiden: Brill, 2017, pp. 123–36.
Ben‐Shahar, Rina. “The Phonetic Representation of Spoken Language in Modern Hebrew Lit-
erature.” In: Traduction, terminologie, rédaction 8.2 (1995), pp. 249–73.
Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler. “Psalms.” In: The Jewish Study Bible. Ed. by Adele Berlin
and Marc Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 1265–436.
Bertholet, Alfred. Deuteronomium. KHC V. Freiburg, 1899.
Besant, Walter. Autobiography of Sir Walter Besant: With a pref. note by S. Squire Sprigge. Ed. by
S. Squire Sprigge. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1902.
176 Bibliography
“Biblical Research: Shapira’s Last Forgery.” In: The Independent 35 (Aug. 30, 1883), p. 9.
Bjøru, Øyvind. “Transitivity and the Binyanim.” In: Proceedings of the Oslo-Austin Workshop in
Semitic Linguistics. Ed. by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2014, pp. 48–63.
Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. London: Routledge, 1995.
Brockelmann, Carl. “Semitische Analogiebildungen.” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlän-
dischen Gesellschaft 67.1 (1913), pp. 107–12.
Caballero, Jay. “When a Man Wrongs a Woman: Slavery, Concubinage, and Divorce in the
Covenant Code and Deuteronomy.” In: San Diego, CA, Nov. 2019.
Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon. “Mr. Shapira’s Manuscripts.” In: The Times (Aug. 1883),
p. 8.
–. “Genuine and False Inscriptions in Palestine.” In: Palestine Exploration Quarterly 16.1
(1884), pp. 89–100.
–. Les fraudes archéologiques en Palestine, suivies de quelques monuments phéniciens apoc-
ryphes. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1885.
Cohen, Maimon. The Kethib and Qeri System in the Biblical Text. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes,
2007.
Collins, Terence. “The Kilamuwa Inscription: A Phoenician Poem.” In: Die Welt des Orients 6.2
(1971), pp. 183–88.
Cook, Stanley A. “A Pre-Masoretic Biblical Papyrus.” In: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 25 (1903), pp. 34–56.
Cooke, George A. A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Ara-
maic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903.
Cross Jr., Frank Moore. “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet.” In: Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 134 (1954), pp. 15–24.
–. “Epigraphic Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C.: II. The
Murabbaât Papyrus and the Letter Found near Yabneh-yam.” In: Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 165 (1962), pp. 34–46.
–. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
–. “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person
Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [‐âw].” In: Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook:
Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. HSS 51. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003, pp. 351–56.
Cross Jr., Frank Moore and David Noel Freedman. Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the
Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series 36. New Haven, CT: American Oriental So-
ciety, 1952.
Dershowitz, Idan. “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy Frag-
ments.” In: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 133.1 (2021).
Dillmann, August. Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. KeH 13. Leipzig, 1886.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. et al. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy
with Concordance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.
Driver, Samuel R. Deuteronomy. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895.
Dussaud, René. “L’Origine de l’alphabet et son évolution première d’après les découvertes de
Byblos.” In: Syria 25.1/2 (1946), pp. 36–52.
Fassberg, Steven E. “The Kethiv/Qere ‫ ִהוא‬, Diachrony, and Dialectology.” In: Diachrony in Bibli-
cal Hebrew. Ed. by Cynthia L. Miller and Ziony Zevit. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012,
pp. 171–80.
–. An Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2019.
Bibliography 177
Feldman, Ariel. “Moses’ Farewell Address according to 1QWords of Moses (1Q22).” In: Journal
for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23.3 (2014), pp. 201–14.
Finkelstein, Israel. “Jerobeam II’s Temples.” In: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
132.2 (2020), pp. 250–65.
Fishbane, Michael. “Varia Deuteronomica.” In: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
84.3 (1972), pp. 349–52.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995.
Francis, Patricia. “Philip Brookes Mason (1842–1903): Surgeon, General Practitioner and Nat-
uralist.” In: Archives of Natural History 42.1 (2015), pp. 126–39.
Frankel, David. The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal
Lore. SVT 89. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
“From our London Correspondent (by Private Wire).” In: The Manchester Guardian (Sept. 6,
1883), p. 5.
Garr, Randall W. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 BCE. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns, 1985.
Gesenius, Wilhelm, E. Kautzsch, and A. E. Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1910.
Gesundheit, Shimon. “Midrash-Exegesis in the Service of Literary Criticism.” In: The Recep-
tion of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts. Ed. by Christoph Berner and Harald
Samuel. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015, pp. 73–86.
Gevirtz, Stanley. “Of Syntax and Style in the ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’ – ‘Old Canaanite’ Connec-
tion.” In: Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 18 (1986), pp. 25–29.
Ginsburg, Christian David. The Moabite Stone: A Fac-simile of the Original Inscription, with
an English Translation, and a Historical and Critical Commentary. 2nd ed. London: Reeves
and Turner, 1871.
–. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2911 (Aug. 11, 1883), pp. 178–79.
–. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2912 (Aug. 18, 1883), p. 206.
–. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2913 (Aug. 25, 1883), pp. 242–44.
–. “The Shapira Ms. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Athenæum 2915 (Sept. 8, 1883), pp. 304–5.
Green, William Henry. A Grammar of the Hebrew Language. New York: John Wiley, 1861.
Greengus, Samuel. Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the
Ancient Near East. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.
Guil, Shlomo. “The Shapira Scroll Was an Authentic Dead Sea Scroll.” In: Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 149.1 (2017), pp. 6–27.
Guthe, Hermann. Fragmente einer Lederhandschrift enthaltend Mose’s letzte Worte an die
Kinder Israel, mitgeteilt und geprüft von Hermann Guthe. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1883.
Harry, Myriam. The Little Daughter of Jerusalem. Trans. by Phoebe Allen. New York: E. P. Dut-
ton, 1919.
Harvey Jr., Paul B. and Baruch Halpern. “W. M. L. de Wette’s ‘Dissertatio Critica …’: Context
and Translation.” In: Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008),
pp. 47–85.
Hasselbach, Rebecca. “External Plural Markers in Semitic: A New Assessment.” In: Studies
in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Grag. Ed. by Cynthia L. Miller.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2007, pp. 123–38.
Heide, Martin. “The Moabitica and Their Aftermath.” In: New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to
the Biblical. Ed. by Meir Lubetski. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012, pp. 193–241.
Hendel, Ronald S. and Jan Joosten. How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and
Historical Study. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018.
178 Bibliography
Hoftijzer, Jacob and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden:
Brill, 1995.
Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters
1–25. Ed. by Paul D. Hanson. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1986.
Hornkohl, Aaron. “Hebrew Diachrony and the Linguistic Periodisation of Biblical Texts: Ob-
servations from the Perspective of Reworked Pentateuchal Material.” In: Journal for Semitics
25.2 (2016), pp. 1004–63.
Huehnergard, John and Na’ama Pat-El. “Introduction to the Semitic Languages and Their His-
tory.” In: The Semitic Languages. Ed. by John Huehnergard and Na’ama Pat-El. 2nd ed. Mil-
ton: Routledge, 2019, pp. 1–21.
Hurvitz, Avi. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Lin-
guistic Research on the Hebrew Bible.” In: Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Ty-
pology. Ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. London: T&T Clark, 2003, pp. 24–37.
–. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Sec-
ond Temple Period. SVT 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Hyatt, J. Philip. “Jeremiah and Deuteronomy.” In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1.2 (1942),
pp. 156–73.
Isaksson, Bo. “So-called we-qatal Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew Once Again.” In: Kleine Un-
tersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19 (2015), pp. 71–117.
Ishida, Tomoo. “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations.”
In: Biblica 60.4 (1979), pp. 461–90.
Jackson, Bernard S. “The ‘Institutions’ of Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible.” In: Journal
of Semitic Studies 56.2 (2011), pp. 221–51.
Jefferson, Helen G. “The Shapira Manuscript and the Qumran Scrolls.” In: Revue de Qumrân
6.3 (1968), pp. 391–99.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament.
Vol. 1. Munich: Kaiser, 1971.
Jeon, Jaeyoung. “The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period.”
In: Journal of Biblical Literature 139.2 (2020), pp. 255–74.
Joffe, Laura. “The Elohistic Psalter: What, How and Why?” In: Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament 15.1 (2001), pp. 142–69.
Joosten, Jan. “The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System.”
In: Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives.
Ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, pp. 135–
48.
–. “The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective.” In: The Lan-
guage of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His
Seventieth Birthday. Ed. by Angelika Berlejung and Pierre van Hecke. Leuven: Peeters, 2007,
pp. 47–61.
–. “The Evolution of Literary Hebrew in Biblical Times: The Evidence of Pseudoclassicisms.”
In: Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Ed. by Cynthia L. Miller and Ziony Zevit. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012, pp. 281–92.
–. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical
Prose. JBS 10. Jerusalem: Simor, 2012.
Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 2000.
Kaufman, Ivan Tracy. “The Samaria Ostraca: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Palaeography.” PhD
diss. Harvard University, 1966.
Bibliography 179
Keil, Carl F. Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Erster Theil. Die Bücher Mose’s.
Zweiter Band. Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Dörffling und
Franke, 1870.
Kenyon, Frederic. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: Being a History of the Text and Its
Translations. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1895.
Kleinert, Paul. Das Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker. Untersuchungen zur alttesta-
mentlichen Rechtsund Literaturgeschichte. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1872.
Kline, Moshe. “The Editor Was Nodding’: A Reading of Leviticus 19 in Memory of Mary Doug-
las.” In: Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8.17 (2008), pp. 1–59.
Knapp, Dietrich. Deuteronomium 4: literarische Analyse und theologische Interpretation. Göt-
tinger theologische Arbeiten 35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testa-
ment. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Krahmalkov, Charles R. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Kratz, Reinhard. “The Headings of the Book of Deuteronomy.” In: Deuteronomy in the Penta-
teuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History. Ed. by Konrad Schmid and Raymond F.
Person Jr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012, pp. 31–46.
Kuenen, Abraham. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. Trans. by J. W.
Colenso. London: Longman, 1865.
–. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entste-
hung und Sammlung. Erster Teil, Erstes Stück: Die Entstehung des Hexateuch. Leipzig, 1887.
Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll. He-
brew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959.
L’Hour, Jean. “L’alliance de Sichem.” In: Revue Biblique 69.1 (1962), pp. 5–36.
–. “L’alliance de Sichem (suite).” In: Revue Biblique 69.2 (1962), pp. 161–84.
Landis Gogel, Sandra. A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.
Lemaire, André. “Paleography’s Verdict: They’re Fakes!” In: Biblical Archaeology Review 23.3
(1997), pp. 36–39.
–. “Une inscription araméenne du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. trouvée à Bukân (Azerbaïdjan iranien).”
In: Studia Iranica 27.1 (1998), pp. 15–30.
Leuchter, Mark. The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
Levenson, Jon D. “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” In: Harvard Theological Review 68.3–
4 (1975), pp. 203–33.
Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Levinson, Bernard M. “Deuteronomy.” In: The Jewish Study Bible. Ed. by Adele Berlin and Marc
Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 339–428.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Maier, Christl. “‘Begehre nicht ihre Schönheit in deinem Herzen’ (Prov 6,25): Eine Aktual-
isierung des Ehebruchsverbots aus persischer Zeit.” In: Biblical Interpretation 5.1 (1997),
pp. 46–62.
Mansoor, Menahem. “The Case of Shapira’s Dead Sea (Deuteronomy) Scrolls of 1883.” In: Wis-
consin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 47 (1958), pp. 183–225.
Margoliouth, George. Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Mu-
seum. Vol. 4. London: The British Museum, 1935.
Marti, Karl. “Das fünfte Buch Mose oder Deuteronomium.” In: Die Heilige Schrift des Alten
Testaments. Ed. by Alfred Bertholet. Vol. 1. Tübingen, 1922, pp. 258–327.
Martilla, Marko. “The Deuteronomistic Heritage in the Psalms.” In: Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 37.1 (2012), pp. 67–91.
180 Bibliography
Mayes, Andrew D. H. “Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy.” In: Journal
of Biblical Literature 100.1 (1981), pp. 23–51.
Mays, James Luther. Hosea. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
1969.
Mazar, Amihai. “Three 10th–9th Century B.C.E. Inscriptions from Tēl Reḥōv.” In: Saxa loquen-
tur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels. Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburts-
tag. Ed. by Cornelis G. den Hertog, Ulrich Hübner, and Stefan Münger. AOAT 302. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 2003.
Mendel-Geberovich, Anat et al. “A Brand New Old Inscription: Arad Ostracon 16 Rediscovered
via Multispectral Imaging.” In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 378
(2017), pp. 113–25.
Meyer, Esias E. “The Reinterpretation of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19 and the Centrality of
Cult.” In: Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 30.2 (2016), pp. 198–214.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22. AB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Mor, Uri. Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert. He-
brew. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2015.
Moran, William L. “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna
Tablets.” PhD thesis. Johns Hopkins University, 1950.
Morgenstern, Julian. “The Decalogue of the Holiness Code.” In: Hebrew Union College Annual
26 (1995), pp. 1–27.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. “Zur Geschichte der Dekaloge.” In: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 55.3–4 (1937), pp. 218–35.
“Mr. Shapira’s Manuscript.” In: The Times (Aug. 8, 1883), p. 11.
Naveh, Joseph. “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B. C.” In: Israel Exploration Journal
10 (1960), pp. 129–39.
Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox, 2002.
Neubauer, Adolf. “The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Academy 589 (Aug. 18, 1883),
p. 116.
–. “The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Academy 590 (Aug. 25, 1883), p. 130.
Noonan, Benjamin J. Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Con-
tact. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019.
Notarius, Tania. “Prospective ‘weqatal’ in Biblical Hebrew: Dubious Cases or Unidentified Cat-
egory?” In: Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34.1 (2008), pp. 39–55.
–. The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of
the Tense System. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Noth, Martin. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Darmstaft: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, 1930.
–. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke
im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943.
Notley, R. Steven and Ze’ev Safrai. Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and
Commentary. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Oettli, Samuel. Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Josua und Richter. München, 1893.
Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Liter-
aturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
–. Deuteronomium 1–11. Vol. 1. Freiburg: Herder, 2012.
–. Deuteronomium 1–11. Vol. 2. Freiburg: Herder, 2012.
Bibliography 181
Papers Relative to M. W. Shapira’s Forged Ms. of Deuteronomy (A. D. 1883–1884). Reproduced

