International Conference on The Aramaic Texts from Qumran
Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme
Aix-en-Provence, France
30 June – 2 July 2008
The Aramaic texts form an important and remarkable group within the Qumran
“library.” Among some 900 manuscripts found in the Qumran caves, 129 are – or
appear to be – in Aramaic, and roughly 87 are sufficiently well-preserved to be
studied.[1] The language of mss 4Q352-359 cannot be determined with certainty.
Sixteen mss, for the most part administrative or accounting documents, are in fact
from an uncertain origin (see A. Yardeni, DJD XXVII, p. 283. One manuscript,
4Q360a, seems to be a literary text, but it is too fragmentary for clear conclusions to
be drawn). If one retains only those mss whose Qumran origin is certain, there are
roughly 113 literary texts, coming from caves 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 et 11. However, 26 mss
are so fragmentary that they cannot be identified nor classified. André Lemaire also
published an Aramaic fragment from a private collection, of which only a few words
are left (cf. « Un fragment araméen inédit de Qumrân », RQ 70 (1997), 331-333).[1]
These texts belong to different literary genres: (1) Targums (one of Leviticus,
two of Job); (2) narrative compositions (among which a so-called Aramaic ProtoEsther and an Aramaic version of Tobit) – inspired by biblical texts (as in the case of
the Genesis Apocryphon), or, in a more distant way, by Babylonian literature (e.g. the
Book of Giants and the Prayer of Nabonidus); (3) apocryphal texts connected to the
Patriarchs, which to some extent belong to the testamentary genre, and combine
narrative sections, exhortations and predictions (Testament of Jacob (?), Testament of
Juda, Testament of Joseph, Testament of Qahat, Visions of ‘Amram, Levi Document);
(4) apocalyptical texts, such as the Book of Henoch and the Danielic literature; (5) a
visionary text entitled The New Jerusalem, which can be compared to the end of the
Book of Ezekiel and to the Temple Scroll; (6) wisdom literature (Aramaic Proverbs);
(7) an astrological text, a Brontologion and an horoscope; (8) an exorcism; (9) a list of
false prophets; and so on. Obviously, some texts belong to several literary genres. If
the Aramaic texts cannot, therefore, be classified within a single category, does this
mean that they do not have anything in common? Are they completely independent
from one another, implying that the choice of Aramaic does not involve a common
origin? From a linguistic point of view, they do in fact have some shared
characteristics, even if the Aramaic of the Qumran texts is not uniform. As Steven
Fassberg has shown, at least one characteristic distinguishes them – 11QtgJob
excepted – from the other Aramaic texts or documents found outside Qumran: the 2nd
masc. sing. pronominal suffix –kh.[2] Cf. Steven E. Fassberg, « Qumran Aramaic »,
Maarav 9 (2002), 19-31 ; id., « Qumran Aramaic », Meghillot 2, 2004, p. 169-184.[2]
Other features are still debated.
From a thematic point of view, the Aramaic texts do tackle a great variety of
topics. Some topics, however, seem to have attracted special attention. For example,
39 manuscripts – nearly half of the corpus – are linked to the stories of Genesis, and 2
more manuscripts evoke the beginning of Exodus (with figures such as Qahat,
‘Amram, Mariam and Hur). Therefore the question must be asked: what does such a
predilection for the book of Genesis imply? Another example is the a relative lack of
halakhic texts, a fact deserving some explanation.
From a cultural perspective, several texts refer to a Mesopotamian or a Persian
background or imply a connection of some sort with one of these cultures. Apart from
the Book of Giants and the Prayer of Nabonidus, at least 4QZodiacal Calendar ar,
Henoch, Daniel, Proto-Esther and Tobit fall within this category. Yet, concerning the
question of the origin of these texts, one should keep in mind that although they show
connections with the Babylonian and Persian worlds, they are generally written in a
Western type of Aramaic.
While not appearing to be uniform, the collection of Aramaic texts found at
Qumran therefore shows certain tendencies that need to be identified more precisely.
Without excluding studies that deal with a particular text, papers focusing on a
significant part of the collection of Aramaic texts or on the collection as a whole will
be particularly welcome.
Another aim of the conference will be to compare the Aramaic texts with two
other groups of texts: first, Aramaic literature outside Qumran; second, the rest of the
Qumran “library.” Thus for instance, the issue of the connections with the Babylonian
and Persian worlds can be answered satisfactorily only if one compares the situation
of the Aramaic texts with that of the other Qumran texts. More generally, questions
must be raised: 1) Concerning the specificity of the Aramaic texts within the Qumran
corpus: in what respect do they differ from the texts in Hebrew? In what respect are
they similar? 2) Concerning a possible “sectarian” origin of some Aramaic texts.
Because of the dualistic terminology of 4Q548, some scholars have considered it a
sectarian text. But is this really the case? Conversely, can one affirm that no Aramaic
text is of sectarian origin and that they all come from a different non-sectarian milieu?
At least in the case of 4Q246 and of the New Jerusalem texts, the issue is debated. But
if one characterizes some texts as sectarian, then the question arises of what led
members of the community to write certain texts in Aramaic rather than in Hebrew.
Apart from these possible exceptions, are most of the Aramaic texts pre-qumranite
compositions? Were they copied outside Qumran? Finally, what kind of information
can the Aramaic texts provide with regard to the history of the collection found at
Qumran and its origin? The conference aims at shedding some light on these crucial
issues.
Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stoekl Ben Ezra