Cultic Spiritualization: Religious Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts) 9781463242411, 1463242417

Citation preview

Cultic Spiritualization

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 33

This series contains volumes dealing with the study of the Hebrew Bible, ancient Israelite society and related ancient societies, Biblical Hebrew and cognate languages, the reception of biblical texts through the centuries, and the history of the discipline. The series includes monographs, edited collections, and the printed version of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.

Cultic Spiritualization

Religious Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Jamal-Dominique Hopkins

gp 2022

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com 2022 Copyright © by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܕ‬

1

2022

ISBN 978-1-4632-4241-1

ISSN 1935-6897

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available at the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

To Karen, my wife, best friend, and love of my life. I honour and cherish you. Your love propels me. To Joe and Ruthie Hopkins, my father and mother, the production of this book is a tribute to your enduring and steadfast teaching, support, and love. I dedicate this to you, whom I owe much. I pray and hope that this effort proudly reflects what you have helped me to become.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgement ................................................................... xv Abbreviations ........................................................................xvii Introduction.............................................................................. 1 A. Introduction .................................................................. 1 B. Methodology ............................................................... 14 C. Definition of Key Terminology .................................... 18 1. Spiritualization....................................................... 18 2. Eschatology ............................................................ 20 3. Qumran and Qumran-Related Community .............. 21 D. The Contents of This Study ......................................... 22

Chapter One. The Debate about Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls ... 25 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................... 25 B. 1947-1977 .................................................................. 26 1. Introduction ........................................................... 26 2. The Seminal Study Concerning the Debate about Sacrifice .............................................................. 27 3. The Initial Debate about Sacrifice in Light of the Archaeology........................................................ 32 4. The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Initial Debate about Sacrifice .............................. 39 C. 1977 to 1991 .............................................................. 43 1. Introduction ........................................................... 43 2. The Debate about Sacrifice: From 1977 to 1991 .......... 45 3. The Debate about Sacrifice in Light of the Archaeology: From 1977 to 1991 ........................ 50 vii

viii

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION 4. The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Debate about Sacrifice: From 1977 to 1991 ........ 51 D. 1991 to the Present ..................................................... 55 1. Introduction ........................................................... 55 2. The Debate about Sacrifice: From 1991 to the Present ............................................................... 56 3. The Debate about Sacrifice in Light of the Archaeology: From 1991 to the Present .............. 61 4. The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Debate about Sacrifice: From 1991 to the Present ............................................................... 64 5. The Status of Liturgical Texts in the Debate about Sacrifice .............................................................. 67 E. Summary................................................................ 69

Chapter Two. The Essene View of Sacrifice According to Philo and Josephus................................................................... 71 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................... 71 B. Philo’s Description of the Essene View of Sacrifice ...... 72 C. Josephus’ Description of the Essene View of Sacrifice .. 78 1. Introduction ........................................................... 78 2. Accepting or Rejecting the Reading of οὐκ in the Text .................................................................... 81 3. Εἰργόµενοι: Middle or Passive? ................................. 87 4. Ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν: They Sacrifice (What) by Themselves? ....................................... 90 D. Summary: The Relation between the Essene View of Sacrifice and the Movement Related to the Dead Sea Scrolls...................................................................... 92 Chapter Three. Qumran Archaeology and Sacrificial Cultic Matters ............................................................................ 95 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................... 95 B. Brief Introduction to the Qumran Site ......................... 97 C. The Cultic Nature of Khirbet Qumran.......................... 97 1. Introduction ........................................................... 97 2. The Investigation of the Qumran Site in view of de Vaux’s Study .................................................. 98 D. Summary .................................................................. 122

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Chapter Four. The Description of Sacrifice in Light of the Book of Jubilees: Its Interpretation by and Status for the DSS Movement ..................................................................... 125 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................. 125 B. Brief Description of Extant Texts ............................... 128 C. Description of Cultic Matters in Relation to the Scrolls and Movement ....................................................... 131 1. Introduction ......................................................... 131 2. The Place of the Description of Temple Motifs ...... 132 3. The View of the Patriarchs as Priest-Like .............. 139 4. Description of Sacrificial Regulations in Relation to the Scrolls and Movement............................. 142 D. Summary .................................................................. 165

Chapter Five. The View of Sacrifice in the Damascus Document... 167 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................. 167 B. Brief Description of Extant Manuscripts..................... 169 C. The Literary Structure of the Damascus Document .... 172 D. Cultic Matters in the Manuscripts of D ...................... 175 1. Introduction ......................................................... 175 2. Cultic Matter in the Admonition Section of D ....... 176 3. Cultic Matters in the Legal Section of D ................ 182 E. The Status of Cultic Matter in D after the Qumran Settlement ............................................................. 194 F. Summary ................................................................... 195 Chapter Six. The View of Sacrifice in the Temple Scroll .......... 197 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................. 197 B. Brief Description of the Extant Manuscripts ............... 198 C. Brief Overview of the Temple Scroll’s Content........... 202 D. The Compositional Status of the Temple Scroll: Determining its Provenance .................................... 204 E. The Basis on which to Understand the Temple Scroll’s Cultic Regulations.................................................. 206 1. Introduction ......................................................... 206 2. The View of the Temples in the Temple Scroll ....... 209 F. The Temple Scroll’s Cultic Material as Protest ........... 217 G. The Use of the Temple Scroll at Qumran: Its Study and Practice as a Substitute for Sacrifice....................... 218 H. Summary .................................................................. 220

x

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Chapter Seven. The View of Sacrifice in MMT....................... 221 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................. 221 B. Brief Description of the Extant Manuscripts ............... 224 C. A Brief Analysis of MMT’s Structure and Form .......... 225 1. Introduction ......................................................... 225 2. The Tone of MMT: Determining the Document’s Initial Literary Genre ........................................ 226 D. MMT’s View Concerning Sacrificial and Purity Related Matters .................................................................. 230 1. Introduction ......................................................... 230 2. Description of MMT’s Cultic Content .................... 235 3. Conclusions on MMT’s Cultic Content................... 255 E. Summary: The Status of Cultic Matter in MMT after the Qumran Settlement ................................................ 256

Chapter Eight. The View of Cultic Matters in the Rule of the Community ................................................................... 259 A. The Purpose of this Chapter ...................................... 259 B. Brief Description of the Extant Manuscripts ............... 261 C. The Literary Structure, Form and Redaction History of S ............................................................................ 264 D. Priestly Authority in S: 1QS V 1-10 in view of 4Q256 IX 2b-3a and 4Q258 I 2-3a..................................... 268 E. The Makeup of the Community of S .......................... 269 F. Cultic Matter in Manuscripts of S............................... 270 1. Introduction ......................................................... 270 2. The Community as Temple; A Source of Atonement ........................................................ 272 G. Entering into the Covenant .................................. 276 H. Calendrical Matters................................................... 277 I. Summary: The Overall View of Offering Praise, Prayer and Study as Substitutes for Sacrifice ..................... 279

Chapter Nine. The View of Sacrifice in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice ................................................................................ 281 A. Purpose of This Chapter ............................................ 281 B. Brief Description of the Extant Manuscripts ............... 282 C. Literary Structure of the Text .................................... 283 D. Cultic Matter in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice ..... 286 1. Introduction ......................................................... 286

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi

2. The Sacrificial Ideology of the Angelic Priest and the Sectarian Priesthood ................................... 288 3. The Sacrificial Ideology of the Heavenly Temple and Community as Temple................................ 291 4. Atonement without Sacrifice ................................ 297 5. Sacrifice; Offering The ‫ עולה‬or Not Offering the ‫ עולה‬................................................................... 298 E. Summary................................................................... 300

Chapter Ten. The View of Sacrifice in 4QFlorilegium ............ 301 A. Purpose of this Chapter ............................................. 301 B. Brief Description of Extant Manuscript ...................... 302 C. Cultic Matter in 4QFlorilegium.................................. 304 1. Introduction ......................................................... 304 2. ‫מקדש אדם‬................................................................ 307 3. ‫ מקדש ישראל‬in Opposition to ‫ מקדש אדם‬..................... 316 D. Summary .................................................................. 320 Conclusion ............................................................................ 321 Bibliography ......................................................................... 329 Index .................................................................................... 365

PREFACE I first undertook a comparative study of the theology and hermeneutics of the Dead Sea Scrolls (particularly the sectarian corpus) while in seminary. This led to an interest in examining the ideology of animal sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls which gave life to this study. There have been iterations of aspects of this work beginning in 2006. Since this time, Scrolls scholarship related to sacrifice, temple and priestly matters have consulted these iterations. Using textual, classical, and archaeological evidence, this book examines the views of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls. The views are examined by exploring the historical and ideological development of the movement associated with the scrolls (the DSS movement), particularly from the vantage point of the community related to Qumran (an offshoot group from the larger movement). It is here where a historical reconstruction of the larger movement and related groups also is undertaken. Certain points regarding the ideological and literary development of the scrolls are investigated, which affect the overall views and understanding of sacrifice. Throughout the history of research on the scrolls, the investigation of sacrifice among the DSS movement has been neglected. This was the case early on in scrolls research, particularly concerning the investigation of the identity of the movement. To understand the overall idea of sacrifice, this study examines the cultic ideology of the DSS movement throughout its development. Investigated is the tension that existed between the view of actual animal sacrifice, practiced by the larger DSS movement, and later the predominantly spiritualised cultic ideology of the Qumran community. This book probes the reasons for these tensions, as xiii

xiv

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

well as investigates the larger polemical issues that existed between the entire DSS movement and Jerusalem’s temple establishment. This book demonstrates that these polemical matters led to the rise of the DSS movement. Overall, this research probes the ideological development of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, in view of the larger DSS movement, in general, and the Qumran-related community in particular. Concerning the latter, this study reveals why and how a pre-rabbinic (pre 70 C.E.) Jewish community functioned and lived as a community without temple and literal animal sacrifice while the temple was yet standing. Based on this, I examine how this community participated in a type of cultic sacrifice, which before the scrolls were discovered was predominantly seen only after the destruction of the temple (post 70 C.E.).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I want to thank ‫יהוה‬, who has blessed me with the mindset, discipline, and opportunity to embark upon and complete such an auspicious and incredible task. May this work be counted toward your glory. I am indebted to the John Rylands Research Institute and Library resources at the University of Manchester, my former advisor, George J. Brooke, and department of Religions and Theology at the University of Manchester (U. K.) who aided in the scholarly production of this work. That production began as a seminary student in California, where I had the opportunity to work with Craig A. Evans who introduced me to the world of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am grateful not only for his early words of encouragement, but for his continued support throughout the years. Many individuals, too many to name, have provided crucial help and support throughout stages and iterations of this work. Such assistance has included proofing preliminary drafts of chapters and provoking critical thought and examination. Thanks to Ted Bikinkita for assistance with crucial translations. Thanks to Stan Rich, Gabrielle Woods, Carol A. Murdock and John W. M. Edwards for both reading and providing important critique during the various stages of the production of the first iteration of this work. Each of these individuals have provided much needed assistance regarding sentence clarity and grammar. I am grateful for the encouragement of dear friends and colleagues in the academy who because of their continued belief in me and this project, have inspired this recent iteration. Thanks to Albert G. Miller, Craig Keener, Ronald Clifton Potter, Eric Lewis Williams and Thomas L. Bess. Thanks also to my editor Yael Landman for your assistance and patience. I am grateful to you and Gorgias Press. xv

xvi

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank my wife Karen, for not only her encouraging words and indefatigable belief in me and this project, but for her critical perception and loving interlocution. I am fully convinced that she is the genius! I am eternally grateful and thankful for my parents, Joe and Ruthie Hopkins for all of their love and support. Thank you for your meaningful visits to the U.K., and calls of encouragement and advice. Words cannot express what this has truly meant to me. Dad, you are a major key to my success and accomplishments; I have tried to follow your work ethic, the same work ethic I believe you tried to instill in me. A special thanks and acknowledgement to my former Manchester, England church family and home, Moss Lane Church of God Prophesy. Tony and Claudia Mason, Alan Simpson, Sefton Simpson, Simon Ighofose, thank you and others for fellowship and enabling a life of ministry in the U. K. and a life outside the University confines. I honour my former Pastor, the late Bishop Allan Simpson and his wife, Delores A. Simpson (Sister Del). I am grateful for their prayers, spiritual guidance, love, and financial support. Bishop Simpson, I learned much under you and consider it an honour to have served in ministry with you. Rest in peace sir!

ABBREVIATIONS ABD ABRL AO ASORMS ASMA BA BAR BARInt BASOR BETL BJS BJSUSD BSNA CahRB CBQ CD CJAS CSCO CQS D DJD DSD DSS ECDSS EDSS ESI

Anchor Bible Dictionary Anchor Bible Reference Library Anecdota oxoniesia American Schools of Oriental Research Monograph Series Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Biblical Archaeology Review International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Brown Judaic Studies Biblical and Judaic Studies from The University of San Diego Biblical Scholarship in North America Cahiers de la Revue biblique Catholic Biblical Quarterly Damascus Document Christianity and Judaism in Antiquities Series Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Damascus Document Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Dead Sea Scrolls Eerdmans Commentaries on Dead Sea Scrolls Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls Excavations and Surveys in Israel xvii

xviii FTSBS FO HSM HSS HTR HeyJ HUCM IEJ IMJ JAJ JAOS JBL JJS JNES JNSL JSNTSup JSJ JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JSS JQR LSTS MMT MS MSS MS NovTSup NovTSup NTS OCT OJTS PEQ

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION Fuller Theological Seminary Bibliographical Series Folia Orientalia Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Heythrop Journal Monographs of the Hebrew Union College Israel Exploration Journal The Israel Museum Journal Journal of Ancient Judaism Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Library of Second Temple Studies Miqṣat Ma’aśe ha-Torah Manuscript Manuscripts Moreshet series Novum Testamentum Supplements Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Oxford Centre Textbook Ohio Journal of Theological Studies Palestine Exploration Quarterly

ABBREVIATIONS PTSDSSP PW QC QM RB RechBib RevQ S SA SAOC SBLMS SBLSP SBLSymS SBT SBTS SDSSRL SJLA SNTSMS STDJ STJHC SUNT TAS TBS TSAJ Text TZ VT VTSup WUNT

xix

The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft The Qumran Chronicle Qumranica Mogilanensia Revue Biblique Recherches bibliques Revue de Qumrân Serekh ha-Yaḥad or Rule of the Community Scriptores Aethiopici Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Studies in Biblical Theology Sources for Biblical and Theological Studies Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments The American Scholar The Biblical Seminar Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Textus Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

INTRODUCTION A. I NTRODUCTION

This work is written in response to the continuing debate regarding sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls.1 Since the time that this study first appeared, little has changed concerning the claims of this study. There have been some updates regarding the archaeological discovery of animal bones and possible altars at Qumran. While this work engages such updates, nothing conclusive, however, challenges the overall assertions of this work. Throughout the history of scholarship on sacrifice in the scrolls, the Dead Sea sectarian texts have been examined together with (1) the archaeological discoveries of animal bones and possible altars at Khirbet Qumran, and (2) the classical accounts of Philo’s and Josephus’ descriptions of the Essene’s views of sacrifice. These aspects, which were taken to be linked, were examined to determine whether the movement related to the scrolls offered animal sacrifice.2 However, the majority of scholars who have examined This study is based upon Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Khirbet Qumran, The Essenes and Cultic Spiritualization (Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester, 2005). The discussion of the debate about sacrifice is thoroughly dealt with in chapter one of this book. 2 The link between the Essenes and the Qumran site was first put forth by Eleazar Sukenik. He based his claim on Pliny’s description in Natural History 5.15.73; see Sukenik’s Megillot Genuzot (Jerusalem: Magness, 1948), 16. This link was further asserted by Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (The Haskell Lectures 19561957; London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., 1958), 52. Based on the archaeological investigations, Roland de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1959; London: 1

1

2

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Oxford University Press, 1973), 128, posited that there was a possible link between the Qumran site and the scrolls based on distinctive pottery evidence; also see Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), who similarly asserts this link. Despite the arguments against these links, particularly put forth by Norman Golb, in “The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Perspective,” TAS 58 (1989): 177-207; Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Scribner, 1995), and most recently by Yizhar Hirschfeld, in Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 29-48, who have both contended that the Qumran site had nothing to do with the scrolls from the caves, the assertion that the above materials are linked is convincing, which is also the position that this work takes. The working hypothesis here is that the cave scrolls (the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls in particular) reflect the literary compilation of the group that dwelled at the Qumran site. Golb’s and Hirschfeld’s contention that the scrolls reflect the literary makeup of Jerusalem libraries proves untenable in that their theory ignores the theological and ideological development about which the non-biblical sectarian texts speak. The Jerusalem theory offers, at best, a simplistic and uncritical reading of the scrolls’ content, reducing significant evidence (which further attest to a link) from both the texts and archaeological remains as inconsequential (further discussion of these links are put forth in this work; see chapters one, two and three in particular). Although the above materials read together suggests that the scrolls, the movement associated with the scrolls and the Qumran site was Essenic, brief attention is given toward arguing for the links and this position. I raise the question regarding Qumran identity merely to show that discussion about the ideology of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus contributes to this debate. Based on the pottery evidence, which is similar to that which was found at the Qumran site, arguments that assert that the site was a commercial entrepôt (Alan D. Crown and Lena Cansdale, “Qumran: Was it and Essene Settlement?” BAR 20 (1994): 24-36 and 73-78), a rustic villa (Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voûte, “The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. Michael O. Wise et. al.; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 1-38 and Jean-Baptiste Humbert, “L’éspace sacré à Qumrân: Propositions pour l’archéologie,” RB 101-102 (1994): 161-214), a manor house (Yizhar Hirschfeld, “Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran,” JNES 57 (1998): 161-89), or a fortress (Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and “Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?” BA 48 (1985): 68-82) has proven untenable. As rightly noted by Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 13-18, 90-104 and 222, and Magen Broshi, “Was Qumran,

INTRODUCTION

3

these materials have not been able to come to any firm conclusions. The limited research that has focused on this topic has led to definitive conclusions without weighing all the evidence. This has been the case throughout the different periods of scrolls research, particularly where new bits of evidence have emerged requiring new insight.3 In view of the history of scholarship and scholarly confusion, several questions need addressing, which this work gives attention to: •

•

•

Is evidence of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls present? If so, how is it to be characterized (as literal or metaphorical)? Is evidence present in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls that describes the sacrificial ideology of the related movement and its various communities? If so, does this evidence either support or dismiss the view that these communities offered animal sacrifice? Is there a unified view concerning the idea of sacrifice in the non-biblical scrolls?

Concerning the first question, there is explicit evidence that the idea and practice of sacrifice is described throughout the various non-biblical sectarian scrolls. From the time of the initial discovery of the scrolls, however, seemingly contrasting views regarding the character of sacrifice have appeared. Whereas some texts make overt references to sacrifice, outlining specific sacrificial

Indeed, a Monastery? The Consensus and its Challengers, An Archaeologist View,” in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947-1997) (ed. James H. Charlesworth; North Richland Hills: Bibal, 1998), 19-37, these alternative postulations cannot account for the multiplicity of miqva’ot, the adjacent cemetery or the animal bone deposits at the Qumran site. 3 With regard to postulating a new hypothesis concerning Qumran origins, Florentino García Martínez similarly contends that previous scholarship on the scrolls has put forth definitive arguments without weighing all of the pertinent evidence. See his “The Origins of the Essene Movement and of the Qumran Sect,” in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Julio Trebolle Barrera; trans., Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 77.

4

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

regulations for example, other texts suggest that substitutes for sacrifice were offered, most likely because Jerusalem’s temple and its cult was defiled. In concert with the overt literary references to sacrifices and their regulations are certain Qumran archaeological finds such as animal bones and supposed altar(s), which indicate the evidence of sacrifice. In the past, much of this evidence has been misinterpreted. In an attempt to achieve a harmonised view of sacrifice, scholars failed to understand the overall textual, literary development and historical context of the sacrificial regulations in the scrolls themselves. Many scholars read into the sacrificial regulations both Josephus’ and Philo’s descriptions of the Essene’s views of sacrifice, and particular interpretations of the archaeological discoveries (chiefly the animal bones). The exact meaning of the descriptions by Philo and Josephus, and of the archaeological evidence was and continues to be interpreted variously. Through a textual and literary study of sacrifice in certain non-biblical sectarian scrolls (namely the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll, MMT, the Rule of the Community, 4QFlorilegium, as well as the non-sectarian book of Jubilees and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice), this work examines the overall views of sacrifice in these scrolls, and related materials, weighing all the evidence. Examining the views of sacrifice attest to the historical origins and development of the movement linked with the scrolls (the DSS movement hereafter). As demonstrated throughout this book (also hinted in Florentino García Martínez’s Groningen Hypothesis),4 the DSS movement experienced an internal split, which resulted in the distinction between at least two groups with distinct

Although García Martínez talks about an internal split within the wider Essene movement, he makes no mention of the shift that took place regarding sacrificial views, which provides proof that an internal split occurred. Also see the earlier works of Jerome Murphy O’Connor and Philip Davies: Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document: CD II, 14-VI, 1,” RB 77 (1970): 201-29, “A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document VI, 2-VIII, 3,” RB 79 (1971): 210-32 and Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Covenant,” (JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), who although rightly assert that a split occurred within the larger Essene movement, they present a variant form of this view. 4

INTRODUCTION

5

views of sacrifice. Considering the link between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes,5 the split that took place within the larger Contention against an Essene, Qumran connection was put forth early on in Qumran scholarship in favour of a Sadducean hypothesis. Although this contention has been largely rejected, it has been revised by Lawrence Schiffman; see his The Halakhah at Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1975); “The Temple Scroll in its Literary and Philological Perspective,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism (ed. William S. Green; vol. 2; BJS 9; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 154; Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983); “The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Laws of the Second Temple Period,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (ed. George J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 239-53; “Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 14 (1989-1990): 435-57; “The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BA 53 (1990): 64-73; “The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect,” in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review (ed. Hershel Shanks; New York: Vintage, 1993), 35-49; “The Temple Scroll and the Nature of its Law: The Status of the Question,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. CJAS 10; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 47-8 and 54-5; “The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 82-90; “Origin and Early History of the Qumran Sect,” BA 58 (1995): 37-42 and “Community Without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christendom (ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999), 267-70. This also has been the position of Baruch A. Levine, “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 5-23 and Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 116-7. Also see the study of Yaakov Sussman in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe HaTorah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 179-200. The Sadducean hypothesis posits that based on the descriptions of halakhic regulations in the scrolls, which correlate with some Sadducean views in later rabbinic texts like the Mishna and Talmud, the community related to Qumran was Sadducean. Schiffman bases his contention largely on the 5

6

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

movement was gradual. As also alluded to by García Martínez,6 this is attested in the chronological dating of the majority of manuscripts found at Qumran, where their content shows a gradual shift in the ideology of sacrifice. These works can be ordered as follows: • The oldest material (like the book of Jubilees), which is both pre-sectarian and non-sectarian. This material reflects an earlier tradition which influenced the movement in an authoritative way and shared some ideological similarity with the movement.7 regulations outlined in MMT. Despite the arguments put forth for the Sadducean hypothesis, similar evidence supports an Essene viewpoint as well. As rightly noted by James VanderKam, in “The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essenes or Sadducees,” in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review (ed. Hershel Shanks; New York: Vintage, 1993), 50-62, the ideology of the Essenes, as described by classical sources (Pliny, Philo and Josephus) and the Dead Sea Scrolls, both agree with some Sadducean views as well at the same time outlines variant regulations which starkly contrast other Sadducean view. Hence, VanderKam notes that the Sadducean hypothesis (chiefly as purported by Schiffman) yet ignores (1) the testimony of Pliny and (2) the numerous and fundamental agreements between Josephus’ description of Essene thought and practices and the contents of the sectarian documents from Qumran. 6 See Florentino García Martínez, “The Origins of the Essene Movement,” 85-96. 7 Concerning the status of Jubilees, as Sidnie White Crawford rightly points out, in her The Temple Scroll and Related Texts (CQS 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 19, there was no fixed Hebrew Bible during the Second Temple period. Textual variation was widespread among a number of significant works. However, as Ugene Ulrich contends, in “Canon” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; vol. 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 117-120, certain tests can indicate which texts were viewed as authoritative at Qumran. One such test examines the number of manuscript copies found as well as the frequency of citations to the text. See discussion of this in Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, “The Authoritative Status of Jubilees at Qumran,” Henoch 30 (2009/1): 97-104. Jubilees is preserved in fourteen (possibly fifteen) manuscripts. James VanderKam describes the Jubilees manuscripts as ranking behind only three to five books of what is now known as the Hebrew Bible. See his “The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress:

INTRODUCTION •

•

•

7

Material that predominantly reflects the sacrificial ideology of the larger movement (which probably composed this material), like the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll. Material that lays the groundwork for alternative ideas and practices for sacrifice (mainly seen in redacted portions of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll). This material spells out the ideological differences and conflicts that ultimately led to a geographical schism within the larger movement. This material was composed during the pre-Qumran (formative) phase of an offshoot group that would ultimately settle at Qumran. Works like the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium that predominantly describe alternative worship practices as equivalent to sacrifice. These works, similar to the redacted portions of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, predominantly reflect the ideology of the same offshoot group, which probably composed this material.

Against the postulation of Jerome Murphy O’Connor and Philip Davies,8 as is suggested by García Martinez (above) and implied

Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (ed. Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1,668. Ulrich maintains that like Psalms and Daniel, Jubilees likewise is widely represented (cited) in the scrolls (refer to chapter four for this discussion). In his discussion on the place of the nomenclature for Qumran texts, Jonathan Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts:’ A Terminological and Ideological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquim on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10 September 2003 (ed. Jonathan G. Campbell, William Lyons and Lloyd K. Pietersen; LSTS 52; London: T & T Clark International, 2005), 43-68, keenly acknowledges the status of authoritative Pseudepigraphy, viewed as scripture. Campbell describes such texts as Daniel, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, 1Enoch and Isaiah (among others) as scripture that circulated circa 200 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. Another test for determining textual authority (as indicated by Ulrich) were texts that presented themselves as revelation from God. Here, both Jubilees and the Temple Scroll are candidates. 8 See references in note 4 above.

8

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

in the first two types of material described above, the larger movement appears to have been rooted in the apocalyptic tradition which was a Palestinian phenomenon prior to the Antiochene crisis. Regarding the latter two types of material, this content suggests that the sacrificial ideology described herein, developed and shifted away from the larger movement’s sacrificial ideology. Consequently, these divergent views reflect the ideology and development of a variant (offshoot) group related to the larger movement. The distinction between various groups based on the literary content of the Qumran texts also must respect the physical limits set by the Qumran archaeology.9 In understanding the origin, development, and ideology of the offshoot group in particular, archaeological evidence supports the view that a community began to reoccupy10 the Qumran site during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.E.). This view, as rightly asserted by Jodi Magness, is based on Roland de Vaux’s initial preliminary report where he contended that numismatic, pottery and sherd evidence support the contention that the site was re-occupied by a group from 100 B.C.E. to 68 C.E.11 The views put forth by Geza Vermes, Frank Cross, Jósef Milik and later by de Vaux (who later changed his view),12 described Florentino García Martínez also has rightly spelled this out in his “The Origins of the Essene Movement,” 85-96. 10 de Vaux identified an earlier (Iron Age Israelite) Period of occupation than Period I. For discussion of this, see his Archaeology, 1-3. 11 See Jodi Magness, “Qumran Archaeology: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 46-77, The Archaeology of Qumran, 63-9. For de Vaux see “Fouilles Au Khirbet Qumrân,” RB 61 (1954): 206-36. For discussion of the periods of occupation, refer to the Archaeology chapter in this work. Also see Florentino García Martínez, “The Origins,” 77-96. 12 See Geza Vermes, Discovery in the Judean Dessert (New York: Desclee Company, 1956), 90-7, Jósef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (trans. John Strugnell; SBT 26; London: SCM Press, 1959), 84-7, Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Scribners: New York, 1958), 43-4 and 107-15 and Roland de Vaux, “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e, et 5e campagnes.” RB 63 (1956): 533-77. 9

INTRODUCTION

9

the Qumran site as the Essenes’ headquarters which was reoccupied around 150 B.C.E. Instead of viewing the community related to Qumran as a distinct part of the larger DSS movement (the former which was an offshoot group that resulted from a later internal split), the views of Vermes, Cross and Milik force a particular literary interpretation of the Wicked Priest onto the archaeological evidence.13 Moreover, this particular view (expounded by Murphy O’Connor and Davies as well) does not take into account the variant theological ideologies in the literary texts which suggest the possibility that variant groups (who were yet related to the same movement) are represented here. It is possible to view the Wicked Priest and Teacher of Righteousness as predating the Qumran stage and as functioning during the time when the broader Essene movement was established, yet before the time when Qumran was occupied. Concerning the distinction of a larger DSS movement and a later community related to Qumran, despite the contentions of García Martínez, Adam Simon van der Woude, Murphy O’Connor and Davies, and based on the archaeological evidence, which suggests that Qumran initially was reoccupied around 100 B.C.E.14 as rightly noted by Hartmut Stegemann, Qumran likely was settled after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness.15 Although the hypothesis of Jerome Murphy O’Connor and Philip Davies takes into consideration the possible existence of a broader Essene movement which suffered an internal split, they similarly force a widening of the archaeological time frame. Based on their view that the Essene movement emerged after the Babylonian exile, and not initially because of the Maccabean priestly usurpation, as suggested above by Vermes, Milik and Cross, they (Murphy O’Connor and Davies) similarly view the settlement of Qumran around 150 B.C.E. based on their literary interpretation of the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness. See Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document,” 201-29, “A Literary Analysis,” 210-32 and Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant.” 14 See note 10 above. 15 See Hartmut Stegemann’s notation of this in his “The Qumran EssenesLocal Members of the Jewish Union of the late Second Temple Times,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18-21 March 1991 (ed. Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1, 103 and 161. 13

10

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

As a result of the split that occurred within the DSS movement, there is no unified view of sacrifice in the scrolls; rather, there are at least two variant views that correlate with splinter groups from the same larger movement. This historical reconstruction correlates well with the overall interpretative meaning of the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in light of and in harmony with the Qumran archaeological evidence and classical descriptions of the Essenes’ views of sacrifice. Initially, the movement related to the scrolls participated in some sacrifice in the temple in Jerusalem. However, at least one group from this movement, at a later stage, differed markedly in its ideology from the larger parent movement. While the larger movement participated in certain forms of temple worship,16 despite the historical circumstances that caused them to separate from Jerusalem’s temple establishment ideologically, the group that differed had an opposing cultic ideology. During its earliest stages, this group (which later settled at Qumran) participated in some sacrifice along with the larger movement. Moreover, this group also developed some spiritualised views of the temple and cult, which unlike the larger movement, became its predominant view during its later stages.17 Both this ideological shift concerning sacrifice and two-fold view (a literal and metaphorical view

In view of the 364-day calendar, which was different from the calendar used by the current temple authorities in Jerusalem, the larger movement perhaps only participated in certain non-temple associated or noncalendrical binding sacrifices like voluntary sacrifices, as well as the Sabbath sacrifice. 17 Unlike the majority of scholarship on the scrolls in the 1950’s, the 1960’s and the 1970’s, Joseph Baumgarten, in his seminal study in 1953, recognized this two-fold view in the sectarian scrolls. Although Baumgarten’s assertions were correct (demonstrated in this work), his conclusions were made (1) despite having access to all the scrolls and (2) despite the lack of extant evidence, including the archaeological data, at the time. Baumgarten’s analysis also unwittingly stumbled upon the idea that the community linked with the Dead Sea Scrolls underwent a historical ideological development. See Joseph M. Baumgarten “Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of the Dead Sea (Qumran) Scrolls,” HTR 46 (1953): 141-58. For discussion regarding the use and understanding of the term spiritualization in this work, see below (in this chapter). 16

INTRODUCTION

11

of sacrifice) is attested in some of the earlier sectarian texts like the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll.18 During its later stages (both before and during the settlement at Qumran),19 the group related to Qumran formed a predominantly spiritualised view of sacrifice and the temple. This detail is demonstrated in the texts that were composed during the late pre-Qumran to Qumran stages.20 During its later stages, the community related to Qumran came to view earlier cultic regulations (as seen in the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT) in more of an idealised and eschatological way.21 Most of the texts composed during the later stages of the community related to Qumran make explicit reference to the group as a sanctuary which offers substitutes for sacrifice (i.e., spiritualised sacrifice).22 But why would this group take this position? As well as making a split from the larger movement,23 the community developed its cultic views in response to certain historical events. In the various layers of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, this group, along with the larger DSS movement, viewed Jerusalem’s temple establishment (its temple, sacrifice, and priesthood) Whereas the two-fold view of sacrifice is attested predominantly in these documents, a complete shift from a literal view and practice of sacrifice to a more figurative and spiritualised view and practice of sacrifice can be seen predominantly in the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium. Refer to the respective chapters in this study. 19 This study emphasizes the distinct stages of the community related to Qumran. Before the settlement at Qumran, the community is referred to as the Qumran-related community. It is simply the Qumran community during its settlement there. See below (in this chapter) where this designation is more thoroughly described. 20 Refer to the chapters on the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium in particular. 21 See note 28 below. For an understanding regarding the use of eschatology in this study, see below discussion (in this chapter). 22 For description of community as sanctuary, refer to the chapters on the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document, and 4QFlorilegium. 23 This matter is alluded to in Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (MMT hereafter). This split likely focused on the modus operandi concerning certain sacrificial regulations. For a perspective on this split, see Florentino García Martínez, “Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis,” FO 25 (1988): 113-36. 18

12

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

as defiled.24 Although the entire movement continued to revere the temple cult in principle, certain factors caused it to withdraw25 from participating in the majority of the worship in Jerusalem.26 The DSS movement may have separated ideologically from Jerusalem’s defiled temple cult due to its view that: 1) The Jerusalem temple was observing sacrificial, festal, and holy days according to the wrong calendrical days. 2) The inappropriate modus operandi through which Jerusalem’s temple establishment carried out certain sacrificial and purity regulations. 3) And that the priesthood in Jerusalem was illegitimate.

For a description of historical events which possibly led to the rise of the movement and their cultic views, consult Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Rule of the Martian as Applied to Qumran,” IEJ 14 (1994): 125-8, and in particular see the references in note 32. Also see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Community Without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und fruhen Christentum (ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999), 267; Per Bilde, “The Common Meal in the Qumran-Essene Communities,” in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (ed. Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen; ASMA 1; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998), 160; García Martínez, “Qumran Origins,” 113-36; James C. VanderKam, “2 Maccabees 6, 7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” JSJ 12 (1981): 52-74 and Philip R. Davies, “Calendrical Change and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of VanderKam’s Theory,” CBQ 45 (1983): 80-9. 25 With regard to participating in the temple, according to Jewish Antiquities 18.19, the Essenes are described as εἰργόµενοι. Here, I do not determine the voice of this participial verb (refer to chapter two for this discussion). I only indicate that certain circumstances (like the issue with the calendar and modus operandi of certain regulations) disrupted the sect from participating in the normal temple cult. 26 See notes 15 and 16 above. Factors which caused the Qumran-related community to withdraw from Jerusalem’s worship are alluded to in 1QpHab I 12; VIII 8b-13a; XI 4-8a; XII 7b-9a; CD 3:13b-16a; 6:13b-19; 10:14-11:18a and 4Q174 1 i 21 2:2-5. These calendrical and legal matters are noted along with the polemic and idealised views of cultic regulations in MMT and the Temple Scroll. See discussion throughout the various chapters in this book. 24

INTRODUCTION

13

The community related to Qumran separated from the larger DSS movement due to differences in observing certain sacrificial regulations; this is attested in MMT.27 On the basis of these differences, the community subsequently turned to the predominant view and practice of providing substitutes for the temple and sacrifice (i.e., predominantly spiritualising them), which was viewed as temporary only until the time of restoration.28 Even though the community took more of a spiritualised view of sacrifice, it continued to copy texts (around the Herodian period) that made explicit reference to the literal practice of sacrifice. This community (particularly during the later stages of its development) now read these regulations in a more spiritualised way. They also likely read these regulations in an idealised and eschatological way.29 In this case, the community (both before and during its Qumran settlement) was a redacting community: that is, it added material, which had a more proleptic and spiritualised tone, to already extant texts (like the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll), as well as composed material that had a predominantly spiritualised tone (like the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium). Some of the sacrificial descriptions in the scrolls refer to an eschatological period only, in which the temple and sacrifice will be restored to its proper sanctity. There is, however, no complete description in the scrolls of this eschatological temple and

Refer to the chapter on MMT, which highlights these particularities. See descriptions of this idea in Ant. 18.19; Quod Omnis Probus Liber sit 75; 1QS; and 4Q174 1 i 21 2:1-7. Also see the War Scroll (1QM), which describes the eschatological battle. The Qumran-related community held that the temple and sacrifice would be restored back to its sanctity after this battle. They viewed this time as the eschatological period. 29 Joseph M. Baumgarten in “Sacrifice and Worship,” 146, remarkably both noted this fact and accurately commented that these regulations perhaps dated back to a time when the community participated in sacrifice. Moreover, he noted that these sacrificial regulations were preserved in hope of one day being restored back to their proper sanctity. Baumgarten’s analysis was remarkable in that he put forth his thesis while lacking much of the evidence that proves this theory. 27 28

14

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sacrifice. There are only indirect references.30 An explicit description related to this eschatological temple is the meal which anticipates the eschaton (as described in 1QS VI 1-6). It can be inferred that most allusions to sacrifice either describe or refer to (1) the temple of Israel (in a polemical sense), or (2) the sanctuary of the interim period, which was taken to be temporary since it was viewed as defiled.31 Taking into consideration the many aspects of this work, A clear understanding of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls is given. The chapters in this book thoroughly examine the views of sacrifice (both literal and metaphorical) in the nonbiblical sectarian texts, and the classical accounts of Josephus’ and Philo’s description of the Essenes. Also examined is the cultic nature of the Qumran archaeological finds and site. This work highlights the significance of the movement’s views on sacrifice, particularly as they concern the debate about the movement’s identity, origins, and development.

