Literary and Historical Studies in the Samuel ... - Google Sites

journal of jewish studies, vol. lix, no. 1 , spring 2008

Literary and Historical Studies in the Samuel Apocryphon (4Q160) 1 Alex P. Jassen University of Minnesota

Abstract 4Q160 is a fragmentary text first published in 1968 under the title ‘The Vision of Samuel’. Following a new translation of the text and clarification of its basic contents, this study seeks to identify 4Q160’s proper literary classification and genre. Careful attention is paid to the relationship of 4Q160 to the scriptural text and story of Samuel and the often repeated classification of 4Q160 as ‘rewritten Bible’. This study then addresses the literary function of employing Samuel as the text’s pseudepigraphic voice. The final part of the article explores what can be learned about the historical context and date of the text’s composition. Based on paleographical evidence, references to earlier scriptural material and possible internal historical allusions, this study argues that the text was composed in the second half of the second century BCE.

Introduction n addition to the Qumran Samuel scrolls (4QSama–c [4Q51–53]),2 the text and character of Samuel is further represented at Qumran in one text with Samuel as its assumed central character—4Q160. This manuscript was published by J. M. Allegro in volume five of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert under the title ‘The Vision of Samuel’.3 Nearly all the texts published by Allegro in this volume have received extensive treatment at the hands of later Qumran scholars, with most appearing in new critical editions along with expanded commentary. 4Q160, however, has received little scholarly attention.4

I

1 A shorter version of this paper was presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies (Chicago). My research was generously aided by a Summer Pre-doctoral Travel Grant from the New York University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (2004). I had the opportunity to view the manuscript of 4Q160 at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem and thank the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority for their assistance. This article has been enriched by numerous conversations with Moshe J. Bernstein concerning 4Q160. Thank you as well to the Journal ’s two referees for their helpful comments. All Hebrew Bible translations follow NJPS. 2 See F. M. Cross, E. Ulrich and D. W. Parry, Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel (DJD 17, Clarendon, Oxford, 2005). 3 J. M. Allegro with A. A. Anderson, Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5, Clarendon, Oxford, 1968), pp. 9–11 + Plate III. 4 See J. Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge du volume V des “Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan” ’, RevQ 7 (1970), pp. 179–83 (a review of DJD 5); G. Vermes in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. III.I (revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1986), p. 335; F. Polak, ‘Samuel’, in L. H. Schiffman and

22

journal of jewish studies

The present treatment of 4Q160 concentrates on identifying the larger literary character of the composition and its proper generic classification and clarifying the context and purpose of the text’s presumably pseudepigraphic framework.5 The few comments that have been made concerning this text have taken for granted its classification as a ‘rewritten Bible’ narrative associated with the prophet Samuel. Samuel is identified as the first person speaker in this document and thus its pseudepigraphic voice. Based on the extant text, I offer some suggestions as to what type of composition this manuscript represents and its relationship to the scriptural text and story of Samuel. In this context, I reexamine its classification as ‘rewritten Bible’ based on recent advances in our larger understanding of this generic category. I further discuss what is at stake in the employment of Samuel as the text’s pseudepigraphic voice. Following upon the literary examination of 4Q160, I turn to the larger social and historical context surrounding the text and its composition. Parabiblical works such as 4Q160 are extremely difficult to date. This problem is compounded in the case of 4Q160 by the fragmentary state in which the document is preserved. Several elements in the text, however, provide clues regarding a possible social situation and historical context.

Description of Manuscript and Translation The manuscript survives in eight fragments written with the full orthography characteristic of many Qumran texts, and was likely copied in the early to middle Hasmonean period.6 Of the eight fragments, three preserve a significant amount of text (1, 4, 7), while the remaining five contain only a few words (2, 3, 5, 6, 8). The larger fragments divide into three distinct literary sections, which I provide here in translation.7

J. C. VanderKam (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000), vol. 2, pp. 822–23. For a full review of scholarship, see A. P. Jassen, ‘Intertextual Readings of the Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q160 (Samuel Apocryphon) and Psalm 40’, RevQ 22 (2006), pp. 404–5. 5 See also Jassen, ‘Intertextual’, (as in n. 4), where I discuss the exegetical relationship between frgs. 3–5 ii 1–4 and Psalm 40, the biblical base upon which this portion of 4Q160 is seemingly drawing. 6 See, however, two examples of defective spelling in frgs. 3–5 ii 3 (ãîòäå); frg. 7 3 (éúìçé). On the dating, see Strugnell, ‘Notes’ (as in n. 4), p. 179; Vermes in Schürer, History (as in n. 4), p. 335. 7 For considerations of space, the translation is not accompanied by full philological annotation. 4Q160 will be published in a new critical edition with commentary in the revised DJD 5, edited by M. J. Bernstein and G. J. Brooke. Editorial responsibilities for 4Q160 belong to M. J. Bernstein, who is preparing the text edition of 4Q160 in collaboration with the present author. My new edition of frgs. 3–5 ii 1–7 (with full philological analysis of lines 1–4) appears in Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4). Earlier editions of the text (aside from Allegro’s editio princeps) appear in Strugnell’s review (with full new transcription of some portions); F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1997), vol. 1, pp. 310– 13 (following Strugnell); D. W. Parry and E. Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 3: Parabiblical Texts (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 2004), pp. 342–45 (following Allegro, though with a new translation).

studies in the samuel apocryphon ( 4 q 160 )

23

Fragment 1 (= 1 Sam. 3:14–18) 1. Assur]edly, I have sw[orn to the] House [of Eli that the iniquity of 2. the House of Eli can never be expiated by sacrifice or offering forever. And] Samue[l] heard the wo[rd of the Lord. . . 3. And] Samuel was lying before Eli, and he arose and opened the d[oors of the House of the Lord 4. in the morning. And Samuel was afraid] to tell the oracle to Eli. But Eli responded and [said ‘Samuel my son.’ 5. He said, ‘Here I am.’ Eli said, ‘Te]ll me the vision of God. Do [not withhold (it) from me. May God do thusly 6. to you and may he add] if you withhold from me (one) w[ord from all the words that 7. he spoke in your ears’. And] Samuel [told him everything, and did not withhold from him (anything).

Fragments 3–5 ii 1–7 1. . . . O my God, please listen to] your servant. I retained no strength until now, because 2. . . . let them be] gathered unto your nation, O my God, and be of assistance to it. Raise it up 3. [from the pit of desolation . . . save them] from the miry bog, [set up their fe]et [and] establish for them a rock beforehand. For it (i.e. your people) is your praise 4. [above all the nat]ions. Let your nation take shelt[er in your house], and m[ . . . ]dš and in the time of the wrath of the enemies of your nation, (your) splendour shall magnify, 5. [and] in the lands and the seas [your glory shall increase, and] your fear (shall be) upon every [god, every nation] and kingdom. And all the nations of your lands shall know [that] 6. you created [them. . . ] the multitude shall [un]derstand that this is your nation. . . 7. . . . your [sanc]tified ones whom you sanctified. . .

