| 1 Baruch (19/01/13) | For part-text 1Bar 1:1–2:35 only: The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): This only applies to the first of four part-texts which make up the whole of 1Bar. The totality of 1Bar is not covered by the heading in 1Bar 1:1. For 1Bar overall, see entry 10.1. For this way of reading the whole, see 1.7 and the overview of parts in the Bibliography. | |
| 1 Enoch (combined witnesses, all parts) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): the text at various points introduces speeches or written documents with a variety of terminology. However, it is unclear how far the scope of these headings or speech act announcemens goes, and whether any of them are to be taken as including the text as a whole. On balance this appears unlikely (see 10.1). However, many sections of the work contain self references to their own existence. Some of the have the form of speech reports (introducing Enoch, or marking the end of one of the segments of his speech), others of headings. It is perhaps useful to note that this is the opposite of the usual situation of ancient Jewish texts, which tend to have self-references rarely or not at all (in the case of rabbinic texts). | |
| 2 Maccabees | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| 3 Baruch | The text refers to itself as a verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| 4 Baruch (= Paraleipomena Jeremiou) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The text mentions its own existence and implies or mentions its own boundedness. | |
| 4 Maccabees | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Ahiqar [Fragment] (Porten-Yardeni) | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence, it is not clear whether the initial statement, which contains a meta-communicative announcement, is meant to cover the narrative as well as the proverbs, or only the narrative which it immediately precedes. If it is meant to be a heading covering both parts, category 10.1, used in this Profile, is inapplicable, as this indicates the presence of two mutually independent part-texts. If the heading is taken to cover both parts, this would create a certain kind of discursive framework for the whole (i.e., an overall category 5 text), within which both a narrative and a thematic discourse are contained. See 1.1.1 option C. These alternatives cannot be decided without going beyond the evidence, and in particular without drawing upon versions of the story preserved in other languages, attested only much later than the Aramaic.] | |
| Artapanus [Fragment] | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). The works ascribed to Artapanus in antiquity survive only in fragments preserved in Eusebius (PE IX.18, 23, 27) and Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis I.23.154). Eusebius attributes to him a Iudaica (PE IX.18) and a work Peri Ioudaion (PE IX.23), this last being mentioned also by Clement (Stromateis I.23.154). It is not possible to determine with certainty whether these two titles are alternative designations of the same text, as many scholars suggest, or whether they refer to two separate texts. Furthermore, Eusebius, who preserved the bulk of the texts ascribed to Artapanus, drew upon an abridgement of Artapanus' writings made by Alexander Polyhistor. This analysis, therefore, has to take into account (1) the fragmentary nature of the textual evidence; (2) uncertainty about the number of the writings under investigation; and (3) the presence (for the Eusebius fragments) of an intermediary writer, Alexander Polyhistor.] | |
| Babylonian Talmud Tamid | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries).] | |
| Copper Scroll (3Q15) [Fragment] | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): the text acknowledges its own existence as a "text" (or writing, הכתב), something that is capable of having a "copy" (משנא) and an "explanation" (פרושה) in the last sentence, 12:11–12: "[there will be found] a copy of this text and its explanation and their measurements and itemization (פרוט) of every single [thing]". | |
| Damascus Document [Fragment] | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The medieval Mss A and B from the Cairo Geniza have no endings preserved. The opening of Ms. A, however, is preserved, and this seems to proclaim the text's awareness of itself as a bounded entity: it is addressed to "all you who know righteousness" (CD 1:1), and to "all who enter the covenant" (CD 2:2) by a governing voice speaking in the first person, which offers distinctive information to its target audience (CD 2:2-3). In particular, the governing voice informs its addressees: "I shall uncover your ear with regard to the ways of the wicked". | |
| Epistola Anne ad Senecam de Superbia et Idolis [Fragment] | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries).] | |
