Home Page | Site Map | Contact
 |
ARTICLE IN |
(7Q4, 7Q8, & 7Q12 = 7QEn gr = Enoch 103:3-4, 7-8)
Note: if you need to use the Glossary click here
In 1955 Qumran cave 7 was excavated and
twenty-four small scroll fragments were found. All were written in Greek and on papyrus;
although three had survived only as imprints upon clay lumps. When the editio princeps (1) was published in 1962, these fragments were arranged into
nineteen groups and numbered accordingly; for it was observed that some fragments were
evidently from identical scrolls. (2) At that time only
fragments 7Q1,1&2 and 7Q2 were identified. In 1972 O'Callaghan attempted to identify
the pair of fragments known as 7Q4,1&2 as being part of I Timothy 3:16 - 4:3;
and fragment 7Q8 as being part of James 1:23-24. (3)
He did not attempt to identify 7Q12. The controversy that ensued following O'Callaghan's
identifications led to numerous alternative identifications that were proposed for
individual fragments (4) from cave 7; including
those made by Nebe, (5) as described below.
In 1988 Nebe proposed that fragment 7Q4,1 was part of I Enoch
103:3-4; while 7Q4,2 was part of I Enoch 98:11. (6) He
also suggested that 7Q8 was part of I Enoch 103:7-8; but with much reservation,
since this fragment could just as easily be identified with several Old Testament
passages. (7) Although Nebe concentrated his effort on
identifying fragments 7Q4,1&2; this identification was challenged by Thiede, (8) who has supported the identifications made by O'Callaghan.
In 1996, Puech defended Nebe's identification of fragment 7Q4,1 as being part of I
Enoch 103:3-4; while suggesting that 7Q4,2 is part of I Enoch 105:1. (9)
All of these proposed identifications have remained inconclusive
because of the fact that these three fragments are quite small in size and each preserves
only a few letters. No one has been able to propose an identification for any of these
fragments that excludes all other possibilities. In my opinion this impasse is primarily
the result of these fragments having been considered separately, as if they were all
originally from different scrolls. In this note I endeavor to resolve this impasse by
introducing a new point of departure; which is that of considering these three fragments
as an ensemble, as if they were from the same scroll. If this is possible, then it clearly
follows that the task of identification must apply to the ensemble; and no longer to three
separate fragments.
The three fragments: 7Q4,1, 7Q8, and 7Q12 can be regarded as such
an ensemble by demonstrating the affinity that these fragments have with each other; which
is derived from observing the physical and textual characteristics that are shared by all
three fragments. As a result, I am able to restore the position of these fragments in
relation to each other as they originally appeared in the scroll. Once this is done, I can
confidently assert that the identifications proposed by Nebe are correct; and I can also
propose that fragment 7Q12 is part of I Enoch 103:4.
The Physical Affinity of Fragments 7Q4,1, 7Q8, & 7Q12:
A document written on papyrus can be described
as having lines of text written upon a grid. It is very much akin to a document written
upon graph paper. This grid has unique properties as well as does the text; due to the
irregular spacing and direction of the papyrus fibers. These physical attributes, along
with the text, can be of great help in re-establishing the original relationship among
fragments that otherwise appear disparate. (10) Such is
the case with the fragments under consideration; and possibly others from Qumran cave 7.
In the case of: 7Q4,1, 7Q8, and 7Q12, all three fragments have
horizontal fibers that slope slightly downward to the right. This downward slope is in
relation to both the vertical fibers and to the lines of Greek text. All three fragments
exhibit this same downward slope, which is about 4 degrees from the horizontal.
Furthermore, if 7Q8 is placed alongside 7Q4,1 so that the letters "eso" are to the right of "pneu",
a perfect match is revealed between the two fragments. This is because the uneven spacing
between the individual fibers is the same for both fragments. This is evident in the
accompanying photograph, (11) especially if the fibers
are viewed from the left side of the photograph.
Fragment 7Q12 can be positioned beneath 7Q4,1 because the curved
edges of both fragments match each other quite well. This positioning is also appropriate
because both fragments preserve the right edge of a column of text and because the
photograph shows that both have similar vertical fibers along the edges where they can be
joined.
On the basis of these observations, as shown in the accompanying
photograph, it can be established that these three fragments were not only from the same
scroll; but that they were also originally connected to one another. Consequently, this
ensemble should be regarded as if it were one large fragment; and the task of identifying
it should proceed accordingly. Since this ensemble is considerably larger than any of its
three constituent fragments, it is possible to correctly identify it; provided that the
text it preserves also exists in another extant document which has been identified.