Fragment 7 1–4 1. . . . ] pny may there be ‘ [ 2. . . . ] I dwelt with him my appointed time and joined myself to him from [my youth 3. . . . ] I [did not] solicit her/its favour by means of property, wealth, or bribery [ 4. . . . ] my lord, and I chose to lie before [Eli’s/his] couch [

Fragment 1 Fragment 1 appears to be a citation of 1 Sam. 3:14–18 in a text-type differing in varying degrees from the ancient versions, though at places aligned with the Septuagint version of Samuel.8 The scriptural verses narrate Samuel’s in8

Earlier treatments suggest that frg. 1 is ‘a heavily revised biblical text’ (Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as

24


teraction with his mentor Eli immediately following Samuel’s initial prophetic revelation. 4Q160 1 begins abruptly with God’s promise to Samuel that he will excise the house of Eli (lines 1–2) and continues following the scriptural narrative. The story and dialogue follow very closely the text as it appears in 1 Samuel 3. It is almost certain that this fragment was surrounded by additional related text, though it is uncertain how much more of 1 Samuel 3 or additional material would have been represented. The text of fragment 1 in its entirety does not align with any one particular ancient version. At the same time, the majority of its individual textual elements are attested in the ancient witnesses, in particular MT and LXX.9 Based on my reconstruction, 4Q160 agrees twice with LXX against MT (one fully extant; one restored)10 and twice with MT against LXX (one partially restored; one restored).11 Several non-aligned textual traditions are reflected in this fragment. Some of these are substitutions for material in the ancient versions,12 while others represent plusses or minuses.13 Even in the latter category, however, there is very little that reflects deliberate textual modification (= revised biblical text) or an exegetical agenda (= paraphrase). These nonaligned textual units are embedded into the scriptural narrative in much the same way as the material in MT or LXX. A major paraphrastic revision of the scriptural text would likely contain some significant content that is unquestionably exegetical and therefore hints at the textual character of the larger fragment. The abrupt beginning and end of the fragment suggests that additional scriptural text would have been contained before and after the present textual unit. It is therefore likely that 4Q160 preserves an alternate textual tradition of 1 Sam. 3:14–1814 and therefore fragment 1 should be understood as a citation of a scriptural text.15 If indeed, the non-aligned traditions are explicit textual in n. 4), p. 883), ‘a paraphrase of a section of 1 Samuel’ (M. Wise, M. Abegg and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 2nd edn, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco, 2005, 234; cf. Vermes in Schürer, History (as in n. 4), p. 335), or ‘an alternate form of Samuel’s call’ (S. D. Walters, review of P. K. McCarter, I Samuel, JBL 101 (1982), p. 438). 9 My methodology in seeking to distinguish between a scriptural text and its exegetical expansion by looking for overlap with known ancient witnesses is influenced by a similar approach applied in E. Tov, ‘Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod’, in E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam (eds), The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1994), pp. 111–34 (esp. 113–14). 10 Line 3 íå÷éå; line 7 äëéðæàá (rest.). 11 Line 4 øîàéüå; line 6 óéñåé äëå (rest.). 12 Line 1 àéþë; line 5 íéäåìàä äàøî úà éðòéãþåä. 13 Line 2 äåäé øüáã úþà ìüàåîù òîùþéå; line 3 éìò éðôì; line 4 ø÷åáá (rest.); line 5 éìò (appears in Old Latin and Sahidic). 14 Unfortunately, the relevant portions of 4QSama–c are not extant for comparison to 4Q160. It is well known, however, that these manuscripts often contain divergent textual traditions, with many agreeing with LXX. It is therefore not unlikely that the non-aligned traditions in 4Q160 are in fact part of the larger body of textual traditions represented in 4QSama–c. 15 In using the term ‘scriptural’ here, I mean that the author of 4Q160 intended to cite an authoritative textual tradition (= scripture) from the book of Samuel. So far as we can tell from the fragmentary text, the author did not introduce any significant exegetical amendments or otherwise modify the text (= paraphrase). To be sure, many segments of Second Temple Judaism


25

revisions, then we are dealing with a minimally revised scriptural passage. Unfortunately, the preserved portions do not provide any larger context for understanding the potential significance of such textual modifications.16 Fragments 3–5, Column 2 Fragments 3–5, column 2 reflect an additional individual literary unit, which contains within it two smaller literary units.17 The first four lines contain what appears to be a prayer addressed to God.18 The content of the prayer is a reformulation of Ps. 40:2–4 together with intertextual allusions to other biblical passages.19 The anonymous speaker is most likely the ‘servant’ mentioned in line 1. In general, the focus of the prayer is thought to be Israel.20 As we shall see presently, this view in only partially correct. Though only the prayer is preserved, it is likely that it was originally embedded within a larger narrative framework. The contents of the prayer reflect a deep rift within the Jewish world of the author and the author’s attempt to seek divine guidance in mending this rift. The prayer opens in line 2 with the author’s plea to ‘let them be] gathered unto your nation, O my God’ (äëîòì éäåìà åå÷þé).21 In this clause, we must assume that äëîò, ‘your nation’ refers to Israel. Thus, the author appeals to God to aid in the reconciliation of some group within Israel. The use of the root äå÷, meaning ‘to be gathered’ or ‘to assemble’ 22 suggests that the subject of the verb is another Jewish group. The author sees himself and his constituent group as the ‘real’ Israel. His wish, as expressed in the prayer, is that all the ‘illegitimate’ forms of Judaism recognise the correctness of his way and act accordingly. Such an arduous journey would no doubt require divine assistance. Accordingly, the remainder of the prayer is an impassioned plea for divine munificence as the wayward Jews are brought back into the fold of ‘true’ Israel. In this sense, the first four lines are directed inward to some internal Jewish group dynamics.23 would have still recognised the latter type of text as scripture. My only point is to distinguish the character of the text in fragment 1 from exegetical paraphrases of scripture that are commonly found in Second Temple literature (e.g. the use of Psalm 40 in frgs. 3–5—see Jassen, ‘Intertextual’, as in n. 4). 16 One possible modification has been suggested by V. A. Hurowitz, who identifies the expression in line 5 ‘Te]ll me the vision (äàøî) of God’ as an ‘obvious expansion’. He opines that the term for vision here (äàøî) has been introduced on account of its replacement in v. 15// l. 4 with a different word for vision (àùî) (‘Eli’s Adjuration of Samuel (1 Samuel III 17–18) in the Light of a “Diviner’s Protocol” from Mari (AEM I/1, 1)’, VT 44 (1994), p. 488, n. 20). This textual modification, however, is better situated in the continued production of the scriptural text itself and techniques of scribal intervention rather than exegesis. 17 On the alignment of frgs. 3–5, see Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4), p. 407. 18 As indicated by the constant use of the imperative, jussive and vocative in speech directed at God. See further Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4), pp. 412–13. 19 For full treatment, see Jassen, ‘Intertextual’, (as in n. 4). 20 See Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as in n. 4), p. 822; Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls (as in n. 8), p. 234. 21 On the restoration åå÷þé, see Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4), pp. 411–12. 22 See Gen. 1:9; Jer. 3:17; cf. Isa. 60:9. 23 On my preference for reading this as a reference to an internal Jewish struggle, rather than a conflict with non-Jews, see Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4), p. 408, n. 17. Most importantly, the second half of the prayer (lines 4–7) never speaks of the unification of non-Jews to Israel. Rather,

