THE QUMRAN ARAMAIC TEXTS AND THE

QUMRAN COMMUNITY

Devorah Dimant

The documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, or more accurately

those discovered at Qumran, have had a curious fate. They turned up
quite by chance in ten caves near the Dead Sea more than fifty years
ago, and it took five decades to complete their publication. This long
and often tortuous process finally brought to light the remains of some
nine hundred manuscripts originally placed in the caves.1 But the delay
in publication of many scrolls from cave 4 had a negative effect on the
course and general orientation of the research in several important
respects. Because the full content of the Qumran library was unknown
and inaccessible to the scientific community for many years, Qumran
works were often discussed without being related to the library as a
whole. The diversity and range of scrolls, recently coming to light, and
the fast growing research on them have reinforced this tendency rather
than encourage more comprehensive surveys.
For particular reasons such has been the case of the Aramaic texts
found among the scrolls. Since only recently the complete set of those
texts has become available for study, for a long time attention was paid
mainly to specific texts such as 1 Enoch or the Aramaic Levi Document.2
This was because both were known in translations long before the
discovery of the scrolls and had a solid scholarly tradition behind
them. They were partly published relatively early in the history of the
Qumran research, and students of the scrolls could have easily fitted

1
The precise number of the Qumran texts stands now on the remains of 942
scrolls. This figure includes 128 manuscripts initially assigned to existing scrolls but
now are recognized as separate. However, dealing as it does with literary texts from
the Qumran library the present survey does not apply to 48 non-literary documents
found at Qumran and therefore they are omitted here from the overall number of
the Qumran manuscripts. These non-literary documents include 21 phylacteries, 6
mezuzoth, 3 writing exercises and 18 other documentary texts.
2
See J.T. Milik, “Le Testament de Lévi en araméen: Fragment de la grotte 4 de
Qumrân,” RB 62 (1955): 398–406; idem, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 197 10/1/2007 4:48:10 PM

 198 devorah dimant

them into an already familiar picture.3 Therefore these writings have

been usually discussed in the context of the non-Qumranic corpus of
Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Such, for instance, is the perspective of three
recent surveys of “Pseudepigrapha” at Qumran by Michael Stone,
Moshe Bernstein, and Peter Flint.4 In such surveys no distinction is
made between works written in Hebrew and in Aramaic. Nor has any
attempt been made to examine 1 Enoch and the Aramaic Levi Document,
or other Aramaic texts, in the particular context of the Aramaic corpus
from Qumran.5
This is not to say that the overall perspective has been ignored com-
pletely. Over the years several comprehensive collections of Aramaic
texts have been published. Such is one collection edited by Joseph
Fitzmyer and Daniel Harrington in English and one published by Klaus
Beyer in German.6 However, motivated by the desire to provide first
editions, and interested mainly in the linguistic character of Palestinian
Aramaic, the editors in both cases offer texts of various literary types
and provenance without attempting any classification or literary analysis.
As a result the particular character of the Qumran Aramaic texts is
quite lost in these collections.
That the Aramaic texts should be considered a distinct group within
the Qumran library is suggested by their particular language, style, and
content. Furthermore, the Aramaic texts contain nothing of the specifi-

3
Milik’s The Books of Enoch is a typical example of this attitude. It is an erudite
reconstruction of Enochic fragments in context of what has been known before Qum-
ran. However, besides supplying much of the missing lines in the various manuscripts
Milik also reconstructed a dubious historical context for 1 Enoch. These features have
diminished the usefulness of his volume. For a revised edition of the Enochic copies
by L.T. Stuckenbruck and E. Cook, see Parabiblical Texts (DSSR 3), 454–561. But by
printing the literary units which constitute 1 Enoch in separate grouping rather than in
the way they are assembled in the Ethiopic version and in the Qumran manuscripts,
this new edition misrepresents 1 Enoch in the shape we know it.
4
Cf. M.E. Stone, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” DSD 3 (1996):
270–95; M.J. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and
Functions,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E.G. Chazon and M.E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–26;
P.W. Flint, “ ‘Apocrypha,’ Other Previously-Known Writings, and ‘Pseudepigrapha’
in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (ed. idem and J.C.
VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:1–66.
5
Cf. however, the short comments made by J.C. Greenfield, M.E. Stone, and
E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document. Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden:
Brill, 2004), 11–44.
6
Cf. J.A. Fitzmyer and D.J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (BibOr
34; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer
(2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 and 2004).