from British Library Ms. Add. 41,294.
Pat-El, Na’ama. “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination.” In: Aramaic in Its
Historical and Linguistic Setting. Ed. by Holger Gzella and M. L. Folmer. Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz, 2008, pp. 55–76.
–. “On Negation in Phoenician.” In: Linguistic Studies in Phoenician. Ed. by Robert D. Holm-
stedt and Aaron Schade. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013, pp. 47–67.
Pat-El, Na’ama and Alexander Treiger. “On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and Ad-
verbs in Semitic.” In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 158.2 (2008),
pp. 265–83.
Pat-El, Na’ama and Aren M. Wilson-Wright. “The Features of Canaanite: A Reevaluation.” In:
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 166 (2016), pp. 41–55.
Peckham, Brian. “The Composition of Deut. 5–11.” In: The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth:
Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. by Carol
L. Meyers and Michael Patrick O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 217–40.
Perlitt, Lothar. Deuteronomium. Vol. 1-5. BKAT 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1990.
–. Deuteronomium 1–6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013.
Plenderleith, Harold J. “Technical Note on Unwrapping of Dead Sea Scroll Fragments.” In: Qum-
ran Cave 1. Ed. by Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon,
1955, pp. 39–40.
Plöger, Josef G. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deu-
teronomium. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967.
Polak, Frank H. “Sociolinguistics and the Judean Speech Community in the Achaemenid Em-
pire.” In: Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Ed. by Oded Lipschits. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, pp. 589–628.
Porzig, Peter. Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2009.
Puukko, Antti F. Das Deuteronomium. Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. BWAT 5. Leipzig,
1910.
Qimron, Elisha. “Waw Denoting a Glide.” Hebrew. In: Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World
of the Bible. Ed. by Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion
University of the Negev Press, 2001, pp. 362–75.
–. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2018.
–. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Rabe, Norbert. Vom Gerücht zum Gericht. Revidierte Textund Literarkritik der Kundschafter-
erzählung Numeri 13.14 als Neuansatz in der Pentateuchforschung. Tübingen, 1994.
Rabin, Chaim. “The Nature and Origin of the šafel in Hebrew and Aramaic.” In: Eretz-Israel 9
(1969), pp. 148–58.
Rabinowicz, Oskar K. “The Shapira Forgery Mystery.” In: Jewish Quarterly Review 47.2 (1956),
pp. 170–83.
Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964.
Rainey, Anson F. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect
Used by the Scribes from Canaan, Vol. 1: Orthography, Phonology, Morphosyntactic Analysis
of the Pronouns, Nouns, Numerals. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
–. “Syntax and Rhetorical Analysis in the Hashavyahu Ostracon.” In: Journal of the Ancient
Near Eastern Society 27.1 (2000), pp. 75–79.
Rand, Michael C. Introduction to the Grammar of Hebrew Poetry in Byzantine Palestine. Piscat-
away, NJ: Gorgias, 2006.
182 Bibliography
Raymond, Eric D. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology.