26


Toward the end of line 4, the content of the text changes dramatically. The second half of the text is introduced with the expression: äëîò éàðåù íòæáå, ‘and in the time of the wrath of the enemies of your nation’.24 To be sure, the text still resembles a prayer in form with God as the addressee. The tone of the prayer, however, is softened by the absence of the imperatives that mark the first half of the prayer. Rather, the speaker addresses God with a series of clauses in the imperfect. More importantly, the orientation of the text switches from internal Jewish concerns to a clear invective against the ‘enemies of your nation’. The speaker expresses his wish that God’s might and majesty become apparent to all the nations of the world (lines 4–5). The text then describes a time when the foreign nations will recognise God’s absolute sovereignty and the special relationship between God and Israel (lines 5–6). Fragment 7 Fragment 7 contains a series of three biographical details conveyed in the first person. Though the speaker is never identified, certain elements can reasonably be shown to refer to aspects of Samuel’s youth and role as judge of Israel. In line 2, the author claims: ‘I dwelt with him my appointed time and joined myself to him from [my youth].’ This seems to refer to the consecration of Samuel for service in the temple and his relationship to Eli. Thus, the ‘appointed time’ alludes to the vow made by Samuel’s mother Hannah, who pledged Samuel to God ‘all the days of his life’ (1 Sam. 1:11). In 4Q160, Samuel asserts that he faithfully fulfilled this vow, a claim likewise made by the scriptural Samuel in his farewell address: ‘and I have been your leader from my youth to this day’ (1 Sam. 12:2). Line 3 continues with the assertion: ‘I [did not] solicit her/its favour by means of property, wealth, or bribery’. Though there is some difficulty with regard to the precise meaning of this clause, it is clear that the speaker is presented as denying having committed any wrongdoing. Reading with the reflective tone of this fragment, we might see here an allusion to the early contrast created between Samuel and the corrupt sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:12– 26). Samuel may also be contrasting his own righteous behaviour with his dire predictions of the corrupt actions of any future king (1 Samuel 8). Moreover, Samuel’s final discourse contains a defence of his upright moral character (1 Sam. 12:3–5). As judge, Samuel asserts that he never stole from anyone or accepted a bribe. These claims may provide the scriptural basis for the narrative expansion concerning the speaker’s (i.e. Samuel’s) moral uprightness in 4Q160, particularly in financial matters. The final line of the fragment further underscores Samuel’s service in the temple and faithful commitment to Eli: ‘. . . ] my lord, and I chose to lie before [Eli’s/his] couch’.25 As in the previous lines, the author is seemingly looking backwards to some former time. they are merely expected to observe God’s might. 24 On this translation, see Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4), p. 406, n. 9. The phrase seems to be related to Dan. 8:19. 25 Hannah, Samuel’s mother, refers to Eli as ‘my lord’ on two separate occasions (1 Sam. 1:15, 26). The image of Samuel lying before the couch of Eli alludes to the reference that is only preserved in 4Q160 1 3.


27

The original consecration of Samuel, his moral maturity and service in a cultic capacity are all recounted in this fragment in first person speech. Moreover, there seems to be a reflective tone to these lines. Some of the themes addressed in this fragment appear in Samuel’s final address to the nation that takes place toward the end of his life (1 Samuel 12). Fragment 7, therefore, likely represents a narrative expansion of Samuel’s final discourse.

Classification and Genre of 4Q160 The extant fragments represent a wide range of literary forms. Fragment 1 is a scriptural citation. The preserved portions of fragments 3–5 contain a petitionary prayer, though it is likely that the prayer was once embedded within a larger narrative. Fragment 7 resumes the narrative form of fragment 1, but it is written in the first person as an autobiographical discourse. Likewise, the prayer in fragments 3–5 is composed from a first person perspective. While fragment 1 is explicitly associated with Samuel, the remaining fragments provide no explicit mention of Samuel.26 The visible disparity between the three sets of fragments (1, 3–5, 7) has raised the question of whether a single text actually lies behind these fragments.27 The paleographic data for 4Q160, however, indicates that, notwithstanding their apparent dissimilarities, these three sets of fragments are part of one original composition.28 In its present form, however, we lack the seams that bound together the disparate literary units. 4Q160: ‘Rewritten Bible’, Apocryphon, or Other? Working with the scant remains of what was certainly a much larger text, can we identify the literary character and genre of the now-lost complete text of 4Q160? Several scholars have suggested that 4Q160 should be classified in the genre of ‘rewritten Bible’.29 Such texts are narratives that rewrite in varying degrees the scriptural text and story as ‘free-standing compositions which replicate the form of the biblical books on which they are based’.30 The 26 Note, however, the lone word in 3–5 i 1 ‘vision’, which may have something to do with Samuel’s vision in frg. 1. See also 3–5 iii 2 which contains a šin, mem, waw, before breaking off. This could very likely have contained the name ‘Samuel’. 27 Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as in n. 4), p. 822. 28 See Strugnell, ‘Notes’ (as in n. 4), p. 179. 29 Vermes in Schürer, History (as in n. 4), p. 335; idem, ‘Bible Interpretation at Qumran’, ErIsr 20 (1989), p. 187; Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as in n. 4), pp. 822–23. This classification is continued in the list compiled by A. Lange and U. Mittmann-Richert in E. Tov et al., The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (DJD 39, Clarendon, Oxford, 2002), p. 126. Vermes never elaborates on why he classifies 4Q160 as ‘rewritten Bible’, though he no doubt saw in it all the aspects characteristic of this genre as he himself defined it (idem, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1961, p. 95). Polak supports his assertion with his understanding of frg. 1 as ‘a heavily revised scriptural text’ (see above, n. 8). As already discussed above, it is not entirely clear how ‘revised’ this text really is. Moreover, we should expect any discussion of genre to take into account a larger portion of the preserved text, not just one fragment. 30 P. S. Alexander, ‘Retelling the Old Testament’, in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988), p. 116. See further G. J. Brooke, ‘The Rewritten Law,

