A wooden reading lectern is set inside a limestone cave. An oil lamp flickers on a low stone ledge, throwing a circle of warm light across an open parchment. Above the lectern, a hand holds a quill, paused mid-letter, the ink still wet at the nib. This is the world of the Qumran scribes, people who copied and re-copied the books now in our Hebrew Bibles, often in a different shape from the one we read today. Among the manuscript discoveries from the caves above the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, one text stands apart because its recovery history runs in two directions. The Damascus Document, the foundational charter of a Jewish community that lived on the margins of the Second Temple period, was first brought to light not in the caves of Qumran but in a synagogue storeroom in Old Cairo. The Dead Sea Scrolls then confirmed what scholars had only suspected, that the medieval copies found in the Cairo Geniza were the late survival of a text whose principal exemplar had been deposited, almost two thousand years earlier, in the limestone cliffs of the Judaean desert.<\/p>\n
The text we now call the Damascus Document is known to scholarship under two names. In its earlier phase it was published as the Fragments of a Zadokite Work, from the Hebrew title Serakhim<\/em> or Dameseq<\/em>, after the priestly Zadokite lineage the document’s authors claimed as their own. Once the Qumran fragments turned up in the early 1950s, and it became clear that the medieval Cairo manuscripts were copies of a much older sectarian text, the name was changed to the Damascus Document. The Cairo copies are labelled CDa and CDb, the Qumran copies are labelled 4Q266 through 4Q273, with two smaller pieces at 5Q12 and 6Q15. Together these are the principal witnesses to a text that runs to roughly twenty columns in its reconstructed form, half of which is preserved in the medieval copies and the other half only in fragments.<\/p>\n The first European to register the existence of the Cairo Geniza was Simon van Gelderen, who visited the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Fustat around 1752 and reported on the manuscript storeroom behind the women’s gallery. The two Scottish sisters Agnes Lewis and Margaret Gibson returned from Egypt in 1896 with a small bundle of fragments and showed them to Solomon Schechter, then a young scholar at Cambridge, who recognised their significance at once. With the financial backing of Charles Taylor, Schechter travelled to Cairo later that year and, with the permission of the Chief Rabbi, sorted and removed the bulk of the chamber’s contents. The Cambridge scholar found the two main Damascus Document manuscripts in his first season, alongside a treasure of more than 190,000 manuscript leaves that would reshape the study of medieval Jewish history. The discovery was the largest single act of manuscript salvage in the history of Jewish studies. It earned Schechter his reputation and set the agenda for several generations of Cambridge scholarship on the medieval and ancient Jewish worlds.<\/p>\n The two medieval Damascus Document copies at the heart of the Cambridge discovery are written on paper in Hebrew square script, in the hand of the tenth or twelfth centuries. CDa, dated by Schechter to the tenth century, runs to eight columns of text. CDb, dated to the eleventh or twelfth century, runs to a further twelve columns. The two together preserve most of the work’s text, but with substantial lacunae at the joins. They are kept today at the Cambridge University Library as part of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah collection, with the shelf-marks T-S 10K6 (CDa) and T-S 16.311 (CDb). Their survival in a medieval Egyptian synagogue storeroom, of all the places in the Jewish world, is itself a piece of evidence. The medieval Jewish community of Fustat kept its old religious books in the Geniza because the names of God written on them could not be destroyed; in time the chamber accumulated roughly four hundred thousand manuscript fragments, which were sorted and partly published in the great Genizae catalogues of the early twentieth century.<\/p>\n Schechter published the medieval Cairo copies in 1910 under the title Documents of Jewish Sectaries Edited from Manuscripts in the Collection of the Cairo Genizah, Volume 1: Fragments of Zadokite Works<\/em>. The title alone signals how uncertain the scholars were about what they had found. The English preface noted that the documents appeared to describe an ancient Jewish sect whose members lived in camps, married, owned property, and observed Jewish law in a distinctive way; nothing in the text directly identified the sect with any known Second Temple community. Louis Ginzberg took up the question in 1922 with a German translation and commentary under the title Eine unbekannte j\u00fcdische Sekte<\/em>, which proposed that the text described the Essenes. The Essene hypothesis took root slowly and unevenly. By the time the Qumran finds began to come to light in 1947, Ginzberg’s identification had been the subject of debate for a quarter of a century without producing a scholarly consensus.