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.
Reiner, Fred. “Tracking the Shapira Case: A Biblical Scandal Revisited.” In: Biblical Archaeology
Review 23.3 (1997), pp. 32–41, 66–67.
Reisner, George Andrew. Israelite Ostraca from Samaria. Boston: E. O. Cockayne, 1920.
Rubinstein, Arie. “The Anomalous Perfect with Waw-Conjunctive in Biblical Hebrew.” In: Bib-
lica 44.1 (1963), pp. 62–69.
Rüterswörden, Udo. Das Buch Deuteronomium. NSK.AT 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
2006.
Sabo, Yoram. The Scroll Merchant: In Search of Moses Wilhelm Shapira’s Lost Jewish Treasure.
Hebrew. Bnei Brak: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2018.
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Trans. by John Elwode. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Sayce, Archibald H. “Correspondence: The Shapira Mss. of Deuteronomy.” In: The Academy
(Aug. 1883), pp. 116–17.
Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen
zur Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch.” In: Vetus
Testamentum 32.2 (1982), pp. 183–84.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. Der Heilige Krieg im Pentateuch und im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,
Studien zur Forschungs-, Rezeptionsund Religionsgeschichte von Krieg und Bann im Alten
Testament. München: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011.
Schorch, Stefan. “Where Is the Altar? Scribal Intervention in the Book of Joshua and Beyond.” In:
Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah,
Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions. Ed. by Benedikt Hensel, Dany Nocquet,
and Bartosz Adamczewski. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, pp. 231–44.
Schultz, Friedrich W. Das Deuteronomium. Berlin: Schlawitz, 1859.
Schwartz, Baruch. “Psalm 50: Its Subject, Form and Place.” Hebrew. In: Shnaton 3 (1979),
pp. 95–96.
–. The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999.
Segal, Moses H. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927.
Shapira, Moses Wilhelm. “Eigenhändiges Verzeichnis der von Shapira gesammelten hebräis-
chen Handschriften. Ms. or. fol. 1342.” Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.
Shitrit, Talya. “Aramaic Loanwords and Borrowing.” In: Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics. Ed. by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Shulman, Ahouva. “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical
Hebrew Prose.” In: Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13.2 (2000), pp. 168–80.
Siegismund, Kasper. “Anterior Weqatal in the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran Documents.” In:
Hebrew Studies 58 (2017), pp. 199–220.
Simpson, William. “Alleged Text of Deuteronomy.” In: The Illustrated London News (Aug. 25,
1883), pp. 181–82.
Sirat, Colette. “Les Fragments Shapira.” In: Revue des Études Juives 1-2 (1984), pp. 95–111.
Soggin, J. Alberto. Judges. Ed. by G. Ernest Wright and et al. The Old Testament Library.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981.
Stade, Bernhard. “Miscellen.” In: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1886).
Staerk, Willy. Das Deuteronomium. Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form. Eine kritische Studie.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1894.
Staps, Camil. “A Case Study of Reciprocal Middles in Biblical Hebrew: The Niphal of ‫לחם‬.” In:
Orientalia 87.2 (2018), pp. 159–87.
Bibliography 183
Steuernagel, Carl. Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums. Litterarcritische Untersuchung über seine
Zusammensetzung und Entstehung. Halle: J. Krause, 1894.
–. Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Ein-
leitung in den Hexateuch. Vol. 3. HK 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900.
Sukenik, Eleazar L. “An Epitaph of Uzziahu King of Judah.” Hebrew. In: Tarbiz 2 (1931), pp. 288–
92, 382.
Sukenik, Naama. “The Temple Scroll Wrapper from Cave 11. MS 5095/2, MS 5095/4, MS
5095/1.” In: Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Schøyen Col-
lection. Ed. by Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois. London: T&T Clark, 2016,
pp. 339–50.
Talshir, David. “‫ אָ חוֹת‬and ‫ עֵ דוֹת‬in Ancient Hebrew.” In: Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 15-16 (2002),
pp. 108–23.
–. “Is the Jehoash Inscription Genuine? A Philological Analysis.” Hebrew. In: Leshonenu La’am
54.1 (2003), pp. 3–10.
Taylor, Joan E. “Buried Manuscripts and Empty Tombs: The Qumran Genizah Theory Revis-
ited.” In: “Go Out and Study the Land” (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical, and Textual
Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Ed. by Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H.
Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 269–315.
Teicher, Jacob L. “The Genuineness of the Shapira Manuscripts.” In: Times Literary Supplement
(Mar. 22, 1957).
“The Shapira Collection.” In: The Athenæum (Mar. 7, 1874), pp. 326–27.
“The Shapira Manuscript.” In: The London Evening Standard (Aug. 14, 1883), p. 3.
“The Shapira Manuscript of Deuteronomy.” In: The Graphic (Sept. 1, 1883), p. 224.
“The Shapira Manuscripts.” In: The Times (Aug. 28, 1883), p. 5.
Thornewill, Charles Francis. “Obituary Notice of Philip Brookes Mason.” In: Journal of Con-
chology 11 (1904), pp. 104–5.
Tigay, Chanan. The Lost Book of Moses: The Hunt for the World’s Oldest Bible. New York: Harper-
Collins, 2016.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Soci-
ety, 1996.
Tigchelaar, Eibert. “A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7-10
and Jubilees 1:9, 14.” In: Dead Sea Discoveries 12.3 (2005), pp. 303–12.
Tobolowsky, Andrew. The Sons of Jacob and the Sons of Herakles: The History of the Tribal
System and the Organization of Biblical Identity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
Tov, Emanuel. “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX,
and 4QJosha.” In: The Book of Joshua. Ed. by Ed Noort. BETL 250. Leuven: Peeters, 2012,
pp. 65–85.
Tropper, Josef. Die Inschriften von Zincirli: Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des
phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1993.
Tsujita, Kyoji. “The Retrospective Pronoun as Direct Object in Relative Sentences in Biblical
Hebrew.” In: Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth
Birthday. Ed. by Alan S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991, pp. 1577–82.
Ulrich, Eugene. “Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land.” In: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Developmental Composition of the Bible. VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2017, pp. 48–65.
Valeton, Josua J. P. “Deuteronomium.” In: Studiën: theologisch tijdschrift 6 (1880), pp. 304–5.
Vater, Johann Severin. Commentar über den Pentateuch. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1802.
Vaux, Roland de. “Post-Scriptum: La Cachette des Manuscrits Hébreux.” In: Revue Biblique
56.2 (1949), pp. 234–37.
184 Bibliography
Veijola, Timo. “Zu Ableitung und Bedeutung von hēʿîd im Hebräischen: ein Beitrag zur Bun-
desterminologie.” In: Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976), pp. 343–51.
–. “Principal Observations on the Basic Story in Deuteronomy 1–3.” In: “Wünschet Jerusalem
Frieden”. Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization
for the Study of the Old Testament. Ed. by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk. ed.
Frankfurt a. M.: P. Lang, 1988, pp. 249–59.
–. Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,1–16,17. Vol. 1. ATD 8. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
VerSteeg, Russ. Law in Ancient Egypt. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2002.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place.” In: The Ten Commandments
in History and Tradition. Ed. by Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990,
pp. 1–44.
–. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York:
Doubleday, 1991.
Weiss, Meir. “The Decalogue in Prophetic Literature.” In: The Ten Commandments in History
and Tradition. Ed. by Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990, pp. 67–
81.
Weiss, Raphael. “On the Use of the Negative ‫ לא‬in the Bible.” Hebrew. In: Eretz-Israel 14 (1978),
pp. 148–54.
Wellhausen, Julius. “Die Composition des Hexateuchs.” In: Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie
22 (1877), pp. 407–79.
Westbrook, Raymond. “Judges in the Cuneiform Sources.” In: Maarav 12.1–2 (2005), pp. 27–
39.
Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de. “Dissertatio critico-exegetica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pen-
tateuchi Libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur.” PhD
thesis. University of Jena, 1805.
–. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Vol. 1. Halle, 1806.
Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. (Revised and expanded by John C. Beck-
man). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.
Wilson-Wright, Aren M. “A Reevaluation of the Semitic Direct Object Markers.” In: Hebrew
Studies 57 (2016), pp. 7–15.
–. “Father, Brother, and Father-in-Law as III-w Nouns in Semitic.” In: Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 79.1 (2016), pp. 23–32.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Ed. by Paul D.
Hanson and Gary Stansell. Hermeneia 28. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974.
Zeitlin, Solomon. “The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls.” In: Jewish Quarterly Review 40.1 (1949),
pp. 57–78.
–. “The Fiction of the Recent Discoveries near the Dead Sea.” In: Jewish Quarterly Review 44.2
(1953), pp. 85–115.
Zevit, Ziony. “The Elohistic Psalter.” In: The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic
Approaches. London: Continuum, 2001, pp. 668–78.
Index of Primary Sources
Hebrew Bible 3:8 117n109

3:17 117n109
Genesis 5:8 118, 139n75
1 58, 58n55, 79n13 5:11 75
1:14 115 7:3 115n97, 141n91
1:26 58 7:9 115n98, 141n91
2:2–3 105n45 8:28 116
2:6 107 12:31 127
4:12 113n82 12:31–32 127
6:4 128n155 12:38 127
7:11 116 12:51 116
7:14 58 13:9 141n91
7:23 122 13:16 141n91
13:7 117n109 16:7 69n82
13:16 108 16:10 69n82
15:6 105n47 17:7 79
15:18 116 17:31–32 127n152
15:20 117n109, 118n110 19:1 116
20:3 83 19:4 64
20:7 122 19:17 115
21:25 105n47 19:23 124, 124n138
24:8 113 20 54n37, 75
27:29 102, 138n64 20:2 39n4, 78
28:16 79 20:3 74
29:31 121n123 20:4 57–58, 59n58, 83,
31:7 105n47 143n107
31:21 122 20:5 72n1, 74, 145n121
33:7 127–28 20:7 72, 75, 77
34:2 120 20:8 83
34:30 117n109 20:11 104n42
35:2 123 20:12 80, 83, 85, 143n114
38:5 105n47 20:13 75, 83
39:7 81, 120, 153n213 20:13–15 77
40:15 118 20:14 75, 80
43:3 124n138 20:15 75, 80, 83
43:15 91n25 20:16 123, 145n124
43:28 102, 138n64 20:17 81, 122
46:1 122 20:19–20 145n128
48:3–6 90 21:29 127
22:15 120
Exodus 23:6–8 124n136
2:6 145n122 23:18 125, 138n61
186 Index of Primary Sources
23:23 117n109 10:25 105n47