28


scriptural text provides the primary sequential control as the ‘running text’, though is never (or almost never) cited explicitly.31 Furthermore, the ‘rewritten Bible’ text must contain enough exegetically motivated differences to distinguish it from the scriptural base but not too many such that the scriptural foundation is no longer in view.32 While it is likely that such texts were written with the intention of becoming authoritative scripture (like their base-texts), the final product preserved enough of the distinction between base-text and rewritten text so that the lines between the ‘old’ scripture and its ‘new’ formulation were not completely obscured.33 ‘Rewritten Bible’ texts are primarily motivated by exegetical exigencies presented by the scriptural base-text. It therefore presents an ‘interpretative reading of Scripture’ 34 through supplementation, selectivity, rearrangement, conflation, and related exegetical techniques.35 The other generic designation sometimes suggested for 4Q160 is an ‘apocryphon’, which identifies 4Q160 as part of a larger class of ‘parabiblical’ compositions.36 The distinction between ‘rewritten Bible’ and a parabiblical apocryphon is not always clear and indeed these two classifications often overlap. While the former stays close to the scriptural base-text and story, the latter is Prophets, and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible’, in E. D. Herbert and E. Tov (eds), The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (The British Library / Oak Knoll Press in association with the Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, London, 2002), p. 33; idem, ‘Rewritten Bible’, in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2, p. 778; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, ‘The Bible Rewritten and Expanded’, in M. E. Stone (ed.) Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2, Van Gorcum, Assen; Fortress, Philadelphia, 1984), p. 89; M. J. Bernstein, ‘ “Rewritten Bible”: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?’, Textus 22 (2005), p. 174. As several scholars have recently observed, the use of the term ‘Bible’ here is imprecise: J. G. Campbell, ‘ “Rewritten Bible” and “Parabiblical Texts”: A Terminological and Ideological Critique’, in J. G. Campbell, W. J. Lyons and L. K. Pietersen (eds), New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls 8–10 September 2003 (LSTS 52, T. & T. Clark, London, 2005), pp. 43–68, esp. p. 49. Authors of ‘rewritten Bible’ did not compose with a complete version of the Bible in front of them. Indeed, it is becoming more apparent that a closed canon of biblical books did not exist in most communities in the late Second Temple period. What did exist was a set of authoritative writings (= scripture) that were assumed to be the literary heritage of ancient Israel. They therefore did not rewrite the Bible, but rather rewrote earlier scriptural writings (thus the suggestion to adopt the term ‘rewritten scripture’—Brooke, ibid., pp. 31–32; J. C. VanderKam, ‘The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works’, in The Bible as Book, 42–43). Notwithstanding the lack of a sense of canon in Second Temple Judaism, the ancient scriptural writings were still distinguished from contemporary compositions, even as the latter set of texts claimed for themselves a scriptural status (see Campbell, ibid.). Terms like ‘rewritten Bible’ and ‘parabiblical’ (see below) are admittedly anachronistic. Yet they serve an important purpose in identifying a wide corpus of Second Temple period writings that adapt and reformulate inherited scriptural traditions (see Bernstein, ibid., p. 172, n. 3). 31 Brooke, ‘Rewritten Law’ (as in n. 30), pp. 32–33, 38. 32 M. Segal, ‘Between Bible and Rewritten Bible’, in M. Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2005), pp. 10–28. See also Tov, ‘Biblical Texts as Reworked’ (as in n. 9), p. 12; Bernstein, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), p. 189. 33 See Alexander, ‘Retelling’ (as in n. 30), p. 116; Brooke, ‘Rewritten Law’, (as in n. 30), p. 37. 34 Alexander, ‘Retelling’ (as in n. 30), p. 117. See also Nickelsburg, ‘Bible’, (as in n. 30), p. 89. 35 Vermes, Scripture (as in n. 29), p. 95; idem in Schürer, History (as in n. 4), pp. 308, 326; Brooke, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), p. 778. 36 See the several recent descriptions of 4Q160 as the ‘Samuel Apocryphon’ (see below, n. 60). The Preliminary Concordance designates 4Q160 as ‘ParSam’.


29

often limited in its direct links to the scriptural text.37 Rather, it employs characters, imagery and general language associated with a particular scriptural story and character and applies it to a new literary framework.38 To be sure, the resultant composition sometimes retains some of the narrative sequence of the scriptural text.39 Many parabiblical compositions likely were intended to stand as authoritative scripture alongside the older scriptural text. At the same time, these texts present themselves not as ‘updated’ versions (‘rewritten Bible’), but rather as supplementary authoritative accounts of particular scriptural stories and characters. With these generic classifications in mind, how should we understand the literary character of 4Q160? The content of the three preserved textual units and their relationship allow some insight into these questions. Fragment 1 recounts—through the explicit citation of scripture—part of the story of Samuel’s first prophetic experience. Since the text begins abruptly, it is likely that further narration of this story would have preceded and followed fragment 1. Though fragment 7 never explicitly refers to Samuel, I argued above that its reflective autobiographical tone contains several elements that identify it as a reformulation of Samuel’s final discourse to the Israelites. Fragments 3–5 contain nothing explicitly related to the scriptural text or story of Samuel and cannot be situated along this same line of analysis. I argue below, however, that there is a close relationship between the figure of Samuel as judge of Israel and the petitionary prayer that appears in fragments 3–5. Fragments 3–5 therefore are likely part of a larger narrative that places the prayer in the mouth of the prophet Samuel. Two points must now be observed regarding the relationship of these frag37 S. White Crawford, ‘The “Rewritten” Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts’, in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Hebrew Bible and Qumran (BIBAL, North Richland Hills, 2000), p. 174; Bernstein, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), p. 172, n. 3; Campbell, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), pp. 50–53. 38 See e.g. the Pseudo-Daniel and related texts (4Q242–246, 551–553), the Moses Apocryphon and related texts (1Q22, 1Q29, 4Q375–376), the Apocryphon of Jeremiah (4Q383–384, 385a, 387, 387a, 388a, 389–390), Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385, 385b, 385c, 386, 388, 391). For a discussion of this terminology and its generic limits, see G. J. Brooke, ‘Parabiblical Prophetic Narratives’, in J. C. VanderKam and P. W. Flint (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1998), vol. 1, pp. 271–301; Bernstein, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), p. 180. The term ‘Parabiblical’ was originally adopted by E. Tov to publish together texts ‘closely related to texts or themes of the Hebrew Bible’ (see idem, in H. Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD 13, Clarendon, Oxford, 1994, p. ix). The comments made above (n. 30) regarding the anachronistic use of ‘Bible’ apply here as well (see Campbell, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), p. 51). 39 For such texts, scholars sometimes employ the designation ‘Pseudo-X’ (on this term, see Campbell, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), pp. 58–59). For example, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah contains only a small number of direct references to and reformulation of the content of the book of Jeremiah. Rather, it employs the character of Jeremiah as the recipient of revelation regarding the course of history from the beginning of time until the eschatological age. The Pseudo-Ezekiel texts likewise completely reorient the context and meaning of Ezekiel’s prophecy. In doing so, however, the author carefully reformulates several portions of the scriptural account of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Alongside the reformulation of this scriptural content, several entirely non-scriptural portions are included that correspond in their larger themes and imagery to the scriptural story of Ezekiel. See further discussion, A. P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 2007), pp. 235–38.