<\/p>\n The Qumran caves supplied the evidence the medieval text had lacked. Cave 4, opened in the excavations of Roland de Vaux and Gerald Lankester Harding in the 1952 season, yielded the largest cache of Qumran fragments, and the eight copies of the Damascus Document labelled 4Q266 through 4Q273 were among them. The Cave 5 fragment 5Q12 and the Cave 6 fragment 6Q15 were small pieces that added little new text but confirmed that the Damascus Document was present in the Qumran library in multiple exemplars, written in the characteristic scribal hands of the late Second Temple Jewish communities. The paleography of the Qumran fragments placed the original composition of the Damascus Document in the second or first century BCE, in the period between the Maccabaean revolt and the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt. The medieval Cairo copies were now demonstrably late descendants of a much older text, not original compositions of any medieval Jewish sect.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document falls into two clearly distinct parts. The first, known as the Admonition or the Exhortation, is a sermonic composition that opens with an exposition of the sect’s history. It tells of a community that arose through divine providence three hundred and ninety years after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, and that wandered in search of a new covenant until it found refuge in a land like Damascus, where the covenant was renewed. The numbers of the Damascus Document are not the same as the numbers of the historical chronology; the three hundred and ninety years appears to be a literary typology drawn from Ezekiel 4 and the biblical reckoning of Israel’s exile. The text then turns to the figure of the Teacher of Righteousness, the leader whose appearance marked the foundation of the sect and whose death inaugurated the present period of testing. The Teacher is described in messianic terms without being identified with the Messiah; the sect expected a Messiah of Israel and a Messiah of Aaron, both of whom were still to come at the end of the present period.<\/p>\n The Admonition opens with the most famous single passage of the Damascus Document, the allegorical interpretation of the three nets of Belial. The text reads the three nets as fornication, wealth, and profanation of the temple, and frames the sect’s discipline as a refusal to be caught by any of them. The exegesis is dense and self-contained: it works through a series of scriptural passages on the three nets, with the sect reading itself into the lineaments of the biblical narrative. The same passages were read by other Jewish groups of the period, but the Damascus Document’s reading is distinctive. It interprets the net of fornication as the issue of polygamy, the net of wealth as the issue of commercial dishonesty, and the net of temple profanation as the issue of accepting sacrifices defiled by Jewish authorities whose ritual status the sect rejected. The exegesis has been studied intensively as an early example of the sect’s pesharim-style reading of the Hebrew Bible, the kind of text-citation in which a verse from the prophets or the psalms is taken to be speaking directly of the sect’s present condition.<\/p>\n The second part of the Damascus Document, known as the Laws, is a list of statutes regulating the community. The statutes cover the same ground as the better-known Community Rule from Cave 1, but in a more concrete and practical register. They prescribe the procedure for the admission of new members, the oaths taken at admission, the rules for the community meal, the rules for the sabbath, the rules for ritual purity, the rules for the testimony of witnesses, the rules for the Guardian of the camp, the rules for the Mazzalot or lot-casting process by which candidates for advancement were selected, the rules for the master of the assembly, the rules for marriages and the bearing of children, the rules for the stranger who sojourns with the community, the rules for the oath and the vow, and the rules for the proper observance of the agricultural festivals and the sabbatical year. The legal material is highly specific and quite unlike the more abstract regulations of the Community Rule. The Damascus Document was the working legal code of a community that lived not only in the cloister at Qumran but also in the wider towns and villages of Judaea, marrying, owning property, and participating in the wider Jewish economy while observing a stricter ritual purity than the rest of the Jewish population.