B. METHODOLOGY

This book examines the views of sacrifice following both a synchronic and diachronic approach. The views of sacrifice developed as the movement (and a later offshoot group) also developed, both before and during the period when the Qumran site was occupied. These developments can be seen both literarily and historically. As the entire movement developed, its views concerning sacrifice changed. This is attested in the non-biblical sectarian texts viewed according to their chronological development. I examine the non-biblical sectarian compositions that relate to sacrifice Although there are a number of indirect references to this temple and its worship, 11Q19 XXIX 9 is the only explicit reference. Based on this, it is tenable to view the Qumran-related community, a number of its texts, and its cultic ideology as functioning before the full consummation of this eschatological period (refer to below discussion, in this chapter, regarding the definition of the eschatological period). 31 As mentioned below, this interim sanctuary was the community itself. For a discussion of this, refer to the chapters on the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium. 30

INTRODUCTION

15

following the same chronological order. After exploring the chapter on Jubilees, which is a pre, non-sectarian text and which also held an authoritative status to the movement, the order of compositions consists as follows:32 •

•

The Damascus Document (also known as D), which consists of twelve extant manuscripts, the earliest of which dates to the second century B.C.E. (particularly taking into consideration the radiocarbon dating of 4Q267).33 On the basis of the dating of the earliest extant manuscript, the composition of this work must date from the end of the third century to the beginning of the second century B.C.E., especially in consideration of the development of the DSS movement during the apocalyptic tradition of the third century.34 The Temple Scroll, which is extant in five manuscripts, the earliest of which dates to around 150 B.C.E. Like the Damascus Document, the composition of this work also must date to the late third century or early second century B.C.E. Although this work is contemporary with the Damascus Document, it likely dates slightly later, especially based on its explicit eschatological tone.35

Except for Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, this material reflects the works that were composed by the DSS movement and later Qumran-related community. 33 For discussion on this manuscript refer to the chapter on the Damascus Document. 34 See Florentino García Martínez, “The Origins,” 87-91, who similarly notes this view. As noted in chapter five, redactional material in the Damascus Document is based on the variant viewpoints of sacrifice in nonparallel texts. Based on this, the final form of this work, including the redacted material (which pre-dates its oldest extant manuscript), reflects the various views of sacrifice. This, however, is not the case with the Rule of the Community, where there are variant forms of this work. Refer to the chapter on the Rule of the Community for further discussion. 35 Whereas the Damascus Document is concerned with regulations as daily directives, the content of the Temple Scroll is written proleptically. As discussed in chapter six, much of the Temple Scroll’s content reflects the ideology of the Qumran-related community. Beside the proleptic and eschatological tone of this work, the Temple Scroll reflects some 32

16

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION •

•

•

•

MMT,36 which is extant in six manuscripts, the earliest of which dates from circa 75 B.C.E. The composition of this work likely is from the late second century to early first century B.C.E. MMT reflects the views of the Qumran-related community, where there is a predominant emphasis on the ideological shift of halakhic views from the larger parent movement. The Rule of the Community (also known as S), which is extant in twelve manuscripts. The earliest manuscript form of this work dates to about 125 B.C.E., which locates the composition of this work from the early to mid-second century B.C.E. Based on this, the Rule of the Community was composed after the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll.37 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which even though it is not a sectarian work, harmonises with the predominantly spiritualised ideology of the Qumran community. The earliest manuscript of this work dates to circa 75 B.C.E. Although dating slightly later, the composition of this work likely is contemporary with the Rule of the Community, dating from the mid to late second century B.C.E. 4QFlorilegium (also known as 4Q174), which is extant in only one manuscript dating to the second half of the first century B.C.E. This work, like the Rule of the Community, predominantly focuses on the spiritualised ideology of the Qumran community. 4QFlorilegium likely was composed at Qumran around the initial start of the community’s settlement, around the first half of the first century B.C.E.

Similar to the chronological development, the notion that the movement underwent a historical development is also signified through a literary analysis of the sectarian texts that speak about spiritualised views, like the redacted parts of the Damascus Document and the early form(s) of the Rule of the Community (including the 4QSE works). 36 Refer to note 23 above for full name. 37 For discussion on the 4QSE cryptic works, refer to the chapter on the Rule of the Community.

INTRODUCTION

17

sacrifice. Based on this, pertinent scrolls that consequently are linked to an ideological shift are examined. Moreover, this diachronic approach surveys the texts and the ideology found within them following a literary-source critical analysis38 which subsequently uncovers redacted layers of certain texts. From a synchronic approach, I examine the redacted layers found within some of the non-biblical sectarian scrolls, which uncover two distinct layers that highlight at least two ideological view of sacrifice. These ideological differences describe the sacrificial views of the larger DSS movement and the views of the Qumran-related community. Previous scholarship on the scrolls has noted that many of the non-biblical scrolls are of a composite nature. However, it is not enough merely to recognize this. It is important to assign the various layers to their respective authorial traditions or communities. Through a series of redactional studies, I will uncover the various ideologies of sacrifice, which are expressed from distinct viewpoints. At least two perspectives concerning sacrifice are highlighted in the non-biblical scrolls. Firstly, certain texts, and in some cases certain layers within texts, explicitly describe sacrificial procedures. These procedures are highlighted in a polemical way (i.e., as refutations of the sacrificial and purity regulations and procedures of Jerusalem’s temple priestly establishment) yet without describing alternative sacrificial practices. The material that explicitly describes sacrificial procedures mainly reflect the ideology of the larger DSS movement.39 As highlighted in the work of Pauline A. Viviano, this book examines both the text as it is and the text as it came to be. See his “Source Criticism,” in, To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (rev. and enl. ed.; ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes; Westminster: John Knox Press, 1999), 36. 39 Texts that are examined under this perspective, i.e., works that explicitly describe sacrificial regulations, are the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT. Only the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll have various layers that reflect variant views. Their core material explicitly describes sacrificial regulations, whereas the later redacted parts put forth a more proleptic, eschatological and spiritualised view of worship. MMT contains explicit sacrificial regulations, however, in more of an epistle or letter-like form. Here, the principal author reflects the views of 38

18

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

A second perspective observed in non-biblical scroll texts, and in some cases certain layers within these texts, is the idea that alternative worship practices fulfilled the requirements of actual animal sacrifice. This viewpoint is expressed in works that in most cases lack descriptions of sacrificial procedures.40 These references describe sacrifice and the temple in a figurative way, where the community is likened to the temple and is envisaged as making substitutes for sacrifice. These substitutes are viewed as spiritual sacrifices equivalent to actual animal sacrifice, and predominantly highlight the ideology of the Qumran community and its immediate precursor.41 Through an examination of the various perspectives and redactional elements of the texts in this study, insight into the development of the DSS movement and Qumran-related community can be gained. As both groups developed, ideas about sacrifice and the temple developed. Although the Qumran-related community continued to revere sacrifice in principle, it developed a more spiritualised view of it as well.

C. DEFINITION OF KEY TERMINOLOGY 1. Spiritualization

When using the terms ‘spiritual sacrifice,’ ‘spiritualised sacrifice’ or ‘cultic spiritualization,’ I am referring to the idea (particularly that of the Qumran-related community) that alternative worship practices were seen as fulfilling the requirement for actual animal sacrifices.42 The use of this terminology in the non-biblical sectarian scrolls, applies to description of both the temple and the smaller Qumran-related community (see chapter on MMT for this discussion). 40 The Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll are exceptions. Refer to respective chapters for this discussion. 41 Texts here include the redacted parts of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, as well as the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium texts. Included with these sectarian works is the non-sectarian Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. 42 As discussed throughout this book, these alternative practices included prayer, praise, study of the Torah and at times incense offerings.

INTRODUCTION

19

sacrifice, with particular reference to the community. The term spiritualization, here, is based on the idea of transference: the significance of the concrete temple is transferred to the community as temple, and the significance of actual blood sacrifices is transferred to the observance of the law through performing righteous deeds. As noted by Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza,43 spiritualization has many nuanced meanings. Although it has been described as conveying a kind of dualism (cultic religion verses personal-ethical piety),44 in the scrolls it has more of a two-fold significance, while at the same time carrying proleptic overtones. Regarding its two-fold significance, spiritualization in the scrolls has in mind the very act and observance of real blood sacrifices and the reverence of a real temple, while at the same time propounding a deeper ethical attitude toward the cult. Spiritualization first takes seriously the moral reverence and symbolic idea behind the actual practice of temple sacrifices, and secondly it recognizes the spiritual implication of real temple worship. Spiritualization is not a denial of the value of actual temple worship, but an insight into its deeper significance. In consideration of this, spiritualization in the scrolls illustrates a sense of reverence for the actual temple and sacrificial practices in principle. The transference of the idea of the actual temple is discernible in the view of the community as temple, where strict purity standards and regulations were in force. Similarly, the practice of actual animal sacrifice was discernible in the community performing various substitutes for sacrifice, which were subject to appointed times and followed a strict and sacred modus operandi. Cultic spiritualization in the scrolls, however, was only an interim See Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Cultic Language in Qumran and in the New Testament,” CBQ 38 (1976): 159-61. 44 This position is postulated by Hans Wenschkewitz, “Die Spiritualisierund de Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament,” Angelos 4 (1932): 70-230; E. Sellin, Theologie des Alten Testaments (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Quelle and Meyer, 1936); H. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1933), 181 and H. J. Hermission, Sprache und Ritus im altisraelitischen Kult. Zur Spiritualisiefung der Kultusbegriffe im Alten Testament (WMANT 19; Nuekirchen: Neukirchen Verlag, 1965), 8. 43

20

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

reality for the community. At the eschaton, actual temple sacrifices would be restored.45 The idea of the transference of the temple and sacrifice was termed spiritualization early in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most notably by Bertil Gärtner,46 and discussed at length by R. J. McKelvey47 and Schüssler Fiorenza48 who will be discussed in chapter one of this work. 2. Eschatology

Eschatology is the doctrine concerned with last things. Regarding the cult within the non-biblical sectarian scrolls, it conveys the idea of God’s divine intervention for the future restoration of (1) the DSS movement as the rightful priests of Jerusalem, (2) purity in Israel’s sacrificial cult, (3) correct calendrical observances chiefly regarding festivals and holy days, and (4) the temple. The two main motifs used in the scrolls to establish the context of eschatological expectations are ‫( אחרית הימים‬end of days or latter days) and ‫( יום הבריה‬day of creation). In the context of describing the idea behind ‫מקדש אדם‬, Michael Wise incisively understands the two above terms as conveying a two-stage eschaton.49 With regard to ‫אחרית הימים‬, George Brooke correctly notes that it conveys the sense of incorporating both the historical present and the eschatological future.50 On the basis of this understanding, ‫ אחרית הימים‬conveys an aspect of anticipation. The use of this term in this book thus suggests that the DSS movement, and This idea is further elaborated in chapter one (The Debate About Sacrifice) and IX (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice). 46 See Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (SNTSMS 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965). 47 See R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969). 48 See Schüssler Fiorenza, “Cultic Language,” 159-77. 49 Refer to this discussion in the chapters on the Temple Scroll and 4QFlorilegium in this study. Also see Michael Wise, “The Covenant of the Temple Scroll XXIX 3-10,” RevQ 14 (1989-1990): note 37 and “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” RevQ 15 (1991-1992): 113. 50 See George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 175-8. 45

INTRODUCTION

21

in particular the Qumran-related community, viewed itself as living in the ‫אחרית הימים‬, as a proleptic temple community functioning as a reflection of the heavenly temple (this is keenly spelled out in 4QFlorilegium’s use of ‫)מקדש אדם‬.51 In concert with how the community viewed itself during the ‫אחרית הימים‬, it also read texts in an eschatological way. Based on ‫ אחרית הימים‬referring to two stages, the community’s own practices for the present first stage are found in compositions such as the Rule of the Community. Here the community read this text as fulfilling the historical present. The future eschaton is found in the community’s re-reading of earlier texts such as the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll. Sacrificial and purity regulations were viewed proleptically as that which would be restored in the eschatological future. Regarding the second motif used to establish the context of eschatological expectations, ‫ יום הבריה‬describes God’s final intervention. As demonstrated in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 XXIX 9), this phrase is used to describe God’s intent on establishing his temple, which succeeds all other temples, planned or real. Although not spelled out in the scrolls, the sacrificial regulations explicitly described in the scrolls were expected to be practiced throughout the period inaugurated on the day of creation. 3. Qumran and Qumran-Related Community

This book makes use of the expressions Qumran-related community and Qumran community. Both phrases signify the same community, however, at distinct stages in its historical and ideological development. The phrase “Qumran-related community” refers to the subgroup of the DSS movement that eventually ended up at Qumran. The Qumran-related community physically remained part of the larger movement despite maintaining their spiritualised views. The community simply can be labelled the Qumran community once it settled at Qumran. Before taking up residence at Qumran, which in view of the archaeological evidence at

51

Refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium.

22

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Qumran was after 100 B.C.E.,52 the Qumran-related community seems to have embraced both a literal and figurative view of sacrifice. This can be attested in the various views on sacrifice as described in the Damascus Document. The Damascus Document makes explicit reference to sacrificial regulations (like in CD 16:13-17a) as well as emphasizing a more figurative view of sacrifice (i.e., that righteous prayer is equivalent to sacrifice noted in CD 11:18c-21a). When the community moved to Qumran, its view of sacrifice became predominantly spiritualised. This is attested in the descriptions of sacrifice in the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium.

D. THE CONTENTS OF THIS STUDY

The material dealt with in this book is arranged in three sections. After exploring the history of scholarship, the first section consists of classical-archaeological material and ancillary information. This material probes the identity and cultic view of both the larger DSS movement and Qumran community. Concerning the second and third sections, similar to the examination of García Martinez’s study on the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls,53 where he argues for the distinctive origins of both the larger Essene movement and the later Qumran community especially in light of the chronological dating of the non-biblical sectarian texts, this work, likewise, orders its material chronologically so as to expose the development of the ideology of sacrifice in the scrolls.

As also maintained by Jodi Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 46-77, archaeological evidence at Qumran attest that the site was inhabited by a group from about 100 B.C.E. to 68 C.E. Despite the position taken by de Vaux in his 1956 report, which changed from his initial claim that the site was occupied around the time of John Hyrcanus, the numismatic evidence, pottery, and sherd artefacts support this contention. de Vaux’s later contention, that the site was inhabited as early as 152 B.C.E., was influenced by his literary interpretation of the Wicked Priest. See Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library, who also takes this position. Concerning de Vaux’s initial contention see “Fouilles Au Khirbet Qumrân,” RB 61 (1954): 206-36 and “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e, et 5e campagnes.” RB 63 (1956): 533-77. 53 Florentino García Martínez, “The Origins,” 77-96. 52

INTRODUCTION

23

Concerning the first section, the classical material examines: •

The identity of the DSS movement through a comparative analysis of the cultic ideology between the scrolls and the Essenes in the classical sources.

The archaeological material also examines: •

•

The identity of certain finds which provides illumination on determining whether the inhabitants at the site offered animal sacrifice. The support structure in linking these inhabitants to a particular group related to the scrolls and the Essenes.54

The ancillary information examines: •

The book of Jubilees. This work is probed to determine its early influence, as an authoritative source, on the ideological views of the movement’s understanding concerning appointed times and regulations pertaining to temple cult practices, priestly authority, and purity concerns.

Material in the second and third sections predominantly consists of primary textual evidence from the scrolls. Demonstrated in these sections is how the various groups within the larger DSS movement interpreted primary material differently from one another. Whereas the sources in the second section describe how the various groups that made up the DSS movement viewed Jerusalem’s temple, temple worship, and priestly authority over time, as well as their response to it, sources in the third section predominantly describe the views of an offshoot group from the larger movement (i.e., the community related to Qumran). In the second section, issues are mainly treated in the textual descriptions of the appointed times and regulations of sacrificial and purity matters. In the third section, issues are mostly treated in the textual descriptions of substitutes for the temple and sacrifice. In general, this work orders the primary texts from both sections according to their compositional dating, from the earliest composed text to the latest. The texts included in the second section are the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT. These texts show (1) the 54

See note 2 above.

24

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

tensions and debates that took place between the larger DSS movement and Jerusalem’s temple authority, and (2) the tensions and resolutions that occurred between the larger DSS movement and the Qumran-related community. Highlighted in this examination is the nature of sacrificial matters, as well as the new spiritualised ideology of the Qumran-related group. Regarding the former, sacrificial regulations are dealt with, along with the significance of appointed times. This section also deals with purity matters concerning the temple authority and worship there. Additionally, this second section examines cultic matters as expressions of a polemic against Jerusalem’s temple establishment based on idealism and eschatology. Material in the third section includes the Rule of the Community, the non-sectarian Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (which is contemporaneous with the sectarian texts of the Qumran stage), and 4QFlorilegium. These texts provide further evidence for the spiritualization of the temple and sacrifice, which ultimately became the predominant view of the Qumran community. Unlike earlier texts, which the community read as polemic in an idealised and eschatological way, according to the Rule of the Community, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, and 4QFlorilegium, the Qumran community (both before and during their Qumran occupation) viewed its study, prayer, praise, and offering of incense as substitutes for actual sacrifice.

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, no extensive research has been done to determine the character and nature of sacrifice. Attempts that have been made to understand sacrifice have not weighed all the pertinent sources and evidence. This has caused some confusion with regard to: 1) Categorically identifying the community or communities related to the scrolls. 2) Understanding the overall view(s) of sacrifice in the scrolls, particularly with regard to determining whether or not there is sacrifice in the scrolls, and if so, what is to be made of it. 3) Fully understanding the literary development of the scrolls and the ideological development which they (the scrolls) convey.

In light of this, understanding a brief history of scholarship on sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls, mainly regarding the principal community or communities linked to the scrolls, is important. Throughout the history of research on the scrolls and the related movement,1 only a handful of scholars have examined sacrifice.

Throughout the history of scholarship, scholars made no distinction between the larger DSS movement and the later Qumran-related community (both before and during its Qumran occupation). Reference to the 1

25

26

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

The order of publication of the manuscripts has affected the debate about sacrifice, as has the archaeological evidence from Khirbet Qumran (the remains of buried animal bones and possible altars in particular), and the classical descriptions from Philo and Josephus. Considering this evidence, the idea of sacrifice can be understood according to three distinct periods: • • •

1947 to 1977 (from the initial discovery of the scrolls and Qumran settlement) 1977 to 1990 (particularly in light of the publication of the Temple Scroll) 1991 to the present (in light of all of the scrolls being made public).

B. 1947-1977 1. Introduction

During the first period of scholarship (1947 to 1977), sacrifice was analysed predominantly in the light of (1) certain sectarian manuscripts from caves 1, 4, and the Cairo Genizah, (2) Philo’s and Josephus’ descriptions of the Essenes, and (3) the Qumran archaeological discovery of animal bones. Scholars were divided over the meaning that these sources gave, however. Based on scholarly interpretation of the sectarian manuscripts, the Cairo Genizah copies of the Damascus Document (CD hereafter),2 and Philo’s and Josephus’ description of the Essenes, scholars asserted that the community or communities linked to the scrolls engaged in a type of sacrifice (either literally or metaphorically) which developed out of the idea that Jerusalem’s temple was impure. Predominantly read in light of Philo’s and Josephus’ descriptions of the Essene view of sacrifice, scholars believed that the idea of the temple as impure thus caused the movement to engage in their own form of sacrifice. Moreover, the

community is assumed by the majority of these scholars to be the Qumran community. Subsequently, this community was also referred to as a sectarian group. 2 This document was analysed in light of the Qumran Damascus manuscripts.

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

27

movement’s supposed view of the temple as impure, as well as their decision to practice other purer ways of sacrificing, was held to be only a temporary idea. In consideration of the War Scroll (1QM hereafter), most scholars during this period viewed Jerusalem’s temple and sacrificial cult as one day being restored. Sacrificial halakha preserved in the sectarian texts was read in this light.3 Regarding Philo’s and Josephus’ descriptions of the Essenes, scholars generally identified the Essenes and the movement linked with the scrolls as related. This was often the case because of their similar sacrificial views.4 Although emphasised explicitly at times, this similarity mainly was assumed. The Essene view of sacrifice (particularly as described in Philo’s Quod Omnis Probus Liber sit 75, and Josephus’ Antiquities 18.19) drove the discussion about the movement’s view of sacrifice, especially whereby certain sectarian texts (like 1QS, 1QM, 1QpHab, CD in light of the 4QD manuscripts,5 and 4QFlorilegium) were interpreted. This trend changed with the publication of the archaeological evidence, whereby this evidence and Philo’s and Josephus’ description of the Essenes drove the discussion. 2. The Seminal Study Concerning the Debate about Sacrifice Joseph Baumgarten

Before the publication of the archaeological discoveries of animal bones at Qumran in 1956, as well as the vast amounts of unpublished manuscripts that referred to sacrifice, Joseph Baumgarten, in his seminal study in 1953, made four insightful and important points concerning the debate about sacrifice, chiefly Scholars only note the descriptions of two temple establishments. Both are subjugated to an eschatological one. The eschatological temple and cult are inferred throughout the sectarian texts. However, even though they are eagerly anticipated, there is no explicit description preserved. See the ensuing chapters which discuss this issue. 4 Concerning this similarity, see the discussion in the chapter on Philo and Josephus. Also see note 2 in the Introduction. 5 Concerning the place of CD in this discussion, see below in this chapter. 3

28

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

regarding the DSS movement. Considering certain sectarian manuscripts from caves 1, 4, CD from the Cairo Genizah, and Philo’s and Josephus’ description of the Essenes, Baumgarten examined:

1) The place of sacrifice in the debate about the movement’s identity 2) The compositional dating for CD 3) The movement’s supposed view of the temple as impure 4) The movement’s understanding of sacred institutions as analogous with animal sacrifice, or viewed as substitutes for animal sacrifice

Concerning his first point, Baumgarten examined the identity of the Dead Sea sectarians and the Essenes: There is evident similarity between the Dead Sea sectarians and the Essenes in their relationship to the Temple. The division from the Sanctuary in both cases involved disagreements over Levitical purity. Both continued to honour the Temple and the priesthood as holy institutions, although they ceased to offer sacrifices. Both had sacred rituals which were at first modelled after and ultimately came to replace the Temple worship.6

Baumgarten’s postulation concerning both groups’ similarities was based on his synthesising analysis of the available scrolls (1QpHab, 1QS and CD in light of the 4QD manuscripts) and the historical accounts of Philo and Josephus regarding their descriptions of the Essene view of the temple and sacrifice. Moreover, Baumgarten suggested that the Qumran sectarians were just one out of several groups of Essenes.7 Baumgarten’s examination was key in identifying the significance of sacrifice in the debate about the movement’s identity. It was one of the major studies to link these ideas. This important See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 157. See J. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 154-7. John Allegro similarly noted this, but, on different grounds; see John M. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1956), 97. Also Cf., Karl G. Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. Krister Stendahl; London: SCM Press, 1958), 65; and Johannes van der Ploeg, “The Meal of the Essenes,” JSS 2 (1957): 166, who hint at this. 6 7

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

29

link subsequently caused scholars to take seriously the issue of sacrifice in the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls. Baumgarten’s second point made three fundamental assertions that influenced all subsequent discussion. Because of the Qumran Damascus finds, the oldest of which is dated to the middle of the first century B.C.E.,8 Baumgarten made the case that CD dated from before the destruction of the temple (in 70 C.E.).9 He thus considered pertinent information about sacrifice found in CD as shedding light on the movement’s view of sacrifice: The finding of the Qumran Scrolls and the demonstration of a definite relationship to CDC (CD) have greatly enriched our knowledge of these Jewish sectarians, and make desirable a re-examination of references to the Temple and sacrifice in CDC. This becomes doubly important when we consider that these references are one of the reasons for dating CDC before the destruction of the Temple.10

Regarding Baumgarten’s third point, based on his use and interpretation of 1QpHab VIII 8-13, 16; IX 4-11; XII 7-9; CD 4:15-18; 5:67; 7:14ff; 6:15-16; 20:21 and 23, particularly considering Josephus’ statement in Ant. 18.19,11 he suggested that the sectarians viewed Jerusalem’s temple and its sacrificial cult as impure. Moreover, considering these texts, particularly Josephus’ statement, “ἐφ᾽αὐτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν,”12 and CD 11:18-21, where prayer was For discussion concerning the dating of CD, see the chapter on the Damascus Document. 9 For details and the significance of this idea, see the chapter on the Damascus Document. 10 See J. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 141. 11 “When they send what they have dedicated to God into the Temple, they do not offer sacrifices, because they profess to have more pure lustrations; therefore, they keep themselves from the public precincts of the Temple, but conduct their worship separately,” (J. Baumgarten’s translation); see “Sacrifice and Worship,” 155. Baumgarten reads οὐκ (favouring the Latin and Epitome) here with this passage. For a thorough discussion of this passage, its translation, interpretation, and significance to the sectarian community, see the chapter on Philo and Josephus. 12 In this phrase, Baumgarten translates θυσίας as worship (in a general sense): “but conduct their worship separately.” See J. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 52. 8

30

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

analogous to sacrifice and preferred to impure sacrifice, as well as references in 1QS, particularly VIII 5-6, 8-9; IX 3-6, 26; and X 6, Baumgarten maintained the view that the temple was impure, thus causing the sectarians to abandon Jerusalem’s temple cult and replacing it with its own form of worship.13 The sectarian community replacing Jerusalem’s temple cult with its own form of worship, leads to Baumgarten’s fourth point. Baumgarten’s translation of Ant. 18.19,14 which he harmonises with references in 1QS (VIII 5-6, 8-9; and IX 6), led him to conclude that preserved sacrificial regulations in CD (9:14; 16:13)15 dated back to a time when the sectarians participated in sacrifice. According to Baumgarten, after the temple and sacrifice had become impure, the community ceased to offer sacrifices, while yet continuing to honour the temple. Moreover, in light of the above 1QS passages, Baumgarten suggests that the defilement of temple worship thus led to the development of sacred institutions which were held to be either analogous with sacrifice, or viewed as substitutes for sacrifice.16 These institutions included the observance See note 7 above. Regarding Ant. 18.19, Baumgarten translates θυσίας, in the first line, as sacrifice, whereas in its second appearance he translates it as worship. Moreover, reading οὐκ with θυσίας in the first line allows Baumgarten to dismiss the idea that the Essenes participated in sacrifice (an idea which he, himself, later challenged). For further discussion regarding the best reading of Ant. 18.19, see the chapter on Philo and Josephus. Also see the Damascus Document chapter and the chapter on the Rule of the Community regarding the best reading of CD 11:18-21 and 1QS VIII 5-6, 8-9; IX 3-6, 26 and X 6, respectively. 14 See note 11 above. 15 For a thorough reading and understanding of these passages, see the chapter on the Damascus Document. 16 The view that the sectarians replaced animal sacrifice with other forms of worship was held by a number of scholars, including André DupontSommer, Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey (trans. E. Margaret Rowley; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952), 89; van der Ploeg, “The Meal of the Essenes,” 170; David Wallace, “The Essenes and Temple Sacrifice,” TZ 13 (1957): 338; Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper,” 65-93; Frederick E. Zeuner, “Notes on Qumran,” PEQ (1960): 28-30; Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins; Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s and Son, 1961), 104-9, and 169; John Pryke, “The Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion in Light of the Ritual 13

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

31

of prayer, offering of the lips, priestly blessings, confessions, the sectarian’s gathering of communal meals, and the general unity of the sectarians as, “an institution of (the) holy spirit . . . to atone for the guilt of transgression and sinful infidelity, and for divine favour to the land more than flesh of burnt offerings and than fats of sacrifice.”17 Here, Baumgarten further notes the preservation of sacrificial halakha (mainly in CD), along with the community’s subsequent ideological position (viewing the temple as impure thus developing sacred institutions which came to replace sacrifice). The former was preserved as eschatologically anticipated, whereas the latter was viewed as a temporary response only until the time of cultic restoration: The sacrificial Halakha, like that of the Talmud, was then preserved in the hope of some day restoring the worship of the Temple to its proper sanctity.18

Baumgarten’s understanding of the sect’s supposed view of Jerusalem’s temple cult being restored had in mind 1QM from an eschatological standpoint. Baumgarten’s work was foundational in that it became the model that set the tone for the discussion about 1) the dating of the Damascus Document as a pre-70 C.E. text,19 2) the place of sacrifice in the debate about the movement’s identity, 3) the supposed sectarian view of the temple as impure,20 and 4) the idea of

Washings and Sacred Meals at Qumran,” RevQ 6 (1964-1965): 547; Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament; A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (SNTSMS 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 13 and Shemaryahu Talmon, “The ‘Manual of Benedictions’ of the Sect of the Judaean Desert,” RevQ 2 (1959-1960): 476. 17 See J. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 154. 18 See J. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 146. 19 See note 8 and 9 above. 20 This point is followed in the arguments of Lawrence H. Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran (SJLA 16; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 78; Louis Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1971), 117, 281 and 384-6; van der Ploeg, “The Meal of the Essenes,” 172 and later, John Nolland, “A Misleading Statement of the Essene Attitude to the Temple,” RevQ 9 (1977-1978): 555-62.

32

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sacred institutions as analogous to sacrifice or serving as substitutes for sacrifice. Related to the last two points was the scholarly view that sacrificial replacements were only temporarily observed, until the restoration of Jerusalem’s temple and sacrificial cult. 3. The Initial Debate about Sacrifice in Light of the Archaeology Roland de Vaux and Others

Scholarly discussion of the place of sacrifice in the debate about the movement’s identity gathered pace from 1956 onwards, especially after the publication of the archaeological remains (particularly the animal bones) by Roland de Vaux.21 In the debate on sacrifice, the identity of the movement as Essene was assumed in most cases, particularly in light of Baumgarten’s seminal study.22 Along with the literary and classical accounts, Qumran’s archaeological remains (the animal bones) also became part of this debate. Moreover, scholars viewed these three sources as collectively portraying the historical development of the movement and its views toward sacrifice. During the first period of scholarship (1947 to 1977), scholars were confused about the nature and purpose of the animal bones. Scholarly debate centred on 1) determining whether these bones were the remains of sacrificial victims, and 2) determining the purpose from which the bones came (i.e., meals; to serve as

See Roland de Vaux, “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e, et 5e campagnes,” RB 63 (1956): 549ff. 22 See the discussions of Cross, The Ancient Library, 37-77; John Strugnell, “Flavius Josephus and the Essenes: Antiquities XVIII.18-22,” JBL 77 (1958): 106-15; Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper,” 65-93; van der Ploeg, “The Meal of the Essenes,” 166-75; and Lloyd Gaston, No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (NovTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 119-76, in comparison with point 1 (above) of Joseph Baumgarten’s seminal study. Cf., Mathias Delcor, “Le Midrash d’Habacuc,” RB 58 (1958): 543 and Godfrey R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and Solution, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 119, who disputed an Essene identity for the DSS movement. 21

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

33

ashes used in the sprinkling of purification rite;23 or possibly coming from a consecration ceremony24). If the bones were from meals, were they of a cultic or non-cultic nature? Scholarship was divided over this issue. Whereas some took all available evidence to assert that the community or communities related to the scrolls participated in animal sacrifice, others took the same evidence to refute this position.25 In his preliminary report on the excavations of the Qumran site, de Vaux noted the remains of animal bones and conjectured about their cultic nature.26 Considering the possibility of them coming from sacrifice, de Vaux later suggested that they were the remains of a religious meal.27 de Vaux, however, dismissed the possibility that these bones were the remains of sacrificial victims, mainly on the grounds that he believed no altar was found at Qumran.28

John Bowman, “Did the Qumran Sect Burn the Red Heifer?” RevQ 1 (1958-1959): 73-84 and Edmund F. Sutcliffe, “Sacred Meals and Qumran?” HeyJ 1 (1960): 48-65, put forth this view. 24 This was the view primarily put forth by Solomon Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis,” RevQ 6 (1967-1969): 56. 25 For a thorough description of these animal bones, as well as an understanding of their nature and purpose, see the chapter on Archaeology. For a survey of this topic, see scholars’ discussion below in this chapter. 26 See de Vaux, “Fouilles,” 549-50. 27 See de Vaux, Archaeology, 14. 28 This was the majority view among scholars during this first period. See Bowman, “Red Heifer?” 82; William S. Lasor, Amazing Dead Sea Scrolls (Chicago: Moody Press, 1956), 125; Jósef T. Milik, Ten Years, 105 note 2; Roland de Vaux in Mathias Delcor’s, “Le Temple d’Onias en Égypte: Reéxamen d’un vieux problèm,” RB 75 (1968): 204-5 (Post-Scriptum) and de Vaux, Archaeology, 15-6, for instance, who explicitly noted that no altar was found at Qumran. Also see the chapter on Archaeology in this work for a full description of de Vaux’s possible cultic finds at Khirbet Qumran. 23

34

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

A number of scholars suggested that the bones came from some kind of meal.29 Furthermore, it was asserted that these meal bones represented a type of substitute for animal sacrifice.30 Alternative Views

Despite the contentions and archaeological insight of de Vaux, others took the animal bones to be the meal remains of actual animal sacrifice.31Allegro’s view, that the community temporarily offered sacrifice at Qumran, seems to have had in mind 1QM See van der Ploeg, “The Meal of the Essenes,”163-75; Zeuner, “Notes on Qumran,” 28-30; Sutcliffe, “Sacred Meals?” 48-65 and Roger T. Beckwith, “Qumran Calendar and Sacrifices of the Essenes,” RevQ 28 (1971): 588. Also cf., Gärtner, The Temple, 13, who, although asserting that the sect’s meals were cultic substitutes for sacrifice, noted that he was unsure about the nature of the bone remains, and the purpose from which they came. 30 Without making mention of the animal bones, certain scholars asserted that the meals at Qumran were cultic, which served as substitutes for sacrifice. See Mathias Delcor, “Repas cultuels éssenies et thérapeutes thiases et habouroth,” RevQ 6 (1967-1969): 403-8; Baruch M. Bosker, “Philo’s Description of Jewish Practices,” in Protocol of the Thirtieth Colloquy: 5 June 1977 (Berkely: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1977), 1-27; Yiagel Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 200; Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper,” 65-93; Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 10415; and Pryke, “The Sacraments,” 547. Other scholars, however, asserted that Qumran’s meals were non-cultic. See Sutcliffe, “Sacred Meals?” 4865, and later during the second period, Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Communal Meals at Qumran,” RevQ 10 (1979-1981): 45-56. Black and Gärtner (mentioned in note 16 above) suggested that the New Jerusalem text inferred the community’s expectation of this cultic meal in the perfected future temple. However, only Gärtner describes this perfected temple as a heavenly temple (see Gärtner, The Temple, 11). Jack McKelvey considered a possible connection between the heavenly temple, described in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, and the temple described in the New Jerusalem text. However, he, like Black, viewed the latter text as most likely referring to the restored temple of Jerusalem. See R. J. (Jack) McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 37. 31 See Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 98 and Cross, The Ancient Library, 51 and 74-7. Allegro, who is followed by Cross, conjectures that Qumran was established as a cultic site for sacrifice. However, no detail regarding the disposition of space for the site is given. 29

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

35

(particularly from an eschatological standpoint, where Jerusalem’s temple cult would be restored after the final battle would be won), as well as CD 3:18-4:4. Allegro, David Flusser, Yigael Yadin and others understand 4QFlorilegium (4Q174 hereafter) as describing a literal temple where actual sacrifices are made.32 The above scholarship regrettably reads into the literature their interpretations of the archaeological finds. Similarly, Cross follows this pattern.33 He, too, believed the animal bones to be evidence of a sacrificing community.34 Moreover, Cross (following Allegro) also believed these offerings to have taken place at Qumran temporarily, particularly on the basis of viewing Jerusalem’s temple as impure.35 Cross both reads and harmonises the sectarian texts (1QM II:1-6, from an eschatological standpoint, and CD 3:18-4:4, in light of the 4QD texts) in light of both his interpretation of Josephus’ description of the Essene view of sacrifice,36 and the archaeological remains, particularly the animal See Yigael Yadin, “A Midrash on 2 Sam. Vii and Ps. 1-11 (4Q Florilegium),” IEJ 9 (1959): 95-6 and David Flusser, “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. vii,” IEJ 9 (1959): 99-109. The understanding of ‫ מקדש אדם‬as a literal temple is also later asserted in the first period of scholarship by McKelvey, The New Temple, 46-53; Georg Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde un im Neuen Testament (SUNT 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1971), 83; and Allan J. McNicol, “The Eschatological Temple in the Qumran Pesher 4QFlorilegium 1:1-7,” OJTS 5 (1977): 139. This view is against others during this period, particularly Bertil Gärtner (see discussion around note 56 below). A thorough understanding of ‫ מקדש אדם‬is given in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. Also see See John M. Allegro, “Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrāšîm,” JBL 77 (1958): 352. Also cf., Klinzing, Die Umdeutung, 83. Allegro translates ‫ מקדש אדם‬as ‘a man-made sanctuary. Yadin and Flusser translate the phrase as ‘a sanctuary amongst men.’ For a correct reading of this phrase, as well as an overall understanding of this passage and its context (4Q174 1 i 21 2:1-7) see the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 33 For an understanding of CD 3:18-4:4 in its own context, see the chapter on the Damascus Document. 34 See note 35 for Cross’ reference. 35 See Cross, The Ancient Library, 75. 36 Against Baumgarten’s reading of Josephus’ Ant. 18.19 (where he understands θυσίας in the first and second instance as sacrifice and worship, respectively), Cross understands the term θυσίας (in both instances) as meaning sacrifice; see Cross, The Ancient Library, 76 note 120. Also cf., 32

36

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

bones. Others during this first period similarly follow this interpretive pattern.37 In addition to the forced interpretive readings, scholarship during this period argues for a supposed altar found at Qumran38 and a temple structure.39 de Vaux who is followed by Beckwith, however, rightly dismissed this claim based on 1) there being no burn or charring marks on the stone object, and 2) inaccurate dimensional temple comparisons with biblical descriptions and the Jewish temple of the Onias found in Egypt.40 Claim of an altar and temple at Qumran was largely ignored by scholarship until

notes 12 and 13 above. For a thorough understanding this term and the context which it appears, see chapter on Philo and Josephus. 37 See Strugnell, “Flavius Josephus,” 113; Louis Feldman’s comments in his translation of Ant. 18.19, p. 17 note ‘a’ in Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, Books 18-20 (trans. Louis Feldman vol. 9. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965); Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 55-69 (particularly 60, 62, and 65-6) and Gaston, No Stone, 124. At the same time, Gaston, No Stone, 129 and 136-7, also viewed the community as developing substitutes for sacrifice. J. Kaplan is similarly noted (by de Vaux, in his Archaeology, 14-5) as postulating these deposits as being the remains of sacrifices, particularly of first-born animals. These scholars likewise (in contrast to J. Baumgarten) understood both instances of θυσίας as sacrifice. Moreover (also against J. Baumgarten), these scholars viewed sacrificial halakha in the scrolls (CD 9:14; 16:13), as well as the animal bones, as evidence of a sacrificing community. 38 See Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 55-69 and Cross, The Ancient Library, 76 note 122. 39 See Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 56-60. Cf., Otto Betz, “Le ministère cultuel dans la secte de Qumrân et dans le christianisme primitif,” in La secte de Qumrân et les origines du Christianisme (ed. Johannes van der Ploeg et al.; RechBib 4; Bruges, 1959), 184ff, who similarly compares the measurements of the hall at locus 77 with certain temple dimensions. See the chapter on Archaeology for a thorough examination of this site. 40 See de Vaux’s refutation of Steckoll’s assertions in Delcor, “Le Temple,” 204-5 (Post-Scriptum). For Roger T. Beckwith, see his “Qumran Calendar,” 588-9. Also see the Archaeology chapter, which examines this supposed altar.

