[S]ome books were found ten years ago in a rock-dwelling near Jericho. The story was that a dog belonging to an Arab out hunting, while following game, went into a cave and did not come out again; its owner went in after it and found a chamber in the rock containing many books.1
The report just quoted resembles the story of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 so closely that an unsuspecting reader might take it for just that. But, as most readers of this volume will recall, this report was written more than 1100 years earlier and describes a discovery made in the late eighth century.
It may come as a surprise that "archaeological" finds were made so long ago, without the benefit of modern archaeological techniques. But many of the most important modern archaeological discoveries have also been the result of accidental strokes of good fortune, and in this commodity we moderns have nothing over the ancients. In fact, archaeological finds since the turn of the era have included counterparts to several of the most important types of texts and artifacts found in the Dead Sea region since 1947: Biblical and apocryphal manuscripts, sectarian codes, and tefillin (phylacteries). Several of these earlier discoveries have been compared to the modern ones, while others have never been mentioned. A volume honoring Jim Sauer, who is a connoisseur of virtually every period of Near Eastern archaeology, is an appropriate place to gather together the known episodes in order to gain a preliminary picture of pre-modern archaeological discoveries that bear upon the Bible and postbiblical Judaism.
It is natural that archaeological finds have been taking place since ancient times in the land of Israel. The history of the Near East made such discoveries inevitable for the region as a whole. The practice of rebuilding temples, palaces, and entire cities on previously occupied sites required the razing and excavating of those sites in preparation for the new construction, and this often led to the discovery of manuscripts, inscriptions, and other ancient artifacts. Certain Mesopotamian kings of the seventh and sixth centuries evinced a lively interest in archaeology. The great bibliophile Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian king (668-627 B.C.E.) who gathered in Nineveh the greatest library of the pre-Hellenistic orient, claimed to have "examined the stone inscriptions from before the Flood."2
Rabbinic sources indicate that coming upon certain types of ancient remains was a normal occurrence. The Mishna prescribes a blessing for one who sees a place formerly used for idolatrous worship (M. Ber. IX, 1). The Tosefta mentions that an object found in a heap of stones or an old wall could be from the days of the Amorites (Tosefta Bava Mezia II, 12; Babylonian Talmud, Bava Mezia II, 3). Another passage in the Tosefta discusses whether the Second Tithe may be replaced with coins which are no longer valid and gives as examples the coins of Bar Kochba, ancient "Jerusalem" coins, and coins of prior kings (Tosefta Maaser Sheni I, 6). A passage in the Mishna mentions the practice of using invalidated coins for necklaces and weights (Mishna Kelim XII, 7; the numismatist Y. Meshorer argues that the many perforated Bar Kochba coins which have been discovered must have been used for necklaces such as those to which the Mishna refers).3 Objects such as these were so common that they would not have been regarded as archaeological discoveries in Tannaitic times, but for us they illustrate how full the country was of such objects and why antiquities were unearthed in the land throughout the Middle Ages with little apparent effort.
Biblical Manuscripts
1. For completeness, we should begin with the discovery of the "book of the law" sefer ha-torah -- presumably a large part of Deuteronomy -- by the High Priest Hilkiah in the Temple of Jerusalem during the course of repairs toward the end of the seventh century B.C.E. (II Kings 22:8; 2 Chron. 34:14). The practice of burying documents in the wall or foundations of a temple, which seems to underlie this discovery, was practiced elsewhere in the ancient world (see n. 2), and was still alive generations later when Rabban Gamaliel ordered a builder to bury an Aramaic translation of Job under a wall on the Temple Mount (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 115a).
2. A report from the 3rd century may help us understand a number of enigmatic references. In his Hexapla, Origen (185-254) included, in addition to the Septuagint and the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, three other, anonymous, translations. In his translation of Psalms he explained where he found two of these:
the fifth edition ... I found in Nicopolis near Actium [on the west coast of Greece] ... The sixth edition which was found together with other Hebrew and Greek books in a jar near Jericho in the time of the reign of Antonius [read Antoninus] the son of Severus [i.e., the Emperor Caracalla, 211-217]...4
Swete writes that "since Origen was in Palestine in 217 and in Greece in 231 it is natural to connect his discoveries with those years,"5 though Origen does not state that the find near Jericho was made by him personally. Since Origen conducted his intensive work on the Hexapla during the years 240-245,6 it is evident from this that he was preparing for it years earlier. The discovery of Greek biblical manuscripts constitutes a counterpart to the modern discovery of Greek biblical manuscripts in the Dead Sea region. Origen's reference to "other Hebrew and Greek books" implies non-biblical manuscripts as well, but the nature of their contents is anybody's guess.