| Eupolemus [Fragment] | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The edition of the text used in this analysis is that of C. R. Halladay. It is uncertain whether the text acknowledges its own existence or addresses its boundaries. The writing ascribed in antiquity to Eupolemus is found only in fragments preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. Modern scholarship recognizes five such fragments: (1) Eusebius PE IX.25.4-26.1, with an alternative version in Clement, Stromateis I.23.153.4; (2) Eusebius PE IX.30.1-34.18, a small part of which also appears in Clement, Strom. I.21.130.3; (3) Eusebius PE IX.34.20; (4) Eusebius PE IX.39.1-5; and (5) Clement, Strom. I.21.141.4-5. The first four fragments were apparently derived both by Clement and by Eusebius from the work of Alexander Polyhistor: as for the fifth fragment, scholars are uncertain whether Clement derived it directly from Alexander Polyhistor, or from Ptolemy of Mendes who, in turn, was dependent on Alexander. While it is most probable that these fragments represent a single composition by Eupolemus, this is not absolutely certain: see further 1.1.2. below. This analysis, therefore, must bear in mind (1) the fragmentary nature of the surviving textual evidence; (2) the presence of one intermediary writer, Alexander Polyhistor, in the history of the textual transmission of fragments 1-4, and possibly a second intermediary, Ptolemy of Mendes, in the transmission of fragment 5; and (3) some residual uncertainty about the number of writings under investigation.] | |
| Ezekiel the Tragedian [Fragment] | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The poetic composition named Exagoge ascribed to Ezekiel in antiquity survives only in fragments preserved in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX.28-29, Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis I.23.155f., and Pseudo-Eustathius of Antioch, Commentarius in Hexaemeron, Patrologia Graeca 18.729. Eusebius, to whom we owe the preservation of the bulk of the text of Ezekiel, has derived his quotations from the work of Alexander Polyhistor, who excerpted passages from Ezekiel's work. The work consists wholly of poetry; and the excerpts made by Polyhistor probably (as far as we can determine) preserve the original wording and versification with some accuracy. This analysis, however, at every point has to take into account the fragmentary nature of the textual evidence, and the part played by Alexander Polyhistor, which cannot now be determined with certainty, in its transmission to Eusebius. The following inventory profile is based on Howard Jacobson's edition of the Exagoge.] | |
| Genesis Apocryphon Abram Part-Text [Fragment] (24/03/13) | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). There is no evidence of the absence or presence of sub-points 1.1.1-4, as the text is incomplete.] | |
| Genesis Apocryphon Lamech Part-Text [Fragment] | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). There is no evidence of the absence or presence of sub-points 1.1.1-4, as the text is incomplete.] | |
| Genesis Apocryphon Noah Part-Text [Fragment] | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): See 1.1.1 and 1.1.4. However, there is no evidence of the absence or presence of sub-points 1.1.2-3, as the text is incomplete. | |
| Genesis Apocryphon Overall [Fragment] (24/03/13) | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). There is no evidence of the absence or presence of the feature 1.1. and those of the sub-points 1.1.1-4, as the text is incomplete.] | |
| Hodayot 1QHa [Fragment] | Individual part-texts: The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): for most part-texts (hymns) of the compound the opening "I will praise/thank you, Lord, ..." (odekhah adonai) or, "Blessed are you, Lord..." (barukh attah adonai) provides an acknowledgement of the part-text's existence and generic theme. | |
| Jubilees (Ethiopic Version; Detailed) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): the text contains both (1) a heading or opening (called "prologue") which is not included in the chapter-verse numbering, and (2) several scattered references to the event of the text’s production, namely Moses or the angel writing down what the angel says. I will deal with these two types of self-reference in turn. (1) The prologue provides clear meta-communicative information and self-reference to the text, but it is not integrated with the first sentence of the narrative (Jub. 1:1). It mostly repeats information from the subsequent narrative sentences, and that information partly also recurs as the name of a text in the Damascus Document, CD 16:3–4. See further 1.1.1/2. The “prologue” is matched by a final sentence at Jub. 50:13, which reads: "Here the words regarding the divisions of the times are completed" (trans. VanderKam). (2) The characters of the narrative also make reference, in their quoted speech, to speech events or to events of writing, in form of commands from one to the other. These narrative utterances may be taken as referring to the production of (i) the very text of what we call today Jubilees, or (ii) the bulk of Jubilees, namely the angelic speech, or else of (iii) a text whose contents is at least partly contained within the text of Jubilees. Thus the main body of the text itself (as opposed to the “prologue”) can be understood as containing narrative self-references, although these are ambiguous in a variety of ways. Moses (Jub. 1:5, 7, 26; 2:1; 23:32; 33:18) or the angel himself (Jub. 1:27 [but see the hif'il form in 4QJubilees-a/4Q216 vi, 6], 30:12, 21; 50:6) are charged with writing down, or reported as writing down, the contents of the speech of the angel. Yet there is no point at which the higher-level narrator says that the angelic speech reported is a quotation from another text. Rather, the higher-level narrator whose voice is directly heard in Jub. 1 (and whose report includes the rest of Jubilees) has an anonymous and omniscient perspective, and presents itself as having had immediate access to the events of movement and speech that go on in Jub. 1–50, including the whole of the angelic speech (as speech). This would mean that the text Jubilees presents itself as a record of that angelic speech which is independent from, and