30


ments. First, based on my understanding of the preserved remains, 4Q160 consists of a retelling of events in the life of Samuel. Some of this content comes directly from the scriptural narrative, even employing the scriptural text. Other material is newly formed by the author of 4Q160, though based on the character and content of the scriptural account of Samuel. Second, if Samuel supplies the narrative thread that holds together all of 4Q160, then we are looking at only a small snapshot of what was a much larger text. 4Q160 preserves part of the beginning (call narrative) and end (final discourse) of the story, though very little of the middle. It therefore seems likely to presume that 4Q160 contained a much longer retelling and reformulation of the Samuel story, a suggestion further supported by the physical character of the manuscript.40 Based on the relative sampling preserved, some of this content would correspond to material in the scriptural account while other content would be entirely new. The literary form and precise details of this additional content would likely follow the same range of literary forms found in the preserved fragments. My understanding of the content and context of the three preserved textual units indicates that the retelling of the Samuel story in 4Q160 follows on the whole the narrative structure and sequence of the scriptural account of Samuel. Fragments 3–5 therefore represent a new expansion of the Samuel story while fragment 7 contains a reformulated expansion of scriptural content. Both of these techniques are commonly found in similar reworked scriptural narratives. Based on this understanding of the text, the preserved fragments of 4Q160 could reasonably be classified as a rewritten narrative of Samuel’s life (‘rewritten Bible’). What is still troubling in this reconstruction is the wide variation in the textual character of each section. Did the composition generally follow the text of Samuel (whichever textual base it followed) except when it introduced narrative expansions? Would fragment 1 have been followed by a narrative expansion written in the first person similar to fragments 3–5 and 7? As it is, the presence of a scriptural text with no non-scriptural material in sight is strange in a ‘rewritten Bible’ composition. In addition, while fragments 3–5 and 7 can reasonably be associated with Samuel’s life, are they linked to any particular scriptural content in this text? The three literary units do not reflect the blending of scriptural material with narrative and exegetical expansion as found in ‘rewritten Bible’.41 Fragment 1 contains no hint of the 40 The significant amount of blank space at the top of fragment 4 indicates that fragments 3–5 come from the top of a column. Likewise, fragment 7 contains blank space below the last line indicating that this is the bottom of a column. Thus, either these two fragments are the top and bottom of the same column or of different columns. If it is the former situation, then there would be a significant amount of lines separating them; if the latter, then the divide between these fragments could be enormous. Moreover, fragment 3 contains the remains of an additional column to the right. Likewise, fragment 5 includes vestiges of an additional left hand column. Since fragments 3–5 join together, the existence of at least three columns in this composition is attested. 41 It is important to stress here that I mean within the individual text units. Clearly, the manuscript as a whole blends scriptural (frg. 1) and non-scriptural content (frgs. 3–5, 7). This ‘macro-blending’, however, is a more general feature of parabiblical literature (see below).


31

usual strategies employed in ‘rewritten Bible’ in order to reorient the meaning and context of the scriptural passage. Fragments 3–5 contain no discernable relationship to the presumed scriptural basis. In fact, the literary foundation of fragments 3–5 is Psalm 40.42 Fragment 7 provides the only evidence of a close relationship between text and interpretive expansion. Only one of the elements in the fragment (the articulation of moral uprightness), however, is directly linked to the proposed underlying scriptural narrative (Samuel’s final discourse). To be sure, we are dealing with three fragmentary literary units. Yet, there is no indication in fragment 1 that narrative expansion is imminent or in fragments 3–5 and 7 that more of the scriptural text of Samuel is in view. The fragmentary remains of 4Q160 leave open the question of its potential classification as ‘rewritten Bible’. It is not unlikely that all of the missing features noted were once contained in the now missing lacunae. Several additional elements in the preserved text, however, highlight some features that 4Q160 shares in common with the larger class of Second Temple period parabiblical literature. For example, one of the most distinctive features of 4Q160 is the presence of a complete scriptural citation (frg. 1) while the other fragments are all non-scriptural in their content. This larger mixture of scriptural and non-scriptural content (‘macro-blending’) is often found in parabiblical apocrypha. For example, several fragments of the Pseudo-Ezekiel texts preserve citations from the scriptural Ezekiel.43 To be sure, these scriptural texts are reformulated in Pseudo-Ezekiel in order to promote particular theological concepts. Such exegetically motivated reformulations are decidedly absent in fragment 1 of 4Q160, though perhaps could be found in the surrounding lacunae.44 Yet, the way that the contents of Pseudo-Ezekiel shift between material that is close to scripture and entirely non-scriptural content provides a possible model for the similar phenomenon in 4Q160. A related distinctive feature of 4Q160, as noted above, is its switching of narrative voice from third person (frg. 1) to first person (frgs. 3–5, 7). This feature should also be explained in light of its larger ‘macro-blending’ of scriptural and non-scriptural content. In employing 1 Sam. 3:14–18—and certainly surrounding scriptural content—4Q160 retains its third person narrative voice. Likewise, fragment 7 reformulates a portion of the scriptural Samuel story that is originally formulated as Samuel’s first person discourse. The prayer in fragments 3–5, which has no immediate textual correspondence in 1 Samuel, therefore is formulated in the first person in order to replicate the style in which such a prayer would have been articulated by Samuel. While the foregoing analysis has attempted to further our understanding of the literary genre of 4Q160, it must be admitted that its fragmentary nature constantly frustrates the issue. The relative sampling is sufficient to make provisional observations but not enough to state definitively that this is representative of what the text originally looked like. Thus, the existing data presents conflicting evidence concerning the question of 4Q160 as ‘rewritten Bible’. 42

See Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4), pp. 411–29. 4Q385 6 = Ezek. 1; 4Q385 2+3, 4Q386 1 i, 4Q388 7 = Ezek. 37:1–14. 44 Moreover, the surrounding material might also shed additional light on possible exegetical motivations for the non-aligned textual traditions in the preserved text. 43