3. This account of Origen's manuscript finds in connection with his textual criticism indicates the context in which we may view two events reported in Talmudic-Midrashic literature. One is the much-discussed account of "three scrolls [of the Torah which] were found in the Temple Court." The three scrolls were distinguished from each other by a small number of variant readings, a conflict which the sages resolved in each case by adopting whichever reading had the support of two of the three manuscripts.7 It is nowhere stated when this event took place, but it is clearly described as a singular event rather than an example of an ongoing procedure. Other sources indicate that there was a single authoritative copy of the Torah deposited in the Temple Court, against which other copies could be checked, but the present passage indicates that all three of these scrolls were of equal status, and that a single recension was produced on the basis of them. Conceivably this episode may represent the origin of the single text which was thenceforth regarded as the norm. M.H. Segal connects it with the report in 2 Macc. 2:14 that "Judah Maccabee made a complete collection of the books dispersed in the recent war."8 While a search for manuscripts and such recensional activity would be plausible in a period of reconsolidation following a devastating war, the most that can be said with confidence is that the event must have taken place before the destruction of the Temple in 70 (unless the "find" was made by excavation of the Temple Court!).
4. A second report introduces a variant reading with the following statement: "This is one of the words written in the Torah scroll that left Jerusalem in the captivity and was brought to Rome and was stored away (a variant adds: and sealed) in the synagogue of Severus (a variant adds: containing different letters and words)." This passage, followed by a list of 32 variant readings found in the scroll, appears in the late midrash Bereshit Rabbati, which was compiled by R. Moshe Hadarshan (first half of the eleventh century) but employed much earlier sources.9 Josephus actually mentions a Torah scroll which was carried in Vespasian's triumphal procession in Rome as the last of the spoils from Jerusalem and subsequently deposited in his palace (War 7.150, 162). Some scholars have reasoned that a scroll which merited such treatment may well have been the official copy from the Temple. Others have connected Vespasian's copy with that deposited in the Severus synagogue, assuming that one of the Severi, with whom the Jews enjoyed good relations, may have subsequently presented the scroll to the Jews of Rome. It is usually assumed that this was Alexander Severus, emperor from 222-235. Whether or not the Severus scroll was that displayed by Vespasian, it seems unlikely that it could have been the official Temple Court copy, for it is hard to believe that a scroll which deviates from the MT as much as the Severus scroll does could ever have been the official text. Saul Lieberman regards it as representing a vulgar text.10 The question that interests us here is the origin of this list of variants. Possibly the scroll was known for its unique readings even before its capture, with Palestinian Jewry preserving the list since that time and following the fate of the scroll until its ultimate deposit in the Severus synagogue. While this is conceivable, it does require us to assume that Palestinian Jewry managed to keep informed of the fate of this scroll, despite its probable lack of official status, for something like 150 years. It is perhaps more likely that the scroll was unexpectedly rediscovered in the Severus Synagogue (perhaps in its genizah?) and upon examination was found to have a number of irregular readings which were then recorded. Eventually this list of variants made its way into Masoretic text-critical notes and was taken seriously enough for one Massorete to conclude his list with the hope that "the righteous teacher (i.e. Elijah) may come speedily in our day and tell us" -- presumably, which readings are correct.11
5. Other Masoretic notes refer a number of times to a "Jericho Pentateuch" (humash yeriho),12 which some scholars speculate may also have been discovered in the Middle Ages in the same manner as Origen's manuscripts. If so, it could be connected with the next item.