<\/p>\n This second point is the single most important conclusion that has emerged from the comparative study of the Damascus Document and the Community Rule. The Damascus Document’s statutes explicitly permit marriage, allow for the holding of private property, and regulate commercial dealings among members. The Community Rule’s statutes explicitly forbid private property, require the renunciation of marriage, and prohibit all contact with the wider Jewish economy. The two texts describe two kinds of Jewish sectarian community in the same period, with the same theological vocabulary and the same ritual purity codes, but with two different social organisations. Most scholars now read the Damascus Document as the legal code of the broader Essene movement, which lived in towns and villages throughout Judaea, while the Community Rule is read as the legal code of the inner Qumran community, which lived apart at the site on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n This interpretation has not been universally accepted, but it has held the field for the past thirty years. The principal alternative view, that the Damascus Document was the legal code of the Qumran community itself and that the Community Rule is a special document for the inner circle of full members, has had strong defenders including J. T. Milik, the editor of several of the Qumran copies of the Damascus Document. The argument turns on a series of small textual details: the Damascus Document’s provisions for the Mazzalot, the Guardian, and the master of the assembly all use terminology that is shared with the Community Rule and with the Rule of the Congregation, which suggests that the three texts are parts of a single literary complex. The competing reading, that the Damascus Document is the code of the wider sect and the Community Rule the code of the inner community, leans on the practical character of the Damascus Document’s rules and on the absence of any provision for the renunciation of property and marriage in its statutes. The dispute has not been settled and probably will not be. It is one of the more durable open questions of Qumran scholarship.<\/p>\n The dating of the Damascus Document has been more stable. The earliest references to the Teacher of Righteousness are consistent with a date in the second century BCE for the original composition, with the bulk of the work probably redacted in the late first century BCE or the early first century CE, and with the medieval Cairo copies dating to the tenth and twelfth centuries CE. The Qumran copies cluster in the late Herodian period of the first century CE, with some fragments going back to the late Hasmonaean period of the late first century BCE. The Damascus Document was being copied at Qumran in roughly the same period as the Temple Scroll, the Community Rule, and the War Scroll, all of which share the same scribal hands and the same vocabulary. The Damascus Document was a living text at Qumran, and the Qumran library contained multiple copies of it.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document has had a complicated reception in modern scholarship. The medieval Cairo copies were published in the original Hebrew by Schechter in 1910, with a partial translation into English in the same volume. The German translation by Louis Ginzberg in 1922 was the principal European edition of the next generation. The Qumran copies were published in two waves: the first edition by John Marco Allegro in 1968 in volume 5 of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series, which edited the eight Cave 4 copies and the Cave 5 and Cave 6 fragments, and the second edition by Joseph Baumgarten in 1996 in volume 18 of the same series, which re-edited the Qumran copies in light of the multiform philological work of the intervening decades. The principal modern English edition of the medieval Cairo copies is the translation by Philip Davies in the volume The Damascus Document<\/em> published in the Cambridge Companion series in 1983. The most widely cited monographs on the document are Ginzberg’s Eine unbekannte j\u00fcdische Sekte<\/em> of 1922, Gert Jeremias’s Die Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit<\/em> of 1963, and Devorah Dimant’s reading of the document in the volume of Qumran studies she edited in 1994.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document has also had a substantial reception outside the academic study of Second Temple Judaism. The Karaite movement of the early medieval period cited it as evidence that their rejection of rabbinic authority and oral tradition was anticipated by an ancient Jewish sect; the Geniza finding by Schechter was, in fact, partly responsible for the revival of Karaite studies in nineteenth-century scholarship. The Qumran finds of the 1950s revived this connection, and the scholarly literature on the relationship between the Qumran sect and the origins of Karaism has been the subject of a sustained debate ever since. The Cambridge Library’s Mosseri I.40 fragment, recently re-read in the Taylor-Schechter Unit’s February 2025 Fragment of the Month publication, has been brought into the discussion as a possible link between Qumran and the early Karaite movement. The argument remains open.<\/p>\n The most lasting intellectual consequence of the Damascus Document is the demonstration it provides of how a Jewish community of the late Second Temple period could read its present moment as a moment of covenantal testing. The text takes the destruction of the First Temple, the Babylonian captivity, and the return from Babylon as the foundation for a typology of the sect’s own history. The members of the sect read themselves as the new exiles, who had wandered into Damascus and were now waiting for the time when the messiahs of Israel and Aaron would appear. The combination of scriptural citation, allegory, and the construction of a typological history is characteristic of the Qumran community’s broader reading of the Hebrew Bible, and the Damascus Document is the place where that reading is presented in its most extended form.