by Geza Vermes
The Prayer of Nabonidus
(4Q242)
While the Book of Daniel (iv) writes of the miraculous recovery of Nebuchadnezzar after an illness which lasted seven years, this interesting Aramaic composition tells a similar story about the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus. The principal difference between the two is that Nebuchadnezzar was cured by God Himself when he recognized His sovereignty, whereas a Jewish exorcist healed Nabonidus by teaching him the truth and forgiving his sins. J. T. Milik considers the work to be older than Daniel, but a late second or early first-century BCE dating seems to be less adventurous (cf. ‘Prière de Nabonide et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel’, RB 63 (1956), 407-11). Cf. also G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, London, 1973, 67-8.
For the editio princeps, see J. Collins, DJD, XXII, 83-93.
The words of the prayer uttered by Nabunai king of the l[and of Ba]bylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God].
I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years ... and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from [among the children of the exile of Judah, and he said], ‘Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the name of the [Most High God’. And I wrote this]:
‘I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer in Teiman [by decree of the Most High God]. For seven years [I] prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone and clay, because [I believed] that they were gods ... ’
Para-Danielic Writings
(4Q243-5)
In addition to the Prayer of Nabonidus, Cave 4 has revealed further Aramaic remains of a composition akin to the biblical Book of Daniel, with three explicit mentions of the name Daniel, who appears to be the narrator of the story. Another personality, Balakros, figures in 4Q243. J. T. Milik tentatively identified him with the Seleucid ruler Alexander Balas, the patron of Jonathan Maccabaeus. One of the fragments of 4Q245 represents a list of priests, including possibly the Maccabee brothers, Jonathan and Simon, and kings. The remaining pieces are too small for translation.
For the editio princeps, see J. Collins and P. Flint, DJD, XXII, 95-164.
4Q243, fr. 3 combined with 4Q244
... The children of Israel chose themselves rather than [God and they sacri]ficed their sons to the demons of idolatry. God was enraged against them and determined to surrender them to Nebu[chadnezzar, king of Ba]bel and to devastate their land ...
4Q245, fr. 1, i-ii
... Daniel ... the book given ...... [Lev]i, Qahat ... Bukki, Uzzi ... [Zado]k, Abiathar ... Hi[l]kiah ... Onias, [Jona]than, Simon ... and David, Solomon ... Ahazia[h, Joa]sh
The Four Kingdoms
(4Q552-3)
Partly overlapping remains of two manuscripts of an Aramaic work further testify to the existence of a rich para-Danielic literature. These poorly preserved documents allude to the story of the four empires (Dan. vii-viii) in the form of a metaphor of four trees.
For the editio princeps, see E. Puech, DJD,XXXVII (forthcoming).
4Q552, fr. 1 ii
... [I saw an angel] II standing on whom light (shone) and four trees [stood by] him. And the trees rose and moved away from him. And he said to [me: Do you see] this shape? And I said: Yes. I see it and consider it. And I saw the tree ... placed.
And I asked it: What is your name? And it said to me: Babel. And I said to it: Are you the one who rules over Persia? And I saw another tree ... and I asked it: What is your name? [And it said to me: ... And I said to it: Are you the one w[ho rules over a]ll the powers of the sea and over the ports [and over] ... ? [And I saw] the third tree [and] I said to [it: What is your name and why] is your appearance ...
An Aramaic Apocalypse
(4Q246)
Surnamed the ‘Son of God fragment’, 4Q246, with its intriguing phrases ‘son of God’ and ‘son of the Most High‘, recalling Luke i, 32, 35, has been in the centre of learned and popular speculation. On palaeographical grounds the script is dated to the final decades of the first century BCE. Four competing interpretations of the ‘son of God’ figure have been proposed: the title is to be associated with the Seleucid ruler, Alexander Balas (J. T. Milik); it designates a Jewish, possibly Hasmonaean, king, with a possible ‘messianic undertone’ in the use of ‘son of God’ (J. A. Fitzmyer); the Antichrist (D. Flusser); still apocalyptically, but in a positive sense, F. García Martínez argued in favour of an angelic identity, the ‘son of God’ is either the heavenly Melchizedek or Michael, the Prince of Light. The editor has decided to sit on the fence and applies the title to either the future Davidic Messiah or a historical Seleucid pretender.