32


While the overall narrative framework of 4Q160 may recommend its classification as ‘rewritten Bible’, it lacks several of the literary characteristics and exegetical features often found in other compositions of this type. While its status as ‘rewritten Bible’ must remain questionable, we can make some more definitive remarks about its more general literary character and relationship to the scriptural Samuel. 4Q160 is a parabiblical composition that retells the story of the prophet Samuel. In doing so, it employs explicit scriptural language, reformulates scriptural content, and introduces entirely new material as part of its narrative expansion of the Samuel story. In this respect, it follows literary and exegetical techniques common to more general parabiblical texts associated with characters from Israel’s scriptural heritage. It is not unlikely that 4Q160 was composed with the intention of it being received as an authoritative account of the life of Samuel and therefore classified as scripture. At the same time, the ‘macro-blending’ of scriptural and non-scriptural content suggests that the author viewed this text as supplementary to the scriptural Samuel (and perhaps would have been received by its audience in this way as well). Pseudepigraphy in 4Q160 As noted several times, fragments 3–5 and 7 are written in the first person. The larger identification of 4Q160 as a retelling of Samuel’s life suggests that the first person voice in these fragments is the pseudepigraphic Samuel. Thus, Samuel is the speaker of the autobiographical discourse in fragment 7 and likely also articulates the prayer contained in fragments 3–5.45 The use of pseudepigraphy for fragment 7 fits with the larger literary framework of 4Q160. Since this fragment retells Samuel’s final discourse to the Israelites, it similarly employs Samuel’s first person scriptural voice. The motivation for the pseudepigraphic format of the prayer in fragments 3–5, however, is less apparent. What exactly is at stake in formulating this prayer in the name of Samuel?46 Prayers that appear in parabiblical texts are commonly inserted at critical junctures of the reformulated narrative in response to exegetical exigencies presented by the base-text or literary considerations generated by the new narrative.47 In the case of 4Q160, all that we can discern about the larger narrative context of the prayer is that it has something to do with Samuel. Yet, nothing in the prayer itself can be positively identified with the scriptural story of Samuel and thus point to its exegetical motivation. Polak has suggested that there is a certain degree of similarity with the final two verses of the Song 45

Vermes in Schürer, History (as in n. 4), p. 335; Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as in n. 4), p. 822. For a more general discussion of the larger literary function of pseudepigraphy in Second Temple literature, see M. J. Bernstein, ‘Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls’, in E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone (eds), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center 12–14 January 1997 (STDJ 31, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1999), pp. 1–26. 47 See R. D. Chestnutt and J. Newman, ‘Prayers in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’, in M. Kiley (ed.), Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology (Routledge, London, 1997), pp. 38–42. 46


33

of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:10–11).48 Indeed, the image of God’s enemies being shattered into pieces strongly resonates with the latter half of fragments 3–5. There is insufficient evidence, however, to advance this argument any further. Another possibility presents itself that the prayer is not an essential component of the reformulated Samuel narrative. Rather, the prayer has contemporary implications and the Samuel story merely provides the literary forum for its articulation. As such, something about the character of Samuel made him an attractive pseudepigraphic voice for the author of 4Q160. In thinking about this question, it is important not to focus on the contents of the prayer, but rather on its intercessionary character. The prayer appeals to God to intervene in human affairs. God is asked to facilitate the reunification of some group that has become detached from the ‘nation’. As I suggested above, the object of the prayer is some group of Jews that the author has deemed to be outside the pale of ‘true’ Israel (i.e. his own Judaism). The speaker assumes that this process is in need of divine assistance and as such focuses his prayer on this request. For the author of 4Q160, Samuel may have represented an especially auspicious pseudepigraphic cipher for his own prayer directed at obtaining divine intervention in Israel’s favour. 1 Samuel often reports on the success of Samuel’s prayer on behalf of the nation.49 The portrait of Samuel as an efficacious intercessor with God on behalf of Israel persists throughout later biblical tradition. Inner-biblical interpretative traditions closely associate Samuel (along with Moses) with praying to God for intervention.50 Jeremiah relates God’s pronouncement: äæä íòä ìà éÖôð ïéà éðôì ìàåîÖå äÖî ãîòé íà, ‘Even if Moses and Samuel were to intercede (lit. stand) with me, I would not be won over to that people’ (Jer. 15:1). The point of this passage is that the sins of Judah are so terrible that even the intervention of Moses and Samuel, the great intercessors from Israel’s past, would fail to frustrate God’s plan. Though Moses and Samuel would ultimately be unsuccessful in their efforts, they are singled out here as ones to whom God would normally listen. Thus, in all other situations we may assume that God pays close attention to the petitions of Moses and Samuel. This very notion is explicitly stated in Psalm 99: ìàåîÖå åéðäëá ïøäàå äÖî íðòé àåäå äåäé ìà íéàø÷ åîÖ éàø÷á, ‘Moses and Aaron among his priests, Samuel, among those who call on his name—when they called to the Lord, he answered them’ (Ps. 99:6). Samuel, here associated with both Moses and Aaron,51 is counted among those who call upon the name of God, a refer48

Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as in n. 4), p. 822. 1 Sam. 7:5–9; 8:6–9; 12:7, 18–19; 15:11. The reformulation and expansion of one of these very passages may have served as the textual opening for the author of 4Q160 to introduce the prayer preserved in frgs. 3–5. On Samuel’s role as the intercessor on behalf of Israel, see Y. Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel (Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 25–27; B. Uffenheimer, Early Prophecy in Israel (trans. D. Louvish, Magnes, Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 267, 269. 50 The locus classicus for Moses’ appealing to God on behalf of the nation is certainly to be found in Moses’ activity following the golden calf incident (Exod. 32:11–14). 51 Cf. 1 Sam. 12:6. Note that LXXA adds ‘and Aaron’ to the passage in Jer. 15:1. 49

34


ence to appealing to God for assistance.52 This also seems to be the implication of Psalm 99.53 Samuel is one who calls upon God and he answers him (íðòé àåäå). This understanding of Psalm 99 further illumines the claim in Jeremiah that even Samuel and Moses could not sway God. Even though Samuel comes up short in Jeremiah, the inner-biblical tradition of Samuel is one that presents him as the petitioner par excellence. Samuel’s unique role as one who can effectively offer prayers on behalf of Israel is further expressed in post-biblical Jewish tradition, appearing in Josephus,54 Pseudo-Philo,55 Fourth Ezra,56 as well as later rabbinic tradition57 and 3 Enoch.58 As such, Samuel, the intercessor par excellence on behalf of Israel, provides an effective pseudepigraph for the prayer in 4Q160.59 Samuel is an attractive pseudepigraphic voice for an appeal to God to aid in the reconciliation of disparate elements of the Jewish people.