parallel to, any writing done by Moses or the angel. This is consistent with the description in the prologue. At no point does the text present itself as a text from Moses, having written down the angelic information: it speaks of all characters in the third person, except that the angel, in his own speech, of course speaks of himself in the first person. This evidence from the clearly indicated levels of voices within Jubilees is complicated by references in quoted speech to a wide variety of other texts (see 2.4.1.6), as well as the heavenly tablets, which are presented as a kind of "blueprint" for much of what the angel tells Moses. There is evidence to say that the ambiguity of who is supposed to write down the angelic information is partly the result of a mistranslation from the Hebrew (hif'il of katav meaning "dictate", misunderstood as "write", as argued by Vanderkam in Journal of Semitic Studies, 26 (1981); his translation, p. 6, note 1:27; Brooke, p. 42). However, not all indications of such ambiguity need to be accidental. It is possible that the ambiguity of who writes the text is meant to disallow too direct an identification of the text of Jubilees with the heavenly tablets or any other of the writings mentioned, while still claiming the link. It is important to acknowledge that the anonymous voice in Jub. 1 does not project its persona as being identical either with the angel or with Moses, and let alone with God. And the clear mismatch between the actual contents of the book of Jubilees and the comprehensive subject matter mentioned at Jub. 1:26–7, 29 as to be written down by Moses or the angel suggests that Jubilees does not present itself as being that Mosaic or angelic (see 1.1.3), but an independent text derived from being present at the event that also led to the other text. | |
| Judith (Detailed) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Letter of Aristeas | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with explicit boundaries). | |
| Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The text may mention indirectly its own existence and implies or mentions its own boundedness, see 1.1.3; text witnesses also have a number of titles, see 1.1.5. However, the conclusion of the text may be lost: there is scholarly disagreement about this (see Jacobson, pp. 253-254). There appear also to be lacunae in the text at 16:17; 37:2 and following 37:5 (see James, pp. 19-21). | |
| Lives of the Prophets (Anonymous Recension Marchalianus) (Detailed) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Megillat Taanit | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Miqtsat Ma'aseh Ha-Torah [Fragment] (Detailed) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): I take it that the calendric information (Section A) present in one of the fragments before the “B-part” begins (4Q394, 3–7 1) is not meant to form a textual unity with the remainder of 4QMMT. Section B has an explicit introduction of itself as a text (whether or not as part of a longer text): “These are some of our words...which are...works (ma’asim) which w[e]...[and a]ll of them concern...and the purity of...” (B1-2 = 4Q394, 3–7 i; if one does not complete the lacunae from other manuscripts). This fragmentary sentence is clearly a heading. It provides: a cataphoric discourse deixis (אלה), a generic description of the contents as well as text type (“words”; דברינו), a first person plural governing voice pronoun, and an indication that there will be an undefined, yet limited, selection of themes from the larger corpus of information or themes delineated by “our words”: namely “some” of those: מקצת. The thematic whole from which this selection takes place is perhaps suggested as known, at least in its outlines, to the addressee. The expression “these” formally unifies a plurality of sentences or clauses expressions, despite its apparent vagueness and the generic (“words”) or open (“some”) meaning of the heading (see Strugnell, "Additional Observations on 4QMMT" = Appendix 3 in DJD X, p. 204). The text therefore claims to be bounded. The formally independent thematic units which make up the bulk of the text and are merely juxtaposed (5.8) sometimes consist merely of a topic and the norm belonging to it, and sometimes involve a reference to Scripture or to a reason for the norm. There appear to be 39 smaller thematic concentrations consisting of one or several sentences each, most of them addressing normative topics. If the expression “and the purity of” in B3 is still part of the heading and belongs to “and all of them concern” (B2), as seems likely, then the text would claim that some aspect of purity unites all the topics mentioned. Purity issues are certainly very prominent, although there are other cultic topics perhaps not manifestly covered by the word “purity”. In any case, the heading after “and all of them concern” appears to have contained at least one other word apart from “the purity of” (which is connected by a waw), so the thematic boundedness of the text could have been announced by two general terms, not just one. If C is the concluding part of the same text (see 1.7), then there is an echo of the initial heading towards the end: “And also we have written (wrote) to you some of the works [DJD, X: precepts] of the Torah which we have thought (or decided)...” (C26 f.), from which phrase "miqtsat ma'aseh ha-torah" the text has its name in scholarship. This is however no clearly anaphoric reference to an earlier piece of the same text; it could be a reference to a separate earlier act of communication. If one takes “we have written to you” to refer to the same text, then “writing” (in a finite verbal form) constitutes an additional generic characterization of the text type. The word "miqtsat" appearing in the heading is also used in a number of other places in the text, for different topics. | |