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 198 10/1/2007 4:48:10 PM

 the qumran aramaic texts and the qumran community 199

cally sectarian terminology or ideology and therefore do not belong

with the sectarian literature.7 Even the mention of the Sons of Light
and the Sons of Darkness (akwçj ynbw arwhn ynb) in the so-called Visions
of Amram, and the peculiar demonology introduced by this work, do not
make it a sectarian composition. Rather than pointing to a sectarian
origin, they attest to the wide dissemination of the dualistic thought.8
As a distinct entity within the Qumran library then, the Aramaic
texts should be examined separately. Only in this way do individual
Aramaic compositions acquire their proper significance, and their origin
and background may be investigated.
A systematic description of the Aramaic Qumran texts as such is
still lacking. By way of introduction I would like to outline here the
main themes and literary characteristics of the Aramaic corpus and
note some of their implications.9
Let me begin with a few fundamental data.10 Remains of one hundred
and twenty-one Aramaic texts were found at Qumran, slightly more
than 13 percent of the total nine hundred manuscripts retrieved from
the caves. However, thirty-two of these documents are too fragmentary
for significant assessment. Another five manuscripts, some of which were
given the impressive names “apocryphon” and “apocalypse” (4Q488,
4Q489,11 6Q14, 6Q19, 6Q23), have preserved so little that not much
can be said about their content and character. They are significant
only as pointers to the number of Aramaic texts originally housed in
the library. Thus fragments of only eighty-four Aramaic manuscripts,
or some 9 percent of the entire Qumran collection, have preserved
enough text to be considered in a meaningful way. Yet the original
library may have contained more Aramaic texts that have perished

7
As noted already in my classification. Cf. D. Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts:
Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (ed. eadem and
L.H. Schiffman; STDJ 16: Leiden: Brill, 1995), 32.
8
Cf. the comments of J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the
Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues (ed. M.J. Bernstein et al.; STDJ 23;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335; R. Bauckham, “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is there
a Connection?” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S.E. Porter
and C.A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997), 267–79.
9
I have discussed some of the material reviewed here from a different perspective
in D. Dimant, “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” in The Bible and the Dead
Sea Scrolls: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community (vol. 2; ed. J.H. Charlesworth;
Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 447–67.
10
The data are culled from DJD 39:221–25.
11
Published by M. Baillet, DJD 7:10–11. The only word that may serve the title “vision”
is the verb “and I saw it” (htyzjw—4Q489 1 2), but this is not much to go on.

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 199 10/1/2007 4:48:10 PM

 200 devorah dimant

altogether. Even the surviving texts have not endured in their entirety.
Of some manuscripts only tiny fragments were preserved, of others
more substantial pieces.
Nevertheless, what we possess today is of immense value, as it recu-
perates segments of an unknown Jewish Aramaic literature from Second
Temple times. For the remains of those eighty-four scrolls come from
twenty-nine different works, only three of which were known prior the
discovery of the scrolls. They are Tobit; 1 En. 1–36, 72–106; and the
Aramaic Levi Document, probably a source of the Greek Testament of Levi.
Also of note is the fact that twelve of the twenty-nine works are extant
in more than one exemplar.12
From the thematic perspective the Aramaic texts may be divided
into six rubrics:
I. Works about the Period of the Flood: 1 Enoch (4Q201–202,
4Q204–207, 4Q212); the Astronomical Work (4Q208–211); the Book
of Giants (1Q23–24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q206 2–3[?], 4Q530–532,
4Q533[?], 6Q813). The first part of the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20)
also is to be considered under this rubric.
II. Works dealing with the History of the Patriarchs: the
Aramaic Levi Document (1Q21, 4Q213, 4Q213a, 4Q213b, 4Q214,
4Q214a, 4Q214b); the Visions of Amram (4Q543–548, 4Q549[?]);
the Testament of Qahat (4Q542); the Testament of Joseph (4Q539);
the Words of Benjamin (4Q538); the Testament of Jacob(?) (4Q537);
as well as the later part of the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20).
III. Visionary Compositions: The New Jerusalem (1Q32[?], 2Q24,
4Q554, 4Q554a, 4Q555, 5Q15, 11Q18);14 the Four Kingdoms

12
These are the following: 1 Enoch, the Book of Giants, the Aramaic Levi Document,
the Apocryphon of Levi, the Visions of Amram, Pseudo-Daniel, the New Jerusalem, the Four
Kingdoms, the Birth of Noah, Tobit, the so-called Apocalypse (4Q556–558), and Proto-Esther.
J.T. Milik, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân,”
RevQ 15/59 (1992): 321–406, distinguished between six Proto-Esther manuscripts. Cf.
also E. Cook, DSSR 6:6–13.
13
The various copies of this work were published in several volumes of the DJD
series. All are conveniently assembled in DSSR 6:39–74. Cf. also Beyer, Die aramäischen
Texte vom Toten Meer, 2:129–38.
14
For this list see É. Puech, “À propos de la Jérusalem Nouvelle d’après les manuscrits
de la mer Morte,” Sem 43–44 (1992): 87–102 (87–88). Puech follows Milik’s suggestion
that 4Q232 may come from a Hebrew version of the Aramaic work. Cf. ibid., 88 n. 3,
citing Milik, The Books of Enoch, 59.

