Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:08:14.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Die Doppelurkunden Aus Der Wüste Juda. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, vol. V. By Elisabeth Koffmahn [E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1968, viii + 208 pp. F1.54.-]*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Reuven Yaron
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Books
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 477 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Abbreviations in this review:

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

DJD II Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II: Benoit, P., Milik, J. T., and de Vaux, R., Les Grottes de Murabba'at, 1961Google Scholar

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

P. Mur. Papyrus Murabba'at, in DJD II

1 See the detailed survey given by Mrs. Koffmahn, pp. 1 ff. The main corpus of texts published so far is that from Wadi Murabba'at, in DJD II. Not relevant to the present discussion are the finds from Tel Arad (listed at p. 3, under no. 8). These are Aramaic ostraca of the Persian period (5th and 4th cent. B.C.).

2 To mention just one example, by no means the only one: a bill of divorce, of A.D. 135, is ghost-walking in scholarly papers, often mentioned though not yet published. The interesting point about the document is that it is alleged to have been executed by the wife, contrary to established Jewish practice. While I should hesitate to dismiss this as an impossibility, a wait-and-see attitude would appear to be indicated. See also Koffmahn, pp. 112f. But what concerns us at the moment is the inexplicable and annoying delay in the publication of so unique a text; and see already my remarks in (1960) 11 JJS 159, note 5, and in (1962) 13 Jura 175, note 12.

3 So called because the text of the contract or declaration is written twice, on the same papyrus. An “interior writing” (scrittura interior) at the head of the sheet is followed by an “exterior writing” (scriptura exterior). The upper, interior version is rolled up, tied and sealed. Witnesses sign on the back (verso) of the exterior version, vertically to the text. For a detailed discussion of the double document, its variants and development, see Koffmahn, pp. 10–30. Summary remarks in English can be found in Welles, C. B., The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report V/l: The Parchments and Papyri (1959) p. 14Google Scholar; Y. Yadin (1960) 12 IEJ 236f.

4 As examples one may mention a deed of sale of land—relatively well preserved— of the time of Bar-Kochba, written at Kefar-Bebayou; it was published by Milik, J.T. (1954) 61 Revue Biblique 182–190Google Scholar, and again in (1957) 38 Biblica 264–68. See also P. Mur. 24, a roll of extracts of leases.

5 See my remarks in (1966) 17 luta 117f.

6 A different matter again are the many mistakes one encounters, especially in the Semitic quotations. Some letters are consistently confused, so e.g. final kaph which frequently turns into final pe. True, as long as there will be books there will be printer's errors, but there are rather too many of them in this instance. Here the publishers ought to have given a helping hand. One should expect that much of Brill's—in a book not at all moderately priced!

7 “On—b (number of day), of—l (name of month), year—šnt [not lšnt—Koffmahn, p. 31] of a given era. See, for example, P. Mur. 30: b'śrym w'hd itšry šnt ‘rb' lg'wlt yśr'l—“On twenty-one of Tishri, year four of the redemption of Israel” (A.D. 135).

8 See my Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (1961) 7f.

9 See the detailed discussion in (1957) 2 JSS 61. Contrary to Mrs. Koffmahn's assertion (p. 31), Jeremiah still adheres to the earlier sequence.

10 Nabataean is an offspring of Aramaic, and very similar to it, in both grammar and vocabulary. The script is very cursive, and differs considerably from Hebrew-Aramaic.

11 In rendering the warranty clause Mrs. Koffmahn strikes out on her own, but what she offers is much too free and consequently not sufficiently exact: the central verb mrq means “to clean”, i.e. “to defend against interference”; by no conceivable stretch of imagination can it be rendered by “payment” (Zahlung). My remarks in (1958) 150 BASOR 26ff., might have been of help; and see also (1958) 15 Bibliotheca Orientalis 15–22.

12 (1962) 12 IEJ 249, note 36.

13 According to their place of publication, there are the following three groups: 14 (fragmentary) papyri from DJD II; one document published separately by Milik (1957) 38 Biblica 251–59 (conveyance of a field, on which also some fig trees; for brevity we shall refer to it as the “fig-grove deed”); finally, short summaries, with some quotations, of 13 documents from Nahal Hever, following the pre liminary survey by Y. Yadin, respectively H. J. Polotsky, in (1962) 12 IEJ 227–62.

14 See my comment above, JJS, cit., p. 160.

15 Note that the formulation in the verse itself is different: reunion is prohibited after marriage to an outsider. For a detailed discussion of the Deuteronomic pro vision, its background and aims, see my paper “The Restoration of Marriage”, 17 JJS 1–11.

16 On the problems presented by gifts inter virum et uxorem, and changes made at a later time (under the oratio Severi of A.D. 206), see Buckland, W. W., A Textbook of Roman Law (3rd. ed. 1963) 111f.Google Scholar; Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (1953) 443Google Scholar.

17 IEJ, cit., pp. 241–44.

18 Cf. my Gifts in Contemplation of Death (1960) 49ff.

19 See Yadin, IEJ cit., p. 244: “that you shall be my wife as before and care for me out of the specified lots of this gift, until the day when I go to my last resting place.”

20 See my paper, “A Bill of Divorce from Mesada”, to be published in the Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra.

21 See, e.g., Genesis 13:15; 17:8; 48:4.

22 See S. E. Loewenstamm (1956) 6 IEJ 222.

23 In P. Mur. 22, 30, and in the “fig-grove deed”.

24 The “fig-grove deed” has the inverted sequence “short or excessive”.

25 I have already dealt with this provision, in JJS cit., pp. 167f., and my remarks (to which Mrs. Koffmahn refers, at p. 187, note 4) might have been of help to her. Particularly poor is the rendering offered by Milik and Koffmahn for the Aramaic phrase of the “fig-grove deed”: hn h[s]r ['w y]tyr lzbnh—“less or more…; (this piece of land) is for selling (= to be sold)”. The last word, (l)zbnh, is a noun; it means “buyer”, as is shown by the corresponding Hebrew Iwqh of the two other documents. And see above, JJS cit., p. 168.

26 BASOR cit. (note 11, above); accepted by Hoftijzer, Jean, Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Semitiques de l'Ouest, p. 83Google Scholar—over the dissent of Rabinowitz, J. J. (1958) 39Biblica 487.Google Scholar

27 Cf. (1959) 4 JSS 321f.