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

37

the 1990s when the idea of the refectory serving as a temple was revisited by Humbert,41 and Magness.42 Joseph Baumgarten: A Reappraisal

In 1977, Baumgarten offered a reappraisal of his earlier (1953) examination of sacrifice, particularly in light of the animal bones which caused him to consider the reading of Ant. 18.19 without οὐκ (which favours the MSS reading), and stressing θυσίας in both instances of this passage as sacrifice.43 In light of biblical and tannaitic sources,44 Baumgarten postulated that the bones maintained a purity status only for a limited time.45 Moreover, following the contention of de Vaux, Baumgarten (against Steckoll and others)46 maintained that no altar was found at Qumran, thus no animals were sacrificed there.47 However, Baumgarten, in light of Jean-Baptiste Humbert, “L’ éspace sacré à Qumran: Propositions pour l’archéologie,” RB 101-102 (1994): 161-214 (discussed below in this chapter). Also see the Archaeology chapter. 42 Jodi Magness, “Communal Meals and Sacred Space at Qumran,” in Shaping Community: The Art and Archaeology of Monasticism, Papers from a Symposium Held at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum, University of Minnesota, March 10-12, 2000 (ed. Sheila McNally; BARInt 941; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2001), 15-28 and The Archaeology, 113-33 (discussed below in this chapter). Also cf. Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered at Qumran,” JAJ 7 (2016): 5-34; See the Archaeology chapter concerning this overall debate. 43 This represents a shift from his previous reading of Ant. 18.19, which favoured οὐκ (featured in the Latin and Epitome) and viewed the second occurrence of θυσίας as meaning general worship. Taking the phrase (θυσίας) as sacrifice causes Baumgarten to view εἰργόµενοι in a different light. Stressing this verb as a passive participle, he considers the community to have had control of its own actions about offering in the temple. For an examination of the linguistic possibilities of Ant 18.19, see the chapter on Philo and Josephus. 44 See Joseph M. Baumgarten’s list of biblical and tannaitic references in his, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 59-60. 45 See J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 60. For a fuller discussion of Baumgarten’s analysis of the animal bones, see the chapter on Archaeology. 46 See Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 55-69. 47 See de Vaux in Delcor’s, “Le Temple,” 204-5. Also see de Vaux, Archaeology, 15-6. Also cf., note 28- 30 above. Also see the Archaeology chapter, 41

38

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the animal bones, regrettably offered an alternative supposition to his earlier views, mainly regarding his postulation about sacred institutions as analogous to sacrifice, or serving as substitutes for sacrifice. Allowing Allegro’s and Cross’ interpretation of the animal bones now to drive the discussion, Baumgarten considered the views of Strugnell (followed by Feldman and others): that archaeological evidence (the animal bones) supported the premise of the sectarians offering animal sacrifice at some sectarian altar. This further supported the reading of Ant. 18.19 ‘without οὐκ.’ Because of this consideration, Baumgarten explored the possibility of the sectarians offering sacrifice. This view thus dismissed his points 3 and 4 in his seminal study which described the community as viewing Jerusalem’s temple as impure, thus creating the need for establishing other purer ways of offering.48 Whereas claims arguing that sacrifice was offered at some sectarian altar (mainly implying at Qumran), Baumgarten conjectured that sacrifice was made at the temple in Jerusalem.49 Suggesting that εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήµατα στέλλοντες was directly linked to ἐφ᾽αὐτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν in Ant. 18.19, Baumgarten postulated that the Essenes offered sacrifice in the place where the ἀναθήµατα was sent (in Jerusalem). According to him, the sectarians possibly offered sacrifice by themselves at the temple in Jerusalem in light of Jerusalem’s quest for universality during certain cultic festivals.50 In view of rabbinic sources, Baumgarten postulated that on the basis of priestly laxity in the temple, the sectarians with their heterogeneous level of purity possibly were allowed to perform sacrifice, ἐπιτελοῦσιν. With regard to the type of sacrifice offered by the sectarians, Baumgarten suggested that due to a difference in the sect’s calendar (with that of Jerusalem’s calendar, especially in light of 1QpHab), “the θυσίας to which Josephus refers, were most likely individual and voluntary sacrifices which, like the votive gifts, particularly regarding discussion over whether an altar was found at Qumran. 48 See Baumgarten’s point 3 and 4 above. 49 Also see Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 40. 50 J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 64.

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

39

had no fixed time.”51 Concerning temple references and preserved sacrificial halakha in the sectarian texts (mainly in CD and 1QM), Baumgarten changed his above view (from his seminal study) noting that on the basis of the reading of the manuscripts of Ant. 18.19, factors had now allowed the sect to offer sacrifices at Jerusalem.52 Baumgarten maintains this view as possible background for sacrificial laws in CD.53 Moreover, he further suggests that evidence supporting substitutes for sacrifice applies only in the case where there is tainted sacrifice. “It does not exclude sacrifices brought with due regard for the laws of ritual purity. Such, we may presume, were offered by the sect in Jerusalem.”54 Surprisingly, Baumgarten’s study makes no reference to 4Q174. Baumgarten’s reappraisal regrettably diminishes points 3 and 4 of his seminal study. Point 3, which substantiates the need of the community to view itself as a sanctuary which makes spiritual sacrifice is seriously compromised. Moreover, Baumgarten’s postulation that the sect now offered sacrifices diminishes the idea (his point 4) that the sect needed to offer alternatives for sacrifice. Although Baumgarten abandons the view that the sect had developed a predominantly spiritualised understanding of sacrifice and itself, others (described below in all three periods) continued to build on these points. 4. The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Initial Debate about Sacrifice Bertil Gärtner, R. J. McKelvey, and Others

Also key in the debate on sacrifice during the first period of scholarship was the idea of the community as temple which made J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 65. Rather than reading θυσίας as ‘worship,’ as he did before in his initial study, Baumgarten, like Cross and others discussed above, now viewed this term (in both appearances in Ant. 18.19) as ‘sacrifice.’ For a discussion of the characteristics and meaning of θυσίας in Ant 18.19, see the chapter on the Philo and Josephus. 52 J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 68. 53 See J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 68-71. 54 J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 68. 51

40

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

spiritualised sacrifice. This idea which builds on Baumgarten’s seminal study (particularly points 3 and 4) was put forth in 1957 by Wernberg-Møller. He alluded to the idea of the community as temple in his examination of the Manual of Discipline.55 In 1965, Bertil Gärtner fully elaborated on this idea. Unlike other scholars of this period,56 Gärtner, who is later followed by others,57 noted that certain sectarian texts58 likened the sectarian community to a temple which made spiritual sacrifice. Moreover, this idea was linked to the view of the community as temple wherein the community was in unity and in fellowship with angels (either in the earthly or heavenly temple), most notably as described in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; 1QS II 7; VIII 8; X 7; XI 7; 1QSa II 8; 1QSb IV 25; 1QM XII 1; 4Q174 1 i 21 2:4; and 1QH III 21; IV 21-24, and VI 12-13.59

See P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1. Leiden: Brill, 1957), 93-4, 127 and 132-3, 1957, where he comments on certain 1QS passages, particularly V 5-6; VIII 4-10 and IX 3-6, respectively. 56 Including Cross, Allegro, Flusser, Strugnell, Steckoll, Feldman, and others, who suggested that temple references referred solely to a literal temple, especially regarding sacrificing. See argument above between notes 35-53. 57 See McKelvey, The New Temple, 46-53; Gaston, No Stone, 129 and 1367; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Exculsion of ‘Netinim’ and Proselytes in 4Q Florilegium,” RevQ 8 (1972): 94-6; repr. in Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 82-6 (this study refers to the reprint), and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Cultic Language in Qumran and in the New Testament,” CBQ 38 (1976): 159-77. Baumgarten’s argument is directly aganist Yadin and Flusser, particularly their view of the meaning of ‫ מקדש אדם‬in 4QFlorilegium. Baumgarten put forth his ideas in 1972, before his reappraisal. Gaston also viewed the community as offering sacrifice in their own community. See discussion above. 58 In particular, see 1QS V 5-6; VIII 4-10; IX 3-6; XI 8; CD 3:19ff; 4Q174, particularly 1 i 21 2:1-7; 4QpIsad 1; and 1QpHab XII 1ff. Although McKelvey maintains that the community viewed itself as temple, he views 4QFlorilegium 1 i 21 2:1-7 as denoting a material temple of Jerusalem of the end-time. See McKelvey, The New Temple, 51, where he basis his contention on two points. Also see Klinzing, Die Umdeutung, 82-3, who holds a similar view. 59 See Gärtner, The Temple, 32, and 94-7, and McKelvey, The New Temple, 36-8. Gärtner and McKelvey examined these ideas along with the 55

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

41

In the sectarian texts, Gärtner noted several phrases (as referring to the temple) which were applied to the sect: house of truth;60 foundation of truth;61 a sanctuary in Aaron; holy place; holy of holies; house of community (‫ ;)בית יחד‬a firmly established house (‫ ;)בית נאמן‬and ‫מקדש אדם‬, which was described as an eschatological temple reference meaning ‘temple of men’ or ‘temple consisting of men’.62 Because of disputes concerning certain cultic and purity laws, the sectarian community transferred the ideas of Jerusalem’s temple and sacrificial cult to itself.63 Gärtner termed this idea ‘spiritualization:’ For the community did not consider itself to have broken with the temple and the cultus in all its forms; instead they transferred the whole complex of ideas from the Jerusalem temple to the community. This undoubtedly meant that some measure of ‘spiritualization’ had taken place, since the idea of the temple was now linked with the community, and since the temple worship was now performed through the community’s

spiritualised view of the temple and sacrifice as background for understanding the temple and sacrifice in the New Testament. 60 Following Yves M. Congar, Le mystere du temple: ou, L’économie de la présence de Dieu à sa créature de la Genèse à l’Apocalypse (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf 1958), 44 and 190, Gärtner cites the term house as a reference to the temple, similar to its use in the Old Testament. See Gärtner, The Temple, 21. 61 Gärtner notes the Rabbis’ understanding of the term foundation as ‘foundation of the law,’ or ‘foundation of the altar,’ which is the basis of the temple. See Gärtner, The Temple, 24. 62 See Gärtner, The Temple, 21-35. Cf., McKelvey, The New Temple, 36-8, who in light of the preliminary publication of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice describes the eschatological temple as both the new temple and the heavenly temple for the new age. Cf., Allegro’s, Yadin’s, and Flusser’s translation of ‫מקדש אדם‬, as well as McNicol, “Eschatological Temple,” 133-41, who all describe this phase (the eschatological temple of 4Q174) as referring to a literal temple. For a thorough understanding of this phrase, see the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 63 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Cultic Language,” 159-77. This view is also asserted later, during the second period of scholarship, by Robert Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration,” JJS 33 (1982): 442.

42

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION observance of the Law and through its own liturgy and cultus.64

Like Baumgarten (in his seminal study) and others,65 Gärtner similarly suggested that the sectarian community established other purer ways of offering sacrifice, which Gärtner described as spiritual. Gärtner stressed this view because he, like Baumgarten,66 rightly understood the community as viewing Jerusalem’s temple and sacrifice as impure. He examined this idea in consideration of the available sectarian texts,67 and against the backdrop of the community’s priestly nature which he compared to the priestly office of those in Jerusalem.68 Like the majority of scholars during this period, and on the basis of the biblical traditions of Ezekiel and Haggai, as well as the traditions behind 2 Maccabees (2:4ff), 1 Enoch (90:28f), and Jubilees (1:28f), Gärtner, followed by McKelvey, also stressed that substitution for the temple and sacrifice was merely viewed as temporary, until the restoration of Jerusalem’s temple and sacrificial cult.69 Gärtner described the community’s reason for upholding cultic regulations as a fulfilment of the law, which was essential for 1) upholding purity, and 2) maintaining the presence of God within the community.70 With regard to the type of replacement sacrifices offered, Gärtner contended that the community found substitutes in itself as the temple,71 and its worship as its sacrifices: Gärtner, The Temple, 18. Including McKelvey, The New Temple, 46-7. 66 See his seminal study, particularly his point 3 described above. 67 In particular, 1QpHab IX 4f; XI 12ff; XII 9; CD 4:18ff; 5:6f; 6:12f; 11:19f, 1QS and 1QSa. 68 See Gärtner, The Temple, 4-16. 69 See Gärtner, The Temple, 16-7 and McKelvey, The New Temple, 53. 70 McKelvey even went as far as to suggest that the spiritualization of the cult was due, in part, to the transformation of Israelite religion into a religion of the law. He even suggests that the founding of the sectarian community was entirely bound up with the belief that atonement for sin was achieved through the law without any reference to the temple of Jerusalem. He cites 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6-7 and 1QS IX 3-5 as evidence of this idea. See McKelvey, The New Temple, 44-5. 71 Also referred to as house. 64 65

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

43

But when the cultus of the Jerusalem temple could no longer be accepted, a substitute was found in the community itself the temple, its worship, ‘aboda and its sacrifices were made to apply to the community per se, its obedience to the Law and its liturgy.72

Gärtner described preserved sacrificial halakha in the sectarian texts (namely, CD 16:13; 1QS IX 4f; 1QM II 5-6) as referring to the future, during the time of restoration. Moreover, in light of cultic references in 1QS VIII 9; IX 3ff; 4Q174 1:6-7; CD 6:20 and 11:20ff, the community made spiritualised sacrifice which included ‘their life in perfect obedience to the law; their general unity or assembly; their offering of the lips (praise); their perfect way of life; their prayers; and their sacrifices offered through the works of the law.’73 According to the sectarian texts (noted above), these spiritualised sacrifices 1) represented the legitimate sacrifice offered in the eschatological temple, 2) made atonement for sin and the land, 3) were viewed as symbolically bringing forth the sweet smell of sacrifice in a house of justice and truth in Israel, and 4) were likened to free-will offerings pleasing to God.74

C. 1977 TO 1991 1. Introduction

From 1977 to 1991, scholarly debate on sacrifice was examined in light of two new publications, the Temple Scroll and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.75 The Temple Scroll became part of the debate in 1977, at the time of its initial publication.76 The debate on Gärtner, The Temple, 20. See Gärtner, The Temple, 44-6. 74 See note 29-30 above where meals are described as a type of substitute for sacrifice. Also see Lloyd Gaston’s description of the sect’s substitutes for sacrifice in Gaston, No Stone, 136-7. 75 Although parts of this work were made known before the second period of scholarship, all extant manuscripts were published in 1985. See note 78 below in this chapter. 76 See Yigael Yadin, ‫( מגילת חמקדש‬3 vol.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977); The Temple Scroll (3 vol.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983). Yadin’s English translation is based on his Hebrew original. I refer to the English edition throughout this study. 72 73

44

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sacrifice was refocused in light of the Temple Scroll. Whereas scholarship in the first period used literary, classical, and archaeological evidence77 both to support and dismiss the notion of the sectarian community repudiating the temple and sacrificial practices, scholarship in this second period argued that the community plainly revered both the temple and sacrifice. Scholarship thus began to define the sacrificial ideology of the sectarian texts and its community via the Temple Scroll, which refocused how all available textual evidence that referred to sacrifice was scrutinized. In 1985, all the extant manuscripts of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice became part of the discussion. Published in full by Carol Newsom,78 this work provided a description of the heavenly temple and its sacrificial cult which was widely discussed by scholars. Scholarship thus analysed sacrifice based on the possible sectarian status of both the Temple Scroll and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Regarding the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, despite debate about its provenance,79 scholars harmonised the cultic ideology of this work with explicit sectarian texts. Scholarship thus 1) debated over whether this work’s temple and worship was viewed by the community as being synonymous with the eschatological temple and worship of the end of days (as described in certain During the second period of scholarship, discussion about the archaeological discoveries (particularly the animal bones and the supposed altar) dropped out of the debate on sacrifice. 78 Carol Newsom made available all known manuscripts of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. See Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Before Newsom’s publication, preliminary reports were published by John Strugnell, “The Angelic liturgy at Qumran-4Q Serek Sirot Olat Ha Sabbat,” in Congress Volume, Oxford, 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 318-45; Yigael Yadin, “The Excavation at Masada: 1963/64 Preliminary Report,” IEJ 15 (1965): 105-8 and Adam Simon van der Woude “Fragments einer Rolle der Lieder fur das Sabbatopfer aus Hohle XI von Qumran [11QSirSabb],” in Von Kanaan dis Kerala (eds. W. C. Delsman et al.; AOAS 211, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982), 311-37. 79 For discussion regarding the provenance of this work, see the chapter on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. 77

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

45

sectarian texts),80 and 2) as in the first period of scholarship, continued to explore the possible connections between the worship ideology of the sect and the heavenly temple, its worship, and the angelic beings.81 2. The Debate about Sacrifice: From 1977 to 1991

With the publication of the Temple Scroll and all extant manuscripts of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, scholars during the second period debated over the number and nature of the temples (with their respective cult(s) referred to in sectarian literature). Yigael Yadin

Yadin, who examined the entire content of the Temple Scroll, concluded that the work included the description of two temples (a temple which Israel was supposed to build, and the temple which God was to construct), literal sacrifices, and sacrificial regulations. Moreover, Yadin (against Newsom)82 viewed both the Temple Scroll and 4Q174 as referring to the heavenly temple of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Yadin conjectured that the heavenly temple was synonymous with the eschatological temple, and that its (the heavenly temple’s) worship (the offering and sacrifice described in the content of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) took place here: Apparently the phrase ‫ – מקדש אדם‬a terrestrial Temple – was required by the author of the pesher to distinguish between the Temple to be created by the Lord and the other Temple created by Him, namely, the celestial one.83 Cf. the descriptions of the temple(s) and sacrifice in both the Temple Scroll and 4Q174 in this chapter below. 81 See the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice chapter for a full examination of this idea. 82 Newsom maintained that although the Temple Scroll described the model of a divinely instituted temple, this temple, however, should not be viewed as correlating with the heavenly temple and its angelic priesthood. See Newsom, Songs, 60. 83 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.187-8 note 13. Also see his The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985), 113-4. 80

46

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Yadin’s overall examination of the Temple Scroll advanced three ideas regarding the debate about sacrifice: 1) That the Temple Scroll’s description of sacrifice and sacrificial regulations harmonised with sectarian texts, therefore being key in contributing to the debate about the community’s identity 2) That the Temple Scroll shows that the sect had a favourable attitude toward the temple and sacrifice in principle 3) That there is evidence in the scroll that supports the idea of substitutes for sacrifice.

Concerning points 1 and 2, Yadin stressed that the Temple Scroll sheds further light on the understanding of Josephus’ Ant. 18.19, particularly the overall understanding of the Essenes’ view of sacrifice. Concerning points 2 and 3, Yadin contends the Temple Scroll shows evidence of a favourable attitude toward the temple and actual animal sacrifice, as well as support for the idea of substitutes for sacrifice. Based on this, the Temple Scroll appears to shed light on the possible developing cultic ideology of the sectarian community. Here, the Temple Scroll also sheds light for understanding a similar two-fold view of sacrifice as seen in the Damascus Document.84 Point 1: The Place of Sacrifice in the Debate about the Sect’s Identity

Based on the description of sacrifice and sacrificial regulations in the Temple Scroll, Yadin (building on Baumgarten’s first point in his initial study)85 asserted a certain identity for the community associated with the Temple Scroll. Whereas most scholars claimed that the scroll’s sacrificial references assumed an Essene character (particularly based on point 1 of Baumgarten’s seminal study), others maintained they were, as Judith Wentling states, “much closer to the halakha of the Pharisees and the later tannaim.”86 See below (in this chapter) where this idea is further discussed. See above discussion. 86 See Judith L. Wentling, “Unravelling the Relationship Between 11QT, The Eschatological Temple and the Qumran Community,” RevQ 14 (1989-1990): 64, who identifies Lawrence Schiffman as taking this 84 85

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

47

Concurring with the majority of scholars in the first period, Yadin (followed by Milgrom and others)87 assumed that the community was Essene due to the correlation between certain laws in the Temple Scroll with references in Josephus’ writings about the Essenes.88 Unlike Yadin, as well as the majority of scholars in the first period who harmonised CD with other sectarian texts and Josephus’ and Philo’s description of the Essenes, Davies argues against identifying the sect of CD (which he also viewed as behind the tradition of the Temple Scroll) with the Essenes or the Qumran community. He does this based on viewing CD as confirming that temple worship, indeed, took place (similar to what the Temple Scroll illustrates), which he considers as juxtaposing the cultic ideology of the Qumran community and the Essenes.89 position in Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll in its Literary and Philological Perspective,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism (ed. William S. Green; vol. 2; BJS 9; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 154. Also see his discussion in “Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 14 (1989-1990): 435-57. Similarly, also see Baruch A. Levine, “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 5-23. Later, in his discussion of MMT, Schiffman goes on further to say that the text was Sadducean. See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BA 53 (1990): 64-73. 87 See Jacob Milgrom, “The Temple Scroll,” BA 41 (1978): 119-20. Also cf., Ben-Zion Wacholder, Redefining Qumran: New Paradigms and New Paradoxes, (unpublished) and Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 4, who both suggest a pre-Essene/Qumran provenance. 88 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.301-4, 398-9, for a list of references. Also see his discussion on this subject in Yadin, Hidden Law, 232-6, as well as similar citations in Milgrom’s, The Temple Scroll, 110-20 and BenZion Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher or Righteousness, (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), 33-98. 89 See Philip R. Davies, “The Ideology of the Temple in the Damascus Document,” JJS 33 (1982): 287-8 and 91-2. Also see Philip R. Davies, Behind the Essenes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 29-30. Davies’ perspective fails to take into consideration both the ideological and textual development of a DSS movement and non-biblical sectarian DSS textual corpus, respectively. Also cf. Levine, “The Temple Scroll,” 12, who

48

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION Point 2: The Sect’s Attitude toward Sacrifice in Light of the Temple Scroll

According to Yadin, temple and sacrificial references in the Temple Scroll attest to the community’s acceptance of sacrifice in principle. Yadin harmonises this view with Ant. 18.19, which he interprets as saying that the Essenes were not opposed to the temple or sacrifice: It is clear from either version that they (the Essenes) did not object to sacrifices. For even in the version which records that they did not offer sacrifices in the Temple, it is evident that this was not because they were opposed to sacrifices in principle but only because they practised different ‘rites of purity.’ This is very similar to what may be deduced from the Temple Scroll.90

Yadin unfortunately gives no detail as to the character of Essene sacrifice.91 Yet he does describe 1QM as shedding light on the sect’s understanding of sacrifice: Even before the discovery of the Temple Scroll, it was evident from the scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness that the sect was not in principle opposed to sacrifices.92

Also, because of 1QM, Yadin (like Gärtner, McKelvey, Gaston, Baumgarten and Schüssler Fiorenza)93 described the sect as an interim temple which made substitutes for sacrifice. On the basis of similarly challenges the provenance of the Temple Scroll, CD, and Jubilees, considering them all to have the same background. See note 86 above regarding the provenance of the Temple Scroll. Concerning the provenance of CD and Jubilees, see their respective chapters in this book. 90 See Yadin, Hidden Law, 234. Also see Todd S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, (SNTSMS 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 117-9, who arrives at the same conclusion. 91 Unfortunately, Yadin makes no reference at all to the animal bones found at Qumran. See the Archaeology chapter in this study for a description of these bones. 92 See Yadin, Hidden Law, 234. 93 This view is against McNicol. See above discussion. For Baumgarten, see note 57 above.

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

49

1QM, and reinforced by the Temple Scroll, Yadin described the sect as supposedly preparing itself to restore the temple and sacrificial cult in the last days after the final battle.94 In the interim, however, Yadin contended that in view of 1QS, CD, and 1QH,95 the sect understood itself as a Temple, where its prayer and ad hoc theology and worship was viewed as a substitute for sacrifice.96 This spiritualised view, as seen in the Temple Scroll’s overt temple and sacrificial references, seems to signify that the sectarian community had a developing cultic ideology.97 This idea is poignantly illustrated in the argument of Hermann Lichtenberger (followed by Wyane McCready),98 which will be discussed later.

See Yadin, Hidden Law, 234-5, and 252-3. See Yadin, Hidden Law, 249-50 and 53, where he loosely references these scroll passages. Cf., Beall, Josephus,” 115- 7, who, against Yadin, translates these passages (particularly 1QS IX 3-5; CD 3:18-4:4, 6:11-14, and 11:17-22) as supporting the view that community offered sacrifice. 96 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll 1.311 and 402. As expressed in an earlier view, Yadin also appears to view the sect’s meals as substitutes for sacrifice (see note 29-30 above). Yadin insightfully notes certain sectarian texts as referring to the community as temple. However, he surprisingly makes no mention of 4Q174 here. Instead, he (like Allegro, Flusser, McKelvey, McNicol and Klinzing in the first period of scholarship) describes the reference in 4Q174 (‫ )מקדש אדם‬as a reference to a physical temple; see Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.186-7 and in particular note 13. See Yadin’s translation of this phrase in 4Q174 in his “A Midrash,” 95-6. Also see this discussion below. For a thorough reading of this phrase see the chapter on 4QFlorilegum. 97 See the various textual chapters in this study, which identifies the particular stage at which the text and its sacrificial ideology was in force. 98 Taking the Temple Scroll to be a sectarian text, Wayne O. McCready probes the various views of the sect (expressed throughout sectarian writings) particularly regarding the temple and sacrifice. Like Hermann Lichtenberger (below), he describes this evidence as demonstrating the various historical stages in the sect’s development. See Wayne O. McCready, “The Sectarian Status of Qumran: The Temple Scroll,” RevQ 11 (1982-1984): 183-91 and Hermann Lichtenberger, “Atonement and Sacrifice in the Qumran Community,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism (ed. William Scott Green; vol. 2; BJS 9; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 15971. 94 95

50

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION Point 3: Evidence for the Idea of Substitute for Sacrifice in the Temple Scroll

According to Yadin, the Temple Scroll gives support for the idea of substitutes for sacrifice. Yadin notes that the Temple Scroll (specifically 11Q19 XIX 14-16 and XXI 6-10) describes the use of wine in the first fruit festival, where the term ‫( תירוש‬used in the scroll as an accompanying sacrifice in the temple) is given. Yadin describes this term as shedding light on its usage in 1QM II 1-6; CD 14:3-4; 1QS VI 4-5 and 1QSa II 17-22, during the covenant ceremony. Based on the use of this term in the temple cult, Yadin conjectures that the sect used this term in reference to a ritual meal, which became a substitute for sacrifice to the sectarians.99 Moreover, Yadin notes that column XLVII 17 of the Temple Scroll supposedly supports the view of the sect holding its meals as substitutes for sacrifice. He bases this on the supposed correlation between the terms ‫( טהרת חמקדש‬purity of the temple), as found in 11Q19 XLVII 17, and ‫( טהרת חרבים‬the pure meal), as found in 1QS V 13 and elsewhere, and CD 9:21.100 3. The Debate about Sacrifice in Light of the Archaeology: From 1977 to 1991

From 1977 to 1991, scant attention was given to Qumran’s archaeological evidence. Brief discussion was given to the characteristics of the animal bones and the possible altar, where many restated earlier arguments. Maintaining that no sacrifice took place at Qumran, Schiffman (building on the arguments of van der Ploeg, Sutcliffe and others in the first period) suggested that the animal bones were the remains of food only. Moreover, he described the meals as messianic. Unlike Beall who was confused about the nature of the animal bones,101 Schiffman contended that

See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.108-11 and 140-2. See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.311. 101 See Beall, Josephus, 63-4 and 118-9. Beall maintains that both the sectarian texts and the classical descriptions (Philo and Josephus) support the idea that the community offered sacrifice. Yet, he is unsure where. 99

100

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

51

they were neither from sacrifice nor represented substitutes for sacrifice.102 With regard to an altar, although asserting that sacrifice, indeed, took place among the community, Beall (against Steckoll) dismissed claims that an altar was found at Qumran. Like de Vaux and Beckwith in the first period of scholarship, Beall described a supposed altar as (1) dimensionally too small for group worship, and (2) showing no evidence of being affected by fire.103 4. The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Debate about Sacrifice: From 1977 to 1991

In light of the publication of the Temple Scroll, certain texts that suggested that the sectarian community was likened to a sanctuary (like the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium) were brought into sharper focus. This seems to have been the case most notably in view of the Temple Scroll’s description of two temples. Although this two-temple theory has been disputed (particularly by Wentling, and Wacholder, who is followed by Callaway and others),104 the majority of scholars during the second period of scholarship seem to have accepted this view.105 The overall understanding of the sect’s temples (and respective worship) has been based primarily on Yadin’s interpretation of two phrases, ‫( אחרית חימים‬in 4Q174 1 i 21 2) and ‫( יום הבריה‬in 11Q19 XXIX 9). As discussed below, Yadin, followed by the majority of scholars during the second period, viewed these two phrases as synonymous with one another. Scholars who accepted this view seemed to have misread 4Q174 1 i 21 2:1-7a

See Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimonies and the Penal Code, (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 112. 103 See Beall, Josephus, 118-9. 104 See Wentling “Unravelling,” 61-73; Wacholder, Dawn, 21-30; Philip Callaway, “Exegetische Erwägungen zur Tempelrolle XXIX, 7-10,” RevQ 12 (1985): 95-104, and Barbara Thiering, “Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple Scroll,” JBL 100 (1981): 60ff. 105 See Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 13; Maier, The Temple Scroll, 86; and Joseph M. Baumgarten, review of Yigael Yadin, Megillat ha-Miqdaŝ, The Temple Scroll, JBL 97 (1978): 588. 102

52

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

(particularly with regard to determining the character of ‫מקדש‬ ‫ יחוה‬and ‫ )מקדש אדם‬and 11Q19 XXIX 9 (concerning the temple which God was to build). Instead of trying to determine the meaning of these phrases in their own context, these scholars read the Temple Scroll into the meaning of 4Q174 and vice versa. Brooke and Wise have subsequently dealt with this issue, which is discussed in detail below.106 Yigael Yadin and Others

Yadin referred to the community as temple based on his elucidation of the Temple Scroll’s temples, which correspond to certain periods. Yadin, followed by Schiffman, Maier, Baumgarten, Milgrom, and Dimant107 (who is discussed later), described the Temple Scroll as illustrating two different temples: the temple described throughout the scroll, with its sacrifices and sacrificial regulations, and the temple which God was to construct (found in XXIX 8b-10). Concerning the former, Yadin, followed by most scholarship in the second period, rightly implied that this temple and cult was idealised (i.e., as that which Israel was commanded to construct).108 Regarding the temple that God was to construct,

Also see Wacholder, Dawn, 22-4 and Wentling, “Unravelling,” 61-73, who’s view of the temples is based on their interpretation of ‫ עד‬in 11Q19 XXIX 8-9. See discussion below. For a thorough assessment of how many temples both the Temple Scroll and 4Q174 reflect, see their respective chapters in this book. 107 See note 121 for Schiffman, Maier, and Baumgarten. For Devorah Dimant, see her “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky ‫( זי יל‬ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud. Leuven-Paris: Peeters, 1986) 187. For Jacob Milgrom, see his “The Temple Scroll,” 66-89. 108 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.182 and “Hidden Law,” 113-4. Yadin’s description of the temple plan, as that which Israel was commanded to build, yet implies an eschatological directive. Unfortunately, he does not elaborate on this point. Cf. Michael O. Wise, “The Eschatological Vision of the Temple Scroll,” JNES 49 (1990): 161. Also see his A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, (SAOC 49; Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 201. Wise views both temples as eschatological. Also see discussion of this topic in the chapter on the Temple Scroll. 106

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

53

Yadin described this temple as heavenly and eschatological,109 constructed for the purpose of eternally replacing the preceding temple (that being both the Jerusalem temple and the community, itself, as temple). Moreover (as stated above), Yadin maintained that the worship that took place in this eschatological temple was described in the content of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.110 Against Yadin, Wacholder (who is followed by Thiering and Callaway)111 described the Temple Scroll as referring to one temple only. As noted above, Wacholder’s view is based on his interpretation of 11Q19 XXIX 7-9, especially his stress on the eternal covenant that God makes with his people (which the temple plan and cult are associated), and also his understanding of ‫ עד‬as meaning ‘during,’ ‘while,’ or ‘when.’ This view is in stark contrast to Yadin’s and others’ reading of this preposition, which they render as ‘until.’ Throughout the second period of scholarship, the Temple Scroll was viewed as throwing light on 4Q174, particularly concerning the meaning of ‫מקדש אדם‬, and to the number of temples alluded to in both 4Q174 and the Temple Scroll. During the second period of scholarship, five distinct views regarding the meaning of ‫ מקדש אדם‬developed, which subsequently affected the notion of how many temples were alluded to in both 4Q174 and the Temple Scroll. Yadin (noted above), who followed the earlier views of McKelvey, Klinzing, Flusser, and McNicol, asserted a two-temple theory. Yadin conjectured that ‫ מקדש אדם‬reflected an eschatological material temple, which was analogous with the temple that God was to construct on ‫( יום הבריה‬as described in 11Q19 XXIX 9).112 Although Yadin implies that the community did serve as an interim sanctuary, he fails to elaborate.113 The assertions put forth

See note 83 above. See note 83 above. 111 See Thiering, “Mebbaqqer,” 60ff, and Callaway, “Exegelische,” 95104. 112 Wise, discussed below (note 118), somewhat holds this view. 113 References regarding Yadin can be found in note 83 above. 109 110

54

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

by Schwartz represented the second school of thought.114 Categorically rejecting the view of the community as temple, he asserted a three-temple theory. He viewed ‫ מקדש אדם‬as signifying a material idealised temple. He thus described this phrase as analogous with the temple plan discussed throughout the Temple Scroll.115 The studies of Lichtenberger and Brooke represented the third school of thought.116 Both inferred that ‫ מקדש אדם‬was to be understood as ‘the community as temple which anticipates the eschatological temple.’ Brooke more explicitly described the community as a latter-days sanctuary-like community, which anticipates the eschatological temple that is described in 11Q19 XXIX 9. The fourth school of thought was asserted by Dimant. Like Schwartz, she asserted a three-temple theory. However, she viewed ‫מקדש‬ ‫ אדם‬as neither a spiritual nor historical temple. Dimant conjectured that this phrase was intended to recreate the congregation of priests officiating in the sanctuary.117 The fifth school of thought was led by Wise. Codifying most of the other views, he took ‫ מקדש אדם‬as signifying an idealised material temple (like the one that the Temple Scroll describes throughout its text) which also functions during the eschatological period.118 Of the five views, the one asserted by Brooke and Lichtenberger seems the most intelligible. As discussed below, this view is the only one that has continued to develop to the present. Moreover, this school of thought also incorporates some of Wise’s ideas.119

See Daniel Schwartz, “The Three Temples of 4Q Florilegium,” RevQ 10 (1979-1980): 83-91. 115 Wise somewhat holds this view as well. Refer to note 118 below. 116 See Litchenberger, “Atonement,” 159-71 and George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Exegetical Content (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 175-93. 117 See her overall discussion in Dimant, “4QFlorilegium,” 165-89. Also see discussion in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 118 See Michael O. Wise, “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,” RevQ 15 (1991-1992): 103-32 and Critical Study, 169-75. For a fuller discussion on Wise’s view, see the chapters on the Temple Scroll and 4QFlorilegium. 119 See the development of this view discussed below in the third period of scholarship. Also see the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 114

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

55

D. 1991 TO THE PRESENT 1. Introduction

From 1991 to the present, debate about sacrifice has intensified due to all the scrolls being made public. Along with this, previous unpublished photos and notes from de Vaux’s archaeological examination of Qumran have been made public.120 In response to this more complete archaeological information, debate has ensued over 1) the identity of possible altars, 2) the nature of the animal bones, and 3) the cultic character of the Qumran site. Scholars have debated over these three points based on trying to determine whether sacrifice took place at Qumran. Regarding the scrolls, particularly pertinent in the debate on sacrifice is the publication of all of the extant copies of the Rule of the Community and the Damascus Document, as well as the publication of MMT and the various liturgical and calendrical texts. MMT has been significant chiefly because of its description of a number of sacrificial regulations. These regulations have been viewed as 1) further adding to the discussion about the community’s (or movement’s) identity, 2) further supporting the idea that the movement viewed the temple and sacrifice in Jerusalem as impure, especially in view of MMT’s description of specific regulations (as polemic) taking place at certain times, and 3) further supporting the idea that the movement had a favourable attitude toward animal sacrifice and the priesthood in principle. These See the photographs in Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Alain Chambon, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha I, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1994), 129-30 (animal bones) and 142-4 (stone object = altar?). Also see Humbert’s study, “L’espace,” 161-214; Torleif Elgvin, “An Incense Altar from Qumran,” DSD 9 (2002), 20-33; Randall Price, “Excavation on the Qumran Plateau 2002-2006. Unpublished manuscript; “Excavation Report: Qumran Plateau 2008,” Unpublished repor. Also see Ram Bouchnick, “Meat Consumption Patterns as an Ethnic Marker in the Late Second Temple Period: Comparing the Jerusalem City Dump and Qumran Assemblages,” in Bones and Identity: Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia (ed. Nimrod Marom, et al; Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2016), 303-322 and Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 5-34, who changes her initial view on whether sacrifices were offered at Qumran. 120

56

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

three points along with the newly revealed archaeological evidence further supports previous ideas from earlier periods of scholarship.121 As will be demonstrated throughout this book, the evidence from the present period is viewed as further giving insight into the movement’s overall view(s) of sacrifice. 2. The Debate about Sacrifice: From 1991 to the Present Point 1: The Place of Sacrifice in the Debate about the Community’s Identity

Like in previous periods, most scholars in the present period continue to view the identity of the movement related to the scrolls as Essenes. Most scholars have viewed MMT as further upholding this position.122 However, against this majority, Schiffman (building on his earlier views),123 followed by Albert Baumgarten,124 continues to challenge the idea that this movement was Essenic. Schiffman views MMT’s regulations as following Sadducean halakha. He thus describes the group as a branch of Sadducees,125 Points 1 and 3 build on J. Baumgarten’s view from his seminal work, whereas point 2 builds on Yadin’s view from the second period of scholarship. 122 See Dennis Greene, “To ‘…Send Up, Like the Smoke of Incense, the Works of the Law.’ The Similarity of Views on an Alternative to Temple Sacrifice by Three Jewish Sectarian Movements of the Late Second Temple Period,” in Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches (ed. Matthew Dillon; Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1996), 166; Devorah Dimant, “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community,” in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near. (ed. Adele Berlin; STJHC; The Joseph and Rebecca Meyerhoff Center for Jewish Studies, University of Maryland at College Park East; Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 1996), 93-103. 123 For Schiffman’s earlier views, see his “Literary and Philological Perspective,” 154. Also see discussion on note 86 above. 124 See A. Baumgarten, “Martian,” 134-42. 125 See Schiffman’s discussion in “Community Without Temple,” 267-70; “The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 82-90, “The Temple Scroll and the Nature of its Law: The Status of the Question,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame 121

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

57

especially based on cultic disagreements in MMT126 which he compares with similar cultic views in later rabbinic writings.127 With regard to Josephus’ description of the Essene’s views of sacrifice, Schiffman (like Davies earlier)128 contends that Ant. 18.19 has no relation to the Dead Sea sectarian group.129 According to him, and followed by Albert Baumgarten, the Essenes as described by Josephus had a special arrangement in the temple, unlike the sectarian community.130 Although the interpretation of Josephus’ and Philo’s description of the Essene’s views of sacrifice continues to be debated, the majority of scholars in the present

Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. CJAS 10; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 47-8 and 54-5 and “Origin and Early History of the Qumran Sect,” BA 58 (1995): 37-42. This is also the position taken by Qimron and Strugnell in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 116-7. Here, Schiffman also noted that MMT gives further insight into determining the provenance of the Temple Scroll. 126 Schiffman described many of the regulations in MMT as comparable to regulations in the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document. He thus alludes to all these works as being Sadducean. See his “Place of 4QMMT,” 86-94. Although Albert Baumgarten considers these same works as similar to Sadducean theology, he, however, maintains that the identity of the sectarian community is a matter yet to be determined. See his discussion in “Martian,” 138. For a discussion of these regulations, their similarities and significance see the chapter on MMT. 127 See chapter on MMT which list specific comparisons. 128 Whereas Davies views the Damascus Document as describing a different community from the Qumran community and the Essenes (all representing three different groups), Schiffman only views two different groups: the Essenes and the sectarian community. For Davies, see around note 89. 129 For discussion of this passage and its possible relation to the sectarian community, see the chapter on Philo and Josephus. 130 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 272. Also cf., Albert Baumgarten’s view in “Martian,” 126-42. Unfortunately, Schiffman seems to base his view on a misunderstanding of the overall meaning of Ant. 18.19. For the best reading and understanding of this passage, see the chapter on Philo and Josephus.