52 On this meaning of the expression, see Exod. 34:5; 2 Kgs. 5:11; Isa. 64:6; Joel 3:5; Zech. 13:9; Ps. 105:1//1 Chr. 16:8. The expression bears a purely cultic sense in Genesis 4:26; 12:8; 26:25. See also 1 Kgs. 18:24–26, where both elements are present. 53 At the same time, the cultic aspect is not absent. This is especially important with respect to Samuel, since at times he resorts to sacrifice while intervening with God on behalf of Israel (1 Sam. 7:5–9). See Uffenheimer, Prophecy (as in n. 49), p. 267. 54 In Ant. 6.24–25 (= 1 Sam. 7:8), the people beseech Samuel to pray on their behalf because of the impending battle with the Philistines. L. Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1998), p. 497, observes that Josephus here heightens the role of Samuel, whereby the people place even more hope in Samuel along with God. Likewise, in 6.92–93 (= 1 Sam. 12:18–19), the people are so terrified by the divine storm that accompanies Samuel’s words that they confess their wrongdoing and implore Samuel to intercede with God for their forgiveness. See also Ant. 6.102, where Josephus recounts Samuel’s encounter with Saul at Gilgal (1 Samuel 13). Samuel’s rebuke of Saul for his premature sacrifice contains the offhand remark that Samuel has come in order ‘to preside at the prayers and the sacrifices on behalf of the nation’. Cf. Feldman, ibid., p. 495. 55 L.A.B. 64:2. After recounting Samuel’s death, Pseudo-Philo provides the rationale behind the immediate attack of the Philistines: ‘Then the Philistines said to each other, “Behold Samuel the prophet is dead, and who prays for Israel?” ’ The Philistines recognise that the great success the Israelites enjoy in war is a direct result of Samuel’s intercession with God on their behalf. In keeping with the biblical tradition, similar circumstances surround the anticipation of Moses’ death (L.A.B. 19:3). 56 7:108. The mention of Samuel is included in a larger list of biblical figures who intervened with God on behalf of all of Israel or some smaller group (7:106–111). It is interesting to note that each of the individuals is listed together with the specific group on whose behalf he prayed. Only Samuel is mentioned in general terms: ‘and Samuel (prayed) in the days of Saul’. It is not entirely clear whether the remark of Ben Sira 46:16 should be included in this discussion. Ben Sira praises Samuel as one who ‘called upon God when he was hard pressed with enemies on every side, and offered up a suckling lamb’. While this seems to refer to 1 Sam. 7:5–9 (so P. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39, Doubleday, New York, 1987, p. 521), Samuel is presented here not as praying on behalf of Israel, but rather for himself. 57 yTa an. 64b. For full discussion and citation of later sources, see L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1968), vol. 4, pp. 64, 69; vol. 6, pp. 228–29. 58 48A:5–8. 59 Following Bernstein’s classificatory system (see above, n. 46), the prayer is articulated with Samuel as its ‘strong pseudepigraphy’. Such pseudepigraphy appropriates the pseudepigraphic voice in smaller narrative units in order to bolster the authority of the particular content found therein (e.g. its legal or apocalyptic aspects).


35

An Appropriate Title Allegro originally titled 4Q160 ‘The Vision of Samuel’. The title emerges from the reference in fragment 1 to Samuel’s first prophecy and his subsequent interaction with his mentor Eli. Allegro’s initial designation has been retained in some more recent presentations of the text.60 Strugnell questioned the use of this title, claiming that it does not accurately reflect the full contents of the text, and Vermes, followed more recently by Polak, has suggested that it might be appropriate to designate this text a ‘Samuel Apocryphon’.61 Based on the foregoing discussion, it seems certain that ‘The Vision of Samuel’ is an inappropriate title for the text. The circumstances surrounding Samuel’s prophetic vision appear only in the first few lines of fragment 1. While this experience seems to be the dominant element in fragment 1, it represents only a small portion of what the complete text contained. Moreover, even the remaining fragments do not revolve around the events narrated in this fragment. Rather, as I have suggested, they are linked to other elements in Samuel’s life. While the context of fragments 3–5 is uncertain, the composition appears to be grounded in the inner-biblical tradition of Samuel as an effective intercessor on behalf of Israel. Fragment 7 contains autobiographical notices that point back to Samuel himself. Both of these latter two sections are composed in the first person with Samuel as the logical pseudepigraph. If this snapshot accurately reflects the literary whole, then clearly we are dealing with a parabiblical text that has the scriptural story of Samuel at its core and generally follows this narrative, while at the same time introducing various literary expansions when deemed appropriate. Following the arguments advanced above in favour of classifying this text as a parabiblical apocryphon, 4Q160 may best be titled a ‘Samuel Apocryphon’.62

The Social and Historical Context for 4Q160 Parabiblical texts do not arise in a social vacuum, but are rather composed for a specific purpose and are thus intimately connected to the larger social and historical context of their authors. Can we learn anything about the social and historical setting of 4Q160 or its author(s)? In answering this question, I focus on the material in fragments 3–5, column 2 and, to a lesser extent, fragment 7, since their extra-scriptural content offers the best opportunity to illuminate possible social and historical allusions. The obvious first question to raise 60 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition (as in n. 7), vol. 1, p. 310; Parry and Tov, Reader 3 (as in n. 7), p. 344; Campbell, ‘Rewritten Bible’ (as in n. 30), p. 67. 61 Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge’ (as in n. 4), p. 179. Vermes in Schürer, History (as in n. 4), p. 335; idem, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin, New York, 2004), p. 587; Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as in n. 4), p. 822. See also the similar title in Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls (as in n. 8), p. 234 (‘An Account of the Story of Samuel’). 62 The reuse of explicit scriptural content in fragment 1 may recommend the further classification of this text as Pseudo-Samuel (on this classification, see above n. 39). The limitations of our textual sample, however, suggest that we refrain from making such a generalisation about the further use of scripture in the rest of the text.

36


within a discussion of this sort is whether we can assume a sectarian origin for 4Q160. Polak opines that ideas expressed in fragment 7 can be understood as ‘perhaps indicating the proud isolation of Qumran/Essene leadership from the Hasmonean high priesthood’.63 The three elements from fragment 7 that Polak draws upon, ‘Samuel’s service to Eli’, ‘his preferring to keep his proper place’, and ‘not to aspire to riches’, however, hardly recommend such a farreaching conclusion. 4Q160 contains only tenuous links to the Qumran community.64 Although numerous parabiblical texts were found at Qumran, none of them seems to have been composed by the Qumran sectarians themselves.65 It is compelling, however, to read the group dynamics operating within fragments 3–5 as reflecting the tension between the Qumran sect and other Jewish groups. The suggestion presents itself that the prayer may have been composed by the Qumran sect as a plea to God to assist the non-sectarians in realising that the Qumran community represents the true ‘Israel’ and that the other Jewish groups should follow suit. In light of the otherwise non-sectarian character of this text, however, such a claim has little further support.66 It is more appropriate to view the composition of 4Q160 within the larger framework of Second Temple sectarianism and group formation. The first preserved words of line 2 highlight these features: ‘Let them be] gathered (åå÷þé) unto your nation, O my God’. The verb assumes a plural subject; the prepositional phrase contains the singular ‘nation’. I suggested above that the plural subject of the verb denotes some group (or perhaps groups) separate from the true Israel (‘nation’) as represented by the author’s community. The composer of the prayer clearly sets up a contrast between two groups. By calling his own group the ‘nation’, he is legitimising it as the ‘true’ nation—i.e. Israel. It is the wish of the author of 4Q160 that the other group (the subjects of åå÷þé) no longer remain detached from the ‘nation’. This group transformative process propels the associative exegesis to Jer. 3:17 that follows, a feature explored in another study of 4Q160.67 The pericope in Jeremiah presents two models with which to understand the present passage. Jer. 3:17 speaks of the ‘nations’ (íéåâ) being gathered to Jerusalem ‘in the name of the Lord, at Jerusalem’. The Israelite/Gentile model is followed by the next verse which 63