23:28 147n136 13–14 63–64
24:16 69n82 13:1–15 63, 88
25:10 60 13:2 63, 67, 89
25:15 118n114, 139n75 13:8 89
26:7 54 13:17–18 67
26:8 54 13:30 64
31:17 104n42, 105n45 14 68
32:19 59 14:3 135n32
32:25–29 62 14:8–9 64n72
33:2 117n109 14:10 69n82
34 60, 60n65 14:21 68–69
34:11 117n109 14:21–22 69
34:25 126, 138n61 14:21–25 66
39:3 105n47 14:22 68
40:15 115 14:22–23 69
14:23 69
Leviticus 14:24–25 69
5:24 75 14:25 69
6:7–8 118n114, 139n75 14:31 135n32
9:6 69n82 14:33–34 67n78
9:23 69n82 14:45 102n35
15:18 120 16:19 69n82
16:21 99 17:3–5 141n91
19 54n37, 82–85, 87 17:7 69n82
19:1–4 82 18:20 62
19:3 83 18:28 118, 118n114, 139n75
19:4 83–84 20:1 64n75
19:11 83–84 20:1–13 64, 64n75
19:11–18 82 20:6 69n82
19:12 75, 84 20:13 135n36
19:14 87 24:22 115n96
19:16 84 25:2 137n60
19:17 84 27:14 64n75
19:18 83–84 31:9 117
19:33 84 32:10–12 135n28
20:18 111n72 32:11–12 115
25:32–33 118 32:13 67n78
33:30–34 62
Numbers
1:4–15 89 Deuteronomy
5:19 120 1:28b–33 64
7:5 115n96 1–3 51
7:72 54 1–4 53
8:1 115 1 67–68
9:2 110 1:1 54–55
10:17 105 1:1–2 54
10:17–18 105n47 1:1–3 56
10:21–22 105n47 1:1–4 56
Index of Primary Sources 187
1:1–5 54–56 2:31 48, 51

1:1–6 54 2:32–34 49
1:3 54 2:32–36 51
1:3–4 56 2:33 114
1:4 54 2:34 49, 52
1:5 54, 56 2:34–35 48
1:6 55 2:35 51
1:6–4:40 47 2:36 49
1:19 64, 67 2:37 48, 50–51
1:19–21 65 3:3 114n89
1:19–39 63 3:4 20
1:19–46 52, 64n74 3:5 118
1:21 68, 134n25 3:11 42n2
1:22 67 3:13 137n57
1:22–23 63 3:14 137n53
1:22–25 65–68 4:2 118
1:26–27 64n74, 65, 68 4:10–14 58
1:27 64, 134n26 4:15–16 58
1:28 64, 67 4:15–18 58
1:28–33 64, 64n74, 65–66 4:16 57–59, 59n58
1:29–33 64 4:16–18 57–58, 59n59
1:34 134n28 4:18 58
1:34–35 64n74 4:23 57n50
1:34–36 64 4:25 57n50
1:34–40 66 4:34 115n97, 141n91
1:35 64n74 4:41 91n25
1:36–39 64n74 4:44–28:68 47
1:37 64 4:45 125n142, 155n234
1:39 64n74, 135n32 4:47 91n25
1:41–46 70n84 5–11 47, 53
1:46 135n33 5–28 47
2 51 5:5 116
2:1–4 135n34 5:6 39n4, 78
2:5 113 5:7 74, 83
2:9 113 5:8 57, 59n58, 83
2:12 42n2, 128 5:9 72n1, 74, 145n121
2:16–17 51 5:11 72, 75, 77
2:17 52 5:12 83
2:19 113 5:16 80, 83, 85, 143n114
2:20–21 38 5:17 75, 83
2:24 48–49, 51 5:17–19 77
2:24–31 49 5:18 75, 80
2:24–37 48, 50, 50n25, 51 5:19 75, 80, 83
2:26 51 5:20 123
2:26–29 51 5:21 81, 122
2:26–30 52 5:22 142n101, 145n126
2:26-37 51 5:23–29 146n128
2:30 51 6:5 140n86
2:30–31 51 6:7 125n142
6:8 115, 141n91 20 51–52, 70

6:20 125 20:3 154n232
6:22 115, 115n97, 141n91 20:10 51
7:1 117n109 20:10–14 50, 50n25, 52
7:1–2 52 20:10–18 51–52
7:8 121n126, 143n104 20:14 51
7:16 113, 113n82 20:15–18 50
7:19 115n97, 141n91 20:16–18 52
7:20 147n136 20:17 117n109
9 59, 63n69 21:10–14 120
9:8 134n28 21:15 121n123
9:17 59 22:22 120
9:19 116 22:22–24 120
9:23 66–68 22:24 120n122
9:23–25 62–63 22:29 120n122
9:26–29 63n69 23:1 52n31
10 60n65, 63 26:5 91n25
10:1 59–61 26:8 115n97, 141n91
10:1–2 59–60 26:16–27:26 47
10:1–5 60–62 27–28 45, 47, 52n31, 87
10:3 60–61 27 53
10:3–5 59 27:12–13 45, 47, 88
10:5 61–62 27:12–14 46
10:6–7 62, 62n68 27:14 109
10:6–9 60, 62 27:18 87
10:8–9 60, 62, 62n68 27:20 52n31, 120
10:10 62–63, 63n69, 116 28–30 53
10:10–11 63n69 28 47
10:17–18 124n136 28:5 126
11 45, 87 28:11 109
11:18 141n91 28:17 126
11:26 45, 48 28:46 115nn97–98, 141n91
11:26–30 46 29–30 47
11:26–32 47 29:3 115n97, 141n91
11:29–30 45, 47 30:9 109
11:30 91, 91n24 31:6–21 155n233
11:31–27:11 46 32 41
12–26 41, 45, 47, 53 32:22 110n66
12 47 32:46 102n35, 124
13:1 113n82, 115n98, 118, 32:51 64n75
141n91 33 41
13:1–2 115n97, 141n91 34 41
13:6 121n126, 143n104 34:11 115n97, 141n91
13:9 113n82
16:17–20 124n136 Joshua
18:16 113n82 1:4 91n25, 118
18:16–17 146n128 1:5 150n178
19:3 115n96 1:7 118n114, 139n75
19:13 98 1:15 91n25
2:16 114 19:19 127

2:22 114 21:20 102n35
3:10 117n109
4:6–7 141n91 1 Samuel
4:19 91n24, 92 1:3 124n136
5:1 92 1:12 105n47
5:2 92 1:28 102, 138n64
5:10 91n24 6:18 117n109
6:26 111n72 7:9 114
7:9 110 8:9 124n138
8 90, 92 13:18 91n25
8:15 91n25 14:36 113n82
8:33 90 17:38 105n47
8:34 73n2 27:8 128n155
9:1 117n109 28:19 110
9:7 52n30
9:9–10 52n30 2 Samuel
9:24 52n30 1:4 127
10:24 106 11:17 113n80
10:25 154n232 12:31 105n47
11:3 117n109 13:18 105n47
12:1 91n25 19:16 91n24
12:2 48
1 Kings
12:8 117n109
2:6 113n82
15:7 91n24
9:9 102, 138n64
17:15 117, 117n109, 118
9:20 117n109
21:41 118
10:29 118
23:14 118n114
13:3 115n98, 141n91
24:2 128n155
13:5 115n98, 141n91
24:11 117n109
14:15 135n31
45:11 122
18:23 110
18:43 91n25
Judges 21:8 121, 143n104
1:4–5 117n109 21:11 121, 143n104
1:26 118
3:4 115n96 2 Kings
3:5 117n109 7:6 118
3:19 91n24 7:8 114
5:7 117n109 17:15 124
6:13 79 17:18 134n28
7:13 105 18:36 105
11:13 48 22 48
11:22 48 23:3 125
12:4 113n80 23:25 140n86
16:18 105n47
17:7 89 Isaiah
18:2 10n27 3:8 98n8
18:30 90n22 8:18 115nn97–98, 141n91
19:8 105n47 14:9 103n41
20:3 115n97, 141n91 22:12 85–86

27:6 111n72 23:43 102n31
34:2 111 26:20 128n155
34:12 121, 143n104 27:12 119
36:21 105 38:11 117n109
42:14 128n155 39:4 58
44:17 126n148 39:17 58
45:11 102n35 40:20 91n25
46:9 128n155 40:24 91n25
51:8 145n119 40:44 91n25
57:11 128n155 41:12 91n25
63:16 128n155 47:19 64n75
48:14 113, 113n82
Jeremiah 48:28 64n75
2:20 128n155
5:2 75 Hosea
5:15 128n155 4 75
6:10 124n138 4:2 75, 77–78
7:7 128n155 4:15 91n24
7:9 74–77 9:15 91n24, 113n82
11:17 124n138 10:12 114
19:4 135n31 12:12 91n24
25:5 128n155 13:15 98n9
27:20 121, 143n104
Joel
29:23 76, 81
2:2 113n82
31:22 58
2:30 115n98, 141n91
32:10 124n138
32:20–21 115n97, 141n91
Amos
32:23 155n235
4:4 91n24
39:6 121, 143n104
5:5 91n24
46:18 68
48:8 110
Micah
6:4 121n126, 143n104
Ezekiel
5:11 113n82 Zechariah
5:14 110 2:8 117n109
8:3 57n53, 58 3:6–7 124n138
8:5 57n53, 58 5:4 75
12:6 115n98, 141n91 8:7 91n25
17:23 58
18:12 81, 153n213 Malachi
21:2 91n25 2:3 126, 138n61
22:6–12 84–87 2:14 124
22:7 85 3:5 75
22:7–8 85
22:8 85 Psalms
22:8–9 86 25:6 128n155
22:9 85–86 25:10 125
22:9–11 85 35:1 112, 138n68
50 78–80 Esther
50:7 78 4:14 116n104
50:7–20 78–79 9:19 117n109
50:16–21 78
50:18 78 Ezra
50:19–20 78 9:1 117n109
56:2 112
56:2–3 138n68 Nehemiah
72:5 145n119 2:16 121, 143n104
74:6 102n31 4:14 121, 143n104
78:43 115n97, 141n91 4:19 121, 143n104
82:1 124n140 5:7 121, 143n104
90:2 128n155 6:17 121, 143n104
93:2 128n155 7:5 121, 143n104
95:8–11 67n78 8:6 102, 138n64
99:7 125n142 9:8 117n109
102:24 145n119 9:10 115nn97–98, 141n91
103:17 128n155 9:14 102
105:27 115n97, 141n91 13:17 121, 143n104
118:27 126, 138n61
119:2 125, 125n143 1 Chronicles
119:22 125n143 2:1 101, 151n187
119:52 128n155 12:39 126n148
119:146 125n143 29:10 128n155
119:167 125n143
119:168 125n143 2 Chronicles
132:2 125n143 1:17 118
135:9 115n97, 141n91 8:7 117n109
148:10 58 16:14 116, 139n70, 140n86
19:5–7 124n136
32:24 115n98, 141n91
Proverbs 33:7 57n53, 58
1:13 119 33:15 57n53, 58
6:16–35 80–82 34 48
6:20 80 34:14 48n24
6:25 81
6:30–31 80 Sirach
6:31 81 36:15 123
6:32 76n7, 80–81
6:35 81
8:23 128n155 Valediction of Moses
30:21–23 121n123
A–D 132n13
30:23 121n123
A–E 133n20
A 1:1–2 55
Job A 1:2–4 55
16:21 98n9 A 1:4 98
A 1:5–10 68
Ecclesiastes A 1:5–9 65
10:17 121, 143n104 A 1:9–B 1:1 65
B 1:1 34n2, 69, 138n63 E 1:1–4 133n13