58

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

period rightly continue to identify the movement related to the scrolls as Essene.131 Point 2: The View of the Temple and Sacrifice as Impure

Scholars in the present period have viewed MMT as further upholding the belief that the movement behind the scrolls was at odds with Jerusalem’s temple cult. MMT has been viewed as throwing additional light on the particulars concerning the dispute(s). According to Schiffman and Regev, MMT registers the disputes that led to the schism between the movement and Jerusalem’s temple authority.132 Moreover, Schiffman notes these disputes as illustrating the historical ramifications that led to the emergence of the movement.133 Regev contends that in light of MMT, the movement’s withdrawal from the temple cult was based not merely on ritual impurity (improperly carrying out sacrificial procedures, which is also stressed by Collins)134 but on the moral impurity of Jerusalem’s temple authority as well.135 Like 1QpHab and the Damascus Document before,136 MMT has been viewed as expressing polemic

For a thorough reading of Philo’s and Josephus’ reading of the Essene view of sacrifice, see the chapter on Philo and Josephus. 132 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 268. Also see A. Baumgarten, “Martian,” 127 note 32. Cf., Bilde, “Common Meal,” 160, who although he makes no reference to any particular texts, comes to the same conclusion. See Magness, “Communal Meals,” 16, who follows this idea. 133 See Lawrence Schiffman’s earlier works, “The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect,” BA 53 (1990): 64-73; repr. in Mogilany 1989. Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. (ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera; QM 2; Karkow: Enigma Press, 1993), 59-70 134 See John J. Collins, “Introduction,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 4. 135 See Eyal Regev, “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notion of Purity and Impurity in Qumran,” DSD 10 (2003): 243-78. 136 See citations above. Also see the various textual chapters in this work (MMT and the Damascus Document in particular) which highlight and describe the various regulations which were viewed as polemic. 131

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

59

against Jerusalem’s temple and priestly authority, particularly concerning certain sacrificial laws and purity matters. Schiffman further suggests that based on certain times when worship is carried out,137 which are delineated in MMT as well as the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Document138 and 1QpHab, the movement separated from Jerusalem’s temple establishment: The sectarian separation from the Jerusalem Temple would have been encouraged if not caused by disagreement regarding the dates of the festivals. This same claim is made, after all, in the Zadokite Fragments (Damascus Document) and can be supported by Pesher Habakkuk.139

Point 3: The Sect’s Attitude toward Sacrifice in Light of MMT

Building on Yadin’s earlier argument, scholars in the present period view MMT as supporting the idea that the movement accepted sacrifice in principle.140 Regev contends that the community was unable to observe the sacrificial and purity regulations of MMT and the Temple Scroll due to impurity found in Jerusalem’s temple establishment.141 According to Schiffman (who is similarly followed by Kugler), although the movement had separated from worship in Jerusalem, its members continued to revere temple sacrifice through studying it.142 Schiffman describes numerous texts as See the chapter on MMT concerning discussion of whether the section on calendrical matter belongs as part of MMT. 138 CD 6:18 in particular. 139 Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 271. Also see his note 18, concerning Talmon’s reference. Also see the discussion by Roger T. Beckwith, “The Temple Scroll and its Calendar: Their Character and Purpose,” RevQ 18 (1997): 3-19. 140 See Daniel Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992), 19-24, who notes that although the community did not reject the concept of the temple, they persisted in its substitutes for more than a century. 141 See Regev, “Abominated,” 253-4. 142 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 274-6 and 80. Also see discussion below at note 185. For Robert A. Kugler, see “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: 137

60

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

illustrating this point, of which MMT also is noted as upholding this view. . . . Numerous works indicate that the sectarians continued to treasure and study pre-Hasmonean texts which featured sacrificial laws and regulations, like Jubilees, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the sources of the Temple Scroll. Sectarian documents, like 4QMMT, the Zadokite Fragments, the redacted Temple Scroll, and the War Scroll testify to the continued devotion of the Qumran sectarians to the ideal of sacrificial worship and to their belief that in the end of days they would once again be restored to leadership of Israel’s sacrificial worship in the Jerusalem Temple.143

Moreover, like Yadin, Schiffman followed by Schmidt and Regev describes the movement’s understanding of sacrifice in light of 1QM. According to Schiffman:144 Even if in the present they (the movement) had withdrawn from Temple worship, they continued to study its laws in preparation for the day when they would return to worship once again at the mountain of the Lord.145

Like Lichtenberger earlier (followed by Yadin), the above scholars appear to recognize that the DSS movement had a developing cultic ideology: i.e., replacing the sacrificial cult with substitutes (the study of the law) in place of sacrifice.146

Eerdmans, 2000), 90-112. For discussion concerning the significance of study viewed as a substitute for sacrifice, see the various textual chapters in this study. 143 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 280. 144 See F. Schmidt, La pensée du Temple: de Jérusalem à Qoumrân (Paris: Les Editions du Seuil, 1994), 130-43 and 153-6 ; Regev, “Abominated,” 253 and 271-2; and Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 276. 145 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 278. 146 This view is against Wentling, “Unravelling,” 64 note 12, who states that Schiffman’s view of the sectarian as non-Essene (particularly in the debate over the provenance of the Temple Scroll) does not seem to take seriously the possibility that theological development might occur in a group that existed for a period of over two hundred years.

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

61

3. The Debate about Sacrifice in Light of the Archaeology: From 1991 to the Present

Since 1991, discussion about the cultic character of Qumran’s archaeology has been revived. In light of de Vaux’s previous unpublished photos and notes being made public, the entire Qumran site was re-examined regarding its possible temple-like spatial arrangement. Here, both the Temple Scroll and MMT became part of the discussion. Also revisited in this examination were the animal bones and possible altar(s). Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Jodi Magness and Others

In 1994, Jean-Baptiste Humbert re-examined the Qumran site, mainly concerning its possible cultic nature. Like Steckoll before him, he contended that sacrifice was made at Qumran and that altars were found.147 Although Humbert’s conjecture of the site is clearly different from Steckoll, both asserted that sacrifice took place there.148 Building on the views of Steckoll, Magness and Humbert have suggested that the Qumran site itself, perhaps, is temple-like. Magness suggests that, based on where the bones were deposited (in two main areas on the fringes of the camp), the disposition of space at Qumran corresponds with 11Q19 XLVI 15, with its three-fold divisions. Like the temple, she describes the site as reflecting varying degrees of purity. Moreover, she describes this arrangement of space as reminiscent of the passages from 4QMMT.149 On the basis of this, Magness postulates that the site reflected a reorganization of space along the lines of the sectarian ideal Jerusalem.150 Humbert on the other hand has taken the above evidence further. He suggests that in view of the site being reflected as See Humbert, “L’espace,” 199-201. For a description of both Steckoll and Humbert’s argument see “The Qumran Sect,” 55-69 and “L’espace,” 161-214, respectively. For an assessment of the Qumran site, as well as the arguments of Steckoll and Humbert, see the chapter on Archaeology. 149 See her discussion of this idea in Magness, “Communal Meals,” 18-23. Also, for further discussion of the site at Qumran and its possible cultic significance, see the chapter on Archaeology. 150 See Magness, “Communal Meals,” 23. 147 148

62

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sanctuary-like, animal offerings, indeed, took place at Qumran. Regev seems unclear about the cultic nature of the Qumran site. Although he explicitly disputes the view that it (the site) was a spatial substitute for the temple, as described below, he yet seems to suggest that the locale of the community became a holy centre where ritual and moral purity was observed.151 Against Humbert and the views of earlier scholars,152 Schiffman has maintained that there is no evidence to suggest that the sect offered animal sacrifice. Like de Vaux before him, Schiffman along with Magness, before reconsidering her position in 2016, dismissed the view that the animal bones were the remains of sacrifice, or that an altar was present at Qumran.153 Moreover, Magness initially contended that no literary source (from the scrolls or other ancient sources)154 provided any indication that the community sacrificed animals.155 Magness reconsidered her view about sacrifice and the animal bones based on comparison with remains from ancient sanctuaries around the Mediterranean world and Near East, and, as Schiffman rightly notes, “ambiguous archaeological evidence in favour of a theory that is inconsistent with the textual evidence and our understanding of the nature of the Qumran sect.”156 Whereas Schiffman (followed by Hempel) See Regev, “Abominated,” 276 and note 89, there. Allegro, Cross and Strugnell in particular; see description and citations above. 153 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 272 and Magness, “Communal Meals,” 19. Humbert with Alain Chambon further noted there being an incense altar found at Qumran. See their Fouilles, 140 plate 291 in particular. Torleif Elgvin follows this view. See his “Incense Altar,” 27. For discussion concerning the incense altar, see the chapters on the Rule of the Community, 4QFlorilegium, and Qumran Archaeology. 154 Here she cites Philo’s Prob. 75 and Josephus’ Ant. 18.19. For a thorough reading of both passages, see the chapter on Philo and Josephus. 155 See Magness, “Communal Meals,” 19. As further support to this idea, she notes that on February 24, 2000, Magen Broshi expressed to her that the Qumranites could not have sacrificed outside of Jerusalem, particularly in view of Deuteronomy (as the most popular biblical book at Qumran) being preserved in their library (see her note 17). 156 Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Qumran Temple? The Literary Evidence,” JAJ 7 (2016): 71. Also see Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 534. 151 152

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

63

contends that the animal bones were the remains of non-cultic meals,157 Magness (before her reconsideration), followed by Stegemann and Bilde, maintained that the bones were from nonsacrificial meals that were viewed as substitutes for sacrifice.158 Throughout the history of scholarship, the place of archaeology in the debate about sacrifice has been key in determining the cultic view at Qumran. Archaeological evidence has been viewed as both supporting and dismissing the notion that animal sacrifice occurred at Qumran. Moreover, some of this evidence has even yielded support in favour of the view that incense offering occurred. The place of archaeology in determining the place of sacrifice at Qumran is examined in a later chapter.

For Schiffman’s view concerning the meals, see his “Communal Meals,” 45-56; Sectarian Law, 191-200; The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBLMS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 56-67 and Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 333-7. For Charlotte Hempel, see her “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam, vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 85. Also see the discussion at notes 30 and 31. Schiffman, Reclaiming, 338, viewed 4QMMT B58-59 as shedding light on the burial of the animal bones. He postulated that, “Perhaps the sectarian at Qumran buried bones to prevent dogs or other animals from scattering the bones throughout the settlement and potentially defiling the members.” For a thorough examination of the animal bones, see the chapter on Qumran Archaeology. 158 See Magness, “Communal Meals,” 19-20; Hartmut Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist and Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 191-2 and Bilde, “Common Meal,” 161-3. Like Kuhn during the first period of scholarship, Bilde translates the latter half of Ant. 18.19 as indicating that the sect’s meals were a type of spiritualised sacrifice. Also see the chapter on Philo and Josephus for a thorough reading of Ant. 18.19. For a thorough discussion of the animal bones as well as Humbert’s theory, see the chapter on Qumran Archaeology. 157

64

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

4. The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Debate about Sacrifice: From 1991 to the Present

Since 1991, the view of the community as a sanctuary has been revisited particularly in light of MMT and the newly published liturgical texts. George J. Brooke, Lawrence Schiffman and Others

Following Wise’s earlier view,159 Brooke similarly accepts the translation of ‫ מקדש אדם‬as ‘Temple of Adam,’ which is associated with Eden. However, unlike Wise, he rightly maintains that this phrase refers to the community as sanctuary (a view also supported by Magness).160 In view of Wise’s contentions, Brooke further advances his earlier interpretation of ‫מקדש אדם‬. He describes this phrase as a proleptic last days temple community, which anticipates the future eschatological temple that God will create, and at the same time viewing itself as Eden restored. Brooke, as well as Dimant, contends that because of the community’s self-understanding, it was able to function as a cultic community apart from Jerusalem’s temple establishment. Both Brooke and Dimant view the community as having a spiritualised understanding of sacrifice apart from Jerusalem.161 However, Dimant also contends that in light of certain texts, the community also brought sacrifice to the temple.162 Brooke rightly contends that the community “viewed its worship as an anticipation of what would take place in Jerusalem at the end of days and beyond.” Brooke further postulates that at this time of restoration,

See Wise, “4QFlorilegium,” 123-32; also see discussion above (at “The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Debate about Sacrifice: From 1977 to 1991”). 160 See Magness, “Communal Meals,” 16. 161 See George J. Brooke, “Miqdash Adam, Eden, and the Qumran Community,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999, 297 and Dimant, “Men as Angels,” 96-7. 162 See Dimant “Men as Angels,” 97 note 18. 159

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

65

the community would realize the whole of God’s purposes, as set out by Eden being re-established.163 Like those in the first and second periods of scholarship,164 Schiffman, Schmidt,165 Fraade,166 and Kugler167 also view the community as a sanctuary which made spiritualised sacrifice. These scholars have described this spiritualised sacrifice as prayer, praise and study. Schiffman refers to the former in the following way: Numerous passages in the sectarian literature indicate that once the sectarians had decided to refrain from Temple rituals, two basic strategies were adopted: seeing the sect as a substitute for the Temple, and using prayer as a substitute for sacrifice.168

Regarding sacrificial halakha preserved in the sectarians’ literary corpus: from their writings (particularly in MMT, the Temple Scroll, 4Q365a, and the Damascus Document) as well as from biblical and Pseudepigrapha works (like the Book of Jubilees, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel), Schiffman suggests that its study among the community was also viewed as a substitute for sacrifice.169 Moreover, he asserts that the sectarians viewed this sacrificial halakha in an eschatological way which would serve in the future temple.170 Fraade contends that in light of the community’s See Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 297. See the discussion above, particularly the discussions of J. Baumgarten (his seminal study), Gärtner and McKelvey in the first period of scholarship, and Yadin, Litchenberger, and Brooke in the second period of scholarship. 165 See F. Schmidt, La pensée, 130-43, 153-6 and 158-83. 166 See Steven Fraade, “Interpretative Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran,” JJS 44 (1993): 46-69. 167 See Kugler, “Rubrics,” 90-2. 168 See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 272. Also see his, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 289-91. 169 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 274-6 and particularly 280. John Kampen also takes this view. See his discussion in Kampen, “Significance,” 185-97. 170 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 279. 163 164

66

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

disposition as a studying group (particularly in view of certain texts, of which included 1QS, CD, and MMT), the community viewed its study of the Torah as having a redemptive quality which stood in lieu of animal offerings.171 Regev gives scant attention to the view of the community as sanctuary. Instead, he describes their (the community’s) adherence to ritual purity and moral behaviour as creating an atmosphere of a holy centre.172 Regev describes the community’s moral behaviour, prayers, and study of the angelic liturgy as substitutes for sacrifice. Regarding the latter, he concedes to Collins’ assertion concerning the use of the angelic liturgy (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice): The distinctive interest of the community in the angelic liturgy and the belief in present fellowship with the angels, can be understood in large part as compensation for the loss of participation in the temple cult.173

Maintaining the view that the community, indeed, was a substitute temple, Collins suggests that in consideration of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the community and angels were connected. Moreover, he (Collins as well as Kugler,174 who both follow Newsom’s contention concerning the use of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice among the members of the community)175 describes the community as engaged in imaginative praises with the angels in the heavenly temple.176

See Fraade, “Interpretive Authority,” 51-69. Also see here, for a list of citations which stress the nature of the community as a study group. 172 See Regev, “Abominated,” 269-75. 173 See Regev, “Abominated,” 272 note 77. Also see John Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 155. 174 See Kugler, “Rubrics,” 90-112. 175 See Carol Newsom, “He Had Established for Himself Priests’: Human and Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence Schiffman. JSPSup 8/ASOR Monographs 3; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 101-20. 176 See John J. Collins, “Powers in Heaven,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 13. 171

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

67

Along with prayer, and praise, Kugler contends that the community made substitutes for actual sacrifice through a process of mimicking or mirroring the act itself. Kugler suggests that a number of texts were composed and studied by the movement which involved rewriting biblical rubrics for sacrifice through harmonising and narrowing exegesis; he contends that such texts included MMT; the Temple Scroll; the New Jerusalem text; 4QTargum of Leviticus; 4QHalakha B; 4QApocryphon of Moses; and 4QPurification Rules Ba,b. Moreover, Kugler maintains that in anticipation of their being restored back to Jerusalem’s temple establishment, the members of the group satisfied themselves with redefining sacrificial biblical regulations according to their outlook.177 5. The Status of Liturgical Texts in the Debate about Sacrifice

Whereas many before having described the movement as offering various substitutes for sacrifice, which included meals; studying sacrificial regulations; and reciting prayers, praise and hymns,178 in light of the publication of numerous liturgical prayer texts since 1991, the view that prayer was a substitute for sacrifice has intensified. Whereas liturgical evidence before 1991 received limited focus, particularly regarding its status for the movement, since 1991 new enthusiasm has been given to its theological importance. Since 1991, scholars like Eileen Schuller have re-examined the theological significance of both new and previously known liturgical evidence.179 Due to the sizable amount of liturgical material, most scholars have been able to re-enforce earlier views (that prayer, praise and hymns were viewed as substitutes for

See Kugler, “Rubrics,” 92-112. See discussion in Periods 1 and 2 above. 179 For a listing of these texts see Eileen Schuller, “Prayer, Hymnic, and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam; CJAS 10; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 153-71. 177 178

68

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sacrifice).180 Moreover, the corpus of this liturgical material throws considerable light on the particularities of the types of prayer. Despite this, debate yet continues over the provenance and use of this material. Debate involves determining whether it emerged as a practice (via recitation or study in the place of sacrifice) after the movement’s separation from Jerusalem’s temple establishment, or if it existed alongside earlier temple practices only later to be adopted and viewed as the equivalent to sacrifice (via its study or recitation).181 Presently, most scholars See previous periods above. Shemaryahu Talmon focused on this issue. See his seminal study “The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel in Light of the Qumran Literature,” in Qumran: as piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. Mathias Delcor; BETL 46; Leuven: University Press, 1978), 264-84; repr. and expanded in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, Leiden: Brill, 1989), 200-43. 181 For discussion of this issue see Schuller, “Prayer,” 162-71; “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetic Texts Among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000 (ed. Esther G. Chazon; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 17389; Daniel Falk, “Qumran Prayer Text and the Temple,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts From Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998. Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. Daniel Falk, Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 106-26; Daily Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27; Leiden: Brill, 1998); Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. J. Chippman; STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994); Stefan Reif, “The Second Temple Period, Qumran Research, and Rabbinic Liturgy: Some Contextual and Linguistic Comparisons,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000 (ed. Esther G. Chazon; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 133-149. Also see Schiffman, Reclaiming, 289-312; Joseph Tabory, “MA’AMADOT: A Second-Temple Non-Temple Liturgy,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000 (ed. Esther G. Chazon; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 238 and Richard Sarason, “Communal Prayer at Qumran and among the Rabbis: Certainties and Uncertainties,” in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 180

CHAPTER ONE. THE DEBATE ABOUT SACRIFICE

69

perceptively infer that despite the uncertainty over the provenance of these texts, the role of prayer was important to the movement.182 E. Summary

Throughout the more than seventy years of the history of scholarship on sacrifice, various views concerning the place of sacrifice have been put forth. The above scholarly debate, along with the various sources which have given insight concerning sacrifice (the scrolls, the classical accounts, and the archaeological evidence), have raised more queries than conclusions. These queries, which have generated more uncertainties regarding the importance of sacrifice, however, have given insight concerning (1) the structure of the DSS movement, particularly the groups that make up this movement, (2) the developing ideology of sacrifice regarding Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000 (ed. Esther G. Chazon; STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 154- 72. Jeremy Penner, “With the Coming Light, At the Appointed Time of Night: Daily Prayer and Its Importance at Qumran,” JAJ 4 (2013): 27-47, while arguing that prayer was not solely implemented as a replacement to sacrifice at Qumran, he does admit that prayer played one part of an entire system related to sacrifice. He asserts that Qumran prayer was based upon movements of celestial bodies. 182 See Esther G. Chazon, “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications,” DSD 1 (1994): 265-84 and “The Function of the Qumran Prayer Texts: An Analysis of the Daily Prayers (4Q503),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. Lawrence H Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 217-25; Bilhah Nitzan, “The Benediction from Qumran for the Annual Covenantal Ceremony,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997 (ed. Lawrence H Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 264-71; Schuller, “Prayer,” 153-71, in particular, 162 and note 36. The very fact that these texts existed at Qumran suggests that they were used in some way. In view of the movement being a group without a temple and animal sacrifice, prayer, praise, and hymns were viewed as substitutes for sacrifice. See the various textual chapters in this book for further evidence of this position.

70

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the movement and its respective groups, and (3) the chronological and literary development of the scrolls, themselves. With this in mind, an overall examination of sacrifice in the various classical, archaeological and textual sources is undertaken. This is done to gain an overall understanding of sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE ACCORDING TO PHILO AND JOSEPHUS A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

In view of the unsettled debate regarding the identity of the DSS movement, there has been a growing need to re-examine some of the key sources that have contributed to this debate. In the past, scholars have contended that the DSS movement was Essenic based on what classical sources have said. This link was made in view of basic similarities between what the classical sources and the scrolls have said. However, virtually ignored in this debate has been the study on sacrifice. Hence, a thorough examination of the understanding of Essene sacrifice (from the vantage point of the classical descriptions of Philo and Josephus) significantly adds to the discussion on identity. Where sacrifice has been discussed, claims about the identity of the movement have been made in an implicit way. This chapter explicitly argues that one important way of determining the identity of the DSS movement is through the examination of sacrifice. Since the discovery of the scrolls, scholars have been confused about the identity of the related movement. Many have either claimed or dismissed the view that the DSS movement was Essenic. Concerning the former, many have claimed that Philo, Josephus, and the scrolls depicted similar views concerning sacrifice. However, many who have held this view also held contradictory views about whether the Essenes or the DSS movement 71

72

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

offered actual animal sacrifice. Others who have dismissed the view that the movement was Essenic, have done so based on viewing Philo, Josephus, and the scrolls as giving conflicting accounts regarding sacrifice.1 With this in mind, there is a need to examine the Essenes’ views of sacrifice as given by Philo and Josephus.2 The Essene view of sacrifice correlates with the view of sacrifice of the DSS movement and later Qumran-related group. However, before a connection can be determined, understanding Philo’s and Josephus’ accounts is crucial. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the Essene view of sacrifice according to the descriptions of Philo and Josephus. Examined in particular is Philo’s Quod Omnis Probus Liber sit 75, and Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 18.19. A textual analysis of these passages is given to understand their overall context. This is helpful in making certain claims about the connection of the Essenes with the larger DSS movement. If, in fact, this connection is accurate, then insight concerning the cultic ideology of the entire DSS movement (which includes the later Qumran-related community) can be determined. With this in mind, Philo’s and Josephus’ descriptions also need to be investigated alongside the texts of the DSS movement and later Qumran-related community.

B. PHILO’S DESCRIPTION OF THE E SSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

According to Prob. 75,3 Philo records the Essene attitude toward sacrifice in view of the meaning of their name and character: This has been the position of Davies, “Ideology,” 287-8 and 91-2; Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 272 and A. Baumgarten, “Martian,” 129-42. 2 My brief study on Josephus’ view of Essene sacrifice appears in JamalDominique Hopkins, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greco-Roman World: Examining the Essenes’ View of Sacrifice in Relation to the Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (ed. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov and Matthias Weigold; VTSup 140.1; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 367-383. 3 The standard Greek text on which most English translations have relied, is the publication of Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae Supersunt (6 vols.; Berlin: Walther de Gruyter, 18961930). 1

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

73

κατ᾽ ἐµὴν δόξαν - οὐκ ἀκριβεῖ τύπῳ διαλέκτου Ἑλληνικῆς παρώνυµοι ὁσιότητος, ἐπειδὴ Κἀν τοῖς µάλιστα θεραπευταὶ Θεοῦ γεγόνοσιν, οὐ ζῶα καταθύοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες.4 According to my opinion, the Greek form of their name, which is not exact, is a variation of holiness, especially since, though they are devout in the serving of God, not by sacrificing animals but thinking it fit to establish the sanctifying of their own minds.5

As found in the Loeb Classical edition, Colson translates the above passage in the following way: Their name which is, I think, a variation, though the form of the Greek is inexact, of ὁσιότης (holiness), is given them, because they have shown themselves especially devout in the service of God, not by offering sacrifices of animals, but by resolving to sanctify their minds.6

Vermes and Goodman similarly translate the above passage as:7 Although this word is not, strictly speaking, Greek, I think it may be related to the word ‘holiness.’ Indeed, they are men utterly dedicated to the service of God; they do not offer animal sacrifice, judging it more fitting to render their minds truly holy.

Yonge offers yet another translation of the above passage. His translation (discussed below), which was given before the discovery of the scrolls, projects a similar view as depicted in the scrolls regarding the idea of studying as a substitute for animal sacrifice: There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any

This reading follows the standard edition of the Greek text; see note 3 above. 5 My translation. 6 Philo, Quod Omnis Probus Liber sit 75 (F. H. Colson, LCL). 7 Geza Vermes and Martin D. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (OCT 1; JSOT Press: Sheffield, 1989), 21. 4

74

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.8

Before discussing the overall meaning of the above passage, several issues need addressing. Firstly, Philo implies that he is describing not just the ideology of an Essene branch, but rather of the entire Essene movement. Even though there existed at least two or more branches of Essenes, which held variant views regarding certain issues (which may have included offering sacrifice),9 Philo only gives this one view. Moreover, he does not give any insight regarding the time or period during which this view was in force. Based on this, Philo’s description may be describing: 1) The ideology of the entire Essene movement, which remained unchanged 2) The ideology of the entire movement during a particular stage 3) The ideology of at least one of the movement’s groups, which remained unchanged 4) The ideology of at least one of the movement’s groups during a particular stage.

Regardless of the scenario, the same ideology conveyed here in Philo, also should reflect in the scrolls, particularly if the DSS movement (including the Qumran-related community) can be identified as Essene. Further determination of this matter is made (below) after examining the above passage. See this translation in Charles D. Yonge, The Works of Philo Judaeus, The Contemporary of Josephus (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854-1855); reprinted in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993). 9 See Lena Cansdale, Qumran and the Essenes (TSAJ 60; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997), 19-33 who discusses the view of the Essenes concerning various matters, particularly as described by both Philo and Josephus. Similarly, she notes there being at least two or more groups which made up the larger DSS movement. Moreover, as discussed below, these groups, too, held variant views concerning certain issue. Also see the Introduction of this book, which discusses this issue. 8

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

75

Another issue arising from Philo is that there are subtle differences in the above translations of Prob. 75, mainly between Yonge’s version (whose translation is freer) and the rest. The main difference is in the translation of the last line of this passage. Against the other translations, Yonge’s reading suggests that studying played an important part in preserving the purity and holiness of the Essenes’ mind.10 Yonge’s reference to study is also picked up further in Prob. 80-82.11 These passages, in conjunction with Prob. 75, enforce the idea that studying to preserve a state of purity and holiness was viewed by the Essenes as more important in serving God than sacrificing animals. As discussed in later chapters, this idea of study, viewed as a substitute for sacrifice, is also seen in the Dead Sea sectarian texts. Yonge argued this similar view in Philo before the discovery of the scrolls. For an overview of Yonge’s translation, as well as discussion of the MS that he followed, see The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, ixxviii. 11 According to Colson’s translation in the LCL, Quod Omnis Probus Liber sit 80-82 reads as follows: 10

80. As for philosophy they abandon the logical part to quibbling verbalists as unnecessary for the acquisition of virtue, and the physical to visionary praters as beyond the grasp of human nature, only retain-

ing that part which treate philosophically of the existence of God and

the creation of the universe. But the ethical part they study very industriously, taking for their trainers the laws of their fathers, which

could not possibly have been conceived by the human soul without divine inspiration.

81. In these they are instructed at all other times, but particularly on

the seventh days. For that day has been set apart to be kept holy and on it they abstain from all other work and proceed to sacred spots which they call synagogues. There, arranged in rows according to

their ages, the younger below the elder, they sit decorously as befits the occasion with attentive ears.

82. Then one takes the book and reads aloud and another of especial

proficiency comes forward and expounds what is not understood. For

most of their philosophical study takes the form of allegory, and in this they emulate the tradition of the past.

76

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

The last issue in Philo’s passage concerns the meaning of the term θεραπευταί, particularly in relation to the nature and identity of the Essene group. θεραπευταί, from the verb θεραπεύω, means ‘serves’ or ‘those doing service.’12 This term has the secondary meaning of ‘to heal,’ or ‘to cure.’13 Vermes understands this term as demonstrating a two-fold process. He postulates that the Essenes worshiping or serving God consequently heals them from their sins. According to him, because of this process the Essenes did not offer sacrifice: Sacrificial sin-offerings are mere symbols; they must be accompanied by “the healing of sins and the cutting out of passions.” . . . They were called saints, servants (θεραπευταί) of God, because more than anyone else they offered to God the one true worship, their own healing (θεραπεία). It is, in fact, impossible to avoid the only logical conclusion that for Philo, the Essenes were θεραπευταί in both senses of this word: they were “worshipers” because they were “healers.”14

Vermes’ assertion is plausible. However, the notion of designating the Essenes and Θεραπευταί (Therapeutai) as the same sect is problematic. According to Philo (in De vita contemplativa), the Therapeutai and the Essenes are two different groups. From the above translations, Philo describes the Essenes as viewing the sanctifying of their minds as more important in serving God (θεραπευται Θεοῦ) than sacrificing animals. Philo describes this holy demeanour as being reflected in the form of their name (διαλέκτου Ἐλληνικῆς - παρώνυµοι ὁσιότητος). The emphasis here in Philo is not on sacrificing animals. In fact, according to Philo, there is no indication of the Essenes repudiating or rejecting animal sacrifice in principle, as some have supposed.15 Philo is See above translations. See Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, “θεραπεύω,” n.p., A Greek-English Lexicon on CD-ROM. Bible Works for Windows 6.0. 2003. Print ed.: Henry Liddell and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1996. 14 See Geza Vermes, “The Etymology of the Essenes,” RevQ 2 (19591960): 436-7. 15 This belief has been espoused by Joseph B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1870), 367-70 and 12 13

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

77

merely stressing that, as is reflected in the form of their name, the group is devout in their service to God by sanctifying their minds. Because of this, Philo most likely posits, here, that animal sacrifice is not the focal point of Essene worship.16 The Essene view of sacrifice is not explicitly dealt with in Prob. 75. However, implicit references can be found, particularly if this passage is viewed as harmonising with Josephus’ reference (discussed below) as well as being reflected in the scrolls.17 According to Philo’s description, it is probable that the Essenes accepted animal sacrifice in principle, while at the same time choosing not to participate in it at the temple. Prob. 75 suggests that the Essenes favoured a more spiritualised view of sacrifice, which included study as that which purified and sanctified the mind.18 This idea is even more plausible if Yonge’s translation (above) is considered, which subsequently correlates with further descriptions of the Essene view of study, particularly as seen in Prob. 80-82.19 In view of the above discussion, reading Prob. 75 in more of a spiritualised way correlates best with the view of sacrifice of the Qumran-related group, particularly during the later stages of its development.20 This can be attested in certain texts like the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium. As discussed below, a Joseph Thomas Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (Gembloux: Duclot, 1935), 12-19. Also see Klinzing, Die Umdeutung, 48-9. 16 Ralph Marcus follows this assertion; see his “Pharisees, Essenes and Gnostics,” JBL 73 (1954): 158. Wallace, “The Essenes,” 338, suggests that Philo made this statement about the Essenes because they supported his view of favouring a more spiritual attitude toward religion. Also see Vermes, “Etymology,” 436-8; J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 67; Beall, Jospehus, 118 and Albert Baumgarten, “Josephus on Essene Sacrifice,” JJS 45 (1994): 169 note 1. 17 On this point, see the four scenarios listed above. Philo’s passage harmonises with at least one of these scenarios. 18 Unfortunately, Philo gives no explicit reason for this substitutionary idea. 19 See note 11 above. 20 Although a spiritualised reading of Prob. 75 could correlate with the ideology of the larger DSS movement, it does so only partly. As is attested in the Damascus Document, the larger movement (which included the early Qumran-related community only) also participated in some actual animal sacrifices throughout its development. See discussion of this in the chapter on the Damascus Document.

78

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

spiritualised view of sacrifice by the Essenes can also be seen in Josephus’ description.

C. JOSEPHUS’ DESCRIPTION OF THE E SSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE 1. Introduction

Ant. 18.19 is from no single MS. Rather, it is an eclectic text, which is attested variously in six MSS.21 Ant. 18.19 has been problematic for translators due to variant readings in the various MSS. Textual differences exist in at least two different textual traditions. The Latin {Lat.} and Epitome {E} render Ant. 18.19 as follows: εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήµατα στέλλοντες θυσίας [οὐκ] ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν, ἅς νοµίζοιεν, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ εἰργόµενοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τεµενίσµατος ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν.22

The {A}, {M}, {W}, and {Zon.} witnesses render the same passage in the following way: εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήµατα στέλλοντες θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν, ἅς νοµίζοιεν, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ εἰργόµενοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τεµενίσµατος ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν.23

Based on the textual variant, scholarship has been unresolved in determining whether the Essenes participated in sacrifice. Antiquities 18.19 is found in the following MSS: {A} Codex bibliothecae Ambrosianae F 128, dating from the 11th century; {M} Codex Medicaeus bibliothecae Laurentianae plut. 69, codex 10, dating from the 14th to 15th centuries; {W} Codex Vaticanus Gr. no. 984, dating 1354 C.E. (the 12th century); {E} The Epitome Antiquitatum, noted by H. St. J. Thackeray as being used by Zonaras. Thackeray also contended that Niese conjectured that this version was made in the 10th or 11th century; {Lat.} Ueriso Latina, the Latin version of Cassiodorus from the 5th or 6th century (which is also the oldest extant MS for 18:19) and {Zon.} The Chronicon of Zonaras, from the 12th century. 22 See Samuel A. Naber, Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia. Post Immanuelem Bekkerum recognovit Samuel Adrianus (vol. 4 of Ant. 18.19; Lepzig: B.G. Teubneri, 1902), 139, who gives this reading. 23 This is the reading given by Benidictive Niese, Flavii Josephi Opera (vol. 4 of Ant. 18.19; Berlin: Weidmann, 1890), 143, which is followed by the LCL. 21

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

79

Different assumptions have been put forth based on these different readings. Moreover, these differences have resulted in variant views regarding both the identity and the cultic ideology of the DSS movements. Compounded together with these issues, and in relation to the scrolls, is the lack of insight regarding the time or period for which this view was in force. Because of this, Josephus (like in Philo’s description) could be referring to at least one of four scenarios:

1) That the above citation reflects the ideology of the entire Essene movement, which remained unchanged. 2) That it reflects the ideology of the entire movement during a particular stage. 3) That it reflects the ideology of at least one of the movement’s group, which remained unchanged. 4) That it reflects the ideology of at least one of the movement’s groups during a particular stage.24

Further examination of the aforementioned passage reveals that, unlike Philo, Josephus’ account reflects two streams of thought which similarly reflect the ideology of at least two groups within the larger DSS movement.25 However (as also noted from Philo’s description), regardless of the scenario, the same ideology conveyed here, also would reflect in the scrolls, particularly if the movement (and its various groups) related to the scrolls are Essenes. Concerning the textual variant, difficulties have arisen with regard to finding the more original reading and meaning of Ant. 18.19. The main issue surrounds the more original reading of the first clause of this passage. As noted above, the {A}, {M}, {W}, and {Zon.} Greek MS witnesses render Ant. 18.19 in the following way, without the negation: See note 9 above concerning the various views of the Essenes. As discussed below, these two streams of thought reflect the cultic ideology of the larger DSS movement and the later Qumran-related community respectively. As discussed in certain texts, due to their observance of the 364-day calendar, the former group offered certain non-calendar binding sacrifices, or alternatively, sacrifices for non-temple approved festivals. See this discussion in the Introduction as well as the chapters on Jubilees and the Damascus Document, in this book. 24 25

80

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήµατα στέλλοντες θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν, ἅς νοµίζοιεν, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ εἰργόµενοι τοῦ κοινοῦ τεµενίσµατος ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν. They send votive gifts to the temple, but perform sacrifices with different purifications, which they suppose. For this reason, they were excluded from the public precinct of the temple, thus they perform sacrifices by themselves.26

The {Lat.} and {E} versions negate the second line of the first clause, εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήµατα στέλλοντες θυσίας [οὐκ] ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν. Difficulty in translating the first clause of this passage is also heightened in view of θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν also occurring in the last line of this passage (ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν). In view of the textual issue concerning οὐκ, which subsequently has affected the translation, meaning and overall understanding of this passage, four issues are examined in this section: (1) should this passage be read with or without the negation (οὐκ)? (2) How should the term ἀναθήµατα in the first line be understood? (3) How should εἰργόµενοι be translated, grammatically? and (4) how should the statement ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν be read, particularly in view of the translation of θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν in the first part of this passage? Before discussing the above issues, it is important to note that the Essenes are described as sending ἀναθήµατα to the temple. This suggests that, like Philo as well as the entire DSS movement, the Essenes revered the temple and cult in principle. Moreover, as Albert Baumgarten perceptively notes, the Essenes’ reverence for the temple and cult is also noted by the fact that according to Josephus, Judah the Essene was teaching in the temple and John the Essene was appointed at a meeting in the temple.27

My translation. See A. Baumgarten, “Josephus,” 175 and note 27 there. Also see John Nolland, “A Misleading Statement of the Essene Attitude to the Temple,” RevQ 9 (1977-1978): 557-8, who similarly notes the point that the Essenes revered the temple. The presence of Essenes in Jerusalem and at the temple reflects the notion that in view of the Damascus Document (discussed in the chapter on the Damascus Document) the larger DSS movement participated in some sacrifices. This similarity speaks to the 26 27

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

81

‘Aναθήµατα is rendered as ‘votive offerings.’28 Strugnell followed by Joseph Baumgarten rightly noted that ἀναθήµατα is nonsacrificial.29 According to Albert Baumgarten, this term can be interpreted in a number of ways. Following John Nolland,30 A. Baumgarten contends that it could include the temple tax which all Jews were required to pay.31 Alternatively, he suggests that sending ἀναθήµατα could have meant voluntary sacrifices, which both Jews and non-Jews were free to send.32 Despite how ἀναθήµατα is interpreted, as discussed below, sending it to the temple suggests that for some reason the Essenes were not able to bring it themselves, further implying that they were not present around the temple. But what was the reason(s) for their position? Due to the variant reading of this passage (the {Lat.} and {E} against the others), Ant. 18.19 becomes ambiguous at this point.33 Certain possibilities are probed to determine this and other questions. 2. Accepting or Rejecting the Reading of οὐκ in the Text

The Latin version {Lat.} of Ant. 18.19 is at least five to six centuries older than the extant Greek MSS where οὐκ is absent. Nolland rightly favoured the former (the Latin followed by the Epitome); he accurately stressed its importance based on being the oldest

link between the Essenes and the DSS movement (for discussion on this see note 2 in the Introduction). 28 See Liddell and Scott, “ἀναθήµατα.” 29 See Strugnell, “Flavius Josephus,” 114 note 36 and J. Baumgarten, “The Essene and the Temple,” 68. 30 See Nolland, “Misleading Statement,” 557-8. 31 For a discussion of the half-shekel offering see Jacob Liver, “The HalfShekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature,” HTR 56 (1963): 173-98; Jodi Magness, “Temple Tax, Clothing and the Anti-Hellenizing Attitude of the Sectarians,” in her The Archaeology of Qumran, 188-93 and 206-9. 32 See A. Baumgarten, “Josephus,” 174-5. 33 Opposed to the larger DSS movement, the Qumran-related community similarly chose to refrain from visiting the temple. See discussion of this in the chapters on MMT, the Rule of Community and 4QFlorilegium in this book.

