Revue de Qumran latest issue

[StephenGoranson]

Reading Revue de Qumran no. 119, tome 34 fascicule 1, as usual, has some items of interest.
It also suggested to me a question.

Yossi Nagar et al. examined 33 north-south aligned Qumran cemetery burials. Of the 33, zero women, zero children, zero infants, 33 males.
Page 33 (coincidence):
"...the results of the present study strongly support the theories that view Qumran's population as representing a sectarian community, probably resembling in its ideology a monastic one, ahead of its time in the late Second Temple period."

This RQ issue, and also the latest issue of Dead Sea Discoveries, both offer more Torah fragment readings closer to Samaritan than the Masoretic text.

In my reading of the H. Dayfani et al. article, "New Identifications of 4QpaleoGenesis-Exodus-l (4Q11) fragments" It occurred to me:

This Torah copy was written in paleoHebrew script, the older style writing system.

Which is more likely
a) that it was copied from an older copy that was in the square Aramaic/Hebrew writing system?
or
b) that it was copied from an older copy that was in paleoHebrew script?

Bonus question: did folks in third-century Alexandria, Egypt write paleoHebrew?

[rgprice]

Bonus question: did folks in third-century Alexandria, Egypt write paleoHebrew?

I will reiterate what I said in another thread. Fraud and deception were pervasive in the religious texts of this period. I'll quote from the book I'm working on:

In discussing ancient forgeries, Carolyn Higbie notes in Collectors, Scholars, and Forgers of the Ancient World that, “a forger, then, must create a document that fulfils his and his time’s idea of that document. It must match expectations in look, materials, and contents.” Higbie provides examples from Pausanias (second century), Pliny the Elder (first century), and Herodotus (fifth century BCE) of evaluations of the authenticity of writings based on the materials the original documents were written on. Herodotus noted that in ancient times goat and sheepskins were used for writing and that, “even today in my own time many forgers write on such skins.”

Pliny the Elder disputed the authenticity of writings based on his understanding of the works of Homer. Pliny believed that the fall of Troy, as recorded by the supposed Homer, happed before the rise of Egyptian civilization and the invention of papyrus. Pliny disputed the authenticity of a letter that was supposedly written on papyrus at Troy based on his view that papyrus couldn’t have existed during the time of Troy because Homer never mentioned it nor did Homer even mention Egypt itself, and thus, Pliny assumed, Egypt did not yet exist during Trojan times.

Herodotus also recorded the case of a fifth century BCE purveyor of oracles, known as a chresmologos, having been caught manipulating the writings of a legendary prophet named Musaeus.

"For Onomacritus had been expelled from Athens by Hipparchus, the son of Pisitratus, after he had been caught by Lasus of Hermione inserting into the collection of Musaeus an oracle that the islands near Lemnos would disappear beneath the sea. For this Hipparchus expelled him, although he had previously depended on him a great deal."

The issue of forgery and manipulation of texts never went away. If anything, forgery, textual manipulation, and misrepresentation only became more significant over time as the production of texts became increasingly sophisticated and markets for written works grew. (I cite Ehrman here)

Hellenistic and Roman era literary forgery was widespread and sophisticated. Virtually every religious text and work of prophecy written in this period was fraudulent in some way. Almost all of them were written in ways that intended to make the works appear older than they really were. This included, but was not limited to, the material used to produce the works, the languages used to write the works, and accounts of how the works were "discovered". Almost all such texts had fabricated back stories about how they were "discovered". They were often buried and then people would claim to have had a dream and then go dig them up, some were pulled from rivers, some were hidden in temples, some placed in graves and then retrieved, or at least claims were made of such origins, etc., etc.

So the fact that a text was written in an older script that was no longer in use, really does nothing to establish the provenance unfortunately, as using such scripts was often a part of the ruse.

[StephenGoranson]

Previous overgeneralized opinions aside, rgprice, you did not specifically answer the questions above:

"Which is more likely
a) that it was copied from an older copy that was in the square Aramaic/Hebrew writing system?
or
b) that it was copied from an older copy that was in paleoHebrew script?