B 1:1–8 66 E 1:2–3 116, 139n70
B 1:2 68, 115, 141n91 E 1:3 101
B 1:2–5 69 E 1:6 20n52, 98, 115
B 1:5 115 E 1:8 98, 116
B 1:5–6 69 E 1:9 116
B 1:7 69, 114n88 E 2:1 121
B 1:8–9 64n75 E 2:2 151n191
B 1:9 114 E 2:5 98n7
C 1:2 113 E 2:5–7 72n1
C 1:4 128 E 3:2 104
C 1:4–5 42n2, 136n50 E 3:3 126
C 1:6–7 113 E 3:3–4 122
C 1:8 128, 135n37 E 3:6 73
C 1:8–9 42n2 E 3:7 76
C 1:10–D 1:2 49 E 3:8 81, 119
D1 11n30 E 4:1 72, 76, 84, 124n137
D 1:2 103 E 4:1–3 76
D 1:2–3 49 E 4:2 116
D 1:3 114 E 4:4 123–24, 124nn135,137
D 1:3–5 49 E 4:4–5 77
D 1:6–7 113 E 4:6 73
D 1:8 128, 135n37 E 4:6–7 81, 122
D 1:8–9 38, 42n2 E 4:8 72, 84, 124n135
D 2:1 103 E 1:1–4:2 133n13
D 2:1–2 114 E 2:8–3:4 86, 126
D 2:2 20 F–H 133n20
D 2:3 117 F 132n11
D 2:3–5 117 F 1:4 152n201
D 2:6 102, 116 G1 132n11
D 2:6–3:3 104 G 1:6 114
D 2:7 103, 118n112 G 1:9–10 145n122
D 2:7–8 125 G 1:11 145n126
D 2:8 20, 102, 125 G 2:2 116
D 2:9 117 G 2:3 116
D 2:10 116, 137n59 G 2:3–4 61
D3 153n208 G 2:4 61
D 3:1 112, 137n59 G 2:4–6 61
D 3:1–2 137n59 G 2:6 61
D 3:2 116, 140n86 G 2:6–9 62
D 3:3 116 G3 150
D 3:5 118 G 3–H 1 72
D 3:5–6 58 G 3:5–9 46
D 3:5–7 58 G 3:8 142n100
D 3:6–7 58 G 3:8–9 91
D 3:7 98n7 G 3:9–11 88
D 3:9–10 144n114 G 3:9–12 46
D 2:5–3:3 70n84 G 3:11 101
D 2:6–3:3 104 G 4:1 108
G 4:1–2 86, 111n72, 143n110 4Q51 (4Q Samuela )

G 4:2 151n194 102n33, 138n64
G 4:3 73, 84 4Q129 (4Q Phylactery B)
G 4:3–4 83 142n97
G 4:5 84, 86 4Q134 (4Q Phylactery G)
G 4:5–7 124n135 142n97, 143nn107,114
G 4:6–7 77, 84 4Q137 (4Q Phylactery J)
G 4:7–8 73, 81 143n107
G 4:8–9 84, 124n135 4Q158 (4Q Reworked Pentateucha )
G 4:10–11 108 126n148
G5 132n9, 147 4Q161 (4Q Isaiah Peshera )
G 5:1 126 112n78
G 5:6–7 108 4Q259 (4Q Rule of the Communitye )
G 5:7–8 109 13fig.
G 5:11 73 4Q280 (4Q Curses)
G 5:12 119–20 126n148
G 5:12–13 70n86 4Q319 (4Q Otot)
H 132n11 12fig.
H 1:1–2 124n137 4Q374 (4Q Discourse on the Exodus;
H 1:2 123 Conquest Tradition)
H 1:2–3 82, 86, 124 126n148
H 1:3–4 73, 81, 111n72 4Q381 (Q Non-Canonical Psalms B)
H 1:7 103, 109 126n148
H 1:9 126 4Q405 (4Q Songs of the Sabbath
H 2:2 111n72 Sacrificef ) 14fig., 132n8
4Q427 (4Q Hodayota )
Dead Sea Scrolls 126n148
4Q431 (4Q Hodayote )
1Q4 (1Q Deuteronomya ) 126n148
151n183 4Q468g (4Q Eschatological Work A?)
1Q5 (1Q Deuteronomyb ) 112n78
151n183 4Q496 (4Q War Scrollf )
1Q22 (1Q Words of Moses; Divre Moshe) 126n148
42n5 4Q522 (4Q Prophecy of Joshua)
1QHa (1Q Hodayota ) 101, 151n187
126n148 4Q540 (4Q Apocryphon of Levia ?)
1QIsaa (1Q Isaiaha ) 20, 138n63
106, 126n148 5/6Hev papHebrew Legal Papyrus [P.
1QpHab (1Q Pesher to Habakkuk) Yadin 44] 100n22
14fig., 132n8 5/6Hev papHebrew Legal Papyrus [P.
1QS (1Q Rule of the Community; Yadin 46] 100n22
Manual of Discipline) 11Q1 (11Q Leviticusa )
126n148, 132n8 43n10, 132n8
4Q33 (4Q Deuteronomyf ) 11Q5 (11Q Psalmsa )
135n37 17fig.
4Q41 (4Q Deuteronomyn ) 11Q19 (11Q Templea )
142n97, 143n107 17fig., 132n8
4Q47 (4Q Joshuaa ) Mur22 (Mur papDeed of Sale of Land)
92, 92n28 100n22
XQ3 (XQ Phylactery 3) Kennicott 96 (Cambridge St. John’s

143n107, 145n124 College Ms. A 2)
134n28
Masoretic and Samaritan Kennicott 129 (BL Arundel Or. 2)
139n71
Manuscripts Kennicott 131 (Lambeth Ms. 435)
126n145, 138n61
British Library Or. 5557A.74
Kennicott 133 (Westminster Ca Ms. 2)
138n61
126n145, 138n61
Cambridge T-S AS 110.121
Kennicott 147 (Cf. Cod. Parm. 2292)
126n145, 138n61
98n9
Kennicott 1 (Oxford Bodleian Ms. Digby
Kennicott 173 (Denmark Ms. Hebr. 1)
Or. 32) 98n9
102n32, 138n64
Kennicott 4 (Oxford Bodleian Ms. Hunt.
Kennicott 221 (BNF Ms. Sam. 3)
11) 102n32, 138n64
134n28
Kennicott 69 (Oxford Corpus Christi
Kennicott 232 (Vatican Ms. ebr. 20)
College Ms. 5) 141n94, 151n184
137n55
Kennicott 75 (Oxford Jesus College Ms.
Kennicott 681 (Oxford Corpus Christi
95) 154n220
College Ms. 133)
Kennicott 81 (Oxford Merton College
126n145, 138n61
[?]) 139n71
Sutro Brinner 11 18, 19fig.
Kennicott 95 (Cambridge St. John’s
College Ms. A 1)
102n32, 138n64
General Index
Abravanel, Isaac, 63 118–19, 122, 126n146, 130. See also