6. A manuscript find made toward the year 800, as described in a letter written in Syriac by Timotheus I, Nestorian Patriarch of Seleucia (ca. 726-819) to Sergius, the Metropolitan of Elam (died ca. 805). This fascinating letter, often cited by modern scholars, is worth quoting at length:
We have learnt from trustworthy Jews, then being instructed as catechumens in the Christian religion, that some books were found ten years ago in a rock-dwelling near Jericho. The story was that a dog belonging to an Arab out hunting, while following game, went into a cave and did not come out again; its owner went in after it and found a chamber in the rock containing many books. The hunter went off to Jerusalem and told his story to the Jews, who came out in great numbers and found books of the Old Testament and others in the Hebrew script; and, since there was a scholar well read in literature among them, I asked him about many passages quoted in our New Testament (as coming) from the Old Testament but found nowhere in it, neither in copies amongst the Jews nor in those amongst Christians. He said: they are there and can be found in the books discovered there...13
Later in the letter Timotheus adds that his informant told him that "we have found more than two hundred psalms of David among our books."
This account not only parallels almost exactly the role of the stray goat in the 1947 discovery at Qumran, but more importantly indicates the presence of non-canonical "Davidic" psalms in this collection (reminiscent of the Qumran Psalms scroll), along with Hebrew books other than the Bible (recalling the discovery of books of the Apocrypha in the Cairo Genizah and at Qumran and Masada).14
Sectarian Works
1. The late-eighth century date of the latter find brings us to the same period when the Karaite ("Scripturalist," i.e., fundamentalist) movement arose among the Jews. The Karaites distinguished themselves primarily by their denial of the post-Biblical traditions and interpretations of the Talmudic rabbis and their followers, the "Rabbanites." According to a charge reported by Rabbi Moses Taku in the thirteenth century in the name of earlier teachers, the eighth century founders of Karaism "used to write down heresies and lies and hide them in the ground. Then they would take them out and say: 'This is what we found in ancient books.'"15 This charge presupposes that the Karaites actually did claim to have unearthed the books containing their teachings. This would explain the intriguing fact that copies of the sectarian code known to scholars as the Damascus Document, which bears great similarity to the Karaites' laws, have been found both at Qumran (1QS, 4QD, etc.) and in the Cairo Genizah (CD). The document's presence in the latter, medieval, collection is best explained on the grounds that it was rediscovered around the eighth century and gained recognition by the Karaites. Though it is not demonstrable that this discovery was part of that reported by the Patriarch Timotheus, it is noteworthy that Timotheus does mention non-Biblical books in the cache, and he also mentions that "great numbers of Jews" came out from Jerusalem to the find site.16
2. Books discovered in a cave are also referred to by the Karaite historian Jacob Al-Kirkisani (first half of the tenth century). In his essay on Jewish sects, Kirkisani refers to a sect, founded before Jesus and extinct in Kirkisani's time, which he says was called Al-Maghariya, "cave people," "because their books were found in a cave."17 Although Kirkisani does not say when these books were found (whether in antiquity by the Maghariya or closer to his own time), he notes that these cave people differed from other Jewish sects in having a separate calendar, and that their books included Biblical exegesis. Both of these features are known among the Qumran sect as well (though Biblical exegesis is common among all Jews), and some have concluded that the cave people were in fact the Qumran sect and that the discovery of their books mentioned by Kirkisani was the same find mentioned by Timotheus. However, assuming that the Karaites did discover and use books of the Qumran sect, it would be strange, if Kirkisani's cave people were the Qumranites, that Kirkisani, himself a Karaite, fails to recognize them as the source of his own sect's books and goes so far as to dismiss several of the cave people's books as valueless and mere fables.18
Tefillin
If the discovery of Biblical manuscripts served the practical purposes of text criticism and recension, medieval discoveries of tefillin played a role in resolving controversies of ritual law. According to rabbinic law the tefillin contain copies of the four Biblical passages which mention the injunction to bind God's teachings "as a sign on your hand and as frontlets on your forehead" (Exodus 13:1-10, 11-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21). The major controversy regarding them was whether the four scriptural passages are to be placed in the capsules in the order in which they appear in the Bible or in some other order. The former view is associated with Rashi, 1040-1105), the great Franco-Jewish Talmudist and Biblical scholar. The best-known version of the latter view -- reversing the order of the Deuteronomy passages -- is usually associated with Rashi's grandson, Rabbi Jacob Tam (ca. 1100-1171), although he was actually representing the view of earlier geonim (heads of Babylonian Talmudic academies).