Bonus question: did folks in third-century Alexandria, Egypt write paleoHebrew?"

[Secret Alias]

Of the 33, zero women, zero children, zero infants, 33 males.

A military camp would have similar numbers.

[mbuckley3]

Of the 33, zero women, zero children, zero infants, 33 males.

A military camp would have similar numbers.
[/quote

Au contraire, Stephan. Before the fully professional armies of the C19/C20, a large number of 'camp followers' - to use the old, polite term - would have been embedded within any military unit......]

[Secret Alias]

My original comment had reference to prostitutes but because people don't like such mentions here at the forum I self-edited. One of the few times. The question also I thought was "who wants to BURY one's 'muse' beside oneself." 'Painted ladies' (all ladies 'paint' themselves today) always look better before rather than after.

[Russell Gmirkin]

In my reading of the H. Dayfani et al. article, "New Identifications of 4QpaleoGenesis-Exodus-l (4Q11) fragments" It occurred to me:

This Torah copy was written in paleoHebrew script, the older style writing system.

Which is more likely
a) that it was copied from an older copy that was in the square Aramaic/Hebrew writing system?
or
b) that it was copied from an older copy that was in paleoHebrew script?

Bonus question: did folks in third-century Alexandria, Egypt write paleoHebrew?

If you're interested in learning more about Hebrew paleography, see David S. Vanderhooft 2021 ('Aramaic, Paleo-Hebrew and “Jewish” Scripts
in the Ptolemaic Period') in Times of Transition: Judea in the Early Hellenistic Era, pp. 53-59. One must distinguish between late Aramaic script and early Jewish scripts. Eshel dates the use of Paleo-Hebrew to ca. 250 BCE - 135 CE. Paleo-Hebrew was used on Judean coins in the fourth and third centuries, throughout the Hasmonean Era, and during the Jewish revolt. It also appeared on many second century stone inscriptions from Gerizim. Its use among the Jews largely correlates with official state seals and coins (4th century on) and in Torah manuscripts from Qumran (as well as one copy of Job). Tov's opinion, following Diringer, is that Paleo-Hebrew was a sectarian script used among the Jews primarily by the Sadducees.

We have very few examples of Hebrew scripts from Alexandria of any era. I know of a synagogue at Alexandria (3 CE) with a Greek inscription, and a couple pottery shards, including personal name in Hebrew on an amphora handle found at Kom el-Dikka, Alexandria written in square Hebrew characters similar to Aramaic.

[StephenGoranson]

The article cited above by Vanderhooft delineates differing terminology used by various paleographers.
He, V., on page 54 column 2, stays with the "more conventional designation 'paleo-Hebrew'"
I dare say most informed readers--including readers of the V. article- would have no problem understanding my above script terms and understanding my post.
Though in the V. article Emanuel Tov is misspelled (possibly by an editor?) as Emmanuel, the V. article correctly spelled Diringer, not Dirringer, as RG did.
Hence, perhaps, a reminder of the usefulness of having good editors.
The RG 2006 book, in my opinion, did not have good editing, even though I agree with some of the views of that editor.

[Russell Gmirkin]

The article cited above by Vanderhooft delineates differing terminology used by various paleographers.
He, V., on page 54 column 2, stays with the "more conventional designation 'paleo-Hebrew'"
I dare say most informed readers--including readers of the V. article- would have no problem understanding my above script terms and understanding my post.
Though in the V. article Emanuel Tov is misspelled (possibly by an editor?) as Emmanuel, the V. article correctly spelled Diringer, not Dirringer, as RG did.
Hence, perhaps, a reminder of the usefulness of having good editors.
The RG 2006 book, in my opinion, did not have good editing, even though I agree with some of the views of that editor.

I personally prefer good content over editing. However, to each their own.

[StephenGoranson]

I personally prefer good content and good editing, both. Good editing can improve content by friendly questions and challenges.
...........