adultery, 20n50, 70n86, 74–76, 76n7, pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew
78–81, 85, 120–21 Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon, 6–7,
Akkadian, 99, 108n58, 117, 121n124, 123, 15, 15n35
124n136 cut-margin theory, 6–7, 7n19, 12, 14fig.,
Aleppo Codex, 98n9 17fig., 16–18, 19fig., 39
Altes Museum (Royal Museum), 12
Amarna letters, 102, 108n58 Dangerfield Lithography, 23–25figs.
antisemitism, 8fig., 6–9 Dead Sea, 2, 3fig., 10–11, 15n40, 39
Arabic, 79n13, 99, 121, 123 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1, 9–10, 10nn27–28,
Arad ostraca, 97, 100, 100n23, 106, 108, 10n29, 11, 11fig., 11n30, 12, 12–14figs.,
130 16, 17fig., 20, 28, 42, 42n5, 43, 43n10,
Aramaic, 39n8, 99n14, 100, 103, 103n36, 92–94, 104n43, 112nn77–78, 117, 119,
112, 112n77, 114n91, 117, 119, 121, 119n117, 130, 132n8, 143nn107,114,
123, 126n146, 128, 128n156, 129, 145n124. See also Qumran
129n160, 143n104 Decalogue, 39n4, 41, 41n1, 42–43, 48n23,
archaic features, 20, 102n31, 110–12, 128 53n31, 54n37, 57, 57n51, 59, 59n58,
ark of the covenant, 59–63, 90 72–87, 93–94, 100, 104n42, 122–23,
Arnon. See Wadi al-Mujib 124n135, 131–32, 132n9, 142, 142n102,
Athenæum, The, 5, 7n18, 22fig., 133, 143n114, 144n116, 152n201, 155n234
142n102, 144n116, 147, 147n136, deception, 77–78, 82, 84
148nn138–39,142,146–47,150, defective spelling (ḥaser), 98n9, 97–100,
149nn153–54, 152n201 102–3, 113n84, 114n88, 125n143,
130–31, 141n92, 142n104
Bar Kokhba, 130 Deir ʿAlla inscription, 108n58
Bedouins, 2, 10, 15n40, 39 Deuteronomic law code, 41, 47n17,
Bekor Shor, 64n75 45–53, 64, 70, 120n122
Ben Sira. See Sirach Deuteronomic warfare legislation, 50–52
bitumen-like substance on manuscripts, Deuteronomy Rabbah, 50n25
2, 10, 11, 11fig., 39, 131 diphthongs. See monophthongization
blackening of leather, 2, 4fig., 5, 133 divine names in V
bribery, 15, 81–82, 85–86, 124, 124n136 – Elohim, 42, 44, 79, 79n13, 80
British Library, 2n2, 4fig., 22–25figs., – YHWH (Tetragrammaton), 42, 44, 79,
131n5, 133n16 142n97
British Museum, 1, 5, 5n9, 6–7, 7n18, drawings of Shapira fragments, 16n42, 21,
8fig., 9–10, 15, 15n38, 18, 40, 134n28, 21n53, 22–25figs., 27fig., 28, 28n59,
137n53 29–32, 32fig., 33, 39n4, 131–33, 140,
140nn87–88, 140nn89–90, 141n91,
Chronicles, book of, 116n101 141nn92–93, 142n100,
Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), 96, 142nn98–99,102, 143nn105–6,109,
98n9, 100, 104, 107, 111, 113–14, 116, 143nn112–13, 144n115, 144n116,
145nn120–21, 145n125
196 General Index
dry-point lines, 12, 14fig., 131–32, 132n8 hiphil (C-stem), 113n83, 114n89, 121, 124
Hobbes, Thomas, 47n17
Eblaite, 99 Humboldt University (University of
Ecclesiasticus. See Sirach Berlin), 34
edges of manuscripts, 12, 14fig., 16,
16n42, 17fig., 18, 19fig. Ibn Ezra, 147n136
Elephantine papyri, 103, 103n36 idols, 15n40, 57–59, 81, 83
Elohistic Psalter, 79, 79nn12–13 Illustrated London News, The, 21, 27fig.,
epigraphic corpus, 32–33, 95–102, 131, 132n6
102n31, 103, 106, 108, 111, 111n72, incipit, 54–57
112, 129–30 ink, 5, 7, 8fig., 133
Ethiopic, 121
European pronunciation of Hebrew, 7, Jerusalem, 2, 7, 10, 15n40, 43
18–20, 39, 137n53 Joshua, book of, 93n29
Eusebius of Caesarea, 92 jussive, 113
First Temple (pre-exilic) period, 1, 28, 70, Kadesh Barnea, 63–69, 135n33
94–95, 97, 99–100, 103, 111, 114, 130. Kara, Joseph, 89n22
See also pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew ketiv, 99, 102, 102nn31,35, 103,
folds in manuscripts, 4fig., 11, 12fig., 103nn37–38, 114, 135n37, 138n64
12n31, 13fig., 131–32 killing, 48, 74, 77, 83
Fortschreibungen, 52, 60–62, 62n68, 63 Kimhi, David, 78
Fragment A, 21, 27fig., 32, 32fig.. See also KLMW (Kilamuwa) inscription, 112,
under Valediction of Moses in Index of 112n75, 112n78, 138n68
Primary Sources Kuntillet ʿAjrud, 98, 111
Fragment D, 20, 26fig., 153n208. See also
under Valediction of Moses in Index of Lachish ostraca, 97–98, 101n27
Primary Sources Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), 58, 97, 102,
Fragment E, 4fig., 21, 22–25figs., 104, 111–14, 116n104, 119, 119n118,
26–27figs., 28, 28–29figs., 30, 30–32figs., 126nn146,148, 129, 129n160, 130. See
131, 133. See also under Valediction of also Second Temple (post-exilic)
Moses in Index of Primary Sources period
lectio difficilior, 90n22, 125, 138n61
Ge‘ez, 99 lectio facilior, 138n62
Gerizim-Ebal pericope, 45–48, 70, 72, Levites, 60, 62, 87–93, 109n62. See also
87–93 tribes of Israel
German Oriental Society (DMG), 12 linen, 2, 10, 11fig., 39, 43, 131
Gersonides, 64n75 Louvre, 15
Gezer calendar, 99n14 lust, 81, 153n213
Gladstone, William, 6 LXX. See Septuagint
graphic confusion, 20, 136n45, 138n63,
141n91, 142n100, 148n147, Mason, Philip Brookes, 9, 9n24
152nn201,203. See also transcriptions Masoretic Text (MT), 38, 46, 49–50, 55,
of V, errors 58, 61–62, 65–66, 69, 77, 88, 91–92,
Graphic, The, 21, 27fig., 32, 32fig., 131 92n28, 97–98, 98nn9–10, 99–102,
102n31, 102n35, 103, 103n41, 105,
Harry, Myriam (Shapira’s daughter), 108–11, 112n78, 113, 113n80, 114n89,
15n40 115, 116nn101,104, 117–21, 123–25,
Hellenistic period, 10n29, 42, 56, 66, 94, 121n126, 125n143, 126, 126nn145,148,
97, 104, 129–30 128–30, 135nn36–37,
General Index 197
136nn39,41,45–46, 137nn55,60, 141n91, 142n100, 145n119, 148n147,

138nn61,64, 139nn70–71, 140nn86,90, 152nn201,203, 167–74
141nn91–92, 142nn95–96,104, 142n97, paleography, 1, 21–33, 44, 94, 132
143nn104,106, 143nn107,114, paragraph breaks (petuḥot), 100, 131
145nn121,124, 147n136, 148nn141,150, Peshitta, 75, 102, 135n36, 138n64. See
150nn174,178, 151nn183,185,187, also Syriac
154nn217–218,220, 155n234 Phoenician inscriptions, 57n53, 58, 98,
matres lectionis, 97–100 101, 112, 112nn75,78, 115, 116n103,
Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone), 15, 28, 30, 138n68
33, 33n67, 44, 98n11, 100, 100n19, photographs of Shapira fragments, 4fig.,
100n24, 102, 112, 112n76, 128 16n42, 21, 31, 131, 137n53, 143n105
metathesis, 34n2, 134n28 plene spelling (malé), 98n9, 97–100,
midrash, 50n25, 54n37, 82 102–3, 103n39, 113n84, 125n143, 129,
Mishnaic Hebrew, 111, 111nn70–71, 137n58, 142nn96,104
120n121, 121–23, 126n148, 130, Poenulus, 101n28
143n104 poetry, biblical, 41, 70, 110, 110n66, 112,
Moabite pottery scandal, 9, 12–16, 39 119n117
Moabite Stone. See Mesha Stele possessive suffix, 98, 98n11, 99, 99n16,
monophthongization, 97–98, 98nn10–11, 100
98nn7,9, 99, 112n75, 131 pre-exilic epigraphic Hebrew, 1, 95–96,
morphosyntax 103, 114, 119, 129–30. See also Classical
– nominal, 97, 115–19 Biblical Hebrew (CBH)
– verbal, 97, 103–15 prefix, 100, 100n21, 126, 126n146, 130
MT. See Masoretic Text prefix conjugation, 108n61, 108–11
murder. See killing Priestly corpus (P), 44, 53, 53n34, 54,
54n37, 55–58, 58n55, 59, 59nn58–59,
Nachmanides, 64n75 60–64, 64n75, 65–68, 68n79, 69-70,
narrator, 42 70n84, 83n18, 89, 135n32
Nash Papyrus, 142n104, 144n114, pronominal suffix, 122, 145n122
155n234 Pseudo-Rashi, 48n24
negation, 97, 100, 100nn21,23, 112–13, Punic, 100n22, 101n29
115, 115n100
niphal (N-stem), 75, 112, 112n78, qal (G-stem), 112, 112–13n80, 113n83,
112–13n80, 138n68 121, 138n68, 143n104
nomistic edits, 45, 70, 94 qere, 99, 102, 102nn31,35, 103nn37–38,
northern Hebrew, 99 114, 135n37, 138n64
nota accusativi, 76n7, 100, 100nn22–23, qere perpetuum, 101, 151n187
112n80, 120n120, 151n191 Quaritch, Bernard, 9
Numbers Rabbah, 50n25 Qumran, 10, 10n27, 11fig., 11n30, 12,
12–14figs., 17fig., 20, 42, 42n5, 43,
object marker. See nota accusativi 43n10, 92–94, 104n43, 112,
orthography, 20, 21n52, 42, 96–103, 112nn77–78, 117, 119, 119n117. See
112n78, 113n80, 114nn88–89, 126n148, also Dead Sea Scrolls
129, 131, 137n58, 138nn63–64, 141n92,
142n98, 143n104, 151nn187–88 Rabbinic Hebrew. See Mishnaic Hebrew
Osorkon Bust (Eliba’l Inscription), 15 Rashi, 89n22
Paleo-Hebrew script, 1, 20, 20n50, 21, Sabaic, 117