The overall message of the fragment recalls the apocalyptic section of the Book of Daniel. A Daniel-like person, referred to in column 1, is to explain to a king seated on a throne a vision or dream alluding to wars involving Assyria and Egypt, and the arrival of a final ruler, served by all, and called by them, or designating himself, ‘son of God’. But the triumph of peace is not attributed to him - his reign is rather characterized by internecine struggle between nations and provinces - but to the Great God, helping ‘the people of God’ (cf. Dan. vii, 22, 29), whose dominion over mankind is declared eternal (cf. Dan. vii, 14) and free from the sword.
Relying mainly on the evidence of the existing text, rather than on hypothetical reconstructions of missing passages, I see in the ‘son of God’ of 4Q246 neither Flusser’s Antichrist, nor the straight historical individual of the Milik-Puech variety, but the last historico-apocalyptic sovereign of the ultimate world empire who, like his model, Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan. xi, 36-7, is expected to proclaim himself and be worshipped as a god (see JJS 43, 1992, 301-3).
For the editioprinceps,see E. Puech, DJD, XXII, 165-84.
I ... [the spirit of God] dwelt on him, he fell down before the throne ... O [K]ing, you are angry for ever and your years ... your vision and all. For ever you ... [the gre]at ones. An oppression will come to the earth ... a great massacre in the provinces ... the king of Assyria [and E]gypt ... he will be great on earth ... will make and all will serve ... he will be called (or: call himself) [gran]d ... and by his name he will be designated (or: designate himself). II The son of God he will be proclaimed (or: proclaim himself) and the son of the Most High they will call him. Like the sparks of the vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign for years on the earth and they will trample all. People will trample people (cf. Dan. vii, 23) and one province another province vacat until the people of God will arise and all will rest from the sword. Their (the people of God’s) kingdom will be an eternal kingdom (cf. Dan. vii, 27) and all their path will be in truth. They will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth, and all the provinces will pay homage to them. The Great God (cf. Dan. ii, 45) is their helper. He will wage war for them. He will give peoples into their hands and all of them (the peoples) He will cast before them (the people of God). Their dominion will be an eternal dominion (Dan. vii, 14) and all the boundaries of...
Proto-Esther (?)
(4Q550)
A number of badly damaged fragments of an Aramaic writing report events said to have occurred in the Persian court, thus recalling the biblical story of Esther. The script is dated to the second half of the first century BCE. J. T. Milik, in a very learned, but equally conjectural, manner, has reconstructed the background of the narrative, even restoring the name of Esther from an incomplete word beginning with the letters aleph and samekh. He has thus discovered an Aramaic model of Esther at Qumran, although no remains of the canonical Book of Esther have so far been found there. K. Beyer entitles the writing as Documents of Darius and classifies it as a legendary account relating to Darius I and Xerxes, kings of Persia, who apparently worshipped the God of the Jews.
For the editio princeps, see E. Puech, DJD, XXXVII (forthcoming). See also J. T. Milik, ‘Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrân’, RQ 15 (1992), 321-406; K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Ergän
zungsband (Göttingen, 1994), 113-17.
4QProto-Esthera
... [and they li]sten to Patireza, your father... and amid the officials of the royal apparel ... to work in the service of the king in accordance with all that you have received ... In that hour the king could not go to sleep (literally, his spirit was stretched) [and he commanded that the b]ooks of his father be read before him. And among the books there was a scroll [the mou]th of which [was] s[ealed] with seven seals by the signet-ring of his father Darius the heading of which ... [Dar]ius the king to the officials of the kingdom, Peace. It was opened and read and in it was found: [... Dar]ius the King to the kings who will reign after me and to the officials of the kingdom, Pe[ac]e. It should be known to you that every tormentor and liar ...