Polak, ‘Samuel’ (as in n. 4), p. 822. See D. Dimant, ‘The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance’, in D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman (eds), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by the Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (1989– 1990) (STDJ 16, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1995), p. 46. 65 On this phenomenon, see Bernstein, ‘Pseudepigraphy’ (as in n. 46), pp. 24–25; J. J. Collins, ‘Pseudepigraphy and Group Formation in Second Temple Judaism’, in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives, pp. 55–58. 66 Moreover, the presence of only one copy of a document of such presumed importance would be uncommon for the Qumran discoveries. 67 Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4), pp. 418–19. 3–5 ii 2 is drawing upon Ps. 40:2: éúéå÷ äå÷ äåäé, ‘I put my hope in the Lord.’ The root employed in the Psalm is äå÷ I, while 4Q160 uses äå÷ II in the niph al (‘to be gathered’). This use of the root is only found in a few places in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 1:9; Jer. 3:17; cf. Isa. 60:9). It is my contention that the author of 4Q160 took advantage of the lexical flexibility to transform äå÷ I in Ps. 40:2 into äå÷ II. In doing so, the author has in mind the passage from Jeremiah and its larger context. 64


37

envisions a reunification of the House of Judah and the House of Israel. Here the group transformative process is internal, relating only to disparate elements of Israel. The ‘nation’/‘other’ relationship takes a marked turn in the second half of the prayer. Here another ‘other’ is introduced—the ‘enemies of the nation’, who are further identified as ‘all the nations of the lands’ and ‘the multitude’. During the dominion of the enemies, they will witness the dissemination of certain attributes of God. This process is ultimately aimed at instilling in the enemies a degree of awareness of God. Nowhere is it assumed that these ‘enemies’ will join the ‘nation’. Rather, they will merely understand that God created them. Furthermore, the enemies (identified as the ‘multitude’) will come to understand that the ‘nation’ belongs to God. Whereas in lines 2–3 the intention is for the other group to be received into the nation, in lines 4–7 no such objective is desired. Rather, it is now the ‘enemies’ of the nation— the non-Jews—who constitute the ‘other’. The role of the ‘enemies’ is now to behold God’s mighty and awesome character and immediately recognise that the nation belongs to God alone. The difficulty with isolating the larger social and historical context for this text is exacerbated by the lack of any further positive identification for any of these groups. Not unlike the problem presenting those working with the sobriquets in the Pesharim, we are puzzled by the identity of the group that is the subject of åå÷þé, the ‘nation’, the ‘enemies’, the ‘nations of the land’, and the ‘multitude’ and the nature of the relationship of all these people. Even without access to the historical context of 4Q160, the broad outline of its social setting nonetheless becomes clearer. The prayer points to an internal Jewish struggle for identity as the ‘true’ nation of Israel. The author of 4Q160 saw himself as part of this nation and hoped that the other group would be promptly absorbed. The contents of the latter half of the text point to some disturbance by foreign rulers. As such, the prayer includes an appeal that the foreign rulers shall no longer burden the nation of God. Presumably, with the foreign presence out of the way, the full reunification of the disparate elements of the nation can occur. The social discord reflected in the text is intimately bound up with the historical context and the date of the text’s composition. The paleographic dating of the text to early to mid-Hasmonean period provides the terminus ante quem of ca. 100 BCE. The apparent literary dependence on Daniel throughout the text provides a terminus post quem of ca. 167–164 BCE, the proposed date for the final form of Daniel.68 Working within this time frame, the appearance of divided factions of Jews as well as a ruling foreign element suggests the tumultuous time of the Maccabean revolt and the immediate years that followed.69 68 Reliance upon Daniel is suggested for 3–5 ii 1: äëãáòþì éäåìà àð òîù (Dan. 9:17); 3–5 ii 1: çåë éúøöò àåì (Dan. 10:8, 16; 11:6); 3–5 ii 4: äëîò éàðåù íòæáå (Dan. 8:19). For full treatment

of these parallels, see Jassen, ‘Intertextual’ (as in n. 4). 69 Cf. Dan. 11:36, which speaks of the king (Antiochus IV) who ‘will succeed until the wrath (íòæ) is finished’. This is highly suggestive in light of the period of wrath envisioned in frgs. 3–5.


38

Conclusion 4Q160 has received only minimal scholarly treatment since its initial publication by Allegro in 1968. Much of this scholarly neglect can be traced to the fragmentary nature in which this manuscript is preserved. Notwithstanding the numerous lacunae, there is much we can learn about the contents of 4Q160 and its larger literary and historical framework. The text itself is a parabiblical composition centered around the scriptural story and personality of Samuel. Based on the extant fragments, 4Q160 contains elements that correspond to various aspects of the life of Samuel. The major portion of the text that does not overlap with the scriptural Samuel—fragments 3–5, column 2—contains a petitionary prayer that appeals to God for intervention in an internal Jewish conflict. Samuel is chosen as the pseudepigraphic voice for this prayer on account of the biblical and post-biblical tradition that identifies him as the petitioner par excellence on behalf of Israel. Though the manuscript displays close points of contact with story and text of Samuel, its classification as ‘rewritten Bible’ is uncertain since it fails to meet many features of this generic classification. The larger composition, however, does display an overriding concern with Samuel and various elements in the scriptural story. Accordingly, I agree with those scholars who argue for the title ‘Samuel Apocryphon’, rather than Allegro’s original ‘The Vision of Samuel’. The fragmentary nature of the manuscript, together with its genre as a retelling of a scriptural narrative, makes it very difficult to locate its exact provenance and date of composition. Certain elements within fragments 3–5, column 2, however, point to a period of heightened internal social discord. The literary and manuscript evidence suggest the middle to latter half of the second century BCE as a possible date for the composition of 4Q160. The historical record of this time period provides an adequate context for the internal Jewish struggle depicted in this passage.