<\/p>\n The history of the document’s transmission from Qumran to Cambridge is a study in the accidents of preservation. The Qumran community evidently regarded the Damascus Document as one of its foundational texts and deposited multiple copies in the library at the site. The library was sealed in the chaos of the Jewish revolt against Rome, in the period from 66 to 73 CE, and its contents were preserved by the dryness of the Judaean desert climate for nearly two thousand years. The medieval Cairo copies, by contrast, were preserved by the religious scruple of the medieval Jewish community of Fustat, which refused to destroy any document that contained the name of God. The two preservation mechanisms are very different in nature; both succeeded. The Qumran copies were lost to scholarship for two millennia before the discovery of the caves in 1947; the Cairo copies were inaccessible to scholarship for centuries before Schechter arrived in 1896. The Damascus Document we have today is the survivor of both pathways of preservation, and the picture it gives of a Second Temple Jewish sect is the more complete for having travelled both routes.<\/p>\n The two Cairo manuscripts of the Damascus Document have their own reception history. CDa was originally published by Schechter in the 1910 volume, and has been re-edited several times since. The most recent critical edition of the medieval Cairo copies, by Elisha Qimron, was published as volume 1 of the Studies in the Damascus Document<\/em> series by the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press in 1989 and has been the standard reference for the medieval text since then. The Qimron edition is, in fact, the second-generation critical edition of the medieval text; the first was the 1962 Hebrew edition by Chaim Rabin, which was based on a detailed re-examination of the Cambridge originals by Rabin and a team of Cambridge graduate students in the late 1950s.<\/p>\n The Cambridge originals of CDa and CDb are kept today in the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library. They are not on public display but are available for consultation by accredited researchers, and high-resolution digital images of both manuscripts are accessible through the Taylor-Schechter online catalogue. The original Cambridge discoveries of 1896-97 have been augmented in the years since by further finds of Damascus Document fragments from other Geniza collections. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York holds one fragment; the Bodleian Library at Oxford holds another; the University of Manchester John Rylands Library holds a small piece that has been tentatively identified with the Damascus Document.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document has also been the subject of one of the more interesting digital humanities projects in Qumran studies. The Texts of the Qumran Digital Editions project, based at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Antiquities Authority, has produced a fully digitised edition of the Qumran copies, with high-resolution images of each fragment and a searchable transcription of the reconstructed text. The project was led by Emanuel Tov, who had been one of the principal editors of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series for several decades. The digital edition has not displaced the printed editions, but it has made the textual evidence available to scholars who would otherwise have had to travel to Jerusalem to consult the originals. The Khirbet Qumran site itself, on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, has been the subject of a long-running programme of archaeological work, the most recent phase of which has been the joint Hebrew University-Andubon Society excavation that began in 2017.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document is the second most-copied of the Qumran community’s own texts, after the Community Rule. The eight Cave 4 copies, the Cave 5 fragment, and the Cave 6 fragment together represent perhaps a fifth of the total scribal output of the community. The Community Rule’s seven Cave 1 and Cave 4 copies, and the four Cave 4 copies of the War Scroll, are the only other documents that come close. The Damascus Document was clearly one of the foundational texts of the community, perhaps even more foundational than the Community Rule; the Damascus Document’s Admonition and Laws provide a more accessible summary of the sect’s theology and discipline than the Community Rule’s more elaborate ritual code. The fact that multiple copies of the Damascus Document were made and preserved at Qumran suggests that the community regarded it as a primary document of its self-understanding.