One method of resolving the controversy was to examine older sets of tefillin in order to see which order they displayed. After Maimonides (1135-1204) endorsed Rashi's view in his Code, he received an inquiry from the Sages of Lunel in southern France pointing out that they had been taught by many rabbis and Geonim, including R. Hai Gaon (939-1038), to follow the order reversing the Deuteronomy passages. In his reply19 Maimonides mentioned that he, too, had formerly followed their view, but that he had been convinced otherwise by, inter alia, a report that R. Hai's tefillin had been opened and found to follow the Biblical order. Since Hai's view had to be ascertained by opening his tefillin rather than simply asking him, it is evident that this examination took place after Hai's death, but there is nothing to indicate when in the century between Hai's death and Maimonides lifetime this took place. The fact that Hai's tefillin were recognized as belonging to him presumably indicates that they had been known all along rather than discovered archaeologically.
Maimonides' responsum did not settle the question, and in subsequent discussion at least two discoveries of tefillin were mentioned. Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, an itinerant French preacher, began preaching in Spain in 1236 in an effort to stir a spiritual revival among the Jewish masses by encouraging a return to neglected ceremonial observances, especially the use of tefillin, mezuzah, and tsitsit.20 Moses also authored an important compendium of Jewish law known as the Sefer Mitsvot Gadol, "The Great Book of Precepts." In his discussion of the precept of tefillin Moses reports: "An epistle was sent from the Land of Israel (reporting) that a platform over the tomb of Ezekiel collapsed, and very old tefillin were found there, (arranged) according to the order of our teacher Moses (Maimonides) and Rashi."21 No date is mentioned either for this discovery nor the epistle reporting it. Ezekiel's Tomb is mentioned in a number of medieval Jewish sources as being located at a village 20 miles south of Hilla in central Iraq.22
Another discovery of tefillin -- actually a pair of discoveries -- is mentioned in a 13th or 14th century digest of legal decisions known as the Piskei Tosafot. One of the decisions relative to the Talmudic tractate Menahot, which contains a lengthy deliberation on the tefillin, relates that "In Nehardea and in Jerusalem two pairs (of tefillin) were found, one (with the passages arranged) in accordance with Rashi and one with Rabbenu Tam."23 Again, no date is given for the discovery. What is meant by Nehardea in this medieval source is debatable. Nehardea, situated on the Euphrates in central Iraq, was the site of a leading Talmudic academy that was destroyed in 259. Conceivably the tefillin were found in the ruins of the academy. However, in medieval sources Nehardea is sometimes used as an epithet for two other academies, that of of Sura, Nehardea's erstwhile rival, and Pumbeditha, Nehardea's successor.24 It is even possible that Nehardea is simply a rough approximation of the location of Ezekiel's tomb, and that the discovery reported at Nehardea is the same mentioned by R. Moses of Coucy.
At any rate, these discoveries of tefillin proved that both systems for arranging the Biblical portions within the tefillin capsules could invoke the support of ancient tefillin. This is exactly what has been shown by the tefillin discovered near the Dead Sea in modern times: the systems of both Rashi and Rabbenu Tam, as well as other systems, were all in use in antiquity.25
* * * * *
These medieval discoveries seem often, if not always, to have been accidental. Modern archaeology, we like to think, is not only methodologically superior, but also systematic and intentional. But some of the most sensational discoveries of modern archaeology came about by sheer accident. Mohammed ed-Dib's discovery of the first Qumran scrolls has already been mentioned. The Amarna letters were discovered in 1887 by an Egyptian peasant woman "who was digging out dust from among the ruins to lay upon her land for 'top-dressing.'"26 Ancient Ugarit was discovered in the spring of 1928 when "a peasant's plow struck what proved to be one of the stone slabs of the convex roof of a sepulcher."27 The underground Jewish cemetery at Beth Shearim was discovered in the spring of 1936 when two youths followed yet another animal, a fox, down a hole in the ground and emerged into a catacomb.28 As noted above, in the realm of accidents, modern scholars have no advantages over their medieval predecessors, which explains why the latter, too, were no strangers to the discovery of antiquities. Undoubtedly, medieval literature contains many more reports of such discoveries.
NOTES
1. See below, n. 13.
2. See M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Ninivehs (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916), p. 256:18; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (New York: Doubleday, 1988), p. 294 n. 11.