The Textual Affinity of Fragments 7Q4,1, 7Q8, & 7Q12:
Of all the individual identifications proposed
for fragments 7Q4,1 and 7Q8; only the ones made by Nebe are suitable for both fragments
because he proposed that both were from chapter 103 of I Enoch. Furthermore, both
identifications situate the fragments in their correct sequence in the text of chapter 103
of I Enoch; (12) and this sequence agrees with the
physical relationship of the fragments alongside each other in the ensemble. The text of
fragment 7Q8 follows that of 7Q4,1; both in I Enoch and in the ensemble.
The transcriptions of these two fragments, as made by Nebe, are
as follows:
NOTE: Click
here to read an English translation of the
Greek text.
7Q4,1 (Column 1) = I Enoch 103: 3-4 (13)
[...kai eggegraptai t]h
[V yucaiV twn apoqanon]twn =21
[eusebwn kai carhso]ntai =20
[kai ou mh apolwntai ta ]pneu- =22
[mata autwn oude to mn]hmo- =20
[sunon apo proswpou tou me-]
[galou... ]
7Q8 (Column 2) = I Enoch 103: 7-8 (14)
[...oti eiV aidou (ka)texou-]
s[in taV yucaV umwn kai ekei] =22
eso[ntai en anagkhi mega-] =20
lh[i kai en skotei kai e-] =18
n[ pagidi kai en flogi kaiomenhi...]
In addition to the above, I propose to identify fragment 7Q12 as being part of the text of I Enoch 103: 4. The letters that are preserved on this fragment are located in the correct sequence, both in the ensemble and in the text of chapter 103 of I Enoch. The transcription I present below is for this fragment only; as it introduces a slight departure from that of the bottom two lines of Nebe's transcription for 7Q4,1.
NOTE: Click
here to read an English translation of the
Greek text.
7Q12 (Column 1) = I Enoch 103:4 (15)
[sunon apo proswpou t]ou =19
[megalou eiV pasaV taV g]e- =20
[neaV... ]
In analyzing the
above transcriptions from the standpoint of stichometry, one could substitute a different
arrangement for some of the letters in the preserved portions of the fragments; resulting
in a different restoration for the lacunae in some lines of the text. An example of this
would be replacing the "e" in line 2 of 7Q12 with the
one from the next line. This would change the length of the line of text, and alter the
conjectural position of the letters in the columns of text. Such rearrangements may not be
necessary, as the number of letters per line ranges from 18 to 22 in the above
transcriptions. It is possible that the second column of text, as represented by 7Q8, was
slightly narrower than the column to the left of it in the original scroll. This presents
a minor but resolvable difficulty; as Tov (16)
has observed that varying column widths are not uncommon among the Dead Sea scrolls.
A detailed analysis of the
stichometry of this ensemble has been provided by Puech; along with his careful
positioning of the ensemble within the columns of text that he has reconstructed. (17)
In view of the above observations which demonstrate the physical
and textual affinities shared by fragments: 7Q4,1, 7Q8, and 7Q12, one can conclude that
they constitute an ensemble; which in turn can certainly be identified with the Greek
version of chapter 103 of I Enoch. This identification excludes all other possible
identifications that have previously been proposed for the individual fragments. (18) This is because the position of all the letters in the
ensemble, which are preserved in two columns of text, agrees completely with the text of
chapter 103 of I Enoch.
In conclusion, the identifications proposed by Nebe for fragments
7Q4,1, and for 7Q8 can be regarded as certain; putting an end to the mystery (19) that has previously characterized these fragments. Furthermore,
I can confidently propose that fragment 7Q12 is part of the same ensemble, preserving part
of the text of I Enoch 103:4. These three fragments from Qumran cave 7 clearly
constitute an ensemble that preserves a portion of the Greek text of I Enoch.
Consequently, a new siglum, (20) such as 7Q En gr, should
be introduced and employed in order to designate this ensemble.
Ernest A. Muro, Jr.
Orlando, Florida
U. S. A.
|
|
|
Note: e-mail me at emuro@breadofangels.com
Please observe copyright restrictions
FOOTNOTES
1. M. Baillet, Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumrân, by M.
Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of
Jordan III, Oxford 1962, pp. 142-146 and plate XXX.