82

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

extant witness.34 The Latin version {Lat.} is a fifth or sixth century MS made by the order of Cassiodorus. Outside of his version of Ant. (particularly 18.19), all the extant MSS of this passage are known in Greek.35 Presumably, the Latin version {Lat.}, which is followed by the Epitome {E}, derived from an earlier Greek source;36 however, whether the reading favoured in the Latin {Lat.} predated the source from the extant Greek MSS is uncertain. Marie-Joseph Lagrange (arguing before the discovery of the scrolls) favoured the tradition behind the Greek MSS. He reasoned that οὐκ was inserted into the Latin because of Philo and Eusebius’ influence: “La négation a été ajoutée dans le latin d’après l’idée accréditée par Philon et surtout par Eusèbe que les Esséniens ne faisaient pas d’immolations.”37 Lagrange drops the οὐκ in his translation: Ils envoient des objects consacrés au Temple et s’acquittent des sacrifices avec des purifications supérieures, à ce qu’ils pensent, et se tenant à l’ecart pour dela même de l’enceinte du Temple commune (à tous) ils s’acquittent entre eux des (dits) sacrifices.38

He also asserted that the Essenes wanted to sacrifice; yet their raffinements de purifications prevented them, unless they risked contamination. Here Lagrange described the absence of οὐκ as naturally harmonising better with Josephus’ further statement, ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν.39 Lagrange is correct to note that the Essenes wanted to prevent risk of impurity. This forward-thinking action adheres with the group’s decision to separate themselves (εἰργόµενοι as middle) Nolland “Misleading Statement,” 558. Although it is non-extant, a fourth century Latin version of Antiquities was attributed to Hegesippus. 36 This is against Black, who thinks that the οὐκ was imported into the texts from a misunderstood Latin translation. See below for this discussion. 37 Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Le Judaïsme avant Jésus-Christ (Paris: Gabalda, 1931), 317. 38 See Lagrange, Le Judaïsme, 316. 39 See Lagrange, Le Judaïsme, 316 note 5. 34 35

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

83

from the sanctuary. Lagrange also rightly observes that the group’s raffinements de purifications prevented them from sacrificing. However, his suggestion that they sacrificed in the temple which they withdrew from is untenable. This, surely, would have incurred impurity. This is also how the Qumran-related group thought, particularly during the latter stages of its development.40 Joseph Thomas (also writing before the discovery of the scrolls, and principally arguing against Lagrange) rejected the evidence of the majority of Greek MSS in favour of the {Lat.} and the {E} tradition, which favoured οὐκ. He contended that even though the {Lat.} and {E} predated the Greek MSS, argument for accepting or rejecting οὐκ should not be based on textual tradition. Rather, he suggested that the meaning of Ant. 18.19 should be based on internal criteria.41 David Wallace (who also accepted οὐκ) followed Thomas’ assertions. He reasserted four of Thomas’ reasons (based on internal evidence, which this study also accepts) why οὐκ should be retained:42 1) He claimed that the first clause indicated that the Essenes sent their offerings to the temple and that this justified their avoidance of it, “The Essenes avoided going into the Temple, but sent their offerings instead.”43 As discussed below, this assumption rests on construing εἰργόµενοι in the second clause as grammatically middle. 2) For the first clause to make sense, στέλλοντες and ἐπιτελοῦσιν must be in opposition to one another. Wallace

Lagrange’s assertions are problematic (thus to be rejected) on a number of grounds. Firstly, he assumes that the Greek MSS reading of this passage is to be accepted over the {Lat.} and {E}. Secondly, assuming a link between the Essenes and the DSS movement, the type of sacrifice discussed in Ant. 18.19 is not spelled out. Based on this, Lagrange assumes that various sacrifices are referred to. This position is against the ideology of the larger DSS movement, which participated in some sacrifice while adopting a more idealised and eschatological view of the sacrificial cult. See note 25 above. 41 See Joseph Thomas, Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (Gembloux: Duclot, 1935), 12 note 3, for his discussion concerning the criteria of determining the more original reading of Ant. 18.19. 42 See Wallace, “Essenes,” 335-8. 43 See Wallace, “Essenes,” 335. 40

84

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION suggests here that the passage without οὐκ would be meaningless, particularly if the passage reads “they send ἀναθήµατα to the temple, but they offer θυσίας.” Based on this, Wallace rightly asks, “if it was their habit to go to the temple to sacrifice, why would they also send it?”44 3) He suggested that στέλλοντες was an adversative participle which required the negation, particularly based on his belief that “a participial form when used in preference to a finite verb indicates subordination which is either causal, temporal, or adversative.”45 Moreover, he also contended that δέ, was to be read as an adversative in conjunction with οὐκ. 4) He contended that there was a natural antithesis between ἀναθήµατα and θυσίας; he argued that the omission of οὐκ would make this clause meaningless. Wallace further contended that the anarthrous use of θυσίας suggests a negation. Also, he noted θυσίας as being included in the generic use of the word ἀναθήµατα.

Thomas’ first two assumptions (put forth here by Wallace) correctly rely on the verb εἰργόµενοι as being grammatically middle, “they separated themselves.” Ralph Marcus, followed by John Strugnell46 and Frank Cross47 (all of whom argued their case after the discovery of the scrolls), on the other hand, noted that εἰργόµενοι is always passive in Josephus.48 Apart from Marcus, they (along with Louis Feldman and Joseph Baumgarten who later adopted this interpretation)49 based their view on reading the first clause of Ant. 18.19 without οὐκ, ‘they send ἀναθήµατα to the temple but θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν with different purification.’ Moreover, these scholars also seem to take the last part of this passage, ἐφ᾽ See Wallace, “Essenes,” 335. See Wallace, “Essenes,” 335. 46 See Strugnell, “Flavius Josephus,” 114, also his note 34. 47 See, Cross, The Ancient Library, 76 note 119. 48 See Marcus, “Pharisees,” 158, and his note 2 there. Also see this discussion below. 49 See Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, Books 18-20 (trans. Louis Feldman; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), 16-7 note a., and J. Baumgarten “The Essenes and the Temple,” 63. 44 45

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

85

αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν, as reinforcing the same directive (they offer sacrifice).50 These scholars assume this reading in view of the discovered animal bones found at Qumran, which they took as representing a sacrificing Essene community.51 The above scholars (Strugnell, Cross, Feldman and followed by J. Baumgarten) assume that the Essenes and the DSS movement are the same. Moreover, they place them both at Qumran.52 These scholars also claim that the Essenes (particularly at Qumran) offered sacrifice. These claims are untenable on several grounds. First, the above scholars fail to recognize that there were at least two or more groups (from the larger DSS movement) of Essenes which reflected at least two streams of thought. Although the larger DSS movement may have participated in some sacrifices,53 no sacrifices were offered at Qumran.54 As is discussed in the chapter on Archaeology, the animal bones found at Qumran are not from sacrifice. Based on the archaeology, at least one group (the group related to Qumran) ceased offering sacrifice close to the time of their Qumran occupation.55 Second, the above scholars contradict themselves in their reading. If this passage without οὐκ was correct, then the view that the Essenes were a sacrificing community suggests that they (the Essenes) sacrificed, See below where the meaning of this line is discussed. For a thorough discussion of the animal bones and the Qumran archaeology, see the Archaeology chapter in this book. 52 Although this connection is probable, only a branch of this movement (the Qumran-related community) resided at Qumran. The above scholars assume that the Essenes, the DSS movement, and Khirbet Qumran are all connected without qualifying their claim (see note 2 in the Introduction, which discusses the links). 53 This position may also be evident in Josephus’ description concerning Judah the Essene and John the Essene. See note 70 below for Josephus’ references. Also see note 2 in the Introduction of this book. Also see the chapter on the Damascus Document, which similarly describes the cultic ideology of the DSS movement and later Qumran-related community. 54 The situation at Qumran more reflects the ideology and stance of the later Qumran-related community, which although separated from the larger DSS movement, yet remained part of this movement because of their Essene makeup. 55 For discussion of the Qumran occupation, see the chapter on Archaeology in this book. 50 51

86

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

but not in the temple at Jerusalem from which they were excluded or banned (εἰργόµενοι read passively which they suggest). Does this imply that the Essenes offered sacrifice elsewhere, away from the temple? To smooth over this obvious difficulty, Black, who is followed by Joseph Baumgarten, suggested that the Essenes performed their sacrifices at the same temple to which they sent their ἀναθήµατα (in Jerusalem).56 In his discussion on the view of Essene sacrifice, Black surmised that the most original reading of Ant. 18.19 lacked οὐκ. He conjectured that it may have been imported into the text from a misunderstood Latin translation. He suggests that Cassiodorus’ translation (‘in templo autem anathemata prohibent, sarificia vel hostias com populo non celebrant’) could have indicated a negation in the sense that the Essenes do not celebrate sacrifices with the people but perform them by themselves. Black implies that the Essenes had free access to the temple based on an Essene Gate. However, he wrongly posits that this Essene Gate allowed the group to bring their sacrifices to the temple in seclusion from the people.57 Joseph Baumgarten postulated that in view of priestly laxity in the temple (during a time when there was an attempt to achieve universality regarding ritual matters throughout Judaism), the Essenes could have brought individual sacrifices, which like votive offerings had no fixed time at which to be offered.58 See Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 40-1 and J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 63-74. 57 See Matthew Black’s discussion in The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 40, also his note 1. 58 See J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 63-74, who describes this matter. Baumgarten’s position here may reflect the actions of the larger DSS movement only. However, Baumgarten misses this point because he fails to recognize the difference between the larger DSS movement and the later Qumran-related community, which both reflected different cultic views. Baumgarten reads εἰργόµενοι as a passive participle which raises several difficult questions: most important of which is, if the group was banished from the temple (εἰργόµενοι read passively), would the temple authorities allow them to return? Regarding the ideological distinctions between the larger DSS movement and the Qumran-related community, see note 25 above. 56

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

87

Both Black’s and Baurgarten’s postulations fail to convince for a number of reasons: (1) both arguments fail to answer the question poignantly put forth by Thomas, ‘if the Essenes regularly went to the temple, why would they send offerings?’ (2) As Albert Baumgarten insightfully notes,59 both Black and Joseph Baumgarten fail to account for how they think the current temple authorities would allow a group which they banished (εἰργόµενοι read passively according to both) from the temple to have special privileges in the temple; (3) Black misconstrues the location of the Essene Gate, which was located at the city wall, not the temple. Moreover, like the scholars above, both Black and J. Baumgarten fail to recognize that there were at least two Essene groups. Although the larger DSS movement could have offered some sacrifice only,60 the group related to Qumran ceased sacrificing during the latter stages of its development. This is particularly evident in the Qumran archaeology as well as the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium texts discussed below. 3. Εἰργόµενοι : Middle or Passive?

Viewing εἰργόµενοι as grammatically passive has been predicated on reading Ant. 18.19 in the following way, without οὐκ: They send votive gifts to the temple, but perform sacrifices with different purifications, which are customary. For this reason, they were excluded from the public precinct of the temple, thus they perform sacrifices by themselves.61

Grammatically, εἰργόµενοι can be interpreted as either a middle or passive plural participle. As Klinzing notes,62 those who have favoured οὐκ, usually read εἰργόµενοι as a middle participle, “they

See A. Baumgarten, “Josephus,” 171, and note 8 there. As noted earlier (see note 16 in the Introduction of this book), due to a calendar difference between Jerusalem’s temple establishment and the DSS movement, only certain sacrifices were offered. See note 25 above which also makes this distinction. 61 My translation. 62 See Klinzing, Die Umdeutung, 45 note 14. 59 60

88

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

separated themselves.”63 Those who have rejected οὐκ, generally favoured εἰργόµενοι as passive, “they were banned or excluded.”64 Exceptions, however, are found in the translations of Thomas, Lightfoot, Cross, Steckoll and Nolland;65 each favour οὐκ while rendering εἰργόµενοι as grammatically passive. They roughly translate Ant. 18.19 in the following way: They send offerings/gifts to the Temple but do not offer sacrifices because of different purifications which should be used, and for this reason having been excluded from the common precincts of the Temple, they perform their sacrifices among themselves.

It is interesting to note here that Lagrange offers yet another translation of this passage, which is different from the previous mentioned. He rejects οὐκ and renders εἰργόµενοι as grammatically middle.66 His translation, too, fails to answer the question, ‘why would the Essenes send offerings to a temple which they regularly attended?’ As noted previously, J. Baumgarten contends that εἰργόµενοι should always be rendered passively in Josephus.67 Strugnell

See the translations of those who favour the οὐκ and follow the middle reading of εἰργόµενοι: J. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 155; Wallace, “Essenes,” 335-8; Dupont-Sommer, Essenes Writings, 36 note 3; Kurt Schubert, The Dead Sea Community: Its Origins and Teachings (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1959), 55; Gaston, No Stone, 120 also his note 2; M. Petit, “Le Esséen de Philon d’Alexandrie et les Esséniens,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 151; and Green, “Send Up,” 165. 64 See Klinzing, Die Umdeutung, 45 note 14 who also takes up this claim. Also see Marcus, “Pharisees,” 158; Strugnell, “Flavius Josephus,” 113ff; Josephus, Ant. 18.5 (Feldman, LCL); Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 39-40; J. Baumgarten, “The Essene and the Temple,” 62; Lichtenberger, “Atonement,” 160; Beall, Josephus, 115; and A. Baumgarten, “Josephus,” 169-83. 65 Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 65; Cross, The Ancient Library, 75-6 and Nolland, “Misleading Statement,” 558. 66 See note 37 above. 67 See note 48 and 49 above. Also see J. Baumgarten’s reappraisal in “The Essenes and the Temple,” 63. 63

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

89

suggests that the use of this verb as passive in Thucydides could have influenced how Josephus used it.68 Referring to K. Rengstorf’s A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, as well as its use in other Josephus passages, A. Baumgarten similarly asserts that the use of εἰργόµενοι is passive.69 Εἰργόµενοι should be read as grammatically middle for three reasons: (1) this term is contained in a causal clause, which favours the negation in the context of Ant. 18.19; (2) if the Essenes were banned, it is unlikely that Josephus would have also mentioned the presence of an Essene teaching in the court of the temple (unless he was talking about a particular group of Essenes which he does not appear to indicate). On the basis of this, it is more meaningful to stress a middle reading of εἰργόµενοι, “they separated themselves,” especially since they (the Essenes) would be free to frequent the temple whenever they wanted, like Judah the Essene;70 and (3) as will be discussed later, reading εἰργόµενοι as a middle participle better harmonises with the overall ideology of the DSS movement and later Qumran-related community, particularly in view of their strict purity and sacrificial regulations as recorded in their related texts.71 The Essenes excluded themselves from the temple both ideologically and physically.72 Although it is not explicitly clear to which separation Josephus is referring, the former likely is intended. Although the case for εἰργόµενοι as middle is preferred here, in view of an overall understanding of the Essene group, this term subtly conveyed a two-fold meaning, incorporating a passive understanding of this verb. The Essenes separated from the See John Strugnell who argues this case, “Flavius Josephus,” 114 note 34. 69 See A. Baumgarten, “Josephus,” 171 note 6. 70 See Jewish Wars 1:78; Antiquities 13:311. Also see J.W. 2:562-7, where John the Essene was appointed at a public meeting held at the temple. 71 For discussion on the nature and status of the movement’s cultic regulations, see the various textual chapters in this book. 72 Although the larger DSS movement offered some sacrifice, perhaps only fully separating from the temple ideologically, the Qumran-related community completely separated from the temple, both ideologically and physically, especially during their Qumran settlement. See discussion of this in the chapter on the Damascus Document. 68

90

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

temple because their approach to sacrifice was excluded or rejected from being practiced by the temple establishment. In view of this, the Essenes as a group were never rejected from the sanctuary. Rather, it was their views on purity (θυσίας [οὐκ] ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν) and most sacrifices (ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν) that were excluded. 4. Ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν: They Sacrifice (What) by Themselves?

Josephus’ further remark, ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν, seems to suggest that the Essenes’ being separated from the temple, did perform sacrifices, thus enforcing the view that the more original reading of Ant. 18.19 lacked οὐκ. This reading allows for the possibility of interpreting θυσίας in both occurrences of this passage as meaning actual sacrifice. But this reading raises two unsettling questions: 1) did the Essenes, having some special arrangement, indeed, sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem? Or 2) did they sacrifice in their own community? Whereas J. Baumgarten and Black attempted to assert that the Essenes had a special arrangement in the temple, Feldman followed by Strugnell, Cross and others inferred that the Essenes offered sacrifice in their own community away from the temple. As illustrated above, both arguments fully fail to convince. Therefore, because of this, exactly what is the meaning of θυσίας in general, and ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν in particular? The Meaning of θυσίας

Θυσίας is a feminine plural noun which means ‘sacrifices’ or ‘offerings.’73 The use of this term in the first clause of Ant. 18.19 conveys a different meaning than its use in last line of this passage. In the first clause (according to the {Lat.} and {E} MSS), the Essenes do not sacrifice because of different purifications which they adhere to (θυσίας [οὐκ] ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν). The See Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, “θυσία,” n.p., A Greek-English Lexicon on CD-ROM. Bible Works for Windows 6.0. 2003. Print ed.: Henry Liddell and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1996. 73

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

91

purification which the Essenes observed (which most likely applied to a type of offering which they practiced) are different from the θυσίας and its purity regulations which were practiced in Jerusalem’s temple. This is attested in both the first clause as well as in the last line of the passage: θυσίας [οὐκ] ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν and ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν. Primarily based on the last line of Ant. 18.19, which is a continuing thought from the idea in the first clause (θυσίας [οὐκ] ἐπιτελοῦσιν διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν), the Essenes offer different sacrifices than those offered in Jerusalem. If the Essenes offered the same sacrifices (sacrifices adhering to the same stipulations as required in Jerusalem’s temple) elsewhere, this would be meaningless. The entire passage stresses that the Essenes offered different sacrifices than those offered in Jerusalem, which incorporated different purity regulations. Based on this, it is acceptable to interpret these sacrifices as (1) sacrifices for non-temple-approved festivals, or those that were non-calendar binding (which correlates with the ideology of the larger DSS movement), or (2) spiritualised sacrifices or substitutes for sacrifice (which correlates with the ideology of the later Qumran-related community). J. Baumgarten translated the term θυσίας (in the last line of the passage) as ‘worship.’ Although it is preferable to translate the term as ‘sacrifice,’ the idea behind his translation (which is followed by others) is tenable. Based on accepting a more spiritualised view of ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν, an examination of the character of Essene sacrifice is carried out. The Character of Essene θυσίας

The Essenes’ θυσία could have been the red heifer, which according to the law (Numbers 19) was sacrificed outside the camp. As described by John Bowman and others, although the rite of the red heifer was called a sacrifice, it was not considered an actual sacrifice since it was offered outside of the temple.74 The Essenes For a study on the red heifer, see Bowman, “Red Heifer?” 73-84; Jacob Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” VT 31 (1981): 62-72; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts,” JJS 31 (1980): 157-70; “The Red Cow 74

92

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

could have performed these sacrifices (θυσίας) outside of the temple camp on their own (ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν). The Essenes also viewed their θυσίας (in ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν), as meals, prayer, praise, and study. Milik,75 and Kuhn76 viewed θυσίας as referring to the Essenes (thus, subsequently, the Qumran community’s) meals.’ With regard to study, perhaps Philo gives insight into the Essenes view of sacrifice. As noted above in Yonge’s translation of Prob. 75, the Essenes thought that studying to preserve the purity and holiness of their minds was more acceptable to God than sacrificing animals. Moreover (as already noted), the importance regarding the idea of studying as a substitute for animal sacrifice is also conveyed in Prob. 80-82. In view of Philo’s descriptions, it is possible that in Ant. 18.19, the Essenes viewed their θυσίας with διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν as study: i.e., studying to preserve purity and holiness.

D. SUMMARY: THE RELATION BETWEEN THE E SSENE V IEW OF S ACRIFICE AND THE MOVEMENT RELATED TO THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

As noted in the above discussion, there are at least two streams of thought concerning Essene sacrifice. Although the variant views can only be seen in Ant. 18.19, like Prob. 75, Ant. 18.19, however, represents a more spiritualised understanding of sacrifice, which also coincides with the ideology of the Qumran-related community, discussed and demonstrated throughout the remainder of this work. Regarding Ant. 18.19, when referring to θυσίας (in ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν) in a spiritualised manner, there has been the tendency to accept the οὐκ and read εἰργόµενοι as grammatically middle, ‘they separated themselves.’77 It would seem that this spiritualised view of Essene θυσίας was initiated in light of the discovery of the scrolls. This, however, was not the case. Thomas Purification Rites in Qumran Texts,” JJS 46 (1995): 112-9; Albert Baumgarten, “The Paradox of the Red Heifer,” VT 43 (1993): 442-51 and “Josephus,” 177-81. 75 Milik, Ten Years, 105 note 2. 76 Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper,” 260 note 15. 77 See note 62 and 63 above.

CHAPTER TWO. THE ESSENE VIEW OF SACRIFICE

93

and Lightfoot asserted a spiritualised view of Ant. 18.19 before the scrolls were discovered. Understanding Philo’s and Josephus’ description in a more spiritualised way coheres with the view of sacrifice of the Qumran-related community, particularly during the later stages of its development. This is attested throughout their texts.78 As discussed in the remainder of this book, just like the Essenes (described above), the Qumran-related community, too, developed a more spiritualised understanding of sacrifice. Although the Qumran-related community revered both the temple and its sacrifice (which they viewed as impure and defiled), they viewed their own prayer, praise, and study as substitutes for sacrifice. In view of the above textual considerations, both Philo and Josephus are in harmony with one another. Moreover, the view expressed by these authors is also in harmony with the Qumranrelated group, particularly during the latter stages of its development. Both Philo and Josephus note that the Essenes offered a type of sacrifice that was different from the sacrifice performed at Jerusalem. This type of offering served as substitutes for actual sacrifices. According to Josephus, these sacrifices were performed by themselves according to different purity standards. Unfortunately, Josephus gives no description of how these sacrifices differed from those that were performed at the temple. Philo provide insight into what some of these sacrificial substitutes looked like. He describes the Essenes as ‘studying to preserve the purity and holiness of their minds.’ The idea of studying is also picked up in the following passages of Quod Omnis Probus Liber sit, particularly 80-82, which reinforces the idea that studying which preserved purity and holiness was viewed as a substitute for sacrifice, i.e., it was viewed as more important to God than sacrificing animals. Both Philo and Josephus imply that the Essenes revered the temple and sacrifice; however, they preferred to offer a more spiritualised type of sacrifice.

78

See the various textual chapters in this book concerning this matter.

CHAPTER THREE. QUMRAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND SACRIFICIAL CULTIC MATTERS A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

In view of the overall understanding of Philo’s and Josephus’ description regarding Essene sacrifice, a more conclusive link can be made between the identity and ideology of the Essenes and the larger DSS movement. Moreover, Philo’s and Josephus’ descriptions also demonstrate a distinction between the larger DSS movement and its later offshoot group, the community related to Qumran. This distinction is based on Prob. 75 and Ant. 18.19 regarding the Essene view of sacrifice parallel to the views of sacrifice in the scrolls.1 In consideration of the scrolls’ account (discussed in the following chapters of this book), the nature of this distinction implies that as the larger DSS movement developed, various groups within the movement also developed, which indeed was the case regarding a particular offshoot group who separated both ideologically and physically from the larger parent movement. As this group (i.e., the Qumran-related community) developed, it developed a more predominantly spiritualised ideology of the temple and sacrificial cult than the larger movement; this is

The ideology of sacrifice in the scrolls is fully dealt with in the ensuing chapters of this book. Refer to the chapters on the book of Jubilees, the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll, MMT, the Rule of the Community, and 4QFlorilegium in particular. 1

95

96

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

characterised in its writings.2 The community viewed itself as sanctuary-like, which made spiritualised sacrifice in place of actual animal sacrifice. After the community separated, it eventually settled at Khirbet Qumran. The new Qumran community continued to practice its spiritualised views at its new settlement. The spatial arrangement of the site, and the discovered archaeological remains convincingly proves this. Based on this assertion, it is necessary to examine the cultic nature of the Qumran site.3 The character and arrangement of the Qumran site itself, which has been described as a physical expression of the temple,4 is examined here. In investigating the aspects and nature of the site, certain archaeological elements had some cultic orientation. This is based on de Vaux’s archaeological notes, which span more than a decade after the first Qumran texts were found.

The spiritualised ideology of the Qumran-related community is demonstrated in the redacted parts of the Damascus Document, as well as its later works during their Qumran settlement like the Rule of the Community, and 4Q174. In view of the community’s ideological shift from the larger DSS movement, the community also read works that preserved sacrificial regulations, like the original core of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, as well as MMT and even the book of Jubilees in more of a spiritualised way. See these respective chapters in this study which demonstrates this. 3 Qumran archaeology is unique here in that it speaks to both the identity and ideology of a particular community. Whereas in the past, archaeologists have been influenced by textual accounts (via literary scholars), being heavily persuaded to interpret evidence as coinciding with textual accounts, enough evidence exists at Qumran to make some elementary links regarding identity and cultic ideology. For a general discussion concerning the relationship between archaeology and textual literature, see Jean-Baptiste Humbert, “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation,” in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha II: Études d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie – Studies of Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry (ed. Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003), 419-25. Also see note 2 in the Introduction of this book. 4 See discussion below. 2

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS

97

B. BRIEF I NTRODUCTION TO THE QUMRAN SITE

Although there had been earlier investigations of the ruins at Khirbet Qumran,5 in 1949, archaeologists conducted another examination of the site after the discovery of scrolls found in a cave (cave 1) about a half-mile to the north. Gerald Lankester Harding, of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, and Father Roland de Vaux, of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jerusalem, conducted this investigation. After a brief examination, they concluded that the ruins had no connection with the cave or scrolls. Rather, they reasoned (as did Gustav Dalman in 1914) that it was the remains of a Roman fort. However, in 1951, after much scholarly debate concerning the scrolls and nearby ruins, Harding and de Vaux conducted yet another investigation, which, this time, yielded remains that appeared to link the site with the cave and scrolls.6 de Vaux, subsequently, led a series of further excavations (from 1953 through 1956) after the discovery of more caves (2 through 11), which contained more scrolls and artefacts. These excavations yielded remains that gave clues for distinguishing the site’s community and its practices (this chapter is only concerned with possible cultic practices here). Evidence also helped to reveal the site’s various occupations and chronological development.

C. THE CULTIC NATURE OF K HIRBET QUMRAN 1. Introduction

Based on the architectural makeup of the site, especially in view of the archaeological remains, Qumran appears to have functioned as sanctuary-like, however, without actual animal The site was investigated, before the discovery of the scrolls, by Félicien de Saulcy in 1861, C. Clermont-Ganneau and F. M. Able in 1873 and Gustav Dalman in 1914. Concern about the ethnic identity of the site’s inhabitants has received scant attention. Anthropological investigation of the site’s skeletal remains can suggest an African link, particularly in light of burial customs and a Jewish temple discovered at Leontopolis, Egypt. 6 Similar pottery was found at the site, including a scroll jar, which resembled what was found in cave 1. 5

98

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sacrifices. Among the many artefacts and ruins uncovered at Khirbet Qumran, nothing has conclusively suggested that actual animal sacrifice took place there. Attempts that say that it did, appeal to ambiguous evidence such as (1) the description of the site itself as temple-like, (2) the discovery of an altar or altars, (3) the discovery and character of animal bones, and (4) the discovery and character of several cisterns. Steckoll and Humbert, using much of the aforementioned evidence, held the view that animal sacrifice took place at Qumran. Magness, after reconsidering her initial assertion, later adopts this view; however, as this chapter demonstrates, their assertions prove unconvincing.7 Regarding the discovery of cisterns, many were almost certainly used as ritual baths for purification, which were associated with participating in cultic meals. The character of these meals, which were in no way made up of animal sacrifices, likely followed the cultic calendar. Consequently, these meals became viewed (by the Qumran community) as substitutes for actual sacrifices, which is attested by the animal bones (described in detail below) found at the site. The preservation of these bones, as well as the type of animals from which they came suggests this. Although the Qumran community went through various stages, their spiritualised ideology mainly remained continuous. This is attested based upon the examination of de Vaux’s excavation reports. His initial reports seem accurate; however, in certain parts they remain sketchy or erroneous. 2. The Investigation of the Qumran Site in view of de Vaux’s Study a. Introduction

In his 1953 preliminary report, de Vaux described Qumran as having three distinct periods (or levels) of occupation,8 two of which relate to the community associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls: Period I, from its construction in the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-

7 8

See below where Steckoll, Humbert and Magness are fully discussed. See de Vaux, “Fouilles Au Khirbet Qumrân,” RB 61 (1954): 206-36.

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS

99

104 B.C.E.) to the great earthquake of 31 B.C.E.;9 Period II, from the site’s restoration in the reign of Herod Archelaus (4 B.C.E- 6 C.E.) to its destruction by the Romans in 68 C.E.; and Period III, from 68 to about 87 C.E., with a possible reoccupation during the second Jewish revolt (132- 135 C.E). Later, in his 1956 report, de Vaux changed his views concerning Period I.10 He sub-divided this period into Period Ia, which he dated as far back as one of John Hyrcanus’ predecessors (his father Simon in 143-134 B.C.E., or uncle, Jonathan in 152-143 B.C.E.), and Period Ib, dating its construction to the reign of John Hyrcanus and its occupation under Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.E.). Without significant numismatic and pottery evidence, de Vaux dated Period Ia based on his understanding of the literary-historical account of the Wicked Priest, which appears to have influenced his findings.11 As discussed below, Magness rightly challenged this Period Ia, Ib theory. de Vaux also identified an Iron Age Israelite Period, which he dated from the 8th to 7th century B.C.E. According to de Vaux, this Israelite Period consisted of a round cistern at locus 110, which was fed by surface runoff. This cistern, however, had no steps, unlike the others found in later periods; its function in later periods (I through II) may have been associated with cultic practices, but its construction makes this unlikely. The function of this cistern is discussed later. b. Period Ia

Despite the absence of numismatic evidence, distinguishable pottery (different from that of the following period, Ib), and sherd artefacts, de Vaux claimed that (the start of) Period Ia began no later than the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.C.E.), but not earlier than one of his predecessors, Simon (143-134 B.C.E.) or Jonathan (152-143 B.C.E.). de Vaux’s assertion for the existence of Period Ia is based on his understanding of the literary This earthquake was described by Josephus in Ant. 15.121-147 and J.W. 1.370-380. 10 De Vaux, “Fouilles,” (1956): 534-45. 11 This matter is discussed below, in the treatment of Period Ia. 9

100

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

description and scholarly debate concerning the historical figure the Wicked Priest.12 For de Vaux, the career of the Wicked Priest must be seen as corresponding with Period Ia and the Qumran literature.13 de Vaux stressed that dating the occupation of Period Ia under Alexander Jannaeus (as the Wicked Priest at this time) would be too late, hence his assertion that an initial community occupation must have taken place in the time of either Simon or Jonathan as the Wicked Priest. de Vaux noted that Period Ia was marked by the settlement of a sectarian community (related to the scrolls) several centuries after, and with no relation to, the previous settlement (the Israelite Period). de Vaux cites the following remains, which may have had cultic significance to the community: Possible Ritual Baths (Miqva’ot)

•

•

Two rectangular cisterns (one at locus 117 and the other at 118) built next to the round cistern from the Israelite Period, and a decantation basin where silt from each of these cisterns was deposited. The construction of several channels, which supplied the cisterns with water from the southern area of the site.

The cisterns at loci 117 and 118 were built with steps descending into them. This construction suggests that they were intended for a different purpose than the round cistern constructed in the Israelite Period. de Vaux noted that their features suggested they were meant for ritual baths (miqva’ot). However, he conjectured that they might be simple cisterns as well.14 If, however, these cisterns were used for ritual purification, which most likely was

See de Vaux, Archaeology, 5 and especially 116-17. At this early stage in Qumran studies, scholars lacked the full literally evidence with which to fully understand the development of the DSS movement and Qumran-related community. In light of the more complete literary information, and on the basis of both a synchronic and diachronic literary thought development, Qumran literature can be divided between an earlier ideology and a later ideology. 14 See below, particularly in the discussion on Period Ib, where this matter is further discussed. 12 13

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 101 the case, the channels and decantation system helped to fulfil their necessary legal requirements. Assuming that pre-rabbinic regulations concerning ritual baths (miqva’ot) remained in harmony with later rabbinic halakha, bShabbat discusses the particularities concerning how purity status was achieved. Immersion in un-drawn cold and standing water was required.15 Un-drawn cold water was brought into Qumran’s cisterns via the channel system. Moreover, presuming that the Qumran community was Essenic and that it (the community) was associated with the scrolls,16 regulations concerning purification with water are also described in the accounts of Josephus (particularly in J.W. 2.129,17 138, 147-9, 150 and 161) and the scrolls (particularly CD 10:10b-13(=4Q266 8 iii 9b-10);18 11Q19 XLV 16; XLIX-LI; 1QS III 4-6, 7-9; V 12-14; 4Q284 5; 4Q512). These accounts illustrate how the cisterns and miqva’ot were used at Qumran (including the miqva’ot found in later periods, discussed below). Despite most of the scrolls’ accounts predating the occupation at Qumran, non-sacrificial regulations likely remained in practice, particularly considering the continuous transmission of these texts during the Qumran occupation. Based on the above textual illustrations, miqva’ot were used to provide purification before meals,19 before entering the

See bShabbat 13b-14a. Also refer to Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 135-7, who similarly discusses the rabbinic view of purity and miqva’ot. 16 For discussion of this link, refer to the chapter on Philo and Josephus in this book. Also see the discussion at note 2 in the Introduction of this book. 17 Like bShabbat, J.W. 2.129-31 records the Essenes as bathing in cold water to purify themselves, especially before going into the dining1 hall, in the same manner as the temple. 18 Although the Damascus Document is a text of the larger DSS movement (with later redacted material), the fact that it continued to be copied and preserved at Qumran attests to its significance and use by the Qumranrelated community. Refer to discussion of this in the chapter on the Damascus Document. 19 This can be seen described in J.W. 2:129-31 in particular. Also cf. the communal meals in 1QS VI 4-6, which most likely also required washing before assembling. 15

102

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

congregation, and for various defilements like exposure to corpses, discharges, skin diseases, and defecating. Praise liturgy was also associated with the purification rite. According to 4Q512, blessings were recited after being immersed or sprinkled. In view of this, other regulations as seen in 4Q266 6 ii 4; 4Q269 8 ii 3-6; 11Q19 XLV 7-10, 17-18; XLIX 19-21; LI 2-5; MMT B 1317 and 64-72, too required some type of praise liturgy after immersion. The practice of offering praise coheres with the overall spiritualised ideology of the community, both before and during the Qumran settlement. The general practice of offering praise, which likely was influenced by the book of Jubilees, is also demonstrated in the community’s Rule of the Community, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 4Q174, and a host of liturgical texts.20 As the community settled at Qumran, they even spiritualised the sacrifices which they formerly performed (as seen in the Damascus Document). The community likely only recited the liturgy that was to accompany these sacrifices as substitutes in place of the actual sacrifices. In view of the liturgical practices, some which now only accompanied purification rites, the miqva’ot at Qumran served a sanctuarylike community. c. Period Ib

According to de Vaux’s notes, miqva’ot as well as other cultic oriented artefacts were found in Period Ib. de Vaux described the start of Period Ib under the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.E). de Vaux suggested that there was no distinguishable break between Periods Ia and Ib; rather, the site experienced a sudden growth in size. After the reconstruction of the Israelite building, de Vaux makes note of the following significant additions, which may have been related to cultic practices: Liturgical texts found at Qumran include 4Q334; 4Q380-381; 4Q408; 4Q414; 4Q502; 4Q503, 4Q504-506; 1Q34-34bis; 4Q507-509; Words of the Luminaries; Berakhot; 4Q512; and others. Also see the various textual chapters in this book which demonstrate the view that offering prayers and praise are considered by the community as substitutes for actual sacrifices. 20

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 103 Possible Ritual Baths (Miqva’ot)

• • • •

•

• •

A “bath” at locus 138,21 built near a shallow decantation basin (at loci 132 and 137). A small “bath” at locus 68.22 A large cistern at locus 71. Several newly dug cisterns at loci 48, 49 and 50. The steps of the cistern at locus 49 (as seen from locus 48) covered two supposed potter’s kilns of the earlier period. Another large cistern, however, without steps, at locus 91.23 This cistern was near a ravine (at locus 96) and a wall with a “lean to” at locus 97. de Vaux described this area as a possible stable for pack animals. A large, stepped cistern dug at locus 56 and 58. The expansion of the water system, which fed the cisterns by an aqueduct with floodwaters from nearby Wadi Qumran. Along with the expanded aqueduct was the expansion of the decantation basins, which deposited silt from these cisterns.24 Other Possible Cultic Remains

•

•

Animal bones found buried between sherds of pots or placed inside jars around locus 130. Other animal bones were uncovered at loci 23, 80, 92 and 135. A possible altar found at locus 100.25

See de Vaux, Archaeology, 9. See de Vaux, Archaeology, 10. 23 This cistern, like the round one from the Israelite Period (locus 110), was used as a water storage tank. These cisterns were not used for purification practices. de Vaux, in fact, calls cistern 91 a reservoir. See de Vaux, Archaeology, 131. 24 With regard to the legal necessity of the channels and decantation system, refer to the discussion above (noted in Period Ia, “Possible Ritual Baths”). 25 The discussion of this object is noted in de Vaux’s treatment of Period II below. Also see notes 84 and 85. 21 22

104

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION •

•

•

Several assembly rooms at loci 4 and 30, which were attached to a large kitchen and washing place around loci 111, 120 and 121.26 A large room (locus 77) considered by de Vaux to be an assembly hall and dining room where cultic meals most likely were served. An adjoining room from the assembly hall, at loci 86 and 89. de Vaux identified this room as a pantry annex, which may have housed the vessels used for the cultic meals. 1) Cisterns: Miqva’ot or Simple Cisterns?

de Vaux makes a distinction between the cisterns and basins (baths) at Qumran. Comparing the cisterns at Qumran with neighbouring Jerusalem, he notes these cisterns as probable simple cisterns whereas the latter (the basins) were almost certainly baths.27 Despite many of the cisterns having steps (the round cistern at locus 110 and the cistern at locus 91 had no steps),28 and their features suggestive that they were meant for ritual baths, de Vaux posited the notion that their steps may have only made it easier to draw water from lower levels. de Vaux described the basins at loci 138 and 68 as the only baths at Qumran;29 they were smaller than the other cistern, and their steps covered almost their entire area. The expansion of the water system, the channels as well as the decantation basins, both fed (with un-drawn cold water) and cleansed the newly constructed cisterns. It is unlikely, though, that the stepped cisterns had a different function than the stepped baths (138 and 68); they

de Vaux misses the significance of these architectural features. As discussed below, these architectural features make up part of cultic disposition of space reflected at Qumran. 27 See de Vaux, Archaeology, 131-2. 28 Cf. Bryant Wood, who is correct in noting the difference between the cisterns with steps (used for religious purposes), and the cisterns without steps (used for practical purposes); see Bryant G. Wood, “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective,” BASOR 256 (1984): 46ff. 29 de Vaux questions whether these baths were solely ritualistic. See de Vaux, Archaeology, 132. 26

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 105 all, most likely, were used as ritual baths.30 As discussed below, this is attested by the arrangement of these baths (miqva’ot) throughout the Qumran site. These miqva’ot, like the ones described in Period Ia (at loci 117 and 118) as well as the cisterns at loci 56 and 58, 48 and 49, and 71, were strategically located at Qumran to serve particular purity needs. As noted by Magness below, these miqva’ot appear to have been located (1) at the entrances to the communal dining rooms (with which according to J.W. 2.129-31, communal members were required to wash before entering), (2) at the entrance to the room with the toilet (locus 51),31 (3) in the areas with workshops which also were in the direction of the cemetery (at the south-eastern edge of the settlement),32 and (4) at the entrance to the site (located in the northwestern area of the site).33 2) Animal Bones

Animal bones found at locus 130 were covered with various kinds of pottery (plates, bowls, or lids). de Vaux identified the pottery as from this period (Ib) and used this dating as a marker for dating the bones. His dating also relied on the level at which the bones, Humbert similarly views these cisterns as miqva’ot. In view of his contention that the site was only used for cultic gatherings, he suggests that they (miqva’ot) were used in cases of large gatherings. See Humbert, “L’espace,” 184. 31 The location of this miqva’ot likely attests to what J.W. 2.147-9 and 11Q19 XLVI 13-16 describe: that a person was to defecate in a pit in privacy under a roofed house, after which he was to wash himself. 32 Coinciding with 11Q19 XLIX 16-21, this miqveh likely served the needs of those who were exposed to human corpses. 33 The significance of this location attests to what J.W. 2.147-9 and 11Q19 XLVI 13-16 describes: that a person is to go out to the northwest of the city to defecate, after which they were to wash themselves. As noted by Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 105-13, community members may have had to defecate outside the camp site due to (1) the toilet at locus 51 not being able to serve every resident, and (2) this toilet going out of use after 31 B.C.E. Although Humbert recognized the significant in the spacing of these miqva’ot (used for ritual purposes), he fails to see the entire site as an expression of the temple and sacred camp. See discussion on this in the section on “Animal Bones,” described in this same Period Ib section below. Also see Humbert, “L’espace,” 182-4. 30

