Banyai Michael banyai at
Thu Feb 1 09:54:16 EST 2001

David Stabnow wrote:
> On 2/1/01 at 7:20 Banyai Michael wrote, in part:
> > So we should assume that this text in Numbers is quoting an original
> > independent document, formerly written on a separate roll.

> That would be a reasonable explanation for Num 34:2-12, and also looks like
> a very good explanation of Lev 14. But it is a little confusing why the
> writer of Num 34 would use one document for the southern, western, and
> eastern border, but embed a separate document for the northern border in
> vv. 7-9.

I see this rather as a confirmation of my views. Would this be just a
style retort, there would be no ground why the author shouln´t use it
systematically. The same would apply for the case he would intend to give
rise to the impression ofquoting original documents (as a matter of fact,
he doesn´t say , he would doing a quoting) without in reality having such
an older document in his hands.

However the length of a roll depended on the dimensions of the material at
the disposition of the scribe and this is the kind of capricious incident,
which could easily explain the inconsistent way the header occurs. A
shorter papyrus allowed the script of just the northern border on a single
roll. A larger piece was enough for the rest. For libraryans´purposes both
rolls were preserved in probably the same archive pot. (a method of
keeping manuscripts in Qumran)

Best regards, 

Banyai Michael

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list