Proto-Estherd
III The Most High whom you (Jews) fear and worship rules o[ver the whole e]arth. Everyone whom He wishes (comes) near. Bagasro ... Whoever speaks an evil word against Bagasro [will be] put to death for there is no-o[ne to destroy h]is good for [e]ver....
List of False Prophets
(4Q339)
This is a brief list of false prophets, recorded in Aramaic and palaeographically Herodian in date. The first six names come from the Bible. The last two lines are completed by the editor as ‘[Hananiah son of Az]ur’ (Jer. xxviii, 1) and ‘[a prophet from Gib]eon‘, interpreted as the continuation of the description of Hananiah (see ibid.). One may object to this reconstruction that all the previous names occupy a single line. The name of Yohanan ben Shim’on, i.e. John Hyrcanus I, son of Simon Maccabaeus, has been suggested by A. Rofe and E. Qimron. Hyrcanus I was thought to have been endowed with prophetic gifts (cf. Josephus, Jewish War I, 68-9; Antiquities XIII, 300), but the anti-Hasmonaean Qumran sect would have condemned him as a false prophet. This identification is distinctly possible, but owing to the fragmentary state of the line the reading is purely conjectural.
For the editio princeps, see M. Broshi and A. Yardeni, DJD, XIX, 77-9.
The lying prophets who arose in [Israel: Balaam [son] of Beor (Num. xxii-xxiv); [the] elder from Bethel (1 Kgs xiii, 11-31); [Zed]ekiah son of Ke[n]aanah (1 Kgs xxii, 11); [Aha]b son of K[o]liah (Jer. xxix, 21); [Zed]ekiah son of Ma[a]seiah (ibid.); [Shemaiah the Ne]hlemite (Jer. xxix, 24); ... ur; ... ‘on.
List of Netinim
(4Q340)
A badly mutilated fragment, dated to the first half of the first century BCE, lists the Temple servants or netinim referred to in the biblical Books of 1 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. The text is too broken to make good reading, but it proves that such lists were in circulation in late Second Temple times.
For the editio princeps, see M. Broshi and A. Yardeni, DJD, XIX, 81-4.
These are the netin[im] who have been identified by [their] na[mes]: Ithra and ... To[biah].
H. Miscellanea
A cut segment from The Copper Scroll
The Copper Scroll
(3Q15)
The Copper Scroll (3Q15), which has stimulated much curiosity and speculation, was found by archaeologists in Cave 3 during the excavations of 1952, but the metal had become so badly oxidized during the course of the centuries that the scroll could not be unfolded. It was therefore sent to Professor H. Wright Baker of the Manchester College of Science and Technology who, in 1956, carefully divided it into longitudinal strips and, in the same year, returned it to Jordan. It is part of the treasures of the Archaeological Museum of Amman. The Hebrew text, representing twelve columns of script, was published by J. T. Milik in 1962. It was preceded by a less trustworthy edition by J. M. Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll, London, 1960.
The inscription lists sixty-four hiding-places, in Jerusalem and in various districts of Palestine, where gold, silver, Temple offerings, scrolls, etc., are said to have been deposited. Allegro reckoned that the treasure amounted to over three thousand talents of silver, nearly one thousand three hundred talents of gold, sixty-five bars of gold, six hundred and eight pitchers containing silver, and six hundred and nineteen gold and silver vessels. In other words, using the post-biblical value of the talent as a yard-stick, the total weight of precious metal must have added up to sixty-five tons of silver and twenty-six tons of gold.
Who could have possessed such a fortune? Was there ever any truth in it?
The answer is in the negative, according to J. T. Milik. In his view, the exaggerated sums indicate that the scroll is a work of fiction and that its chief interest to scholars lies in the fields of linguistics and topography. He dates it from about 100 CE, thus ruling out any connection with the rest of the Qumran writings since the latter were placed in the caves not later than 68 CE.