22–27figs., 28, 28–30figs., 31, 31–33figs., Sabbath, 54n37, 83, 85–86, 104, 105n45,
38, 44, 131, 134, 136nn45,48, 138n63, 107, 126, 128
198 General Index
sacrifice, 20, 74, 125–26, 126n145, 138n61 stance, of letterforms, 30n61, 31, 31n63,
Samaria ostraca, 32, 32n65, 33, 33fig., 32, 32fig.
33n66, 98, 111n72 stealing, 74, 77–78, 80, 83
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), 98n10, 103, stone tablets, 59–63
134n28, 135n36, 136nn39,41,44–45, suffix conjugation, 104–8, 110, 114n88
150nn174,178, 151nn183–85, swearing falsely, 72, 75–76, 84
154nn217–18 Syriac, 99, 117. See also Peshitta
Sayings of Moses (Dires de Moïse), 42–43
scriptio continua, 38, 100, 131 Targum Neofiti, 136n46
Second Temple (post-exilic) period, 10, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Yerushalmi),
58, 60, 97, 114, 119, 119n118, 129. See 136n46
also Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) Tel Dan inscription, 112, 112n77
Septuagint (LXX), 58, 92, 92n28, 101–2, Tel Reḥov inscription, 33n66
114n89, 135n32, 136nn41,45–46, Ten Commandments. See Decalogue
137n60, 138n64, 141n94, 142n104, terminal letterforms, 18, 38, 136n48,
143n114, 145n124, 148n141, 150n174, 151n184
151nn185,187, 154n217 Times, The (of London), 2, 5nn4,7–8,
Shapira Manuscripts 6nn13,16, 7, 7nn18,20,23, 12n32,
– condition of, 2, 4fig., 12, 16, 16n42, 16nn41,43, 18n44, 20n48, 131n4,
131–32, 133n19, 143nn105–6, 150n182 132n10
– dimensions of, 16n41, 18, 132 transcriptions of V. See also notes in
– discovery of, 2, 3fig., 9–11, 39, 39n8, 94 critical edition
– initial evaluation of, 2–7, 39n8, 44n13 – by Ginsburg, 5, 20, 96n4, 115n95,
– margins of, 12, 132, 151n186, 153n205, 117n105, 125, 132–33, 133nn14,18
154n231 – by Guthe (with Meyer), 5, 20, 20n52,
– present location of, 1, 9, 131 39n4, 115n95, 117n108, 125, 132,
– purchase of, 2, 10, 39, 39n8 132nn8,11, 133, 133nn18–19
Shapira, Anna Magdalena Rosette, 34 – by Shapira, 20, 34–37, 35–37figs.,
Shapira, Moses Wilhelm 38–40, 94, 115n95, 117n108, 125, 132,
– conversion to Christianity, 2, 9 132n13, 133, 133n18
– letters by, 7, 20, 34n2, 39nn4,8, 43–44, – errors, 20, 34–39, 39n4, 117n108, 133,
117n108, 133, 134–35n28, 137n53, 135n33, 136nn38,45,48, 138nn62–63,
145n119 141n91, 142nn100–1, 144n116,
– photograph of, XIVfig. 146n129, 147, 148n147, 149n155,
– shop in Jerusalem, 2, 15n40 150nn169,180, 152nn201,203,
– suicide of, 7, 9, 34, 94 153nn207–8, 154n228
Shema, 80, 155n234 Transjordan, 42n2, 43, 91nn25–26
Sihon narrative, 48–52, 70 tribes of Israel, 45, 87–91, 93. See also
Siloam tomb inscription, 97 Levites
Siloam tunnel inscription, 44, 103
Simpson, William, 21, 27fig., 132n6 Ugaritic, 20, 98n7, 100, 117n106, 138n63
single-stroke yods, 32, 33fig.
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira), 123 V as abridgment of Deuteronomy, 1,
Sotheby’s, 9 42–43, 52, 94
southern (Judahite) Hebrew, 99 V as proto-Deuteronomic text, 1, 40,
SP. See Samaritan Pentateuch 42–44, 52, 54–57, 59, 63, 70, 70n86, 94,
spies (scouts) motif, 52, 63–69, 70n84, 89 97, 129
Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Königliche Vulgate, 102, 138n64, 141n94
Bibliothek), 34, 34n1
General Index 199
Wadi al-Mujib (Arnon), 2, 3fig. Yavne-Yam (Mesad Hashavyahu)

water damage, 18, 19fig. ostracon, 98, 106, 106n51, 114, 114n94
word-separating dots, 100, 100n23, Yemenite Torah scrolls, 6–7, 7n19, 16,
112n75, 131, 142, 143n113, 144n115, 16n41, 18, 19fig., 34, 39
145n120, 147n137, 154n227, 167
Index of Modern Persons
Achenbach, Reinhard, 59–60, 60n61, 62, Dascalu, Raphael, VI

69n81 Dershowitz, Idan, 1n1, 18n47, 21n57,
Aḥituv, Shmuel, 101, 101n27, 107, 114n94 30n60, 33n67, 96n2, 115, 129
Albright, William Foxwell, 99n14 Dershowitz, Nachum, VI, 77n8, 92n27
Allegro, John Marco, 10n29, 43 Dillmann, August, 5n4, 43n11, 56, 58n55
Allen, Leslie C., 74n3 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., 107
Andersen, Francis I., 75, 77 Driver, Samuel R., 56, 60n65, 105n46, 108
Artus, Olivier, 69n81 Dussaud, René, 15n37
Azar, Moshe, 111n71
Eichler, Raanan, VI, 59n60
Bacon, Benjamin W., 56
Barr, James, 97, 98n9 Fassberg, Steven E., 96n1, 103, 103n38,
Bauer, Hans, 98 113n85
Baumgartner, Walter, 119 Feldman, Ariel, 42n5
Begg, Christopher T., 53n33 Feldman, Noah, V–VI, 118n114
Ben Sasson-Gordis, Avishay, VI Figeac, Petra, 34n1
Ben‐Shahar, Rina, 100n22 Finkel, Irving, VI
Berlin, Adele, 67n78, 79 Finkelstein, Israel, VI, 91n24
Bertholet, Alfred, 56, 62n67 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 114n91, 128n156
Besant, Walter, 9n25 Francis, Patricia, 9n24
Bevilacqua, Alexander, V Frankel, David, 67–68, 68n79
Bhattacharyya, Tania, 96n1 Freedman, David Noel, 75, 77, 98–99
Bjøru, Øyvind, 112n79 Fürtig, Nicolé, 34n1
Brett, Mark, VI
Brettler, Marc Zvi, 50n26, 51, 67n78, 79 Gal, Sophia, 34n1
Brockelmann, Carl, 121n127 Garr, Randall W., 99, 99n16
Bélis, Mireille, 11fig., 11n30 Gertz, Jan, VI
Gesenius, Wilhelm, 113nn82–83,85,
Caballero, Jay, 120n122 123n129
Clermont-Ganneau, Charles Simon, 6, Gesundheit, Shimon, V–VI, 50n25, 52n29
7n19, 15, 15n39, 16, 18 Gevirtz, Stanley, 118n113
Cohen, Maimon, 102n31 Gilbert, Walter, V
Cohen, Shaye, V Ginsburg, Christian David, 5–7,
Collins, Terence, 112n75 7nn18–19, 8, 8fig., 9–16, 16n41, 17–20,
Cook, Stanley A., 142n104 20nn50,52, 21, 21nn52–53,57,
Cooke, George A., 57n53 22–25figs., 28, 28n59, 29–33, 42, 79n13,
Crawford, Sidnie White, V 96n4, 115n95, 117n105, 125, 132–33,
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr., 32n65, 88n21, 133n18, 134n28, 135nn29,32–33,
98–99, 107n54 136nn47–49,51, 137nn53–54,57–58,
138nn61–63,65–66,
Index of Modern Persons 201
139nn69,73–74,76,78,80–82, Joosten, Jan, V, 96n1, 104, 104n45, 109,

140nn84,87–90, 141nn91–93, 113, 113nn81,85,87, 118n112, 119n115,
142nn98–100,102, 129
143nn105–6,109,112–13, Joüon, Paul, 114n90
144nn115–17, 145nn120–21,125,
147nn134–37, Kaicker, Abhishek, V
148nn138–40,142–43,146–50, Kaplan, Abram, V
149nn152–54,158–63,165, Katz, Kelly, V
150nn166–67,171–73,175–76,178–80, Kaufman, Ivan Tracy, 32
151nn183–84,188–92,194, Keil, Carl F., 57n54
152nn195–96,198–201,203, Kenyon, Frederic, 41n1
153nn204,206–10,213, Khan, Geoffrey, 96n1, 102n34
154nn214,216,219,222–29,232 Kline, Moshe, 83
Goldstein, Rebecca, VI Knapp, Dietrich, 57, 57n53
Goren-Arzony, Sivan, V Knohl, Israel, VI
Gould, Jonathan, VI Knowles, Marika, V
Graf, Karl Heinrich, 53n34 Koehler, Ludwig, 119
Green, Henry, 103n38 Krahmalkov, Charles R., 100n22, 101n29
Greengus, Samuel, 124n136 Kratz, Reinhard, VI, 54–55
Guil, Shlomo, 10n29, 43n10 Kuenen, Abraham, 56, 63n70
Guthe, Hermann, 5–32, 16n42, 21n54,
31n63, 39n4, 44n13, 125, 131–55 L’Hour, Jean, 47
Landis Gogel, Sandra, 111n72
Halevy, Schulamith Chava, VI Langlois, Michael, V, 31n63
Halpern, Baruch, 47n17 Leander, Pontus, 98
Hansel, Dorothee, V Lee, Robert, V
Harman, Mishy, VI Lemaire, André, 28, 28fig., 29, 103, 128
Harris, Jay, V Leuchter, Mark, 88n21
Harvey, Paul B., Jr., 47n17 Levenson, Jon D., VI, 47n22
Hasselbach, Rebecca, 99n17 Levine, Baruch A., 63n71
Heide, Martin, 123 Levinson, Bernard M., 62n68
Hendel, Ronald S., 129 Lewinsohn, Jed, V
Herzog, Erga, VI Lundbom, Jack R., 74n3
Hoftijzer, Jacob, 57n53 Lupsasca, Alexandru, V
Holden, Kevin, V
Holladay, William L., 75 Machinist, Peter, VI, 112n73
Hornkohl, Aaron, 129n161 Maier, Christl, 80n14
Huehnergard, John, 107n57 Mansoor, Menahem, 10n29, 18n45,
Hurvitz, Avi, 119n118, 126n146, 129n160 20n51, 43, 123n131, 137n53
Hyatt, J. Philip, 47 Margoliouth, George, 5n9, 15n38
Marti, Karl, 56
Isaksson, Bo, 110n65 Martilla, Marko, 78
Ishida, Tomoo, 118n111 Mayer, Esias E., 82n16
Mayes, Andrew D. H., 47
Jackson, Bernard S., 120n122 Mays, James Luther, 77n8
Jefferson, Helen G., 10n29, 43 Mazar, Amihai, 33n66
Jeon, Jaeyoung, 68n79 Mendel-Geberovich, Anat, 106n49
Joffe, Laura, 79n12 Menon, Tara, V
Jongeling, Karel, 57n53 Metzler, Maria, VI, 96n1
Meyer, Eduard, 131–55
202 Index of Modern Persons
Mor, Uri, 111n69 Reinhartz, Adele, VI