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 200 10/1/2007 4:48:10 PM

 the qumran aramaic texts and the qumran community 201

(4Q552–553); the so-called Apocryphon of Daniel (4Q246);15 the Words

of Michael (4Q529); the so-called Birth of Noah (4Q534–536);16 the
so-called Apocryphon of Levi(?) (4Q540–541, 5Q15[?]);17 Pseudo-Daniel
(4Q243–245).
IV. Legendary Narratives and Court-Tales: Tobit (4Q196–199);
The Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242); Proto-Esther (4Q550, 4Q550a,
4Q550b, 4Q550c, 4Q550d, 4Q550e); Daniel-Suzanna (4Q551).
V. Astronomy and Magic: Zodiology and brontology (4Q318);
Exorcism (4Q560); Physiognomy/ Horoscope (4Q561).
VI. Varia: Bible Targums: of Leviticus (4Q156); of Job (4Q157,
11Q10). There are small remains of three other works: List of
False Prophets (4Q339), Apocalypse (4Q556–558);18 Biblical Chro-
nology (4Q559); and Aramaic proverbs (4Q569).
A salient feature emerging from the list is the predominance of two
clusters of themes, one related to the Flood, the other to the Patriarchal
history. Twenty-one Aramaic manuscripts deal with events connected
with the Flood; eighteen scrolls are devoted to the lives of the Patriarchs.

15
4Q246 was connected by most scholars with the biblical book of Daniel on basis
of similarity of themes and vocabulary. Cf. É. Puech, “246: 4QApocryphe de Daniel
ar,” DJD 22:165–84 and his summary of research on 178–84. However, the name
of Daniel does not occur in the surviving fragment, nor do the details correspond to
specific details of the book of Daniel. Moreover, the center of this single fragment is
a messianic figure not found in the biblical Daniel. The single mention of a messianic
figure in Dan 7:13–14 may have inspired this description, but the Qumran text does
not go beyond a certain literary development of this theme with a few stylistic links
to the description of Daniel.
16
The name the Birth of Noah for these fragments was suggested by Joseph Fitzmyer
some forty years ago on basis of various arguments, and it has been generally accepted.
Cf. idem, “The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave IV,” CBQ 27 (1965):
348–72. It is also adopted by É. Puech in his recent re-edition of the text. Cf. idem,
DJD 31:117–70. However, the name of Noah is never mentioned in the text, nor do
all the features of the personage described therein fit him. Further arguments suggest
that the initial name, given by J. Starcky (in Mémorial du cinquantenaire 1914–1964: École
des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut Catholique de Paris [Paris, 1964], 51–66), namely
“the Elect of God,” is better suited for the content of the work. Cf. my comments in
the review of Puech’s volume in DSD 10 (2003): 292–304.
17
The label “Apocryphon of Levi” is another problematic title, assuming more
than may be substantiated by the texts. See my comments in my review of Puech’s
publication, 300–302.
18
The fourteen fragments were edited by E. Cook, “4Q556 (4QVisiona ar),” in
DSSR 6:136–40. Two other manuscripts are identified as copies of the same work,
4Q557 (4QVisionc ar) and 4Q558 (4QVisionb ar), also edited by Cook in the same
volume. The manuscripts are too fragmentary for a precise assessment of their literary
character and their relation to each other. The names “Apocalypse” or “Vision” imply
more than the fragments actually say.

