Abstract
Using two different strategies, we have been able to establish firmer opinions about the contents and literary character of frags. 1 and 4. It appears from the occurrence of that the meagre material of frag. 1 is the remains of formal language from exegetical literature or casuistic rulings. The casuistic rulings can be rejected. It seems safe to say that frag. 1 must have belonged in an exegetical context, very probably a pesher. The technique used in frag. 4 is different, due to the character of what is extant. Though the fragment lacks formal traits, it has significant words, which point to the books of Hosea and Zephaniah as likely literary sources. The constellation of significant words in frag. 4 seems to reflect an exegetical praxis recognized also in larger fragments from 4Q383-391. Thus, the investigation leaves the impression that frag. 4 is part of an exegetical text reworking scriptural texts rather freely, and not a pesher or running commentary on one single scriptural text. Because of the sparseness of the material, the suggestions made here cannot be conclusive, not least because they suggest two different genres in a single manuscript. Yet, the very different types of concordance work employed on the two fragments do contribute further to the determination of "the character or content of the texts," which Horgan thought impossible.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | The Mermaid and The Partridge : Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revisiting Texts from Cave Four |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Publication date | 2011 |
| Pages | 109-118 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 9789004196469 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 |