Moran, William L., 108n58 Reisner, George Andrew, 33, 33fig.
Morgenstern, Julian, 82n16 Rofé, Alexander, V
Morsel-Eisenberg, Tamara, V, 56n40, Rollston, Christopher, V, 31n63
96n1 Rubinstein, Arie, 105n46
Mowinckel, Sigmund, 82n16 Rüterswörden, Udo, 55n39
Müller, Johannes, VI
Muraoka, Takamitsu, 114n90 Sáenz-Badillos, Angel, 97n5, 102n31
Sabo, Yoram, 10n29
Naveh, Joseph, 107 Sass, Benjamin, VI, 15n37, 33n66
Nelson, Eric, V–VI Sayce, Archibald H., 9
Nelson, Richard D., 50n26, 62 Schmid, Konrad, VI
Neubauer, Adolf, 96–97, 96nn3–4, Schmitt, Hans-Christoph, 69n81
104–5n45, 108, 119n115, 122–23, Schmitt, Rüdiger, 51
121n125, 126–27, 127n151, 128n154 Schorch, Stefan, 92
Noonan, Benjamin J., 119n116 Schultz, Friedrich W., 57n54
Notarius, Tania, 110, 110nn65–66, Schwartz, Baruch, 79n10, 83–84
110n67 Segal, Michael, V
Noth, Martin, 44, 88n21 Segal, Moses H., 111n70
Novak, Ana, V Shapira, Moses Wilhelm, 1–40, 43, 44n13,
53, 56, 61–62, 69–70, 94, 100, 117n108,
O’Connor, Michael Patrick, 47n22, 131–45
112n74, 113n85, 127n153 Shitrit, Talya, 129n160
Oettli, Samuel, 57, 61 Shulman, Ahouva, 113n82
Otto, Eckart, 52n29, 54n36, 57n53, 60, 64, Siegismund, Kasper, 104n43
64n76, 69n81 Sirat, Colette, 11n29, 12n31
Smith, Mark, VI
Pat-El, Na’ama, V, 1, 101n28, 107n57, Soggin, J. Alberto, 89n22
114n92, 95–130, 115n100, 123n130 Sommer, Benjamin, VI
Peckham, Brian, 47n22 Spellberg, Matthew, V
Perlitt, Lothar, 55n39, 64 Spies-Gans, Paris, 96n1
Plenderleith, Harold J., 11n30 Spivey-Faulkner, S. Margaret, V
Plöger, Josef G., 70n84 Stackert, Jeffrey, V
Polak, Frank H., 129n160 Stade, Bernhard, 105, 105n46
Porzig, Peter, 60, 62n68 Staerk, Willy, 44, 53, 58
Prawer, Ronit, VI Staps, Camil, 112n80
Puukko, Antti F., 56 Steinschneider, Moritz, 34, 43n11
Stern, David, V–VI
Qimron, Elisha, 111n69, 125n143, Steuernagel, Carl, 44, 53, 56, 58, 58n55
126n147 Strack, Hermann, 34, 39n4, 43, 44n12,
145n119
Rabe, Norbert, 69n83 Sukenik, Eleazar L., 100n20
Rabin, Chaim, 121n127 Sukenik, Naama, 10n27
Rabinowicz, Oskar K., 96n4, 104n45,
121n125, 123n131 Talshir, David, 125n141
Rad, Gerhard von, 63n69 Taylor, Joan E., 10n27
Rainey, Anson F., 102n30, 107, 107n56 Teeter, Andrew, V–VI
Rand, Michael C., 116n102 Teicher, Jacob L., 10n29, 42, 43n11
Raymond, Eric D., 112n78 Thornewill, Charles Francis, 9n24
Reiner, Fred, 41n1
Index of Modern Persons 203
Tigay, Chanan, 18, 18n47 Waltke, Bruce K., 112n74, 113n85,

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 121, 121n124 127n153
Tigchelaar, Eibert, VI, 42n5 Weigel, Moira, V
Tobolowsky, Andrew, 88n21 Weinfeld, Moshe, 47, 54, 57, 60n64,
Tov, Emanuel, 92n28 63n70, 67, 79n10
Treiger, Alexander, 123n130 Weiss, Meir, 77n8
Tropper, Josef, 101n28 Weiss, Raphael, 100n21
Tsujita, Kyoji, 114n93 Wellhausen, Julius, 53, 53n34
Tzoref, Shani, V–VI, 96n1 Wells, Bruce, 121n123
Westbrook, Raymond, 124n136
Ulrich, Eugene, 92n28 Westermann, Claus, 69
Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de, 46, 47n17, 48, 53
Valeton, Josua J. P., 56 Williams, Ronald J., 114n90
Vanderhooft, David, V Wilson-Wright, Aren M., 99, 101n28,
Vater, Johann Severin, 53 117n107, 120n120
Vaux, Roland de, 10n27, 131n4 Wolff, Hans Walter, 77n8
Veijola, Timo, 51, 55n39
VerSteeg, Russ, 124n136 Zahn, Molly, V
Vorpahl, Daniel, V Zakovitch, Yair, VI
Zeitlin, Solomon, 10, 130
Zevit, Ziony, 79n13

The Valediction of Moses A Proto Biblica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Valediction of Moses A Proto Biblica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Valediction of Moses A Proto Biblica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What information is provided on page 3?

What information is provided on page 3?

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton)

The Valediction of Moses

ISBN 978-3-16-160644-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-160645-8

© 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com

I owe a debt of gratitude to my Doktorvater, Shimon Gesundheit. His early

Potsdam, Germany, 2020 Idan Dershowitz

List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

2. A New Discovery: The Shapira Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.1.3. Hosea 4:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6. Excursus: The Linguistic Profile of V, with Na’ama Pat-El . . . . . . . . 96

6.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

7. Annotated Critical Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

8. English Translation of V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

9. Paleo-Hebrew Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Index of Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Index of Modern Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Fig. 1 Photograph of Moses Wilhelm Shapira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV

Fig. 29 First page of Shapira’s draft transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The Valediction of Moses is an extraordinary textual specimen with far-

1.1. History of Discovery and Initial Assessment

Museum, vol. 4 (London: The British Museum, 1935), viii–ix.

Based solely on “these meagre means of information,” Clermont-Ganneau man-

Dear Dr. Ginsburg!

Fig. 4. Cartoon of Ginsburg apprehending Shapira.

months wandering through Europe, Shapira committed suicide in a hotel room

1.2. Reasons for Forgery Verdict

1.2.1. An Unprecedented Discovery

589 (August 24, 1883), 116–17, at 117.

1 (1949): 57–78, at 67.

an accordion or fold-out postcards, rather than rolled up like a scroll;31 some

1.2.2. Moabite Pottery Scandal

manuscripts must be an anachronism.

monuments phéniciens apocryphes (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1885), 179–81.

tine Exploration Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1884): 89–100, at 92.

Whether or not Shapira was as blameless in the affair as he claimed, it is clear

1.2.3. Cut-Margin Theory

1.2.4. Hebrew “Errors”

Sea Scrolls,” 197.

HarperCollins, 2016), 316–18.

1.2.5. Paleographic Objections

Fig. 17. Table by Guthe of letterforms in Fragments D and E (Va ).

Among those who have raised objections to Shapira’s fragments on epigraphic

no. 3 (1997): 36–38, at 38 (emphasis mine).

discuss in my article on the Shapira fragments, Ginsburg’s rendering of the Mesha

Fig. 22. Examples of vav in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ).

Fig. 23. Vav in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ).

The differences between Ginsburg’s and Guthe’s renderings of the qoph in

60 Dershowitz, “Valediction of Moses.”

Fig. 24. Examples of qoph in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ).

Fig. 25. Qoph in Guthe’s table of letterforms in Fragment E (Va ).

While paleographic analysis can be essential for the purposes of authentication

Fig. 26. Examples of he in Ginsburg’s drawings of Fragment E (Va ).

While not without precedent in ancient inscriptions, this stance is nevertheless