3. Y. Meshorer, Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1967), 98-99.
4. Y. Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls, p. 75 (citing P.E. Kahle, The Cairo Genizah (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 161; other accounts from Eusebius and Epiphanius are cited by Kahle and by H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902; repr. New York: Ktav, 1968), p. 54 (see Swete for speculation on when these texts were buried).
5. H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902; repr. New York: Ktav, 1968), p. 55.
6. B.J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951), pp. 129-130.
7. S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), pp. 21f.; S. Talmon, "The Three Scrolls of the Law that Were Found in the Temple Court," Textus 2 (1962), pp. 14-27. Talmon analyzes the variants and shows that they belong to types found in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Qumran Bible manuscripts.
8. M.H. Segal, Mevo' Hamikra' (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1960) 4:865-867.
9. C. Albek, Midra$ Bere$it Rabbati (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1940), p. 209. See also C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (repr. New York: KTAV, 1966), pp. 410-421.
10. Lieberman, Hellenism, p. 24. For a sampling of readings and comparison to the types of variants found in 1QIsa, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Fortress), pp. 119-121, and earlier studies cited by him.
11. C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (repr. New York: KTAV, 1966), pp. 410-411, 421.
12. Ginsburg, p. 433.
13. The letter was first published by O. Braun, "Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheus I über biblische Studien des neunten Jahrhunderts," Oriens Christianus 1 (1901):299-313. An English translation is given by G.R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls. The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), p. 8.
14. A polemical letter by Pirkoi ben Baboi, a Talmudic scholar of the eighth-ninth century, mentions the discovery of copies of the Mishna and the Talmud that had been stored away. S. Spiegel considers the possibility that this was part of the same discovery as that reported by Timotheus, but he ultimately concludes that it was not.
15. S. Lieberman, "Light on the Cave Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources," Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 20 (1951):402-3 (repr. in Lieberman, Texts and Studies [New York: Ktav, 1974], pp. 197-198.
16. See P. Kahle, "The Age of the Scrolls," VT 1 (1951):44-48.
17. See "Al-Qirqisani's account of the Jewish Sects and Christianity," HUCA 7 (1930):326-327, 363-364, 391 (the first passage is also translated in L. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952], p. 50; cf. pp. 333, 336). Note also the story from Hasdai ibn Shaprut (10th century) cited by Driver, p. 12
18. See Nemoy, art "Karaites," Encyclopaedia Judaica 10:762. On the Maghariya, see also M. Mansoor, art. "Sects, Minor," Encyclopaedia Judaica 14:1088.
19. Y. Blau, Teshuvot Harambam (R. Moses b. Maimon. Responsa) (Jerusalem: Mekitse Nirdamim, 1957-1961), 2:543, no. 289,
20. I. Ta-Shma, art "Moses ben Jacob of Coucy," Encyclopaedia Judaica 12:418.
21. Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Positive Command No. 22. (The tefillin were found under Ezekiel's head according to Migdal Oz, a commentary on Maimonides' Code by R. Shem Tob ibn Gaon [1283-1330] at Hil. Tefillin III, 5).
22. A. Ben-Yaacob, art. "Ezekiel's Tomb," Encyclopaedia Judaica 6:1096.
23. Piskei Tosafot to B. Menahot, No. 92 (to Men. 34b), cited by L.I. Rabonowitz, art. "Tefillin," Encyclopaedia Judaica 15:904.
24. Y.D. Gilat and E. Bashan, art "Nehardea," Encyclopaedia Judaica 12:935.
25. S. Goren, Torat Hamocadim (Tel Aviv: Avraham Tsiyoni 1964), pp. 496-510; Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1969), pp. 14-15; L.I. Rabonowitz, art. "Tefillin," Encyclopaedia Judaica 15:904.
26. Budge, cited by J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln (VAB 2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915), 1:4.
27. H.L. Ginsberg, "Ugaritic Studies and the Bible," BA 8/2 (1945), 42; repr. in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2, ed. D.N. Freedman and E.F. Campbell (Garden City: Doubleday Anchor, 1964), p. 35.
28. J. Kaplan, "'I, Justus, Lie Here': The Discovery of Beth Shearim,"
BA 40 (1977):169.