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document has been read in modern times as a charter of sectarian Judaism. The text has been cited in the scholarly literature on the origins of Karaism, in the comparative study of early Christian community structures, in the history of Jewish law, and in the development of the pesharim style of biblical interpretation. The argument that the Damascus Document is the foundational text of the broader Essene movement, with the Community Rule being the code of the inner Qumran community, has been the working assumption of most scholarship from the 1990s onwards; the argument that the two texts describe the same community at different moments in its history has had strong defenders, but has not displaced the consensus. The discovery of the document in two very different preservation pathways, the Qumran caves and the Cairo Geniza, is itself one of the more remarkable features of its transmission history, and the document’s continuing importance in modern scholarship is in part a consequence of that double preservation.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document was not the only foundational text of the Qumran community. The Cave 1 and Cave 4 discoveries included the Community Rule (1QS), the War Scroll (1QM and 4QM), the Temple Scroll (11QT), the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH), the Pesharim commentaries on Habakkuk, Micah, and Isaiah, the Aramaic Levi Document, the New Jerusalem text, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Copper Scroll, and several other compositions of varying length and significance. The relationship between the Damascus Document and these other texts has been one of the more persistent questions in Qumran studies. The Damascus Document shares vocabulary and theology with the Community Rule and the pesharim commentaries, but it also differs in literary genre. The Damascus Document is closer in form to the biblical law codes, while the Community Rule is closer in form to the sectarian rule books. The Damascus Document’s halakha is more detailed and more practical than the Community Rule’s, and the Damascus Document’s theology is less systematic than the pesharim commentaries. The Damascus Document is, in short, a hybrid text that draws on several genres and several traditions, and its place within the Qumran library is best understood as one document among several, each of which contributed to the community’s self-understanding.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document’s relationship to the Community Rule has been the most extensively studied. The two texts share a vocabulary of the yahad, the “community” of the sect, and a vocabulary of the masks, the “lots” by which members were admitted and promoted within the community. The two texts also share a vocabulary of the sons of light and the sons of darkness, the dualistic imagery that runs through the community’s literature. The Damascus Document, however, lacks the elaborate initiation ritual that the Community Rule describes, and the Damascus Document lacks the community’s hymns and prayers. The Community Rule, on the other hand, lacks the Damascus Document’s detailed rules for the sabbath, the purity codes, and the oaths. The two texts are best understood as complementary rather than overlapping, and the most reasonable reading is that they served different functions within the community. The Community Rule was the rule book of the inner community that lived at Qumran; the Damascus Document was the rule book of the wider community that lived in towns and villages throughout Judaea. The two texts together constituted the community’s complete legal code, and they were both copied and preserved at Qumran for this reason.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document’s relationship to the broader Jewish literary tradition of the Second Temple period is also significant. The Damascus Document is, in many ways, a text that bridges the gap between the biblical tradition and the later rabbinic tradition. The Damascus Document’s Admonition cites the Hebrew Bible extensively, with the same exegetical techniques that appear in the Qumran pesharim commentaries, and the Damascus Document’s Laws include detailed regulations that anticipate many of the regulations of the Mishnah. The Mishnah, compiled in the late second and early third centuries CE by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, is the foundational text of the rabbinic tradition, and the relationship between the Damascus Document’s Laws and the Mishnah’s regulations is one of the most striking features of the text. The Mishnah’s regulations on the sabbath, on the purity codes, and on the agricultural festivals are all anticipated, in less systematic form, in the Damascus Document. The Mishnah’s regulations are not derived from the Damascus Document, but the Mishnah’s regulations are clearly informed by the same tradition of Jewish legal interpretation that produced the Damascus Document’s Laws. The Damascus Document is, in this sense, an early witness to the tradition that produced the Mishnah, and the Damascus Document is one of the texts that allows us to trace the development of Jewish law from the Second Temple period to the rabbinic period.