106

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

and coins (some of which were from the time of Alexander Jannaeus)34 were uncovered within the same stratum. Most of the bones were buried flush with ground level. Yet in one case, some were found in two pots covered with sediment; this, according to de Vaux, resulted from the overflow of the large decantation basin after the earthquake. de Vaux noted that the majority of bones were found at locus 130. Thirty of these were found between the secondary building and the large decantation basin. He described thirteen of these deposits as being found within a two-metre radius, “along the wall bounding the southern side of the large esplanade.”35 de Vaux suspected that if cleared, the area could yield more bones. According to Humbert and others, including Magness’ reconsidered view,36 these bones were the remains of sacrifices.37 However, as discussed in detail below, evidence is wanting in this conclusion, particularly due to the fact that despite some contention, no altar was found at Qumran.38 The cultic significance of these bones, along with the bone remains ascribed to Period II, highlighted below, can be seen based on the location where they were buried, as well as how they were buried. The burial of bones underneath pottery suggests that both were subjected to a certain degree of purity. The type of pottery found (plates, bowls, and lids) suggests that indeed these bones and vessels were from the remains of a ritual meal. As pointed out initially by Magness these meals bones replicate a type of sacrifice in Jerusalem:

Along with other Jewish currency, which may have remained in circulation during this period, one hundred and forty-three coins of Alexander Jannaeus were found. 35 de Vaux, Archaeology, 13. 36 Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 5-34. 37 See Humbert, “L’espace,” 188. Also see the views of Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 98; Cross, The Ancient Library, 51 and 74-7; Strugnell, “Flavius Josephus,” 113; Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 55-69 (discussed below) and Gaston, No Stone, 124. Also see this discussion in chapter one of this book. 38 See this matter discussed in the treatment of Period II below. 34

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 107 The holocausts (Hebrew ‘olah), were completely consumed by fire, presumably left only ashes and bits of bone. But in other types of sacrifices, such as the zevach and pesach, the animals were either wholly or partly consumed by the priests and people. After the sacrifice, the flesh of the animal was generally boiled, and any other remains were burned. This corresponds with the physical evidence from Qumran, where most of the meat was boiled, and some was roasted.39

Magness subsequently notes David Wright’s point regarding the hattat which belonged to the priests. Magness initially compares the disposal process of these sacrifices with the animal bones at Qumran. She thus rightly contends that Qumran’s animal bones were from meals which were considered, by the community, to be substitutes for participation in the sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple. Subsequently, the bones were disposed in a manner analogous to those sacrificed in the temple. This representation of the bones corresponds with the area of the camp in Jerusalem.40 Along with the characteristics of the animal bones, described in detail below, Magness, who perceptively described the strategic positioning of the miqva’ot, highlights the location of these bones also near miqva’ot. Magness initially suggests that the bones found at loci 130, 135, and 132 (the latter which is highlighted according to de Vaux’s Period II below) were found near the assembly hall located above loci 111, 120, 121, 122 and 123.41 The miqva’ot at loci 117, 118, and 138 perhaps served this hall and ritual meals that took place here. The animal bones found at locus 23 were found near an assembly hall probably around loci 4 and 30.42 The miqveh at locus 48 and 49 perhaps served this hall and ritual meals that took place here. Finally, the animal bones at

See Magness, “Communal Meals,” 19 and The Archaeology of Qumran, 120. 40 See Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 120-1. 41 View Humbert, “L’espace,” 192-3, and who similarly identifies this area as a communal dining room for where meals were served. Also refer to his discussion on locus 120 as a possible sanctuary in “L’espace,” 1956. 42 Refer to discussion on this in Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 127-8. 39

108

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

locus 80 and 73 (the latter of which is also highlighted according to de Vaux’s Period II below) were found near the assembly hall at locus 77. The miqveh at locus 56 and 58 appears to have served this hall and ritual meals that took place here. Against Magness, Humbert viewed only the northern part of the site as reflecting the dimensions of Jerusalem. He described the area around locus 135 as 35 x 18 m, which predated the miqveh at locus 138. According to Humbert, this area consisted of a mass of stones, which he takes to be an altar (discussed below), an area for getting the people ready for the rituals (at loci 129 and 133), and an area where slaughtering animals took place (at loci 140 and 141). Humbert similarly viewed sacrifices as taking place in the rooms at locus 77 (also viewed as a sanctuary) and locus 86. Discussed in detail below, Humbert described both rooms as having altars.43 Magness later agrees with Humbert’s assertion that the animal bone deposits and ash in the northern enclosure were sacrifices. Although she does not think that the stones can be conclusively identified as an altar, she does think that “it makes sense that an altar was located somewhere in the northern enclosure.”44 On the basis of Humbert’s assertions, he viewed Qumran as a sacrificial centre throughout its Period Ib-II use. Regarding the animal bones, Humbert similarly identified the deposits as close to the various sanctuary-like areas, loci 130 as well as loci 132, 136, 137 and 135 in the northern area, and loci 73, 80, 60, 44, 90, 93, 98 in the southern area.45 As discussed below, Humbert contends that on the basis of how these bones were buried and preserved, they were the remains of sacrifices. Based on the disposition of the animal bones, miqva’ot, and assembly halls throughout the entire site, as rightly noted by Magness, Qumran reflects a physical expression of the concept of the

For a full discussion of Humbert’s understanding of the cultic use of Qumran, refer to Humbert, “L’espace,” 184-208. Also see discussion on the “The Assembly and Adjacent Annex,” in the same Period Ib, below. 44 Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 22-23. 45 See Humbert’s discussion in “L’espace,” 187-8 and 205. 43

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 109 temple.46 Against Humbert’s contention (discussed above), varying degrees of purity appear to be located in various areas throughout the Qumran site. As discussed below (concerning Period II), despite de Vaux’s contentions, that the animal bones were found in almost all the open spaces at Qumran,47 the bones were situated in impure areas, just outside the buildings located toward the east, also close to the miqva’ot.48 Against Humbert’s spatial arrangement, this temple-like arrangement correspond with 11Q19 XLVI 15: And you shall make three places to the east of the city, separated one from another, into which shall come the lepers and the people who have a discharge and the men who have had a nocturnal emission.

This spatial concept of the site also reflects Jerusalem’s concern regarding the location of workshops in the western part of Jerusalem. According to Yadin, prevailing winds in Jerusalem are westerly.49 As noted by Magness, the architectural makeup of the western part of the site contains rooms with the greatest degree of purity. The bones were mostly located in the eastern half of the site east of the assembly buildings. The eastern part of the site is where the scriptorium (locus 30), toilet (locus 51)50 and other workshops were located. This was also in the direction of the cemetery. The spatial arrangement of these areas correlates with the description of the sacred camp in the MMT (B 31-32 and 60-62):

See Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 128 and “Communal Meals,” 22. 47 See de Vaux, Archaeology, 13. 48 In the case of the animal bones found at locus 23, this impure area is also where the toilet (at locus 51) was located. 49 See Yadin, Hidden Law, 173. Also see this discussion in Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 128 and “Communal Meals,” 22. 50 Regarding the toilet at locus 51, Magness astutely points out that the presence of this toilet coincides with what 11Q19 XLVI 13-16 regulates, and what Josephus (J.W. 2.147-9) describes. Here, this toilet was located in an enclosed area that was not visible from any distance. Likewise, according to de Vaux, it was roofed and opened to a room with a miqveh at loci 48 and 49. See Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 105-13, who discusses this matter in detail. 46

110

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the western half corresponding to the temple area and the surrounding areas analogous to the sacred camp. In consideration of the disposition of space at Qumran (described above), the animal bones (discussed below), as well as the architectural structure and arrangement of the site itself, rightly can be viewed as having some cultic orientation. 3) Assembly Room and Adjacent Annex

de Vaux only expounded on one assembly hall (at locus 77) at Qumran. He described the architectural features of this room as 22 m. long and 4.50 m. in width, the largest room throughout the site. The room was situated along an east-west axis and had two doors. One was located in the north-western corner and the other in the south-eastern corner, which opened onto a large esplanade. There was a circular paved spot in the room’s western extremity, which de Vaux described as the place where the leader of the assembly possibly stood. The floor of this room was sloping from the western extremity to the south-eastern door and rising in other parts. There was also a conduit leading to this room, which could be opened and closed. de Vaux rightly noted that this construction made it possible for the room to be frequently washed out after meals. Adjacent to the assembly hall was the pantry annex at locus 86 and 89. This room contained the remains of more than one thousand pottery vessels (21 small jars of two different types; 38 dishes; 11 jugs; 210 plates; 708 bowls piled in dozens arranged in a triangle form; 75 beakers and various other pieces of pottery scattered throughout the room). de Vaux surmised that these vessels were used for serving meals in the adjacent hall at locus 77. Because of the discovery of animal bones, buried under similar type vessels, de Vaux rightly described them as coming from meals, which served a religious purpose. This especially is the case in view of the miqveh, which almost certainly served to purify the members before the meals.51 The arrangement, structure and The function of this room as serving meals as well as being located near the miqveh at locus 56 and 58, coheres with Josephus, J.W. 2.12931. He notes that washing was a requirement before the Essenes partook 51

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 111 function of the assembly hall and adjacent pantry, including the various vessels, at loci 77, 86 and 89 perhaps also was how the area around loci 111, 120, 121, 122 and 123, as well as loci 4 and 30 was arranged, which likewise duplicated the practice of serving ritual meals viewed as substitutes in place of actual sacrifices, particularly in view of the nearby animal bone deposits and miqva’ot which served these areas. More than a decade after de Vaux’s final excavation at Qumran, Solomon Steckoll described Qumran’s assembly hall (locus 77) as a temple. This is also the view of Humbert, discussed above. Steckoll compared this hall (which he called the communal chamber) with the temple at Leontopolis, in Egypt. According to Steckoll, the outer measurement of Qumran’s chamber (using the Greek foot), was 20’9” by 77’6”. The adjoining annex, at locus 86 and 89, was 20 by 27 units.52 Qumran’s chamber rested on an east-west axis, whereas the Temple of Leontopolis lay on a northsouth axis. Steckoll intriguingly contended that this, as well as there being a lack of evidence of the sacrificial cult taking place within these rooms (at Leontopolis and Qumran) should not be taken as evidence against either being used as a temple.53 Steckoll’s line of reasoning is contradictory. The differences in measurement (based on construction), direction, and lack of sacrificial evidence suggest that locus 77 represented something other than a temple complex.54 According to Steckoll, twelve stones were laid around the circular paved spot in the western part of Qumran’s chamber (locus 77). Contrary to de Vaux’s belief, Steckoll contended that the stones symbolized, “the specially marked oracle in the Solomonic

of the cultic meals. This matter is further discussed in the treatment of Period II (“Animal Bones; Possible Cultic Remains?”) below. 52 See Steckoll’s measurements in his “The Qumran Sect,” 59 note 16. 53 Steckoll stresses this based on the violent fate both sites suffered at the hands of the Romans (68 C.E. at Qumran and 73 C.E. at Leontopolis); see Steckoll “The Qumran Sect,” 58. 54 Cf. de Vaux’s critique of this view in the Post-Scriptum of, Delcor, “Le Temple,” 204-5.

112

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Temple.”55 Steckoll harmonised this symbolism with the scrolls. He suggested that the twelve stones were a semblance of the twelve chief priests mentioned in 4QpIsad 4-5;56 Steckoll noted that this passage along with 4QTestimonia’s mention of the Urim and Thummim was directly associated with the officiating high priest of the temple (this temple being Qumran’s chamber at locus 77). Steckoll’s claim concerning the twelve stones and their symbolism is tenuous. The circular paved platform (in locus 77) was made up of no less than eight large stones with several smaller ones filling in the gaps.57 de Vaux’s description of this platform’s function (the place where the leader of the community stood) is a more plausible contention.58 Steckoll also noted that the names of priests were recorded on some of the Qumran pottery.59 The names Pinhas, and Shimeon bar Jonathan were found on jars in the south-eastern extremity of locus 143, and the name Eleazar was found on a round stone in the annex of locus 89. Steckoll also describes the finding of a highly decorative bronze broach at locus 86, which he suggested could have been part of the high priests’ robes at Qumran. The names found recorded on the stone and pottery is ambiguous. They could have represented anyone or anything, perhaps the name of the pottery’s owner or the signature of the pottery’s maker.60 With regard to the bronze broach, numerous possibilities could be inferred as to who or what it belonged to, and what it represented. Steckoll citation of this ‘specially marked oracle’ was according to his understanding of 1 Kings 6:19: “and the oracle he prepared in the house within, to the sect there the ark of the covenant of the Lord.” See Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 63. 56 See Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 63. 57 See Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles, 160. Cf. de Vaux’s Post-Scriptum in Delcor, “Le Temple,” 204-5. 58 Cf. de Vaux’s description above. 59 See Steckoll “The Qumran Sect,” 64. 60 The names could have represented a number of the community’s leaders. Why it was recorded on certain pottery is open to unlimited speculation. 55

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 113 Although there is no clear proof of the room at locus 77 serving as a temple complex, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it served as a gathering place where special religious meals (cultic meals) occurred.61 d. A Revisionist View of Period I

de Vaux’s division of Period I into Period Ia and Ib is untenable. As noted above, Period Ia is without numismatic or distinguishable pottery evidence. Archaeological evidence suggests that de Vaux’s initial report (in 1953) was correct.62 Magness, following de Vaux’s initial postulation, and suggesting that Period Ia never existed, describes the pottery that de Vaux used for dating each period as that which was found at the destruction level (the ending) of each occupation. According to Magness, these dates (31 B.C.E., 9/8 B.C.E., and 68 C.E., respectively) make it difficult to determine when Period Ia began.63 The presence of such pottery, especially that which dates to 31 B.C.E., suggests that this first period (regardless of when it started) remained uninterrupted, at least, up to this date. de Vaux’s supposition for dating Period Ia, as early as Simon or Jonathan’s reign (as the Wicked Priest) is unfaithful to the archaeological evidence. Most of what has been fixed to Period Ia, cisterns at loci 117 and 118, and the water system, should belong to Period Ib. Period I most likely began in the first half of the first century B.C.E., around the time of Alexander Jannaeus. Here, one hundred and forty-three of his coins were found, thus providing a terminus post quem for its beginning.64 Moreover, many of the possible cultic elements belonging to de Vaux’s Period II (discussed in detail below) may also belong to Period I (de Vaux’s Period Ib). de Vaux described Period Ib as ending in 31 B.C.E., after the earthquake and simultaneous fire. Because of numismatic evidence, de Vaux suggested that there See below where this is discussed in the treatment of Period II (“Animal Bones; Possible Cultic Remains”). 62 See note 8 above. 63 See Jodi Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 64 and The Archaeology of Qumran, 63-9. 64 Cf. Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 64-5. 61

114

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

was about a thirty-year gap until the following occupation (under the reign of Archelaus).65 Evidence of coins belonging to Herod the Great (from 37-4 B.C.E.) suggest otherwise. Despite de Vaux’s contention concerning these coins,66 Period I lasted through 31 B.C.E. up to circa 9 or 8 B.C.E. Magness suggests there being a pre 31 and post 31 B.C.E. Period I occupancy at Qumran.67 This contention appropriately accounts for the archaeological and architectural evidence at Qumran and suggests that most of what was found during de Vaux’s Period II, particularly pertaining to possible cultic evidence, also needs to be chronologically re-dated. With this in mind, let us now look at further possible cultic evidence according to de Vaux’s Period II.

According to de Vaux, sixteen coins of Herod Archelaus were found along with ten belonging to his predecessors, Herod the Great (from 374 B.C.E.), also assigned to Period II. See de Vaux, Archaeology, 22-24 and 33-4. 66 de Vaux’s contention that these coins (which were without dates, except one dating to 34 B.C.E.) belonged to Period II consists of the following arguments: (1) These coins were struck late in Herod’s reign, (2) They remained in circulation after his death, thus the possibility of them being brought in by those who occupied Period II, (3) They were found at mixed levels and associated with later coins. See de Vaux, Archaeology, 23 and especially 33-4. Other coins were also found at Qumran. Magness postulates over the significance of these coins. She suggests that the community may have adhered to paying the temple tax, or the coins reflect the collection of wealth from the communal members. View discussion of this in Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran, 188-93; “Qumran Archaeology,” 70-5; “Two Notes on the Archaeology of Qumran,” BASOR 312 (1998): 40-4 and Jacob Liver, “The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature,” HTR 56 (1963): 173-98. 67 See Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 64-5. Humbert somewhat similarly views Qumran as being used by the sectarians only during Periods Ib-II. However, unlike de Vaux and Magness, he views Qumran as a cultic centre where the community visited solely for celebrations, prayers, and meals, and offering up of libations and sacrifices. Humbert primarily bases his assertions on his understanding Philo’s and Josephus’ description of the Essenes. Humbert makes his assumptions, however, without further elaboration or interpretation of the classical accounts. See Humbert, “L’espace,” 180-1. 65

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 115 e. Period II

According to de Vaux’s Period II, which he dated after the earthquake of 31 B.C.E., around 4 B.C.E. to 6 C.E., certain modifications and repairs were made to the architectural structure of the site. He noted the following as having a particular cultic interest: Modifications to Possible Cultic Sites

• •

• • •

The reconstruction of the main assembly hall-dining room (locus 77). The collapse and abandonment of the pantry at loci 86 and 89. A new pantry was constructed atop the debris at the same locus (89). The large, stepped cistern at locus 56 and 58 was divided in two (possibly creating two ritual baths). The two cisterns at loci 49 and 50 were abandoned. The modification of the water system (to supply the remaining ritual baths). Other Possible Cultic Remains

• • •

Animal bones found deposited at loci 73, 80, 130 and 132, in a similar manner to that of the previous period. Possible incense altar.68 Five hundred and sixty-one silver coins, from three pots, were found at locus 120. These coins possibly represented the observance of paying the temple tax in Jerusalem. 1) Modification of Cisterns

The division of the large, stepped cistern at loci 56 and 58 created two cisterns, one with steps and one without steps. Wood, correctly noting this division, described the section with steps (at locus 56) as being used for ritual purposes, whereas the section without steps (at locus 58) was used for practical purposes.69 The creation of two cisterns at locus 58 may have been prompted by the abandonment of the two cisterns at loci 49 and 50. de Vaux This has been noted by Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles, 140 pl 291 and Elgvin, “Incense Altar,” 27. 69 Wood, “Dip or Sprinkle?” 52. 68

116

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

describes this abandonment as resulting from the blockage of the auxiliary conduit feeding these cisterns (which extended from the main channel).70 According to de Vaux, this blockage resulted from the earthquake of 31 B.C.E.71 Modifications to the water system, thus, conformed to the changes the cisterns and channels both suffered. Taking into consideration the closure of the cisterns at loci 49 and 50, the entire function of this area likely ceased. This included the toilet at locus 51, the large kitchen, the assembly halls, and the pantry at loci 38, 41, 4 and 30 respectively. Moreover, the depositing of animal bones at locus 23 probably also ceased. 2) Assembly Room and Adjacent Annex Modifications

According to de Vaux, the earthquake of 31 B.C.E. (described by Josephus) caused damage to the assembly hall-dining room’s (locus 77) roof and sloping floor. The new floor was flat, thus resulting in the door, which opened onto the southern esplanade, and the conduit leading into the room (which made it possible to wash the room out) being blocked. The collapse and abandonment of the pantry (loci 86 and 89) resulted in the construction of a new room. This room covered the debris from the old pantry where a new floor was laid atop the old one, with a wall blocking off the portion of the room where debris remained. Despite these modifications, de Vaux suggested that the function of the assembly hall remained unchanged. According to him, pottery found scattered throughout the floor, especially in the southwestern corner, along with the same practice of depositing animal bones (buried, and covered with various pottery at loci 92, 73 and 80), demonstrated a continual observance of ritual meals. 3) Animal Bones; Possible Cultic Remains

According to de Vaux, animal bones found dating to this period were covered (similarly to that of de Vaux’s Period Ib) with

Cf. note 24 above. The volume of water contained in the cisterns could have caused the damage. 70 71

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 117 pottery associated with Period II.72 Found above the sediment of Period Ib, these deposits were associated with coin findings from Period II.73 F. E. Zeuner, highlighted by de Vaux, examined thirtynine bone deposits from the entire site.74 He described the bones as fragmented and brittle with no complete skeleton preserved. Zeuner identified about five hundred bone specimens, the species of which included at least: five goats; five sheep; twenty-six identified as either sheep or goat; ten kids or lambs; four oxen or cows; six calves, and one unidentifiable animal. According to Zeuner, twenty-six of the thirty-nine deposits contained the remains of only one animal; nine deposits (or jars) contained the remains of two animals; three jars contained the remains of three animals, and one jar contained four animals. Based on this data, Zeuner surmised that if these bones were the remains of meals, the community was small. The small number of animal bones found challenges Humbert’s contention that the According to de Vaux, Qumran pottery was produced in its own workshops. Pottery from Period Ib and II were very similar. According to de Vaux, one type of jar, ascribed to Ib, was ovoid in shape with the neck strengthened from the outside. This was compared to a presumed counterpart, found in the excavations of the Citadel of Jerusalem. Plates from Period Ib had a simple outline opposed to those with moulded edges from Period II. Beakers from Period Ib were large and flared with a fine wall. Those from Period II were smaller and ribbed with a thick wall. de Vaux described the pottery from Ib as belonging to the Hellenistic epoch. Pottery from Period II was plentiful, and its style was comparable to pottery found in the first century C.E. tombs of Jerusalem, and the excavations of Herodian Jericho. This pottery was dated according to numismatic evidence. See de Vaux, Archaeology, 17-8 and 33. 73 According to de Vaux, one hundred and ninety-five Jewish coins, including ten of Herod the Great (who reigned from 37-4 B.C.E.), belonged to Period II. Despite Herod’s coins being minted from the end of Period Ib, and through the thirty-year abandonment, de Vaux contends that Herod’s coins (because they remained in circulation after his death) yet belonged to Period II. See de Vaux, Archaeology, 33-4. Cf. Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 58, who suggests that these coins, as well as a silver coin hoard should be associated with Period Ib. Magness rightly maintains that Period Ib did not end in 31 B.C.E. after the earthquake. The site most likely was repaired, where its occupants remained until 98 B.C.E. 74 See Zeuner, “Notes,” 28-30. 72

118

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Qumran site served primarily as a cultic centre throughout its duration. This point is also later raised by Dennis Mizzi.75 Later excavation76 (between 2002-2006 and again in 2008 and 2012) revealed additional animal bones in the southern area of the Qumran plateau. Among the bone deposits were poultry, bull, goat, and sheep buried both with and without pottery. Ram Bouchnick examined Price’s excavations which revealed kosher mammalian, fowl, and a single unidentifiable fish bone. Cut marks among the bone assemblages, mainly from goat and cattle, reveal the dismembering of meat, of which were consumed as a ritual meal.77 According to both Zeuner and de Vaux, some of the bones were charred. This indication led them to believe that the meat from the bones was either roasted or boiled off.78 According de Vaux, this suggested that these were the remains of religious meals: The care with which the bones were set apart after the flesh had been cooked and eaten reveals a religious preoccupation. It is possible that these are the remnants of sacrifices in which Dennis Mizzi, “The Animal Bone Deposits at Qumran: An Unsolvable Riddle? JAJ 7 (2016): 59. Cf. Humbert, “L’espace,” 184-208. 76 Excavation of the Qumran site was undertaken by Randall Price. See his “Qumran Plateau,” ESI 117 (2005): http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=126&mag_id=110; “Excavation on the Qumran Plateau 2002-2006. Unpublished manuscript; “Excavation Report: Qumran Plateau 2008,” Unpublished report. Also see Christy Connell, An Archaeological History of Qumran: With an Explanation of Archaeological Techniques (Unpublished manuscript, Liberty University, 2017). Also see Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg, The Qumran Excavations 1993-2004: Preliminary Report (Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology – Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, 2007), 7 and 11, and “Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavation and Research, 1993-2004,” in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Brown University, November 1719, 2002 (eds. Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen Zangenberg: STDJ 57: Leiden: Brill, 2006). 77 See Ram Bouchnick, “Meat Consumption Patterns.” Also see Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 9. 78 See Zeuner, “Notes,” 30 and de Vaux, Archaeology, 14. Also see above discussion (Period Ib) concerning the animal bones, particularly note 36 where Magness concurs with this position. 75

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 119 the victim, or some part of it, was eaten by the faithful, though this has not been proved.79

de Vaux noted that in a dialogue with J. Kaplan, the possibility of the sect burying the sacrifices of the first born clean animals was suggested.80 Kaplan offered this possibility, suggesting, “that the people of Qumran were seeking to remain faithful to the law of Deut. 15:19-20 by eating the first born as communion sacrifices.”81 He hypothesised that since the sect was unable to do this at Jerusalem, the bones were preserved.82 Despite this postulation, however, de Vaux rightly concluded that there was no evidence of sacrifice at Qumran. He asserted, “For sacrifice of any kind an altar is necessary, and the excavations have not brought to light any altar, or any place adapted to the ritual sacrifice of victims.”83 Steckoll, Humbert as well as Magness after her reconsideration, contended that Qumran has yielded an altar or altars. At locus 100 of Period Ib, Steckoll84 suggested that an altar had been found.85 His illustration was of a stone cube, about 26.9 X 26.3 cm. in width and around 27 cm. in length, with a square opening at the top. de Vaux dismissed Steckoll’s assertion, stating that this object was uncovered previously by him in 1955, and that it was associated with storage in Period Ib and a mill in the following period. de Vaux also noted this object as residing in an isolated location away from the main assembly hall (at locus 77). Steckoll’s assertion follows his contention that the animal bones were burnt (like that at Leontopolis) because of sacrifice.86 He maintained that their composition (cattle as well as rams and lambs) See de Vaux, Archaeology, 12 and especially 14ff. Refer to de Vaux, Archaeology, 14-5 note 3 for this discussion. 81 de Vaux, Archaeology, 15 note 3. 82 de Vaux, Archaeology, 15 note 3. 83 de Vaux, Archaeology, 14. 84 See Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 57ff. 85 de Vaux identifies the locus of this small stone object in his contention against Steckoll view; see his Post-Scriptum in, Delcor, “Le Temple,” 2045. 86 Humbert similarly maintains that the animal bones were burnt. See Humbert, “L’espace,” 188. 79 80

120

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

and burial practice was in accord with the consecration of the temple ceremony.87 Steckoll’s claim is a bit precarious. If the stone object was an altar, and the bones were overtly burned in sacrifice, its (the stone object) location would be closer to the possible temple (in locus 77 according to Steckoll)88 and bone deposits (at loci 23, 73, 80, 92, 130, 132 or 135). Sear marking would also be evident. In examining the photographs of both the bones and stone object (possible altar),89 no clear evidence of charring can be seen. Humbert has suggested that the mass of stones around locus 135 may be an altar. As discussed above, his assertion is based on the view that the spatial arrangement and dimensions of the northern area of the site resembles Jerusalem. Humbert contends that the mass of stones measures from the base, 2.45 m from the north to the south, and is preserved on only 2 m from east to west which descends into the stonework of the miqveh’s eastern angle. Moreover, he describes this supposed altar as made from uncut stones. As stated above, Humbert’s assertion is unlikely, especially in view of the overall spatial arrangement of the entire Qumran site. As discussed above, the architectural structure and function of the entire Qumran site, throughout its development, resembles Jerusalem and the sacred camp. Also, like with Steckoll’s argument above, no sacrificial charring or burn marks can be found.90 Magness contends that an altar was located at locus 130 due to the high concentration of ash mixed with animal bones and pottery. According to her, Robert Donceel confused de Vaux’ trou cendreux with a roughly circular ash-filled hole in the centre of the eastern part of locus 130.91 Here Donceel indicated “that a See Steckoll “The Qumran Sect,” 56. Concerning the possibility of the assembly hall being a microcosmic temple see Steckoll’s argument above, in the discussion on Period Ib (“The Assembly Room and Adjacent Annex”). 89 Refer to these photographs in Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles, 129-30 (animal bones) and 142-4 (stone object). 90 Humbert views the ashes that surround these areas as evidence of sacrifice. He untenably dismisses these remains as coming from an accidental fire. Rather, he suggests that the ash reflects the places where fire was lit for intentional sacrifices. See Humbert, “L’espace,” 188. 91 See Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 23. 87 88

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 121 large unhewn stone protruded from this hole.”92 Magness views this hole and unhewn stone as part of a temple at Qumran. Magness asserts: The empty space could have easily accommodated an altar measuring 2.5 x 2.5 m (5 x 5 cubits), like the one in the Israelite sanctuary at Arad.93

In light of evidence that the area was eliminated in Period II, Magness postulates that an altar no longer would be in use here, but rather “moved to another - still unknown – location, judging from the continued deposition of pottery and animal bones in L130, L132 and elsewhere.”94 It is unlikely that an altar was present in this location for the very same reason that pottery and bone deposits continued in this location. Magness’ postulation is additionally complicated considering the high concentration of animal bones also found in the southern area of Qumran during Period I.95 On this point, also pointedly raised by Alison Schofield, was there an altar in the south as well? Were there two altars that accommodated the large bone deposits in the north and south?96 Dennis Mizzi rightly notes the problems of a hypothetical altar at locus 130: This area is one of the first spaces one would access upon entering the site from the entryway in e north-west enclosure. An altar located farther to the south, in the least accessible areas of the Qumran buildings, would therefore have made more ritual sense than one in L130, which would have been practically open and accessible to anyone who approached Qumran from the north.97

See Robert Donceel, “Khirbet Qumrân (Palestine): Le Locus 130 et les ‘ossements sous jarre.’ Mise à jour de la documentation,” The Qumran Chronicle 13.1 (2005): 55, 57 note 197. 93 Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 24. 94 Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered,” 24. 95 Refer to notes 76 and 77 in this chapter. 96 See Alison Schofield, “An Altar in the Desert?” A Response to Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered at Qumran?” JAJ 7 (2016): 123-135. 97 Mizzi, “Animal Bone Deposits,” 61. 92

122

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Mizzi further notes that the empty space around the ash-filled hole, which Magness identifies as the site for a supposed altar, may be the result of de Vaux’s uneven excavation and not evidence for the robbing of an altar that stood there.98 With regard to the building at locus 77, Humbert disputes de Vaux’s suggestion that this room was built with pillars sustaining its roof. Humbert contends that these pillars are not pillars, but altars. Without being able to verify this assertion, particularly due to the removal of the remains, Humbert, like Steckoll, views this room as a sanctuary. Finally, Humbert views two additional altars at locus 86. Without further elaboration on this, he appears to base his argument in view of the vessels found at this locus.99 As has been noted by Humbert and Chambon, an incense altar was found at Qumran’s locus 101.100 Elgvin elaborates on the discovery of an incense altar.101 He describes this altar as possibly being found during the last stage of the Qumran period. The presence of an incense altar coheres with the overall ideology of the Qumran site. It further demonstrated that the Qumran community practiced incense offerings probably as a substitute for actual animal sacrifices. This suggestion is also demonstrated in the later composed sectarian texts, 1QS VIII 8b-9a and 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6b.

D. SUMMARY

Despite the contentions of many, the Qumran site convincingly shows that the Qumran community held a spiritualised ideology regarding sacrificial worship. This is attested by the disposition of space at Qumran. Qumran’s architectural and archaeological evidence reflects the physical expression of the temple. The site’s three geographical areas, which reflect varying degrees of purity, See Mizzi, “Animal Bone Deposits,” 62. For discussion of the probable use of the vessels, refer to the note on 49 above. Also see de Vaux, Archaeology, 11-3. The purpose of these vessels as being used to serve non-sacrificial ritual meals, coincides with the overall spiritualised ideology of the Qumran community. For discussion on the spiritualised ideology of the community, view the chapters on the Rule of the Community, and 4QFlorilegium in this book. 100 See Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles, 140 pl 291 in particular. 101 See Elgvin, “Incense Altar,” 27. 98 99

CHAPTER THREE. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTIC MATTERS 123 resemble a virtual Jerusalem. On the basis of this, and in consideration of the lack of evidence concerning an altar and sacrificial remains, correlation with the spiritual ideology found in certain sectarian texts (demonstrated in this study), can be made.102 Both the texts from Qumran’s caves and the archaeological evidence from the Qumran site harmonise with one another. Because of this, it can be shown that the community related to both the texts and the remains maintained a spiritualised ideology both before and during the Qumran occupation. Some remains (the animal bones in particular),103 have been misinterpreted by scholars. This has partly been based on these scholars’ misunderstanding of the overall historical and ideological development of the Qumran community, which stemmed from the larger DSS movement. As noted in chapter two, scholars read both the scrolls and classical sources into the archaeological evidence, and vice versa, particularly without thoroughly understanding these sources in their own contexts. Based on a thorough understanding of the Qumran site, correlation between the site and sectarian texts can be made. Because of this consideration, Qumran archaeology lends support to the spiritualised ideology and practice of the Qumran community, which is also demonstrated in the Dead Sea sectarian texts.

As demonstrated in this study, a spiritualised ideology can be seen in the redacted parts of the Damascus Document, as well as the majority of the Rule of the Community, and 4Q174. Refer to these respective chapters in this book. 103 Scholars who viewed the animal bones as from the remains of sacrifice, to legitimise their assertions, likely felt that they needed to identify an altar or altars at the site despite the evidence. This may be the reason why there has been no consistent and concentrated defence regarding identifying an altar or altars at Qumran. 102

CHAPTER FOUR. THE DESCRIPTION OF SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF THE BOOK OF JUBILEES: ITS INTERPRETATION BY AND STATUS FOR THE DSS MOVEMENT A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

Throughout its development, the DSS movement held some definitive views about sacrifice, the temple, and purity regulations. These views were held due to certain historical factors involving Jerusalem’s temple authority and cult.1 But from where did these views emerge? What was their origin? One probable source was the book of Jubilees. This Pseudepigraphal work was preserved at Qumran in fourteen manuscript copies from five different caves. The number of extant manuscript copies preserved, particularly as seen throughout the movement’s development, suggests that this work and its contents held some significance for the DSS movement, influencing and later enforcing its ideology.2 On the For an overview of the circumstances that led to the rise and ideology of the movement related to the scrolls, refer to the Introduction of this book (particularly see note 23). 2 See Uwe Glessmer’s and James C. VanderKam’s brief mention of this matter in “Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. James C. VamderKam and Peter Flint; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 231 and “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (ed. George J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1

125

126

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

basis of this, this chapter investigates the status of the book of Jubilees for the entire movement, which includes the Qumran-related community, through examining the movement’s views of sacrifice using this work as its authoritative source. Examined is Jubilees’ description of sacrifice, the temple, and priestly and purity related matters. These matters are examined with the intent of probing how they were interpreted, adapted, and used by the movement and later Qumran-related community throughout their development. In general, the book of Jubilees was adapted and studied as somewhat of an authoritative source3 (somewhat authoritative because some of its views contrast with some of the views attested in certain sectarian writings).4 The entire movement probably viewed the majority of this work as expressing a similar polemic concerning its opponent. Jubilees may have been viewed in a three-fold polemicised way. The entire movement (which included the Qumran-related community) likely offered the Sabbath sacrifice as well as the sacrifices for non-temple approved festivals or those that were non-calendar binding. At the same time, however, the movement read most of these sacrificial and 1989), 211-2, respectively. Also see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Sacrificial System of the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” (SBLSP; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 233, who takes a similar position. Ben-Zion Wacholder takes an opposite view than me. Initially, he viewed Jubilees as dependant on the Temple Scroll. He later changed his position, taking both works to be two parts of the same composition. See Wacholder, Dawn, 62 and “The Relationship Between 11Q Torah (The Temple Scroll) and the Book of Jubilees: One Single or Two Independent Compositions?” SBLSP (1985): 206 and 207-16, respectively. For further discussion about the authoritative status of Jubilees, see note 7 in the Introduction of this book. Also see discussion of this in Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, “The Authoritative Status,” 97-104. 3 Refer to notes 24-27 below. 4 Whereas Jubilees only emphasises the 364-day solar calendar (categorically rejecting the lunar calculations), the Qumran texts share both. See James C. VanderKam, “The Origin and Purpose of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey and Armin Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997), 3, who also notes this and other differences. Also cf., note 24-28 below concerning the similarities.

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

127

purity regulations as polemic in an idealised and eschatological way.5 Only during the latter stages of the Qumran-related community were these same regulations, along with temple motifs and priestly duties, read in a more predominantly spiritualised way. Based on the various readings of this work, and in concert with examining the status of Jubilees to the larger DSS movement, particularly regarding the descriptions of sacrificial regulations, this chapter explores the following: 1) Temple motifs, mainly about prototypical sanctuaries: the significance of when and where sacrificial worship took place, as well as the purity regulations for being in the temple place will be examined.6 2) The priestly duties of the patriarchs: here the movement viewed the patriarchs and their duties as models to emulate. 3) The place of liturgical worship (the recitation of prayer and praise).