2. Baillet, cit., According to the groupings in the editio
princeps, 7Q1, 7Q4, and 7Q6 are pairs, while 7Q19 consists of three clay fragments.
3. J. O'Callaghan, "¿Papiros neotestamentarios en
la cueva 7 de Qumrán?", Biblica 53 (1972), pp. 91-100; also "¿1 Tim
3,16; 4,1.3 en 7Q4?", idem, pp. 362-367; also "Notas sobre 7Q tomadas en
el 'Rockefeller Museum' de Jerusalén", idem, pp. 517-533.
4. F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls
Translated, Leiden 1996, p. 516.
5. G. W. Nebe, "7Q4 - Möglichkeit und Grenze einer
Identifikation", Revue de Qumrân XIII (1988), pp.629-633.
6. Nebe, cit., pp. 630-632 for 7Q4, 1; p. 630, note 12
for 7Q4,2.
7. Nebe, cit., pp. 632-633, note 26. A translation of
the pertinent portions of this footnote is as follows: "If one were to continue a
column of text of about 22 letters in width beyond the position of Enoch 103:3f as
found in 7Q4; one could place 7Q8 in Enoch 103:7f after approximately 12 lines of
text...7Q8 might be of the same hand as that of 7Q4. The association of 7Q8 with Enoch
103:7f, however, must remain theoretical in view of the fact that it could also be part of
the text of: Zechariah 8:8; Isaiah 1:29f; Psalm 18:14f; Daniel
2:43; Qoheleth 6:3; and Numbers 22:38."
8. C. P. Thiede, Qumrân et les Évangiles. Les manuscrits
de la grotte 7 et la naissance du Nouveau Testament. Le fragment 7Q5 est-il le plus
ancien manuscrit de l'Évangile de Marc?, Paris 1994, pp. 75-86; also Rekindling
the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth, Herefordshire 1995, p. 177.
9. É Puech, "Notes sur les fragments grecs du manuscrit
7Q4 = 1 Hénoch 103 et 105", Revue Biblique 103 (1996), pp. 592-600.
10. R. Parkinson, and S. Quirke, Papyrus, Austin
1995, pp. 80-81. This is a brief description of the technique of "fibre
matching".
11. D. Estrada, and W. White, The First New Testament,
Nashville 1978. This book is a popular introduction to all the identifications made by J.
O'Callaghan for various Qumran cave 7 fragments. It includes several photographs of the
cave 7 fragments; most of them being enlargements. The photographs that are pertinent to
this note are found on pp. 19, 104, and 110. These photographs were used with the
permission of Thomas Nelson, Inc. They were scanned into a computer, sized to the correct
proportions, and joined together in order to produce a photograph of the ensemble. Note:
Click HERE to access information about
where to find this image in print.
12. M. Black, Apocalypsis Henoch Graece, Leiden
1970; and C. Bonner, with the collaboration of H. C. Youtie, The Last Chapters of Enoch
in Greek, London 1937.
13. Nebe, cit., p. 631.
14. Nebe, cit., p. 632-633, note 26.
15. Black, cit., p. 65; Bonner, and Youtie, cit., p.
42.
16. E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,
Minneapolis 1992, p. 205. On p. 401 is a photograph (plate 21) of a fragment from the
Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever which preserves a portion of Zechariah 8:19-9:5.
Those lines of text that can be reconciled with A. Rahlfs Septuaginta indicate that
the left column of text was slightly narrower than the right.
17. É. Puech, "Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre
d'Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (= 7QHéngr)", Revue de Qumrân 70 (1998), pp. 313-23.
18. Nebe, cit., pp. 632-633, note 26. Of the six possible
Old Testament identifications given for 7Q8, none are near a text that can serve as an
identification for 7Q4,1. The same observation applies for the list in García Martínez, cit.,
p. 516.
19. In my opinion, the only mystery that remains is the fact that,
in spite of their matching fibers, these two fragments were considered separately; and
that they were the subject of a prolonged controversy.
20. García Martínez, cit., pp. 488-489. This extensive
list of Qumran manuscripts includes sigla for the Aramaic fragments of I Enoch.
NOTE:
Click here to read an English translation
of the Greek text.
Read companion article by Fr. Emile Puech in Revue de Qumran
#70.
To
use the Glossary, click here.
To
return to index of "Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 7", click here.
Click
here to return to the Main Entrance to all my other web sites.
September 14, 1998 / February 28, 2003
