Aramaic Texts From Qumran And The Authoritativeness Of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary Observations

A History of Research on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

“…Dimant (2007: 202) also suggested that the Aramaic Scrolls deploy specific literary forms (e.g., ‘pseudepigraphic testaments and discourses, framed in aggadic narratives’) with no parallel in the Hebrew parabiblical texts from Qumran. The conclusions of Tigchelaar (2009; 2010a) and García Martínez (2014) agree in broad strokes with those of Dimant, though they have each sought to further elaborate on the relationship between the Aramaic Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptures.…”

“…42). Scholars may not agree on precisely what it means to call these compositions a corpus, but there is a general recognition that the Aramaic Scrolls share certain literary features in common that distinguish them from the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., Dimant 2007: 205; Ben-Dov 2008b: 27; Tigchelaar 2010a: 155–57; Machiela 2015: 253). This approach to the Aramaic Scrolls did not begin in earnest until the late 2000s with the publication of articles by Dimant, Tigchelaar, Ben-Dov, García Martínez, and Machiela (It did, however, have some precedents, especially in the work of Milik and Wacholder).…”

“…This approach has the advantage of giving the reader a better sense for the corpus and its defining characteristics. I have identified the work of the following scholars as making the most important contributions to our understanding of the Aramaic Scrolls as a corpus: Dimant (2007, 2010, 2017), Tigchelaar (2007, 2009, 2010a), Ben-Dov (2008b, 2022), García Martínez (2010, 2014), Machiela (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018a, 2019, 2021c), Perrin (2015a, 2015b, 2018, 2020, 2022a), Reed (2017, 2020), and Jones (2023). These comprise the majority of studies cited below.…”

“…Other scholars, however, have been quicker to emphasize the diversity of the Aramaic Scrolls. Tigchelaar (2010a: 160) and García Martínez (2014: 22) have thus suggested that the pre-Sinaitic compositions do appear to share a level of literary and conceptual coherence that would warrant speaking of them as a relatively homogeneous corpus within the Aramaic Scrolls, but these scholars are more inclined to emphasize the heterogeneity of the Aramaic Scrolls when viewed as a whole, even as they acknowledge genuine differences between the Aramaic and Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran. (It is also worth noting that scholars like Perrin (2015b: 228) and Machiela (2018b: 96) recognize and account for the diversity of the Aramaic Scrolls, even as they argue for the overall coherence of the corpus.…”

“…These compositions (e.g., Jubilees or the Temple Scroll) follow their scriptural base-text fairly closely, and are generally understood as a form of ‘interpretative rewriting’ (2009: 93). Of all the Qumran texts that Tigchelaar (2009: 91) includes in this category, only the Genesis Apocryphon was written in Aramaic (See, however, his qualification regarding the Genesis Apocryphon (2010a: 166). By contrast, the texts in his second category ‘do not primarily interpret or rewrite scripture, but present new compositions’ (2009: 93).…”