Concerning the latter (liturgical worship), this chapter investigates whether the recitation of prayer or praise took place alongside sacrifice in Jubilees. This chapter subsequently examines the status and influence of Jubilees’ liturgical worship on the DSS movement. In view of the significant amount of liturgical

With regard to the movement’s participation in certain sacrifices, see the discussion in the Introduction of this book. Similarly see the movement’s views of sacrifice in the chapter on the Damascus Document. Also see the discussion on the Sabbath sacrifice below. 6 According to the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community, to be part of the movement, certain purity standards were required. Regarding the former document, no one who was stupid, deranged, feeble minded, insane, blind, lame, deaf, or under aged were able to enter the holy congregation (see CD 15:15b-17=4Q266 8 i 6b-9). Also, according to 4Q266 10 i 14-11:19, certain people were expelled from the congregation due to impure acts. A similar penal code concerning the sectarian community is also seen in the Rule of the Community (1QS VI 24-VII 25). 5

128

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

evidence found at Qumran,7 the DSS movement likely held that prayer and praise liturgy was to accompany actual sacrifices.8 However, concerning the Qumran-related community, particularly during its later stages, in light of its view regarding Jerusalem’s current cultic practices as corrupt, liturgical worship was predominantly viewed and used as an acceptable substitute for sacrifice.9

B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EXTANT TEXTS

The title of the book of Jubilees comes from the text itself. The Qumran copies, which are the oldest extant versions as well as representing the original language in which Jubilees was composed (Hebrew), preserve the title in verses 1:4,10 26,11 29; and 50:13. Before the discoveries at Qumran, Jubilees was known in the citations of early Christian scholars who wrote in Greek and Latin. As noted by VanderKam, these citations were listed in J. Fabricius’ 1722-1723 publications, Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti.12 The first full text of Jubilees appeared in the early 1800’s, in Ethiopic manuscripts. The first full publication of Jubilees appeared in 1850-1851, in August Dillmann’s two-part

Liturgical worship taking place alongside sacrificial worship is attested in 1QS, 4Q503, Words of the Luminaries, 4Q507-509 and others; see discussion below. Also see note 59 below. 8 Based on this evidence, the movement also viewed and studied most sacrificial worship described in Jubilees in an eschatological and ideological way as certain sectarian texts suggests. See below where this matter is discussed in detail. 9 This is not to say that liturgical worship was solely created for this purpose. Considering pre-sectarian liturgical text, as well as other liturgical texts which were widely observed in the second temple period (as contemporaneous with the movement), liturgical worship likely was established as accompanying sacrifice. See brief discussion on liturgical texts in the Introduction of this book. 10 See 4Q216 1:11-12a. 11 See 4Q216 4:4-5. 12 See VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 14; and The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511; SA 88; Loranii: Peeters, 1989), xi-xiv, who gives the full citation. 7

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

129

German translation, “Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis.”13 His translation came from a single Ethiopic copy, which was found in Abyssinia.14 Other Ethiopic copies of Jubilees emerged thus becoming additional translations of the book.15 In addition to the Ethiopic manuscripts, a portion of Jubilees is also extant in a 5th to 6th century C.E. Latin manuscript (which was originally published in 1861 by Antonius Maria Ceriani),16 and several Syriac texts (which were published by Ceriani as well as E. Tisserant).17 At Qumran, the book of Jubilees is preserved in fourteen (possibly fifteen)18 manuscript copies from five caves (1, 2, 3, 4, and 11).19 The majority of these manuscripts were found in cave 4 (4Q176, and 4Q216-224). Other texts found at Qumran that resemble Jubilees are 4Q225-27. These works are also known as See August Dillmann, “Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis.” Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft 2: 231-56; 3: 1-72. 14 For a fuller account concerning the history of the text of Jubilees, see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 13-7; and The Book of Jubilees (1989), xix-xxix. 15 Among these translations were August Dillmann’s, Maṣḥafa Kufālē sive Liber Jubilaeorum (Kiel: van Maack; London: Williams and Norgate, 1859); Robert H. Charles’, Maṣḥafa Kufālē or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Anecdota oxoniesia; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895; and VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (1989). 16 This manuscript was a palimpsest text found in the Ambrosian library in Milan. Other publications of this text were made by H. Ronsch; A. Dillmann; and R. H. Charles. See information concerning this in VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (1989), xvii-xviii. 17 See to Eugène Tisserant, “Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubile’s,” RB 30 (1921):55-86, 206-32. Also see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 15-6, concerning this information. 18 See James C. VanderKam, “The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress (ed. Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 640, who, in opposition to Milik, considers 4Q217 a Pseudo-Jubilees fragment. 19 See James C. VanderKam, and Charlotte Hempel, who offer a detailed list of publications regarding the Jubilees’ cave copies; see VanderKam, “Jubilees Fragments,” 635-43, and Charlotte Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Their Historical Context (ed. Timothy H. Lim; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 187 note 2. 13

130

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Pseudo-Jubilees.20 Other texts (which remain in dispute) are 4Q482-83 and two fragmentary manuscripts from Masada (Masada 1276-1786).21 The Qumran copies of Jubilees date from around 150-100 B.C.E. (the earliest) to 50 C.E. (the latest).22 Although Jubilees likely was composed as a pre-sectarian text,23 the number of manuscript copies found at Qumran,24 as well as the fact that its contents and title (book of the divisions) are referred to within sectarian writings,25 attest to the work’s significance among the movement related to the scrolls. Despite this significance, the Qumran texts preserve only a fraction of Jubilees, whereas the Ethiopic manuscripts preserve a complete text of the work. The scant remains of Qumran’s Jubilees thus preclude a thorough textual examination of cultic matters. However, in light of the Qumran remains, it can be concluded that the Ethiopic manuscripts preserve a fairly faithful reading of Jubilees. This

See James C. VanderKam and Jósef T. Milik, Qumran Cave 4.V111. Parabiblical Texts. Part I (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 14175. Also see James C. VanderKam, and Charlotte Hempel’s discussion of these texts in “Jubilees Fragments,” 643-4, and “The Place,” 191-3, respectively. 21 For a discussion concerning this dispute, see VanderKam, “Jubilees Fragments,” 642 note 27, and particularly Hempel, “The Place,” 191-3. 22 See VanderKam, “Jubilees Fragments,” 636-43. 23 This appears to be the case considering differing views concerning the calendar between Jubilees and sectarian literature. Whereas sectarian writings make provisions for a lunar-solar calendar, Jubilees takes an ardent view against the lunar calendar. According to Jubilees 6:36-38, the lunar calendar is corrupt with respect to times and seasons of the year. Moreover, following this calendar disturbs the year, thus causing holy days, Sabbaths, and festivals to be profane. The compositional dating of this work must date between the 3rd and 4th century B.C.E. especially based on its citation in the D composition which dates to the late 3rd to early 2nd century B.C.E. Discussion about the dating of D is highlighted in the Damascus Document chapter. 24 See VanderKam, “Jubilees Fragments,” 648, who notes the significant status of the book of Jubilees at Qumran, ranking behind only three to five books of the Hebrew Bible. 25 Some form of Jubilees’ title (book of divisions) can be seen in CD 16:24(= 4Q270 6 ii 17 + 4Q271 4 ii 4-5); 4Q228; and 4Q384 9:2 (See Hempel discussion in “The Place,” 193, concerning these passages). 20

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

131

allows an examination of cultic matter in the Ethiopic manuscripts where the Hebrew version is lacking. In consideration of certain sectarian writings, such as the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, Jubilees was embraced by the DSS movement as an authoritative text.26 Moreover, certain beliefs held by the movement reflect a Jubileean influence.27 This chapter focuses on cultic matters within Jubilees that influenced the movement’s overall cultic thought.

C. DESCRIPTION OF CULTIC M ATTERS IN RELATION TO THE SCROLLS AND MOVEMENT 1. Introduction

Although more rigid than the Torah as well as expanding on it, sacrificial issues in Jubilees are found in several passages, which describe God (and the angel of presence) as informing Moses on how to instruct Israel. The author of Jubilees portrays God as being concerned with Israel straying from his covenant (this view is also referred to in the movement’s Damascus Document).28 According to Jubilees 1:10, God tells Moses that Israel will become captive because of their abandonment of his statutes, commandments, covenantal festivals, Sabbaths, hallowed things, tabernacle, and temple which he sanctified in the middle of the land.29 This idea is also further illustrated in Jubilees 1:14:

References made to Jubilees are found in CD 16:2-4, and 10:9-10; 4Q252; 4Q265; Genesis Apocryphon; and the Temple Scroll. Also see note 2 above. 27 Cf., CD 3:1-7a with Jubilees 6:17-19. Also, on this point see James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 144-6 and Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977), 255-85. 28 CD 16:2b-4a describes that the exact interpretation about which the blindness of Israel is disclosed is defined in the book of the divisions of the periods according to their jubilees and their weeks. One of the titles of Jubilees, “The book of the divisions of the times” (as seen in CD), is similarly seen in Jubilees 1:4, 26, 29 and 50:13. 29 This idea is similarly conveyed in the sectarian’s Damascus Document (CD 3:12a-20). See discussion below. 26

132

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION They will forget all my laws, all my commandments, and all my verdicts. They will err regarding the beginning of the month, the Sabbaths, the festivals, the jubilee, and the decree.30

The author of Jubilees highlights Israel’s disobedience, which lay, in part, with not keeping the proper calendar. This idea also accords with the movement’s ideology. Moreover, the author of Jubilees also focuses on the idea of cultic remembrance. This is to say that Jubilees highlights certain cultic matters, in association with the solar calendar, that were to be remembered and restored by those who had forgotten. Regarding the calendar, it is presented as being ordained by God. Additionally, in Jubilees 6:4, it was instituted as part of the covenant. The description of the calendar in Jubilees is highlighted as polemic against lunar calculations.31 Here the author is concerned with the Hellenistic-Jewish community and others following this lunar reckoning. The DSS movement also viewed the solar calendar as polemic against their opponents’ calendrical observances. As demonstrated below, the calendar is highlighted mainly through the descriptions of cultic regulations. In Jubilees, the instructions given to Moses are priest-like in nature. Similar priest-like instructions were given to the patriarchs. The patriarchs performing priest-like duties function as archetypal. Moreover, Jubilees highlights certain cultic matter as well as patriarchal duties as polemic. Both were to be emulated. This may be how the DSS movement read these aspects of Jubilees, mainly in an eschatological and idealised way. 2. The Place of the Description of Temple Motifs

Before discussing sacrificial matters, it is significant to note that the book of Jubilees likens certain places to sanctuaries where offerings took place. Moreover, certain purity requirements were Unless otherwise noted, all Jubilees passages are taken from VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (1989). 31 The idea that contention was in part due to regulations concerning the calendar is attested in Jubilees 6:35-38. Also see Glessmer, “Calendars,” 237-8, who comments on this idea. 30

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

133

necessary for entry into these prototypical sanctuaries. The description of these prototypical sanctuaries is significant in that Jubilees highlights the fact that (1) various temples existed outside of Jerusalem, and (2) sacrificial worship mainly took place outside of Jerusalem.32 As seen in certain sectarian texts, particularly those that were composed during the latter stages of the Qumranrelated community, the community read Jubilees’ temple motifs in a spiritualised way. The group’s reading of Jubilees both influenced and enforced its ideology regarding itself as sanctuary-like. Whereas certain Qumran texts describe the community as a temple which resided outside of Jerusalem, in Jubilees several places are described as sanctuaries, all of which were similarly outside of Jerusalem. Among them was the Garden of Eden, the mountain of the east, and Mt. Sinai.33 According to the author of Jubilees, these three places were described as belonging to God, where sacrifices (various kinds) took place.34 Other places in Jubilees that are described as sanctuaries include the following: • Mt. Lubar, where Noah (as priest-like) erected an altar and sacrificed in 6:1-435 and 7:1-5.36 • Shechem, where Abraham (as priest-like) built an altar and sacrificed in 13:3-4. • Bethel (meaning “house of God”), where both Abraham and Jacob (as priest-like) offered sacrifice in 13:15-1637 and 32:1-9 respectively. • The Oak of Mamre near Hebron, where both Abraham and Isaac (as priest-like) sacrificed in 14:7-1838 and 22:16 respectively.

As will be examined later, these ideas are also expressed in sectarian literature. 33 Mt. Zion is also likened to a sanctuary in Jubilees. 34 See Jubilees 4:26. 35 A similar reference is found in 1QapGen ar 10:12. Here, this mountain is described as one of the mountains of Hurarat (Ararat in Jubilees). 36 See below where this passage is discussed. 37 This reference is also noted in 1QapGen ar 21:1-4a. 38 This reference is also noted in 1QapGen ar 21:19b-21a. 32

134

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION •

Beersheba (at the well of oaths), where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (as priest-like) sacrificed in 16:20-31; 24:2123 and 44:1-4 respectively.

All of the aforementioned places, as sanctuaries, along with those previously mentioned (the Garden of Eden, the mountain of the east, and Mt. Sinai), highlight the fact that in Jubilees, sacrificial worship (which included some type of recited liturgy) took place other than in Jerusalem, in prototypical sanctuaries. Based on this, it is possible that the author of Jubilees wanted to highlight not so much the importance of where sacrifice took place, but rather, the importance of it taking place in the presence of God. This is the case regarding Abraham (discussed below). The Qumran-related community read the above temple motifs as models to emulate. The community’s writings liken the community as a sanctuary, where it observes a type of sacrificial worship.39 Although the Qumran texts mainly describe a community as temple rather than a place as temple (as is illustrated in Jubilees), the idea of the sanctuary existing outside of Jerusalem is nonetheless similar. Moreover, despite the difference between Jubilees’ descriptions of actual sacrifice against the Qumran texts’ references to spiritualised sacrifice, the general idea of sacrificial worship taking place other than in Jerusalem is also analogous. The Qumran-related community is referred to as a temple in both 4Q174 (1 i 21 2:6-7) and the Rule of the Community (1QS VIII 5 and 7b-9).40 In the Rule of the Community, the group is envisioned as a holy house for Israel, the foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron, and the most holy dwelling for Aaron.41 The group is also described as providing atonement, yet without actual sacrifice: When these exist in Israel in accordance with these rules in order to establish the spirit of holiness in truth eternal, in

Refer to note 9 above. For a thorough discussion of the spiritualised ideology of the Qumranrelated community and its cult, see the chapters on the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium. 41 Also cf., 1QS V 6b where community members are described as volunteering for holiness in Aaron and for the house of truth in Israel. 39 40

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

135

order to atone for the earth, without the flesh of burnt offerings and without the fats of sacrifice.42

According to 1QS IX 6a the community is further described as set apart as a holy house for Aaron to form a most holy community, and a house of the community for Israel. In 4Q174 1 i 21 2:2-7, the community is called a temple of Adam, which offers smoke offerings (incense as substitute for sacrifice) before God as works of thanksgiving.43 In Jubilees, Israel is referred to as a sanctuary. According to Jubilees 30:8, “No adulterer or impure person is to be found within Israel throughout all the time of the earth’s history, for Israel is holy to the Lord.”44 Israel is also described as belonging to the Lord, where, because of its holiness, impure persons (mainly those who were involved in foreign marriages) were forbidden.45 The author of Jubilees uses the above prohibition to describe Moses as being instructed to remind the people of Israel to keep themselves from this type of impurity. For the author of Jubilees, this prohibition likely served as a warning for the Jewish nation not to intermingle with any Hellenising or non-Jewish persons or groups: for to do so was to defile God’s name, the nation (the people), and the sanctuary (the land of Israel). This is what is described in Jubilees 30:15b. Moreover, according to Jubilees 30:15b-16, the offerings and sacrifices of those defiled were not even accepted (this most likely was due to their offerings, as well, being viewed as defiled): If one does this (participates in foreign marriage) or shuts his eyes to those who do impure things and who defile the Lord’s sanctuary and to those who profane his holy name, then the entire nation will be condemned together because of all this impurity and this contamination. There will be no favouritism 1QS IX 3-4a. Also see the chapter on the Rule of the Community. See below where this matter is also discussed. For a fuller discussion of this issue and the 4Q174 passage, refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 44 Jubilees 30:8. 45 The prohibition of Israel marrying foreigners appears to have influenced the view of the DSS movement. This is attested in the Qumranrelated group’s text, 4QMMT (B 75-82 in particular). See the discussion on this matter in the chapter on MMT. 42 43

136

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION nor partiality; there will be no receiving from him of fruit, sacrifices, offerings, fat, or the aroma of a pleasing fragrance so that he should accept it. (So) is any man or woman in Israel to be who defiles his sanctuary.

The author of Jubilees is interested in the purity of the temple as well as the purity of persons found within the temple. Based on this, this passage functions as a regulation concerned with purity. Regarding impure persons, the above prohibition is akin to the purity regulation regarding entry into the Garden of Eden.46 According to Jubilees 3:8-14 (which also corresponds to the community’s 4Q266 6 ii 5-13 and 4Q265 7 ii 11-17), Genesis 2 (particularly concerning Adam and Eve entering Eden) is harmonised with the purity regulation of the parturient in Leviticus 12:2-8. According to Leviticus, after a woman had given birth to a child, she was considered impure, thus not being able to touch holy things or enter the temple. She had to wait several days (forty days for a male child and eighty days for a female child) before being considered pure, and thus being allowed to touch holy things and enter the sanctuary. In view of this regulation, Jubilees, along with the above noted scroll related passages, 4Q266 and 4Q265, notes that Adam and Eve had to wait the respective forty and eighty days before being brought into the Eden sanctuary. According to Jubilees 3:11-14, it is because Eden is described as the holiest place in the entire earth that certain purity regulations were required for entry. Moreover, according to Jubilees 8:19a, Noah describes the Garden of Eden as the holy of holies, and the

There is, however, a caveat concerning these two examples. Whereas Jubilees 30:8 makes no provisions for impure persons becoming clean, Jubilees 3:8-14 does. There is, however, a general fact that in both passages only purified persons were allowed in the holy place (sanctuary). Also view discussion below. 46

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

137

residence of the Lord.47 As Baumgarten correctly notes, Eden is portrayed here as a prototype of the sanctuary.48 In the Eden sanctuary, Adam served as humanity’s first priest where his duties served as a type of offering unto the Lord.49 This view of Adam (as priest who performed spiritualised sacrifice) served as an impetus to the Qumran-related community in that he (Adam) became a model to emulate. The community’s description of itself as a ‫מקדש אדם‬, in 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6-7, reflected the Edenic temple where, like Adam, the group offered spiritualised sacrifice. Based on this (as noted elsewhere),50 the group also viewed itself as living (in anticipation) in the glory and inheritance of Adam.51 Based on Jubilees’ influence, especially regarding the above temple motif descriptions, the Qumran-related community viewed itself as a temple community which (1) offered substitutes for sacrifice or spiritualised sacrifice, and (2) required purification of its members, just like the holy places described in Jubilees. Concerning the purification requirements for members, the same general idea in Jubilees 30:8, that impure persons were prohibited from entering the prototypical sanctuary, is similarly the case regarding the Qumran texts and its community as a prototypical temple. This general view is attested in MMT, the Temple Scroll,

Cf., Jubilees 4:26 which notes the Garden of Eden, the mountain of the east, Mt. Sinai and Mt. Zion as the four places (sanctuaries) on earth which belong to God. Also see here in Jubilees 8:19b. Cf., Jubilees 6:1. Here, Noah (as a priest) built an altar on Mt. Lubar (one of the mountains of Ararat) and made a sacrificial atonement for the earth. In Jubilees 7:15, he also celebrated the first of the first month (the day when the land became dry after the flood) where he made burnt offering to God. 48 See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Purification After Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies (ed. George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 6. 49 See below where his duties are discussed. 50 Refer to above discussion. Also see this discussion in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 51 See 1QS IV 22b-23a, and CD 3:20 where references to the community as living in the glory of Adam are found. 47

138

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the Damascus Document, 4Q174, the Rule of the Congregation, and the Rule of the Community. In MMT B 39-54a, 64b-69, and 71-72, the Ammonite, the Moabite, the bastard, the one with crushed testicles, the blind, the deaf and the leper are prohibited from entering the holy place. Purification was attainable only for the last. In CD 15:15b17(=4QD266 8 i 6b-9), persons who were stupid or deranged, feeble minded or insane, blind, lame, deaf, or under-aged were prohibited from entering the congregation because of its holiness.52 In 4Q174 1 i 21 2:3b-4 (which follows Deuteronomy 23:29), Ammonites, Moabites, bastards, foreigners, and proselytes are described as not being allowed to enter the eschatological temple because the community which was holy is described as residing there. Regarding the eschatological community (as temple or as army), in 1QSa 1 ii 3b-10, persons defiled by the impurity of a man are described as being prohibited from entering the assembly of the congregation (as sanctuary) during the covenant renewal ceremony. These persons along with anyone defiled in their flesh, paralysed, lame, blind, deaf, dumb, visibly defiled in the flesh with a blemish, or tottering old men were not allowed to take their place among the congregation, nor enter the congregation (as temple) because they were considered defiled.

Here, holy angels are described as being among the congregation as well. Cf., CD 5:6b-11 where the person who lays with a woman with a flow, or the one who is involved in a prohibited marriage is described as defiling the temple. Also see CD 12:1b-2a(=4Q271 5 i 17b-18a) where there is a prohibition against persons who lay with one another in the city of the temple. This, too, is described as causing impurity. A similar regulation is noted in 11Q19 XLV 11-12. Moreover, 4Q270 7 i 11-13a states that a person who has illegal sex with his wife, which is not in accordance to the regulation of the many, is to leave the congregation and never return. Also see 11Q19 XLV 4-5, where a man with a nocturnal emission is likewise considered impure, thus being prohibited from entering the temple. This matter is further discussed in Yadin The Temple Scroll, 1:289 and Crawford, The Temple Scroll, 47. Regarding prohibited marriages, also cf. 4QMMT B 75-82. 52

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

139

3. The View of the Patriarchs as Priest-Like

Based on Jubilees’ cultic regulations (described below), and in relation to prototypical sanctuaries, both Jubilees and sectarian writings similarly esteem the patriarchs as priest-like. The view and duty of the patriarchs as priest-like likely served as polemic against the current identity and duties of the priests in Jerusalem. Jubilees’ author, and the DSS movement viewed Jerusalem’s entire temple establishment in this manner. The book of Jubilees describes Moses as being presented with the description of the patriarchs (Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) as priest-like figures. Although none of them is explicitly called priest, they are described as performing certain priestly duties. As demonstrated below, each of them is described as making some type of offering. Except for Adam and Enoch, the patriarchs are described as offering actual sacrifices according to the 364-day calendar, which likely included the recitation of some type of prayer or praise liturgy. According to Jubilees 6:18-19, the patriarchs (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are also noted as the only ones during their times to keep the annual festival of weeks, which celebrated the renewal of the covenant (an idea which is also attested in the sectarian texts).53 In view of this, as well as their righteous attitude and obedience to God, the patriarchs are highly revered in Jubilees, as well as in the sectarian texts. In CD 3:1-4a and 16:6a, the patriarchs are described as the initial keepers of the covenant and its stipulations. The author of Jubilees presents the patriarchs as archetypes who convey God’s will for Israel (both in Moses’ time as well as in the author’s time). Moreover, the acts of the patriarchs appear to be highlighted to remind Israel (during both the author’s and Moses’ time) of God’s concerns regarding sacrifice, purity issues, the proper calendar, certain festivals, and the covenant. As is attested in CD 3:1-7a, the larger DSS movement also understood the patriarchs in a similar way. Jubilees suggests that outside of the patriarchs (including Moses), each of the above concerns had See CD 3:1-4a; also see the discussion concerning this festival (the “Feast of Weeks”) below. 53

140

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

been forgotten. The author of Jubilees likely highlights the patriarchal acts to remind the people of Israel (during Hellenising times)54 of what was ordained from the beginning (as was recorded on the heavenly tablets), as well as what was observed by their ancestors. Additionally, the sacrificial acts of the patriarchs (described below) served as polemic against the sacrificial practises of a Hellenistic-Jewish priesthood and population. This is also how the DSS movement viewed patriarchal practices. The movement’s texts similarly view the patriarchs as models worthy to be emulated. According to CD 3:1-4a, (noted above) the patriarchs (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are described as the friends of God who kept his precepts and covenant according to the correct calendar. Based on this, the members of the movement similarly thought of themselves as members of the covenant, after the manner of their ancestors, the patriarchs. In consideration of Jubilees’ influence, particularly regarding its descriptions of the priest-like function of the patriarchs, the DSS movement viewed their own duties as priest-like after the models of the patriarchs. Moreover, it is probable that the movement studied and viewed the sacrificial duties of these figures (1) in an eschatological way (i.e., that one day these sacrificial matters were hoped to be re-instituted back to their proper sanctity in Jerusalem) and (2) in an idealised way (in that these sacrificial matters were to be observed in the place of the current sacrificial practices in Jerusalem). In the case of the Sabbath sacrifice, the larger DSS movement took the references in more of a literal way, performing it at the temple in Jerusalem.55 The Qumran-related community read the duties of Adam and Enoch predominantly in a spiritualised way.56 In Jubilees, both figures functioned as priests. Regarding Adam, his priestly duties included working and keeping the Garden (as sanctuary) in the same manner as the Levitical priests in Numbers 3:7-8, 8:26 and Most likely during the second century B.C.E. Refer to note 22. For discussion of this matter, refer to note 18 in the Introduction of this book. 56 It is possible that the Qumran-related group viewed the duties of Adam and Enoch as spiritualised offerings, which served as models that both influenced and enforced their ideology. 54 55

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

141

18:5-6 kept the sanctuary.57 Moreover, both Adam and Enoch burnt incense as offering to God. The act of burning incense served as a substitute for actual animal sacrifice before the Lord. In 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6-7, the Qumran-related community referred to itself as an Adamic sanctuary (‫ )מקדש אדם‬which like Adam (and Enoch), offered smoke offerings (‫ )מקטירים‬as deeds of thanksgiving.58 The Qumran-related community also viewed, studied, and used Jubilees’ descriptions of the patriarchs’ sacrificial duties (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Levi) in a spiritualised way, especially during the later stages of its development. Whereas in Jubilees the patriarchs (as priest-like) adhered to priestly regulation, the Qumran- related community (being priest-like in its makeup) similarly adhered to the priestly regulations, especially concerning purity and sacrificial concerns. The Qumran-related community viewed the recitation of the liturgical worship which accompanied the sacrifices as substitutes for the actual sacrifices, as acceptable offerings. This is attested in certain sectarian writings such as the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community and others.59

See Gordon J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literacy, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11 (ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 401, who similarly compares this distinction. 58 See discussion of this 4Q174 passage in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. The offering of incense may be attested for at Qumran, particularly in view of the incense altar found. Refer to this discussion in the chapter on Archaeology. 59 See CD 11:17b-21a in light of daily liturgies, Sabbath liturgies, and other festival liturgies. Also see the liturgical worship in 1QS IX 26-XI 22; 1QHa V 12-14; XX 4-11=[XII 4-11]; 1QM XIV 12-14; 4Q408; 4Q503 11QPsa 27:2-11; Words of the Luminaries; and Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. See the various textual chapter in this book for further discussion concerning this matter. 57

142

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

4. Description of Sacrificial Regulations in Relation to the Scrolls and Movement

In view of the extant MSS of the book of Jubilees at Qumran, which contain a large amount of information related to sacrificial worship, this material likely was understood and studied60 (as polemic)61 1) in an idealised and eschatological way by the larger DSS movement, and 2) in more of a spiritualised way by the Qumran-related community, particularly during the later stages of its development. Based on the correlation between Jubilees’ cultic descriptions with the scrolls, Jubilees was viewed as an authoritative source, which influenced and later reinforced the ideology of the entire DSS movement. Cultic issues highlighted in Jubilees include the following: •

•

•

Regulations concerning daily offerings, in 6:14 (which correlate with the scrolls daily prayer texts and passages). The regulations concerning the celebration of the festival of weeks,62 particularly regarding the annual renewal of the covenant in 6:1-4; 15-22; 14:7-20; 15:1-22 and 22:16 (which correlates with Qumran’s annual covenant renewal festival).63 The regulations surrounding the observance of memorial days, particularly based on the 364-day solar calendar, in 6:23-38; 7:1-5; 13:8-9; 24:21-23 and 31:3 (which correlates with the description of memorial days in certain sectarian texts).

Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 275, similarly notes this idea. 61 Much of the polemic stemmed from the observance of these festivals and days according to two different calendars, the lunar one and the solar one. 62 The offering of first-fruits is also usually associated with this festival. 63 Considering Jubilees 6:1-4, it is likely that prayers of forgiveness for the land, as well as thanks offering were recited (alongside sacrifice) each time this festival occurred. 60

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES • •

•

•

•

•

• •

143

The stipulations regarding first-fruits of the wine and oil (7:35-37).64 The regulations concerning the festival of tabernacles in 16:20-31, and 32:2-29, most notably where the succot of this celebration is mentioned (which correlates with the Temple Scroll’s description). The stipulations concerning the feast of unleavened bread in 18:17-19 and 49:22-23 (which corresponds with the description of this festival in the Temple Scroll, which also mentioned in 4QCalendrical Document Ea, and 4Q365a). The regulations regarding wood offerings in 21:12-15 (which corresponds with the movement’s observance of wood offering in the Temple Scroll and 4QAramaic Levif). The regulations regarding the day of ordination, particularly concerning the elevated status of Levi in 30:18, 31:13-15, and 32:1-965 (which corresponds with the elevated status of Levi in the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document). The regulations regarding the day of atonement in 34:12-19 (which corresponds with the Temple Scroll’s atonement regulations). The regulations regarding the Passover celebration in 49:1-23. The regulations regarding Sabbath sacrifice in 2:21 and 50:9-11 (which accords with the movement’s view of the Sabbath sacrifice in the Temple Scroll, the Damascus

The movement’s Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen ar 12:15) correlates here. Also, mention of the first-fruits of wine and oil is found in 11Q19 XLIII 3-10. For discussion of this issue, refer to VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 105 and “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” 222-3. Regarding the stipulation concerning the fruit of the fourth year (which subsequently was given to the priests), this idea appears to have influenced the DSS movement, especially on the basis of its description in 11Q19 LX 01-3; 4Q266 6 iv and 4QMMT B 62-63. See this discussion in the chapter on MMT. 65 Also cf., Jubilees 45:15-16. 64

144

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION Document, as well as in 11QPsa, 4Q403 and Words of the Luminaries).

Many of the aforementioned regulations involved some type of prayer or praise liturgy. This is explicit in some regulations whereas in others it is more implicit. Furthermore, these cultic observances are described as polemical, especially because of 1) the calendar according to which they (the cultic observances) were carried out, and 2) the modus operandi which they followed. a. Daily Offerings

Jubilees and the sectarian writings similarly describe the observance for daily offerings. Based on this, Jubilees’ description of this observance both influenced and later enforced the ideology of the DSS movement, as polemic against its (the movements) opponents. In Jubilees 6:14 and 50:10-11, Moses was given the regulations about daily offerings. Moreover, both passages describe this offering as being accompanied with worship liturgy (seeking for atonement). According to Jubilees 6:14, Moses was instructed to command Israel to make daily offerings in connection with the covenant that God made with Noah (Jubilees 6:10ff). In Jubilees 6:13-14, Moses was instructed to command Israel to keep from eating the blood of animals. Moses is told to remind Israel of this prohibition so that throughout history they may continue supplicating (praying) for themselves in conjunction with daily sacrifices. Israel was to offer prayers continually, seeking for pardon (atonement) both in the mornings and evenings: They are to keep it throughout history so that they may continue supplicating for themselves with blood in front of the altar each and every day. In the morning and in the evening they are continually to ask pardon for themselves before the Lord so that they may keep it and not be uprooted.66

In Jubilees 50:10-11, Moses is given regulations about offering the daily sacrifice on the Sabbath. He is told to offer sacrifice daily, including on the Sabbath day along with the Sabbath sacrifice. 66

Jubilees 6:14b.

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

145

According to 50:11, Moses is told that the daily offering is given to atone continuously for Israel day by day. Here, the daily offering is described as a memorial acceptable before the Lord. Moreover, its purpose was to provide atonement. In view of this, prayers seeking atonement (pardon) also accompanied this sacrifice (both in the morning and evening). The description of daily sacrifice in Jubilees is highlighted as a reminder to the second-temple Hellenising-Jewish population, to keep themselves and their deeds purified before God. Moreover, Jubilees’ description regarding the daily offering also influenced the larger DSS movement concerning its view of daily offerings. The larger movement (which included the Qumran-related group) appears to have viewed this sacrifice as polemic in an idealised and eschatological way, whereas the Qumran-related group viewed the daily offering in a predominantly spiritualised way (particularly during the later stages of its development). Liturgical worship that was to accompany this sacrifice was viewed by this group as an acceptable substitute for the actual daily sacrifice. Regulations concerning the daily sacrifice are found preserved in the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document in particular. However, the requirement for offering daily sacrifice is similar only in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. Both texts describe the sacrifice as taking place each day, including on the Sabbath, where the daily sacrifice is accompanied by the Sabbath sacrifice. Although fragmented, this is fully noted in 11Q19 XIII 10-16. In Jubilees, however, it is understood from reading two different passages (6:13-14 and 50:10). In the Damascus Document (CD 11:1718), daily sacrifice was to be set-aside on the Sabbath day, where only the Sabbath sacrifice was permitted. This view is in stark contrast to Jubilees and the Temple Scroll above. This contrast is due to a later development regarding the Qumran-related community’s views of the daily and Sabbath sacrifice. It could be that as the community developed (starting to differ more and more from the ideology of the larger DSS movement), they tried to harmonise more with the view in the book of Jubilees, as is described in the Temple Scroll. On account of this, the regulation in the Temple Scroll reflects later redacted material, which reflects the

146

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

ideology of the Qumran-related community. Description of this regulation in the Damascus Document reflects the ideology of the larger DSS movement. Hence, the Qumran-related community viewed this regulation as polemic against both the larger movement and Jerusalem’s temple establishment.67 According to 11Q19 XIII 10-16, daily sacrifice consisted of libation and burnt offering. Although there is no mention of atonement liturgy (prayer or praise) accompanying this offering, it is likely that it did.68 With regard to CD 11:17-18, there may be an indirect reference to atoning liturgy. Atonement liturgy accompanying the daily sacrifice is attested in the ensuing lines (CD 11:18b-21a). According to these lines, there is a description regarding how various types of offering and sacrifice were to be brought to the altar.69 Daily sacrifices likely were imagined in this refrain. At the end of this list, the offering of righteous prayer is described as an agreeable offering particularly when sacrifice is defiled. It is probable that righteous prayer already accompanied these sacrifices and offerings. If these offerings became defiled (including the daily sacrifice), righteous prayer would then become like agreeable offering. As the Qumran-related group developed, the liturgy that accompanied the daily sacrifice increasingly became viewed as a substitute for the actual sacrifice. This is shown in other texts found at Qumran (1QS IX 26-XI 22; 1QHa V 12-14; XX 4-11 [XII 4-11]; 1QM XIV 12-14; 4Q503,70 11QPsa, 4Q408, and Words of the Luminaries), which explicitly describe the prayer and praise liturgy that was to be carried out each day. The fact that these texts were found among the Qumran corpus demonstrate that the Also see discussion of this in the chapter on the Damascus Document. This is supposed particularly considering other texts and documents (described below) preserved at Qumran which explicitly describe the daily liturgy. 69 No-one should send to the altar a sacrifice, or an offering, or incense, or wood, by the hand of a man impure from any of the impurities, so allowing him to defile the altar, for it is written: Prov 15:8 « the sacrifice of the wicked ones is an abomination, but the prayer of the just ones is like an agreeable offering ». 70 Regarding assumptions that this work is based on the lunar months, see the discussion by Glessmer, “Calendars,” 253-5. 67 68

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

147

practice of their content was carried out as substitutes for sacrifice, particularly by the Qumran-related group. The liturgy in these texts (some attesting to non-sectarian authorship) appears to have been adapted to correspond with Jubilees’ daily prayers for atonement. b. The Festival of Weeks; The Renewing of the Covenant

Both Jubilees and the sectarian texts similarly emphasise the celebration of the Festival of Weeks. In Jubilees, the Festival of Weeks is associated with a type of sacrifice (usually of the first-fruits of the harvest) and the renewing of the covenant, which God established according to his heavenly tablets. Jubilees highlights this observance as polemic based on the 364-day calendar as well as the modus operandi concerning the sacrificial regulations. The movement viewed Jubilees’ description of the Festival of Weeks as similarly describing the polemic against its opponents. Hence, Jubilees’ authoritative description of the renewing of the covenant thus was adapted and used by the movement. Not only was the covenant renewal festival observed, but the patriarchs served as priest-like models which both the larger movement and the later Qumran-related community emulated. According to Jubilees (6:18-19), only Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are described as observing this festival. The author of Jubilees highlighted this fact to present the patriarchs as archetypes who were to be emulated.71 For the movement, particularly the Qumran-related community, being a member (which was viewed as synonymously being part of God’s covenant) was viewed as following after the patriarchs. This idea is similarly attested in CD 2:11-3:21, 4:6b-10a, and 16:2b-6a. Moreover, the Qumran-related community viewed both itself and the patriarchs as members of the covenant based on acting in accord with the ‫נסתרות‬, which were revealed only to them. Through the description of the patriarchs, the author of Jubilees describes the covenant as going through a development. See above where this has been previously noted. Also see CD 3:1-4a which highlights the patriarchs (as archetypical models) similarly keeping the covenant. 71

148

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Noah (in Jubilees 6:1-4) is described as the first patriarch to observe this celebration. After the floodwaters receded and the ark came to rest on dry ground, Noah is described as erecting an altar and making atoning sacrifice for the land according to the 364day calendar. He then makes a burnt offering on the altar, along with libation and incense offering as a memorial to God. It is plausible that along with this sacrifice, Noah also offered prayers of repentance for the land as well as prayer and praise of thanksgiving for being saved from the floodwaters. This is indicated in Noah ordaining the memorial days as festivals in Jubilees 6:24. After Noah’s sacrifice, God makes a covenant with him not to destroy the earth again with floodwaters. This covenant also describes the ordering of days and seasons, as is attested in Jubilees 6:4, and the regulations concerning the consumption of animals in consonance with the prohibition of eating blood (in particular, animals with blood remaining in them).72 It is here through Noah that Moses is reminded to observe the Festival of Weeks. According to Jubilees 6:15-22, this festival was to be observed in the third month of each year. It was associated with the renewal of the covenant (the covenant that God established from the beginning, which was recorded on the eternal tablets) and involved some sort of sacrifice. Moreover, Moses is told that only Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob kept the covenant festival. After them, it had been forgotten up until his time. In 6:20, Moses is instructed to command Israel to keep this festival during their entire generations. Abraham observed the Festival of Weeks (twice) and was given further promises as well as stipulations to follow concerning the covenant. According to 14:1-20 (which follows Genesis 15:7ff), after Abraham sacrificed, God promised him that he would bless him with descendants who would inherit the land of Canaan forever. Additionally, according to Jubilees 15:1-29 (which correlates with Genesis 17), Abraham is described as observing the Festival of First-Fruits of Harvest on the Festival of Weeks. Here, Abraham offered a sacrifice of first-fruits on the altar with libation and cereal offering. After this offering (which 72

Cf., this idea with what is similarly alluded to in CD 2:5b-9a.