The treasure was a real one according to other scholars, representing the fortune of the Essenes (A. Dupont-Sommer, S. Goranson) or the Temple treasure (J. M. Allegro, N. Golb, A. Wolters). According to Allegro, the Zealots were responsible for the concealment of the gold and silver and for the writing of the scroll. It has also been suggested that we are dealing here with funds collected for the rebuilding of the Temple after 70 CE, or with the hidden treasure of Bar Kokhba, leader of the second Jewish revolution against Rome in 132-5 CE.
Milik’s argument would certainly seem to account for the vast quantities of treasure mentioned. It does not, however, explain two of the document’s most striking characteristics, namely, the dry realism of its style, very different from that of ancient legends, and the fact that it is recorded on copper instead of on the less expensive leather or papyrus. For if it is, in fact, a sort of fairy-story, the present text can only represent the outline of such a tale, and who in their senses would have engraved their literary notes on valuable metal?
The contention that the treasure was a real one is supported by the very arguments which undermine Milik’s. From the business-like approach, and the enduring material on which the catalogue is inscribed, it might sensibly be supposed that the writer was not indulging some frivolous dream. Again, in view of the fact that the Copper Scroll was found among writings known to come from Qumran, Dupont-Sommer and Goranson would appear justified in allocating the fortune to the Essenes. It requires, by comparison, a strong feat of the imagination to accept that all this wealth belonged originally to the treasure chambers of the Temple, and that it was placed in hiding, in a hostile environment, in 68 CE, before, that is to say, there was any immediate danger to the capital city of Jerusalem. Allegro bypassed this objection by presuming that, as Qumran was by then in the hands of the Zealots, it was no longer unfriendly to the Jerusalem authorities. But it has not yet been explained why the sack of the Temple and city should have been foreseen, and provided for, so early. In favour of the Temple treasure hypothesis, it is nevertheless possible to envisage that the Jerusalem sanctuary possessed such riches as these, whereas, despite Dupont-Sommer’s undoubtedly true remarks concerning the apparent compatibility of religious poverty and fat revenues, it is still hard to accept that the Essenes, a relatively small community, should have amassed such disproportionate wealth.
This is all that can safely be said of the Copper Scroll at the present time. Further study of the original will allow scholars to improve many of the readings. Meanwhile students of Qumran are considerably in J. T. Milik’s debt for his pioneering decipherment of an extremely difficult text.
For the editio princeps, see J. T. Milik, DJD,III, 199-302.
Further works to consult: A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, Oxford, 1961, 379-93; N. Golb, ‘The Problem of Origin and Identification of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124 (1980), 1-24; S. Goranson, ‘Sectarianism, Geography and the Copper Scroll’, JJS 43(1992), 282-7; A. Wolters, ‘The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew’, RQ14 (1989-90), 483-95; ‘Literary Analysis of the Copper Scroll’, in Z. J. Kapera, ed., Intertestamental Essays in Honour of J. T. Milik, vol. 1, Cracow, 1992, 239-54; The Copper Scroll. Overview, Text and Translation, Sheffield, 1996; ‘Copper Scroll’, in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scro
lls, ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, Oxford and New York, 2000, 144-8.
Col. I
1. A Horebbah which is in the Vale of Achor under the stairs which go eastwards forty cubits: a box (filled with) silver weighing in all seventeen talents. KEN.
2. In the tomb of... the third: 100 gold bars.
3. In the great cistern which is in the courtyard of the little colonnade, at its very bottom, closed with sediment towards the upper opening: nine hundred talents.
4. At the hill of Kohlit, containers, sandalwood and ephods (priestly garments). The total of the offering and of the treasure: seven (talents?) and second tithe rendered unclean. At the exit of the canal on the northern side, six cubits towards the cavity of immersion. XAΓ
5. In the hole of the waterproofed refuge, in going down towards the left, three cubits above the bottom: forty talents of silver.
Col. II
6. In the cistern of the esplanade which is under the stairs; forty-two talents. HN