A Qumran Story

I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a memorial stone, where you made a vow to Me; now arise, leave this land, and return to the land of your birth.’”  Genesis 31:13  NASB

Return – The story is familiar.  Jacob is attempting to convince his wives to leave with him and return to Canaan.  The wives hesitate.  What will happen to them if they leave?  Then Jacob provides divine justification.  He recalls a dream; God telling him what to do.  The women consent:

Rachel and Leah said to him, “Do we still have any share or inheritance in our father’s house?  Are we not regarded by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and has also entirely consumed our purchase price.  Surely all the wealth which God has taken away from our father belongs to us and our children; now then, do whatever God has told you” (Genesis 31:14-16).

Sidnie White Crawford uses this biblical story as an example of the alteration of the text in the Genesis account found at Qumran:

In the standard biblical text of Genesis 31:4-13, Jacob, who is still living with his father-in-law, Laban, tells his wives, Rachel and Leah, about a dream he had long before, in which God commanded him to leave Aram and return to Canaan. “During the mating of the flocks,” Jacob rather abruptly recalls, “I once had a dream,” in which a messenger of God told him “to arise, go forth from this land and return to the land of your fathers.” This is the first we’ve heard of this dream. Did Jacob simply make it up to justify the pending departure to his wives? The Samaritan Pentateuch provides the answer. Jacob’s dream is first described in detail when he dreams it (after Genesis 30:36) and then later is repeated to his wives. The insertion reads as follows:

And the messenger of God spoke to Jacob in a dream, and he said “Jacob!” And he said “Here I am.” And he said, “Raise your eyes and see all the he- goats climbing upon the flock, striped, speckled, tan and spotted. For I have seen everything which Laban has done to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and vowed a vow to me. And now, arise, go forth from this land and return to the land of your fathers and I will deal well with you.”

The language of the dream is exactly the same as Jacob’s later report to his wives. Any doubts about Jacob’s veracity in recounting the dream are laid to rest by including it in the biblical text. This type of harmonization was used not just once but systematically throughout the entire Samaritan Pentateuch.[1]

There are also substantial additions to the biblical text.  For example:

In the standard biblical text, the Song of Miriam appears immediately following Moses’ victory song at the Reed Sea (Exodus 15:1–18) and consists of just one sentence. Exodus 15:20–21 states: “Then the prophet Miriam, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand; and all the women went out after her with tambourines and with dancing. And Miriam sang to them: ‘Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously, horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.’” Not only is it short, it is simply a repetition of the first line of Moses’ song in 15:1* But is that all that Miriam sang? The answer in the Reworked Pentateuch is a resounding “No!” The additional text is fragmentary, but there is no doubt that it belongs here. After what we know as Exodus 15:21 and before 15:22, 4Q365 inserts seven additional lines to Miriam’s song. The fragmentary addition goes like this:

1. 1. You despised[**
      2. for the majesty of[
      3. You are great, a deliverer[
      4. The hope of the enemy has perished, and he is for[gotten (or: has cea[sed)
      5. they perished in the mighty waters, the enemy[
      6. Extol the one who raises up, [a r]ansom … you gave[
      7. [the one who do]es gloriously[

**The open bracket indicates that the end of the line of text is missing in the fragmentary stroll. Reconstructed text also appears in brackets.[2]

Perhaps you find this startling.  You should.  What it implies is that not only was there no canon of the Hebrew biblical material in the first century, there was also no prohibition against adding to the text when the community felt it was necessary.  This is a far cry from the much later ideas of inspiration and inerrancy we have inherited.  Imagine if you can a “Bible” that is open to reconstruction.  Suddenly our notion of biblical security evaporates.  What matters to the believing community of the first century is not the text but rather the experience encountered through the text.  Crawford concludes: “ . . . the scribe was doing his job as the keeper of the tradition, making sure that the message was heard and properly understood by each new generation.”[3]    Of course, all of this fluidity ended.  The real question is why.

What if we did the same?  Ah, but don’t we already do this, implicitly, when we explain or comment on the text?  And how does that make you feel?

Topical Index: inspiration, Qumran, alteration, addition, Genesis 31:13, Exodus 15:22

[1] Sidnie White Crawford, “The Fluid Bible: The Blurry Line Between Biblical and Non-biblical Texts,” published in Bible Review XV, pp. 34-39, 50-51.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.