| Mishnah (Mishnah as a whole) | [For Mishnah Tamid only: The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries).] | |
| Mishnah Tamid | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Palestinian Talmud Makkot | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): see 1.1.5 for a possible implicit self-reference in the main body of the text, albeit in boundaries that are precisely NOT those of the current Tractate Makkot, but to a unity Sanhedrin-Makkot.] | |
| Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Psalm 151 (Greek) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): the superscription in v. 1 consists of two parts, one indicating that it is not part of the body of the text (mentioning that the Psalm is "outside the number", presumably of Psalms), see 1.1.5. However, the second component could be understood as presenting itself as a "heading" that is part of the body of the text, introducing the first-person speaker (David) and placing the Psalm's composition or performance (immediately?) after the narrative situation which it reflects upon and partly re-tells (namely, after the victory over Goliath). If that part of the superscription is understood as presenting itself as the opening part of the body of the text (rather than as something detached, wholly belonging under category 1.1.5), then it provides a narrative context for the creation of the text itself: see 2.2.1.2. | |
| Sifre Deuteronomy | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries).] | |
| Sirach (Gk II) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): The Greek text of Sirach is extant in two forms, usually designated GkI and GkII, the latter somewhat longer than the former, including material not found in GkI which is probably derived from a second recension of the Hebrew original. The following profile is entirely based on GkII alone: this form of Sirach is the form most often used as a base text by commentators and other students. GkII is provided with a Prologue in Greek: this constitutes a different text from GkII, on which see further 1.1.5. below. Apart from this Prologue, the text acknowledges its own existence at 50:27. | |
| Targum Canticles | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Targum Qohelet | The text refers to itself as a verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): TgQoh 1:1 designates its contents as "words of prophecy", and reinforces this designation at regular intervals within the text (for example, 4:14). At the end (12:9) it refers to its content, indirectly, as "proverbs" and wisdom. | |
| Temple Scroll [Fragment] (Detailed) | [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): as the beginning and the end of the only textual evidence we have are missing, it is impossible to say what sort of a self-presentation, if any, the text might have had in these two strategic text positions. Here the evidence of the Qumran manuscripts will be interpreted as possible clues to the self-presentation of the text. In 11Q19 and the other manuscripts the first column is missing entirely. In 11Q19* the text of the last line of column 66 requires a continuation on the subsequent column, but that final column of the scroll contained, according to Yadin’s estimate, only about 5 lines of text. The lower part of that column is preserved but empty (cp. plate 82 of Yadin, Temple Scroll: Vol. 3, Plates and Text (1977); see also Qimron (1996), p. 91, note). The last column with text (66) seems to have an atypical bunching together of lines, reducing the generous space usually separating lines from each other throughout the rest of the scroll. It is thus possible to say that the last column had very little (if any) space for containing a framing meta-text or self-presentation, and may in fact have ended quite abruptly even as far as its subject matter is concerned. Nevertheless, the fact that we do not know what the ending or the beginning of the text looked like severely limits the usefulness of the concept of “self-presentation” for the Temple Scroll, with the exception discussed in 1.1.1. There is, however, evidence from the main body of the text (also incomplete) for assessing perspective (Inventory section 2) and the treatment of its subject matter (Inventory section 5).] | |
| Test book 4 | 1.1 - test 06/06 session timeout=60...11:10 ffsdfg | |
| Testament of Job (19/02/14) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Testament of Reuben (ex Testaments of the Twelve Partriarchs) | The text mentions its own existence and implies or mentions its own boundedness. (AS) | |
| Tobit (Greek Long Recension) | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| Visions of Ezekiel | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |
| War Scroll (1QM) [Fragment] | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries): if some scholars' reconstruction and reading is correct, it begins with a heading: "To [the Instructor. Rule of] War", 1QM 1:1 (reading, e.g., with Garcia and Tigchelaar, lamed rather than, with Yadin, waw-zayin, who reconstructed: we-ze[h sefer serekh] ha-milhamah, "And this is the book of the rule of the war"). The end of the scroll is not preserved. | |
| Wisdom of Solomon | The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). | |