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document’s place in the history of Jewish biblical interpretation is similarly significant. The Damascus Document’s Admonition is one of the earliest examples of the pesharim style of biblical interpretation, in which a verse from the Hebrew Bible is taken to be speaking directly of the community’s present situation. The Damascus Document’s Admonition includes several examples of this style of interpretation, with the verses from Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets being read as prophecies of the sect’s history. The pesharim style of interpretation was characteristic of the Qumran community, and the Damascus Document is one of the texts that allows us to trace the development of this style from its earliest to its latest examples. The Damascus Document’s Admonition is also one of the earliest examples of the sectarian use of biblical typology, in which the events of the biblical period are taken to be types of the events of the community’s present. The Damascus Document’s reading of the Babylonian exile as a type of the community’s exile from the Jerusalem Temple is one of the most striking examples of this typological reading, and it is one of the texts that established the convention for later sectarian readings of the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document’s significance for the study of Jewish messianism is also substantial. The Damascus Document includes several passages that bear on the community’s expectations for the messianic period, and the Damascus Document’s messianism is one of the more interesting examples of the variety of messianic expectations in the Second Temple period. The Damascus Document’s messianism is dual: the sect expected two messiahs, the Messiah of Israel and the Messiah of Aaron, both of whom were expected to appear at the end of the present period. The Messiah of Israel was expected to be a political figure who would restore the sovereignty of Israel; the Messiah of Aaron was expected to be a priestly figure who would restore the Temple cult. The dual messianism of the Damascus Document is one of the more distinctive features of the sect’s theology, and it is one of the texts that distinguishes the Qumran community’s messianic expectations from those of other Jewish groups of the period. The Damascus Document’s messianism is also one of the texts that has been most extensively studied in the modern scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Damascus Document’s messianic expectations have been the subject of a substantial scholarly literature.<\/p>\n The Damascus Document’s reception in the modern era has been, finally, the story of a text whose significance has been progressively expanded. The medieval Cairo copies were treated in 1910 as the document of a “Jewish sect” whose identity was unknown. The Qumran copies of 1952-56 demonstrated that the medieval Cairo copies were the late descendants of a much older text. The scholarship of the 1960s and 1970s established the Damascus Document as one of the foundational texts of the Qumran community, and the scholarship of the 1980s and 1990s established the Damascus Document as one of the most important witnesses to the legal and exegetical traditions of the late Second Temple period. The Damascus Document is, today, one of the most extensively studied texts in the Qumran corpus, and the Damascus Document’s significance for the history of Jewish law, Jewish exegesis, and Jewish messianism is widely recognised in the scholarly literature. The Damascus Document is also one of the texts that has been most often cited in the modern comparative study of Jewish and Christian origins, and the Damascus Document has been the subject of a substantial literature on the relationship between the Qumran community and the early Christian movement. The Damascus Document is, in short, a text whose significance has been progressively expanded over the past century, and whose importance for the history of Second Temple Judaism is now widely accepted.<\/p>\n A wooden reading lectern is set inside a limestone cave. An oil lamp flickers on a low stone ledge, throwing a circle of warm light across an open parchment. Above the lectern,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":292,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[120,119,46,101,100,122,63,121],"class_list":["post-291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-scripture-interpretation","tag-cairo-geniza","tag-damascus-document","tag-dead-sea-scrolls","tag-essenes","tag-qumran","tag-second-temple-judaism","tag-solomon-schechter","tag-zadokite-fragments"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":293,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291\/revisions\/293"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/292"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Cambridge and the Cairo Geniza<\/h2>\n
The Qumran Library and the Damascus Document’s Place Within It<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n