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 201 10/1/2007 4:48:10 PM

 202 devorah dimant

The Genesis Apocryphon covers both subjects, bringing the total number of
manuscripts dealing with those themes to forty. Thus scrolls concerned
with the Flood and the Patriarchs’ history account for nearly half of
the eighty-three readable Aramaic texts, coming as they do from nine
compositions, or twelve, if we consider separate the Enochic works
assembled in the anthology of 1 Enoch. Remarkably, the works concern-
ing the figures and events surrounding the Flood are the best represented
among the Aramaic texts: nine copies of the Enochic anthology of
1 Enoch and ten copies of the Book of Giants. However, also well repre-
sented are writings related to the Patriarchs. The Aramaic Levi Document
and the so-called Visions of Amram are extant in seven copies each.
Let us pause for a moment to reflect on the thematic configuration
revealed by these two rubrics of the list. First, note that both Flood
themes and Patriarchal history are also treated by Hebrew Qumranic
texts. Still, these subjects are treated mostly by non-sectarian parabibli-
cal or rewritten Bible works. In the sectarian literature such themes are
dealt with systematically only in pesher-type works, such as 4Q180, the
so-called Pesher on the Ages,19 or in admonitory context such as that of
the Damascus Document II 17–21.20 Thus, the systematic reworking of
narratives dealing with pre-Sinaitic times is shared only by the Qumran
Aramaic corpus and the parabiblical non-sectarian texts. However,
their respective approaches to these materials widely diverge. While
the Hebrew parabiblical texts rework more or less closely the biblical
Hebrew text and elaborate or comment on it, the Aramaic writings treat
biblical materials more freely. For the Aramaic texts the biblical version
is just a peg on which large chunks of aggadic non-biblical expansions
are hung. This freedom in reworking biblical themes is expressed in
particular literary forms, chiefly pseudepigraphic testaments and dis-
courses, framed in aggadic narratives. None of these literary forms is
employed by the Hebrew parabiblical texts.
There are, however, two exceptions to these general characteristics,
namely, the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon and the Hebrew book of Jubilees.
Written in Aramaic as it is, the Genesis Apocryphon shares with the Aramaic

19
Cf. D. Dimant, “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181,” IOS 9 (1979):
77–102.
20
The theme of the flood is set in an admonitory context also in 4Q370 i. However,
no sectarian elements may be detected in it, so it cannot be considered part of the
typical sectarian literature. Cf. C. Newsom, “4Q370: 4QAdmonition on the Flood,”
DJD 19:85–110.

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 202 10/1/2007 4:48:10 PM

 the qumran aramaic texts and the qumran community 203

corpus the subjects of its discourse: ancient and Patriarchal history.

However, by following closely the biblical story it treats these materi-
als in a manner similar to the Hebrew parabiblical texts. The book
of Jubilees represents the reverse case. Written in Hebrew, it shares
with parabiblical Hebrew text the technique of reworking the biblical
Hebrew version, but the topics it covers are the ones dealt with by the
Aramaic corpus. These peculiarities stress the special character of the
two writings, and further study is needed to clarify them. However, these
being exceptions, they confirm the general rule typifying the Aramaic
works of these groups.
One may further observe that while the Aramaic texts share with the
Hebrew parabiblical ones the preoccupation with the Flood and the
Patriarchs, nothing in the Aramaic corpus parallels the intense interest
of the Hebrew texts in later Israelite history. No Aramaic work deals
systematically and in detail with Moses and Joshua, the period of the
Judges, or the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. For that matter, nothing
in Aramaic is related to the biblical Prophets. Obviously, in the under-
standing of the authors of these texts, Hebrew belonged to the sphere
of Israelite history proper, whereas Aramaic is relegated to earlier
generations. Indeed, such a view is expressed by Jubilees (12:25–26) and
perhaps by the Qumranic 4Q464 3 i 921 and may underlie the clear
thematic division between the Aramaic and the Hebrew works.
As a concluding remark about this type of Aramaic texts groups, it
should be noted that, seen in their perspective, 1 Enoch or the Aramaic
Levi Document are not unique or isolated cases. They belong to a well-
defined literary genre and traditions and should be studied in their
context.
Equally important at Qumran was a complex of Aramaic visionary
apocalyptic tales, represented in the third group on the list. Twenty man-
uscripts, coming from seven different works, belong here. Unfortunately,
most of them are quite fragmentary and therefore provide an incomplete
picture of the original writings. These texts describe visionary scenes,
often dealing with figures and events of the eschaton. A good example
of this type of writing is offered by the work entitled the New Jerusalem,
apparently popular at Qumran, since it is extant in seven copies. In this

21
Cf. M.E. Stone and E. Eshel, “An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and two
other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q464b),” Le Muséon 105 (1992): 243–63. The text is
published by Eshel and Stone, “Exposition on the Patriarchs,” DJD 19:215–30.

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 203 10/1/2007 4:48:11 PM

 204 devorah dimant

work an angelic being shows a seer the enormous size and buildings of
the future Jerusalem and Temple. The text builds on Ezek 40–48, but
the name of the seer has not been preserved, and the work cannot be
considered a rewritten Ezekiel or an Apocryphon of Ezekiel.22
Another interesting feature of this group is the fact that at least
some of the works are set in a Diaspora context. This may have been
the literary stage of the New Jerusalem writings and the Apocryphon of
Daniel. Aramaic was apparently selected as the language of composition
precisely because of such a setting, as it was for Dan 2. It certainly
reflects the reality during the Persian period.
The fourth group on the list is smaller, but most significant for
understanding the nature of the corpus. It includes edifying tales not
situated in or explicitly attached to biblical contexts and themes. The
book of Tobit is a typical example of this genre. Many of these texts
share with the visionary compositions the setting of the royal court of
great Gentile monarch. This well-known form of court-tale was widely
disseminated in antiquity, in both Jewish and non-Jewish literature, such
as Daniel, Tobit, and the Aramaic Story of Achikar. The Qumran library
has added an important number of previously unknown specimens of
this genre.
In light of such new additions to the Aramaic Jewish literature, Tobit
and the Aramaic chapters of Daniel now appear as survivors of a large
Aramaic literature that flourished during Second Temple times. The
place of the book of Daniel is particularly intriguing, for a number of
texts from this group build upon or are influenced by it. They are the
Prayer of Nabonidus, Pseudo-Daniel, Proto-Esther, the Four Kingdoms, and the
so-called Apocryphon of Daniel. Some of them clearly depend on Daniel,
such as Pseudo-Daniel. But others seem to be contemporaries of Daniel,
sharing the same milieu and literary conventions. Mapping the precise
relationship of those texts should have important implications for the
understanding the origins and background of the Jewish apocalyptic
literature.
Finally a word must be said of the date and possible background of
the Aramaic corpus discussed here. It is most striking that Babylonian
elements are clustered in writings related to the Flood on the one

22
Cf. recently L. DiTommaso, The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text (TSAJ 110; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005), and my review in Henoch 29 (2007): 156–58.

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 204 10/1/2007 4:48:11 PM

 the qumran aramaic texts and the qumran community 205

hand,23 and both Babylonian and Iranian elements are found in non-
biblical court-tales and visionary narratives on the other hand.24 That
the theme of the Flood attracts Babylonian traditions is understandable,
since Babylon is the initial source of this motif for biblical as well as
later developments. But the prominence of the Iranian elements in the
visionary court-tales comes as a surprise. Although this is still uncharted
terrain, enough is known to suggest that manifold Babylonian and
Iranian traditions have found their way into the Aramaic texts from
Qumran. The few magical and astrological Aramaic texts found there,
listed in group five, reinforce this conclusion.25 Indirectly it is also cor-
roborated by the non-sectarian character of the Aramaic texts and by
the early dates of several copies. For instance, one copy of the Enochic
Astronomical Work, 4Q208 (= 4QEnastra), is dated to the end of the third
century B.C.E.26 Three copies of the Visions of Amram, 4Q543, 4Q544,
and 4Q547, date to the middle of the second century B.C.E. But even
when Aramaic texts were copied in later times, mostly the first century
B.C.E, the presence of several exemplars of many works points to older
originals.27 Thus, both date and background betray an early time and
external sources for the Qumran Aramaic texts.
Why the particular themes developed by the Aramaic texts so fasci-
nated the Qumranites is a subject for another paper. But the data already
at hand demonstrates the need to consider these texts as a specific group,
which requires further detailed investigations along these lines.

23
Cf. for instance the references to Gilgamesh as one of the giants in the Book of
Giants (4Q530 2 ii 2; 4Q531 22 12).
24
Cf. e.g. the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), edited by J.J. Collins, DJD 22:83–93, and
the Persian background portrayed by 4Q550 (4QPrEsthera) 5–7, edited by E. Cook
in DSSR 6:6.
25
On the astrology in 4Q318 see J.C. Greenfield and M. Sokoloff, “An Astrological
Text from Qumran (4Q318) and Reflection on Some Zodiacal Names,” RevQ 16/64
(1995): 507–25. On the physiognomic text 4Q561 see M. Popović, “Physiognomic
Knowledge in Qumran and Babylonia: Form, Interdisciplinarity, and Secrecy,” DSD
13 (2006): 150–76.
26
For this date see Milik, The Books of Enoch, 273. His dating is substantially accepted.
See the subsequent edition by E.J.C. Tigchelaar and F. García Martínez, “208: 4QAs-
tronomical Enoch ara,” DJD 36:104–31 (106).
27
According to Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, for instance, the composition of Aramaic
Levi Document should go back to the third century B.C.E. at the latest. Cf. Greenfield,
Stone, and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 22.

TIGCHELAAR_F13_196-205.indd 205 10/1/2007 4:48:11 PM

TIGCHELAAR_F14_206-224.indd 206 10/1/2007 4:49:46 PM