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

149

most likely included liturgical worship), God is described as renewing his covenant with him as well as giving him stipulations for being part of this covenant. This included being circumcised and having his name changed.73 Abraham’s circumcision in association with this celebration is also referred to in the movement’s Damascus Document (CD 16:6a). According to Jubilees 22:1-6, Isaac is also described as celebrating the Festival of Weeks. As the author of Jubilees highlights this festival, he introduces the liturgical blessing element in accord with the renewing of the covenant. In this passage, Isaac came (with Ishmael) to his father, Abraham, to celebrate the Festival of Weeks (focusing on the Festival of the First-Fruits of the Harvest as Abraham did). According to 22:3-4, Isaac is described as slaughtering a sacrifice, and a peace offering on his father’s altar, at the Oak of Mamre. Isaac then prepares the peace offering as a feast for his father, who receives it along with wine and fresh bread (which Rebecca made) via Jacob. After Abraham eats, he is described as blessing God as well as offering blessing to Jacob according to the promises of the covenant. According to Jubilees, he asks God to bless his descendants as the chosen people and heritage throughout the earth’s history. Moreover, he pronounces the covenant blessings upon Jacob (as seen in Jubilees 22:10-25, and 28-30). Based on this liturgical blessing element, the author of Jubilees highlights Isaac’s Festival of Weeks in order to remind all Israel to observe the renewal of the covenant (along with its promises, signs,74 and liturgical element) in the same manner as their patriarchal ancestors. According to Jubilees 44:1-4, Jacob (Israel here) is described as observing the Festival of Weeks in correlation with the Harvest Festival of the First-Fruits of Grain (like Abraham and Isaac). Jacob first offered sacrifice on the seventh day of the third month. After hearing about his son Joseph being alive in Egypt, he went to the well of the oath and offered a sacrifice to God. According

Abraham’s name was changed from Abram in 15:7. This is in accord with Genesis 17:5. 74 Circumcision in particular. 73

150

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

to 44:2-4, Jacob, being afraid to go to Egypt, stayed where he was for seven more days hoping to see a vision about whether to go. While there, he celebrated the Festival of Weeks, the Harvest Festival of the First-Fruits of Grain on the fourteenth of the third month. Because of the famine, he is described as using old grain. Jacob most likely sacrificed here (which included worship liturgy) just as Noah, Abraham and Isaac did. On the next day (the sixteenth day) God renewed his covenant with him. God told him not to be afraid, but to go down to Egypt where he would make him a great nation. In consideration of the above, as well as Jubilees overall influence on the movement, the Qumran-related community, in particular, similarly celebrated the Festival of Weeks (mainly focusing on the renewing of the covenant) just like the patriarchs. The community likely viewed Jubilees as stressing the importance of being part of God’s covenant. This is what is mainly stressed in the group’s observance of this festival. According to the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community, the celebration of the Festival of Weeks, which is more clearly described as the yearly covenant renewal ceremony, was more like a corporate gathering which included liturgical recitation (which likely was influenced by Abraham’s blessing recital in Jubilees 22:10-25, and 28-30) as well as the examination and promotion of members and initiates,75 and the confession of sins76 (which borrowed from Noah’s liturgical recitation in Jubilees 6:1-4). Whereas in Jubilees sacrifice preceded the renewal of the covenant, this was not the case in the sectarian texts. Only liturgical worship accompanied this observance. Liturgical worship served as an acceptable substitute for sacrifice, predominantly to the Qumran-related community. According to the Damascus Document (4Q266 11:17ff=4Q271 7 ii 11ff) and the Rule of the Community, members of the community were to gather together in the third month (according to rank) to celebrate the renewing of the covenant by reciting liturgical worship (which included blessings, This is seen particularly in 1QS V:24. In CD 4:9b, like Jubilees’ description above, the covenant that God established with the patriarchs is described as having atoning value. 75 76

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

151

cursing, and confession of sins) as well as being examined, promoted, and initiated.77 Here, the Qumran-related community follows, as well as conflates, Deuteronomy 27:14-26 (liturgical cursing by the Levites) with Numbers 6:24-26 (liturgical blessings of the priests). Although many ceremonial duties are implied in the Damascus Document, the descriptions of these duties are more explicit in the Rule of the Community. In 1QS I 16-III 12, community entrants are described as the fulfilment of the covenant (they are described as establishing the covenant): And all those who enter the Rule of the Community shall establish a covenant before God in order to carry out all that he commanded and in order not to stray from following him out of any fear, dread, or testing (that might occur) during the dominion of Belial.78

According to the Rule of the Community (2:19-3:12 and 6:8b11a),79 members enter the assembly according to their rank, and are thus examined.80 Priests are described as entering the assembly in their sequential order according to their spirit. Afterwards, the Levites enter followed by members according to their rank.81 Others, described as stubborn in heart, are considered defiled and thus not allowed to enter the assembly or the community. The priests and Levites are described as reciting liturgical blessings during this ceremony (just like Abraham, who in Jubilees See 1QS V 20b-24a. 1QS I 16-18a. 79 The preparation of this gathering likely including washing. This celebration, which continued to be practiced at Qumran, can be attested for especially in view of the miqva’ot that were strategically located at Qumran (near the assembly hall(s) and close to where the bones from these meals were carefully disposed). 80 The examination of each categorized group is described in 1QS VI 8bVII 25. 81 A similar order is noted in 1QS VI 8b-9a, and in CD 14:3-6a. Regarding the former, although the Levites are not mentioned, it may be that they are assumed under the category of priests. Concerning the latter, proselytes are mentioned as being ranked fourth behind the children of Israel. It may be that both groups are generally classified as members according to their rank in 1QS II 19-23. 77 78

152

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

22:10-25 and 28-30 is seen as introducing the liturgical blessing element during the Festival of Weeks). The priests and Levites not only bless God (as seen in 1QS I 18b-19), but the priests also bless the members of the community (in 1QS II 1b-4a), recite the just deeds of God (in 1QS I 21-22a) and curse the disobedient of the community (in 1QS II 11-17). The Levites recite the iniquities and the sins of the children of Israel (in 1QS I 22b-24a) and curse all the men of the lot of Belial (in 1QS II 4b-9) as well as the disobedient of the community (in 1QS II 11-17). The community members are likewise noted as reciting liturgy in consonance with the priests and the Levites. They (the community members) respond with Amen to the liturgy of the priests and Levites, as well as offer confessions for their sins (in 1QS I 24-2:1a). Liturgical worship for the Festival of Weeks has also been found in 1Q34 3 i 9; ii 1-8(=4Q509 97=98) and 4Q509 131-132 ii 5. These texts in consonance with the liturgical worship from the Rule of the Community and the Damascus Document as well prove that liturgical worship was recited among the Qumran-related community, who viewed this liturgy as acceptable substitutes for the sacrifice. Moreover, the sacrificial regulations regarding the Festival of Weeks were also idealised (as that which should be observed in opposition to what was currently being observed in Jerusalem) as well as viewed in an eschatological way. Along with the above, the Qumran-related community stressed that the most important part of this festival was being in covenant with God. c. Sacrifice Regarding Memorial Days

Both Jubilees and the sectarian writings highlight the observance of memorial days. The observance of the memorial days attests to the adherence to the 364-day calendar, which the DSS movement appears to have adopted from Jubilees. The movement (which included the Qumran-related community) viewed and studied this regulation (as polemic) in an idealised and eschatological way. Moreover, the Qumran-related group (particularly during the later stages of its development) viewed and practiced this same regulation in more of a spiritualised way.

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

153

In Jubilees, Noah, Abraham and Isaac are noted as making sacrifice on the first of the first month. According to Jubilees 7:15, Noah is described as making atonement sacrifice (which most likely was accompanied with prayers of forgiveness) and burnt offering with libation and incense offering to the Lord on the first of the first month. His sacrifice was in celebration of the wine that he prepared and kept until its fifth year. It is plausible that Noah also offered prayers of thanksgiving in celebration of this Memorial Day. This account is also referred to in 1QapGen ar 12:13-15. Jubilees 13:8-9 describes Abraham as offering sacrifice on the first of the month. He is described as offering liturgical worship (“he called on the name of the Lord: You, my God, are the eternal God”),82 which accompanied his sacrifice to God at Bethel. Jubilees 24:21-23 similarly describes Isaac as sacrificing on the first of the month. Isaac likewise offered liturgical worship (just as Abraham did), which accompanied his sacrifice. His sacrifice followed after God appeared to him promising to make his descendants numerous for the sake of his father Abraham. In Jubilees 31:3, Jacob is described as building an altar for sacrifice on the first of the seventh month at Bethel. As described elsewhere, the actual sacrifice took place later (on the fifteenth of the same month, as noted in Jubilees 32:4). In view of the above, the movement related to the scrolls similarly observed the memorial days (as polemic) in the same manner as the patriarchs (Noah, Abraham, and Isaac in particular).83 In 11Q19 XIV 7b-18, sacrificial regulations about the memorial days (“beginnings of the month”) are to be given. However, due to the fragmentary nature of this Temple Scroll passage, only the first of the month is explicitly mentioned. Despite this fact, based on Jubilees overall influence, liturgical worship likely accompanied the Temple Scroll’s memorial days’ sacrifice.

Jubilees 13:8b. It is probable that the temple establishment in Jerusalem viewed the memorial days according to the lunar calendar, which was directly against the 364-day solar calendar used by the entire DSS movement. See VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2001), 99-100, who focuses on this matter. 82 83

154

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

In the case of the Qumran-related community, liturgy recited on the memorial days was viewed as an acceptable substitute for sacrifice. This is the case particularly considering liturgical texts found at Qumran which make both implicit reference (in 1Q34 1+2 1-4=4Q509 1 iii 1-8) and explicit reference (in 11QPsa 27:7a-8b) to the recitation of liturgy for the memorial days. The recitation of liturgy for the memorial days is also alluded to in the Damascus Document (CD 11:18b-21a). Sacrifice for the memorial days conceivably was included in this general listing of impure sacrifices or offerings. This being the case, “the sacrifice of the wicked one is an abomination, but the prayer of the just ones is like an agreeable offering,” refers to both the sacrifice and worship liturgy of the memorial days. In the Rule of the Community, memorial days (in the context of liturgical worship) are also mentioned. In this text, the author (the maskil) of the Rule of the Community (1QS X 6-9), declares that he will bless God according to the four memorial days: With the offering of the lips I shall bless him, in accordance with the decree recorded forever. At the commencement of the years and in the turning of their seasons, when the decree of their disposition is carried out, on its prescribed day, one after another; the season of the harvest up to summer, the season of seed-time up to the season of the grass . . .84

Memorial days are described in terms of seasons, which according to 1QS X 7b-9, lasted up to a seven-year period. The author (the maskil, who is a leader of the sect) further decrees here that he will offer liturgical worship to God during this period. The Qumran-related community similarly followed in the same manner as their leader (the maskil) and recited these Memorial Day liturgies.

84

1QS X 6-7a. Cf., Jubilees 29:16.

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

155

d. The Festival of Tabernacles

The Festival of Tabernacles is similarly noted in both Jubilees and the sectarian texts (in particular the Temple Scroll).85 The DSS movement viewed this festival in an idealised way as polemic. According to Jubilees 16:20-31 (line 29 in particular), Israel was instructed to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. They were to offer sacrifice for seven days during the seventh month in the same manner as Abraham (the first to celebrate this festival).86 Atoning sacrifices, burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, and burning incense were to be offered. Jubilees 16:29 states that the Festival of Tabernacles was ordained according to the heavenly tablets and was to be celebrated each year by Israel eternally throughout their history. Moreover, according to Jubilees 16:30-31, Israel was to celebrate this festival (like Abraham) by living in tents, placing wreaths on their heads, and taking leafy branches. Israel (like Abraham) was to take palm branches and the fruit from good trees and circle the altar seven times each day. In the morning they were to give praise and thanks to God. It is also likely that atoning liturgy was recited alongside the atoning sacrifice. Jubilees 32:2-29 also notes the seven-day festival of tabernacles. According to Jubilees 32:1 and 9, Levi was ordained priest before the Lord for all times during this festival. In line 10, a second tithe was to be given and eaten on this day, along with the addition of succot (an eighth day), which was celebrated in the same manner as the other seven days (according to Jubilees 32:2729). Sacrifice was thus required for eight consecutive days. The description of the Festival of Tabernacles in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 XXVII 10-XXIX 1) is somewhat different from that in Jubilees,87 which reflects a slight change in its adaptation. The overall requirements regarding sacrifice are different. Both Schiffman and VanderKam note these differences, where more animal

This festival is also noted in 4Q259 IV 3 and the calendrical texts: 4Q320 4 iii 9, 4 iv 4, 4 v 7, 4 vi 2; 4Q321 2 ii 2, 2 ii 7, 2 iii 2, 2 iii 6 and 2 iii 9. 86 Abraham observed this celebration in view of learning that he would bear a son through which God’s nation would come forth. 87 Also see 11Q19 X 13 (a fragmentary passage) and XLII 10-17. 85

156

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sacrifices are required in the book of Jubilees.88 However, despite these differences, the DSS movement viewed this festival in an idealised way as polemic (particularly regarding the calendrical days of the festival’s observance or the nature of the sacrificial and purity regulations). Moreover, the Qumran-related community viewed this same festival in more predominantly spiritualised way. The liturgy that accompanied this festival was recited as substitutes for the sacrifices. This festival, like the observance of the Festival of Weeks and Memorial Festivals, was highlighted to serve as both a polemic (against those who observed this regulation different than described above), and a reminder (for those who forgot it or disregarded it). e. The Feast of Unleavened Bread

The Feast of Unleavened Bread similarly is noted in Jubilees and sectarian writing. This festival appears to have been viewed by the DSS movement in an idealised way as polemic. Moreover, the Qumran-related community viewed this festival in more of a spiritualised way, particularly during the later stages of its development. According to Jubilees 18:17-19, Abraham celebrated this feast for seven days in the first month. This feast was associated with Isaac being saved from sacrifice by the hand of his father. Similarly, in Jubilees 49:22-23, Moses is told to order the Israelites to keep the Festival of Unleavened Bread according to its days and sacrificial regulations. Based on Leviticus 23:6-8 (which is followed by the Temple Scroll, discussed below), this festival began on the fifteenth day of the first month, and included some type of prayer and praise liturgy. The seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread is similarly described in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 XVII 10-16). According to this passage, no work was to be done during this festival, and various sacrifices were to be offered, which included burnt-offering, sinoffering, and libation. A solemn assembly was to commence on the seventh day. Some type of liturgy was recited alongside the See Schiffman, “The Sacrificial System,” 230-2 and VanderKam, “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” 229-31, respectively. 88

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

157

sacrifices and the overall observance, such as praises of thanksgiving and prayers of confession. Although sketchy, this festival is also mentioned in 4QCalendrical Document Ea (4Q326) 1:3 and 4QTemple? (4Q365a) 1:2-7. The larger DSS movement could have viewed the above festival in an idealised way as polemic (perhaps regarding the calendrical days which this festival was observed or the nature of the sacrificial regulations), whereas the Qumran-related community viewed the study of this festival, and the recitation of the liturgy which was to accompany the sacrifices as substitutes for the actual sacrifices. f. Wood Offerings for Sacrifice

Both Jubilees and sectarian texts (particularly 4QAramaic Levif 26 i 1-8a=Cairo Geniza Testament of Levi Bodleian Col. c 9-Bodleian Col. d 2a) give regulations regarding the types of wood suitable for sacrifice. The entire DSS movement likely viewed and studied this regulation as polemic, in both an idealised and eschatological way. In Jubilees 21:12-15, Isaac was given the regulations concerning wood, whereas in the Levi text, Levi is given these regulations. Although this regulation is not explicitly found in the Torah, such a stipulation, indeed, existed during the time of the Torah. This is the case in light of both Nehemiah’s reference (in 10:34) to a wood offering festival, as well as a similar description in 4QReworked Pentateuchc 23:4-11.89 Nehemiah 10:34 exclaims that, according to the Torah, the requirement for bringing wood for sacrifice fell among certain groups. Lots were cast among the priests, the Levites, and the people. In 4Q365 23:4-11, God is described as instructing Moses to tell the children of Israel to offer wood for sacrifice and temple

See Jacob Milgrom, “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics: The Case of the Wood Offering,” RevQ 16 (1993-1994): 454, who discusses this matter. Also cf., J.W. 2.425. For discussion on 4Q365, see Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White Crawford, “4QReworked Pentateuchc,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. Harold Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 290-6. 89

158

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

repairs.90 The tribes are to present the wood offering for six days, two tribes on each day. A fuller description of this regulation (particularly lines 9-11) is given in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 XXIII 1XXV 1). The requirement of the twelve tribes bringing the wood offering could have served as polemic against the movement’s opponents, who, like Nehemiah, required the priest, the Levites, and the people to bring wood.91 Moreover, the source(s) that Nehemiah used to describe the wood offering festival (along with both the Temple Scroll and 4QReworked Pentateuchc) also included a list of the types of wood suitable for sacrifice like in Jubilees. In consideration of this postulation, the author of Jubilees and the DSS movement plausibly highlighted the types of wood used as polemic against that which was used by their respective opponents. Here, the listing of various wood served as a reminder to Israel regarding that which should be observed. g. Day(s) of Ordination; The Elevated Status of Levi

Jubilees and the sectarian writings similarly note the Day of Ordination. Both works refer to the elevated status of Levi. Although Levi is not mentioned in the Day of Ordination ceremony in the sectarian Temple Scroll (11Q19 XV 3-XVII 4), he is given an elevated priestly status (like in Jubilees which influenced the movement’s ideology) in the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Document, the Rule of the Community, and the War Scroll.92 According to Jubilees This idea is explicitly dealt with in Milgrom, “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics,” 451-6. 91 This idea is also noted in Yadin The Temple Scroll, 1.125 and followed by Milgrom, “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics,” 453. 92 For discussion concerning the status of Levi(tes), refer to Robert Kugler, “Priesthood at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter Flint and James C. VanderKam; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 103-5; “The Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and the Levites,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden Brill, 1999), 470-9; James Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” HTR 86 (1993): 1-64; Robert Stallman, “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JSP 10 (1992): 163-89; George J. Brooke, “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 90

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

159

30:18, Levi and his descendants were chosen before God to be the priests for all time. Levi was chosen because he is described as carrying out justice, punishment, and revenge on those who revolted against Israel. Levi was chosen based on his action concerning the rape of his sister Dinah. According to 30:4, Levi and his brother Simeon killed every man that they found in Shechem because of what its ruler had done to Dinah, their sister. In Jubilees 31:13-15, Isaac blessed Levi after being taken to him (Isaac) by Jacob. Isaac blessed him saying: May the Lord give you and your descendants extremely great honour; may he make you and your descendants (alone) out of all humanity approach him to serve in his temple like the angels of the presence and like the holy ones.93

In Jubilees 32:1-9, Levi dreamed that he and his sons had been appointed and made into the priesthood of God forever. On the next day, Jacob his father put priestly clothes on him and ordained him. On the following day (the fifteenth of the seventh month), Jacob offered sacrifices and libation, and burnt incense for seven days. Jacob then gave a tithe to Levi, who now served as the priest in Bethel before his father. The DSS movement viewed the elevated priestly status of Levi as polemic against a Jerusalem priestly establishment, which viewed Levi(tes) as having a more devalued status.94 With regard to the Day(s) of Ordination, Schiffman,95 followed by New Testament,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac (ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera; vol. 1; Karków: Enigma, 1993), 105-29; and James C. VanderKam, “Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran,” RevQ 13 (1988): 353-65. Cf., 4Q365 23:10, where Levi is described as the first among Israel’s tribes to bring wood for the offering of wood observance. Also cf., the status of Levi(tes) in 5Q13 2:7-8; the Words of Moses (1Q22) 1:3; 4QpseudoJubileesa (4Q225) 2 ii 11-12; 4QpseudoJubileesb (4Q226) 7:4; 4Qpsalms of Joshb (4Q379) 1:5; 4QTestimonia (4Q175) 14-20; Aramaic Levi 1Q21, 4Q213 and 4Q214; the Testament of Kohath (4Q542); the Visions of Amram (4Q543-548); 4Q372 1:14; and 3Q7 6:2. 93 Jubilees 31:14. 94 See Crawford, Temple Scroll, 56, who alludes to this idea. Also see the status of Levi in the “Wood Offering for Sacrifice” ceremony above. 95 See Schiffman, “The Sacrificial System,” 223-4.

160

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

VanderKam,96 noted the variant procedures between Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. VanderKam, however, insightfully suggested that the differences are due to a development regarding this observance. He contended that Jubilees (like Genesis and the first part of Exodus) reflected an account that stressed that the Day(s) of Ordination had no set days. This is against the Temple Scroll which as noted by VanderKam reflected a later development, when the Day(s) of Ordination was observed at a set time. Based on this, the DSS movement held that the Day(s) of Ordination was to be observed according to the 364-day solar calendar, which was against their opponents, who observed this day according to the lunar calendar. h. Day of Atonement

Jubilees and the sectarian writings similarly note the observance of the Day of Atonement. Here the entire movement viewed this observance as polemical in an idealised and eschatological way. Moreover, the Qumran-related community (particularly during the later stages of its development) also viewed and used Jubilees’ description of the Day of Atonement in more of a spiritualised way. According to Jubilees 34:10-19, the Day of Atonement was ordained on the tenth day of the seventh month. This occasion, which harmonises Leviticus 23:27-32 with Genesis 37:13-36, was in connection with Jacob learning about the supposed death of his son Joseph. According to Jubilees, after the sons of Jacob had sold Joseph to a band of Ishmaelites and stained his clothing in blood, they (Jacob’s sons) sent the stained clothes to their father Jacob on the same day (the tenth day of the seventh month). Jacob subsequently mourned up to a year. In view of what Jacob’s sons had done to Joseph, Jubilees 34:18-19 notes that this day (the tenth day of the seventh month) was to be ordained so that Israel would be saddened for their sins, transgressions, and errors. They (Israel) were to sacrifice a kid to make atonement and become pure. It is also likely that an atonement liturgy was recited during this observance. 96

See VanderKam, “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” 227.

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

161

Similar to Jubilees, the Temple Scroll notes the Day of Atonement. 11Q19 XXV 10-XXVII 10 gives an elaborate description of the sacrifices that were offered. According to the Temple Scroll the Day of Atonement was to be a day of remembrance,97 where Israel was required to do penance (which included offering burnt-offering, sin-offering, and libation); afflict themselves, “on it you should humble your souls;”98 and abstain from work. The priest was instructed here to atone both for himself and the people. The priest was then instructed to wash himself and offer confession over the living goat for the sins and guilt of the children of Israel. After the confession was made over the goat, the goat was then sent away, subsequently taking away all of Israel’s sins. Whereas the larger movement viewed the Day of Atonement in an idealised way, the Qumran-related community (particularly during the latter stages of its development) viewed this observance in more of a predominantly spiritualised way, viewing itself as a source of atonement. According to the Rule of the Community (1QS III 4-12=4Q255 2:1-9 + 4Q257 III 6-14 + 4Q262 1:1-4; 1QS VIII 1-10a=4Q258 VI 1-4a + 4Q259 II 9b-18; 1QS IX 3-6a=4Q258 VII 4-7a and 1QS XI 14b-15) membership within the community along with righteous behaviour and adherence to God’s spirit atones. Moreover, the reciting of atonement liturgy and confession was also viewed as substitutes for the actual sacrifices.99 The recitation of atonement liturgy can be attested in light of 1Q34+34bis, 4Q507, 4Q508 and 4Q505+509 where this liturgy was adapted in view of Jubilees’ influence.100 The Qumran-related community viewed the Day of Atonement as polemic against its opposition at the temple in Jerusalem. The community’s opposition held this observance on the wrong day (according to the lunar calendar). This is attested in view of See Lawrence Schiffman’s discussion of this observance in his, “The Sacrificial System,” 229-30. 98 11Q19 XXV 11b. This citation is taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1998). 99 For discussion of the noted Rule of the Community passages, see the chapter on the Rule of the Community. 100 Also cf., the atonement liturgy recorded in 4Q405 6:4-6. 97

162

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the Qumran-related Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab XI 4-8), where the Wicked Priest (presumably a priest from the Jerusalem’s temple establishment) is described as pursuing the Teacher of Righteousness with the intent of consuming him on the Day of Atonement.101 In view of this description, it is clear that the Wicked Priest embraced the Day of Atonement according to a different calendar from that of the movement where the Teacher belonged. Being a priest himself, it is improbable that the Wicked Priest would have pursued the Teacher on his (the Wicked Priest’s) Day of Atonement.102 i. Passover

The Passover is similarly described in both Jubilees and the sectarian scrolls. Based on its description, the DSS movement viewed this regulation in an idealised way as polemic, especially based on its calendrical observance and its regulations. The description of the Passover in Jubilees follows Exodus 11 and 12. Preceding the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Jubilees 49:122a, Moses is told to remember to celebrate this holy day every year throughout eternity on the fourteenth day of the first month. Moses is also told to order the Israelites to similarly observe this day, where the Lord will subsequently preserve their lives during that year. The sacrifice was to be made before evening on the fourteenth and eaten on the evening of the fifteenth, during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Jubilees notes here that the sacrifice was to be roasted and eaten until the third part of the night. Any meat left beyond this time was to be burned. According to Jubilees 49:16-17, all Israelites aged twenty years and older were required to celebrate this observance at a particular time before the Lord’s sanctuary. It is also likely that some sort of praise or thanksgiving liturgy was recited during this observance.

Mention of the Day of Atonement is also found in the Qumran calendrical texts: 4Q320 4 iii 7, 4 iv 3, 4 vi 1; 4Q321 2 ii 2 and 6. 102 See James C. VanderKam, “Yom Kipppur,” EDSS 2.1002 and Glessmer, “Calendars,” 223, who similarly discusses this calendrical dispute. 101

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

163

The Passover is similarly described in 11Q19 XVII 6-9.103 Like in Jubilees, the Passover was to be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month by every male over the age of twenty years. The sacrifice was to be offered at twilight and eaten in the courtyards of the sanctuary. Afterwards, everyone was to rise early and return to their tents. Based on the Temple Scroll, which was influenced by both Jubilees and Exodus, the movement viewed this observance as polemic in an idealised and eschatological way. Moreover, the calendrical day which the Passover was observed, along with the modus operandi for how the sacrifice, its consumption, and disposal was to be carried out was against the lunar calendar and the modus operandi that the movement’s opponents adhered to. Based on textual description (namely in the Qumran calendrical texts), the Qumran-related community viewed the Passover in more of a predominantly spiritualised way. It is plausible that this group studied and recited some sort of praise or thanksgiving liturgy as a substitute for the actual sacrifice. In the case of the meal, they participated in some sort of feast which was viewed as equivalent to the Passover meal.104 j. Sabbath Offerings

Both Jubilees and the sectarian writings highlight the importance of offering the Sabbath sacrifice. Based on textual evidence, the larger DSS movement read Jubilees’ description of the Sabbath sacrifice as influencing and enforcing its ideology. Although the movement offered the Sabbath sacrifice at Jerusalem, accompanied with the recitation of prayer or praise liturgy, at the same time it (the movement) also viewed these Sabbath sacrifices in an idealised and eschatological way. Moreover, as is evidenced by Mention of the Passover is also in the calendrical texts (4Q320 4 iiiiv; 4Q321 2 ii 4, 9; 2 iii 3, 7; 4Q329a 4 and 5), as well as 4Q259 VIII 3; 4Q265 4:3 and 4Q509 131 ii 1-3. 104 Despite some attempts to suggest that the animal bones found at Qumran reflect a Passover meal, this argument remains untenable particularly based on the nature of these bones (which include some bovine remains), as well as the lack of an altar found at Qumran. For further discussion of this issue, see the Archaeology chapter in this work. 103

164

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

certain sectarian liturgical texts, which accord with Jubilees’ description of the Sabbath sacrifice (most notably 11QPsa, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 4Q403 and Words of the Luminaries discussed below), the Qumran-related community viewed and used Jubilees’ descriptions of the Sabbath sacrifice in more of a predominantly spiritualised way, particularly during the later stages of its development. According to Jubilees 2:21 and 50:9-11, liturgical worship and burning incense accompanied the Sabbath sacrifice. Although there is no reference concerning this sacrifice in 2:21, it is more explicitly described in 50:9-10. Here, Moses is told (by the angel of the presence) that mankind is only allowed to burn incense and bring both the daily and Sabbath sacrifice before the Lord in the sanctuary on the Sabbath. According to both Jubilees 2:21 and 50:9, those who kept the Sabbath were instructed to bless the Lord.105 Here, this blessing accompanied the Sabbath sacrifice. Based on 11Q19 XIII 10-17 and CD 11:17-18, this also was the case regarding the view of the Sabbath sacrifice to the groups belonging to the movement. Regarding the latter (CD 11:17-18 and particularly in the ensuing lines), it is probable that the Sabbath sacrifice was imagined in lines 18b-21a. Here some sort of just prayer accompanied the Sabbath sacrifice, where in the case that this sacrifice became defiled, just prayer became like an agreeable offering in its place. This view mostly reflects the ideology of the Qumran-related group.106 With regard to 11Q19 XIII 10-17, there is no liturgical evidence. This likely is due to the fragmentary nature of this passage. Despite this fact, based on a Jubileean influence and the evidence of Sabbath liturgy described in other sectarian texts, it can be concluded that the Sabbath liturgy accompanied 11Q19’s In 2:21, the angel of presence describes to Moses that God’s people were to keep the Sabbath and bless the creator. In 50:9, Moses was instructed to keep the Sabbath and bless the Lord who created the Sabbath as a festal day. 106 CD 11:18b-21 reflects a later literary stratum of this Damascus text. This stratum reflects the thought of the Qumran-related group in particular. For a discussion of this passage and idea, see the chapter on the Damascus Document. 105

CHAPTER FOUR. SACRIFICE IN LIGHT OF JUBILEES

165

sacrifice. Other texts found at Qumran that describe Sabbath liturgy include 11QPsa, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,107 4Q403 and Words of the Luminaries.108 Based on these liturgical texts (which specifically note liturgy as occurring alongside Sabbath sacrifices), liturgical worship was initially developed to accompany the Sabbath sacrifice. However, regarding the Qumran-related community, the Sabbath liturgy was viewed and recited as an acceptable substitute for sacrifice especially when the community no longer participated in Jerusalem’s cult.

D. SUMMARY

From the start of the DSS movement, the book of Jubilees has influenced much of its (the DSS movement’s) ideology. This work has been a major authoritative source to the movement, especially regarding its (Jubilees’) portrayal concerning sacrificial worship, priestly functions, and calendrical focus. The various sectarian compositions (both before and during Qumran) demonstrate that the cultic ideas of both the larger DSS movement and its offshoot group (the community related to Qumran) harmonise with Jubilees on various points. The modus operandi for how and when sacrifice was to be carried out clearly is analogous. The polemic in the book of Jubilees spoke to the polemical concerns of the entire DSS movement. As the movement developed, thus producing a later offshoot group, Jubilees continued to be embraced and adapted to the predominantly spiritualised ideology of this later community. The liturgy that normally accompanied the sacrifices became the spiritualised substitute in place of the actual sacrifices. Moreover, even Jubilees’ descriptions of temple motifs, and the priestly functions of the patriarchs spoke to the spiritualised ideology of the Qumran-related community, especially regarding itself as a sanctuary-like priestly community. For discussion of this work, refer to the chapter on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. 108 Although found among the Qumran scrolls, evidence supports these texts as being non-sectarian compositions. Despite this fact, the weight of influence of these texts lies in their context and number of manuscript copies found at Qumran ranging from both the pre-Qumran and Qumran stages. 107

CHAPTER FIVE. THE VIEW OF SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

The influence of the book of Jubilees (illustrated in the previous chapter) is seen throughout the Dead Sea sectarian texts. However, most of its influence is in the Damascus Document. Jubilees’ influence is mostly evident in the Damascus Document’s concerns regarding (1) the purity requirement for entering the congregation as a holy place (in 4Q266 6 ii 5-13 corresponding with Jubilees 3:8-14); (2) the view of the patriarchs as priest-like archetypes (in CD 3:1-4, 20 and 16:6a correlating with the entire book of Jubilees);1 and (3) the numerous regulations concerning both the time and modus operandi for when and how certain regulations were to be carried out.2 Moreover, some form of Jubilees’ title can be seen in the Damascus Document (CD 16:2-4(=4Q270 6 ii 17 + 4Q271 4 ii 4-5). In consideration of this Jubileean influence, the Damascus Document, which is one of the oldest extant works composed by the DSS movement, sets the ideological tone for the entire movement (including the Qumran-related community). This is attested throughout the non-biblical Dead Sea sectarian texts.

Refer to the chapter on the book of Jubilees for this discussion as well as the references for the priestly functions of the patriarchs. 2 See the chapter on Jubilees which describes various festivals (sections a-j) that correspond with the Damascus Document. 1

167

168

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

The content of the Damascus Document reflects the rise and development of the entire movement, along with some ideology of the Qumran-related community.3 Similar to Josephus’ description of the Essenes, the Damascus Document illustrates two streams of thought concerning sacrificial worship, a literal view and metaphorical view. On the basis of this dual view concerning the cult, the Damascus Document (1) sheds light on the very early stages of the tension between the larger DSS movement and Qumran-related community which would later result in a physical split between the two; (2) introduces the pre-Qumran cultic view of the Qumran-related community (an idea which is further attested in the later composed Rule of the Community text);4 and (3) in consideration of the dual views of sacrifice, sheds light on the literary layers of the text, which connotes redactional activity. Since its discovery, both at Cairo and Qumran, the Damascus Document (‘D’ hereafter) attests to the origins and development of the DSS movement just after the ending of the Babylonian exile.5 D chronicles the ideology of the movement which was opposed to a certain rival group.6 Although this rival group also was Jewish, Emphasis is on the Qumran-related community in particular. As previously indicated, this was just one of the various groups which made up the larger DSS movement. The later ideology of this group, which differed from the larger movement, is juxtaposed to the ideology of the movement. As will be demonstrated below, although the Qumran-related community was beginning to differ in its ideology, it yet remained part of the larger movement physically, retaining some similar views. 4 This view is fully elaborated on in the chapter on the Rule of the Community. 5 Against the position of Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “The Essenes and their History,” RB 81 (1974): 215-44, who is followed by Frank Weinert, “A Note on 4Q159 and a New Theory of Essene Origins,” RevQ 9 (1977): 223-30, and Philip R. Davies, “The Birth Place of the Essenes: Where is ‘Damascus?’” RevQ 14 (1990): 503-19, as noted by Charlotte Hempel, “Community Origins in the Damascus Document in Light of Recent Scholarship,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls; Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 316-29 and García Martínez, “Qumran Origins,” 113-36, it is more likely that the movement had its start in Palestinian origins. 6 See CD 1:12b. Also see CD 5:20. 3

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 169 it followed the customs of the established authority of the time.7 In consideration of this development, this chapter examines the ideology of D based on the work’s content, particularly with regard to sacrificial and purity related matters. Additionally, D has a complex compositional history. The overall purpose of this chapter is to investigate the various views of sacrificial and purity related matters in D in association with the entire DSS movement (which included the Qumran-related community). This chapter examines these views in an attempt to distinguish between the ideology of the larger DSS movement and the Qumran-related community. This chapter also examines how the community viewed D’s cultic matters during their later settlement at Qumran. Some of D’s cultic views that have a Jubileean influence will also be highlighted. To understand the cult in D, this chapter investigates sacrificial, and purity matters alongside the examination of D’s literary structure, and in conjunction with other sectarian texts which express the ideology of either the larger DSS movement or the Qumran-related community during its later stages of development.

B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EXTANT M ANUSCRIPTS

The Damascus Document is extant in twelve different manuscripts, two from the medieval period (CD A and B) and ten from Qumran (4Q266-273, and 5Q12 and 6Q15). The first manuscripts found were CD-A and B. Originally published in 1910 by Solomon Schechter,8 these two manuscripts were discovered in the Genizah of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old Cairo. 6Q15 and 5Q12 (6QD and 5QD respectively) were the first Qumran D manuscripts to be published.9 5QD is a small fragmentary manuscript which dates It is probable that this opposition group adhered to the cultic and cultural norms of the Syrians, led by the Antiochus dynasty. Under this regime certain sacrificial regulations as well as calendrical days wherein certain festivals and holy days were to be observed, were compromised. 8 Refer to note 17 below. 9 A preliminary publication of 6QD was initially presented by Maurice Baillet in “Fragments du Document de Damas Qumrân, Grotte 6,” RB 63 (1956): 513-23. This same manuscript was re-presented in the official DJD publication with 5QD by J. T. Milik in 1962 (see Maurice Baillet, 7

170

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

from the second half of the first century B.C.E. The content of this work corresponds with CD 9:7-10. 6QD consists of five fragments that date to the first century C.E. Four fragments of this work correspond with columns 4-7 of CD, whereas the fifth corresponds with 4Q270. D manuscripts from cave 4 (4Q266-273) were the last to be published.10 These manuscripts range in dates from the end of the second century B.C.E.11 to the middle of the first century C.E.12 There is significant material correlation between CD and the 4QD manuscripts. However, there is also some significant material preserved in 4QD that is not found in CD.13

Jósef T. Milik and Roland de Vaux O. P., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, Le rouleau de cuivre (DJDJ III; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962). 10 A fragment from 4Q266 initially appeared in 1966; it was published by Jósef T. Milik in “Fragment d’une sorrce Psautier (4QPs89) et fragments du Document de Damas, d’une phylactère dans la Grottte 4 de Qumrân,” RB 73 (1966): 104-5. A second fragment appeared in Jósef T. Milik “Milkî-Sedeq et Milkî-rewa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 135-6. See Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD XVIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), for the complete and official publication of all the 4QD manuscripts. 11 This dating considers the radiocarbon date given to 4Q267, which was fixed to the second century B.C.E. 12 For discussion of the various manuscripts, see Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document. Also see his “Damascus Document,” EDSS1.166-70; and Joseph M. Baumgarten with Michael T. Davis, “Cave IV, V, VI Fragments Related to the Damascus Document; (4Q266-273 = 4QDa-h, 5QD = 5Q12, 6Q15 = 6QD),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents. (ed. James H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; vol 2; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995), 59-63. According to Baumgarten, as cited in the official DJD edition of 4QD, about forty-seven percent of these extant manuscripts correlate with the Cairo Genizah texts. The remaining content (over fifty percent) preserves new material not known from CD. 13 Some of this material is found preserved in more than one 4QD text. This material deals with issues concerning skin diseases (preserved in 4Q266, 269,272 and 273), the disqualification of priests (preserved in 4Q266, 267 and 273), regulations dealing with agricultural matters

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 171 As Hempel rightly contends, the time span for the dating of D manuscripts largely coincides with the occupation of the Qumran settlement, from about 100 B.C.E. to about 68 C.E.14 On the basis of this, the final form of D, its composition including its redacted material, must date before its oldest extant copy. This dating is plausible in that unlike the Rule of the Community (discussed in chapter eight), which is extant in variant forms, D lacks parallel texts that contain variant readings.15 Since 4Q266 dates from the first half of the first century B.C.E., D’s composition must date at least to the second century B.C.E., or possibly earlier (like the end of the third century) considering the radiocarbon dating of 4Q267. Fixing a compositional date to the second century B.C.E. is appropriate, particularly in view of the reference to the death of the Teacher of Righteousness in CD 19:35-20:1 and 20:13-15. CD 1:4-11 describes the Teacher of Righteousness as being raised up during the early development of the larger scrolls movement. Moreover, God raised him up sometime after the development of his remnant congregation, the parent movement of the Qumran community, i.e., the larger DSS movement.16

(preserved in 4Q266, 267, 270 and 271), and the catalogue of transgressions (preserved in 4Q270). 14 See Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Text (CQS 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 23. This time span coincides with the archaeological evidence uncovered at Khirbet Qumran. Refer to the Archaeology chapter concerning this matter. 15 Redactional material in D largely is based on variant viewpoints of sacrifice without evidence of variant parallel texts. D highlights both literal and metaphorical sacrificial views. Because of this, variant views are reflected in the final form of D, which dated before the oldest extant manuscripts. Regarding the 4QSEa-i MSS, the eschatological and apocalyptical nature of this work expresses the views of the offshoot (Qumranrelated) group before their physical separation from the larger movement. As noted in the chapter on the Rule of the Community, material in these works date later than the non-redactional material in D, similar to D’s redactional strata. 16 Refer to note 15 in Introduction of this book.

172

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

C. THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT

Since the publication of D, first in 191017 and later in 196218 and 1996,19 there has been little consensus concerning its literary structure.20 The lack of consensus has made it difficult to categorize the various ideologies in D. This is due to the various literary strata that make up D which consequently belongs to varied communities associated with different communal stages. Despite this concern, upon the examination of D, the text is divided into two major sections, an admonition section, and a legal section. Although some significant sacrificial and purity related matter is found preserved in the admonition section, most is found in the legal section. Cultic matter in the former section is descriptive. This section mostly alludes to the defiling cultic deeds of Israel, which led to the emergence of a remnant movement. This section also describes the makeup of this remnant group, which included priests and a priest-like laity. The legal section of D mostly illustrates cultic matter in a legislative manner associated with purification. As Hempel correctly notes, these cultic matters can be divided up into various strata, the main ones being (1) general regulations which denote a national orientation, and (2) regulations which are community oriented.21

Solomon Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectarians: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (vol. 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). 18 Refer to notes 9 and 10. 19 Refer to note 10. 20 See Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 8-14, who presents a history of scholarship concerning this matter. 21 See Hempel, Damascus Text, 51-2. This study adopts most of her ordering of certain laws into the various categories, but on different grounds. Hempel orders the various material using four criteria: (1) frame of reference; (2) vocabulary; (3) form; and (4) polemical/ideological stance. Using Hempel’s framework (although more loosely), this study orders the laws in the Damascus Document highlighting the distinction between the on-going ideology of the larger DSS movement against the developing ideology of Qumran-related community in particular. 17

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 173 Many scholars have contended that D, in both its medieval form (CD) and forms found at Qumran (4QD, 5QD and 6QD), is a composite work made up of different literary strata. Davies, examining the admonition section of CD only, discusses the text in terms of three different stages: (1) an original core of the document; (2) two passages comprising warnings; and (3) a Qumran redaction section.22 Moreover, Davies contends that the original movement that gave rise to D later formed the Qumran community. Although Davies correctly identifies material in D as undergoing a redactional process, his placement of this material as well as his suggestion that the original movement became the Qumran community is untenable.23 Hempel, who more aptly describes the literary structure of D, places this redacted material in its appropriate place. She orders redacted matters in the law section of D in the stratum that reflects community legislation. In the admonition section, redacted material is found in Hempel’s “community origins described in several stages” category.24 Hempel views the origin of the movement described in D as denoting various groups at different stages. She asserts that there are several descriptions of the emergence of the movement: the emergence of the movement described as a single event (in CD

See Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the ‘Damascus Document’ (JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 194-9. 23 Discussed below, the Qumran-related community, both before and during the Qumran stage, should be viewed as an offshoot group from the larger DSS movement. Various groups made up the scrolls movement, of which the Qumran-related community was one. Based on this historical reconstruction, the ideology of the Qumran-related community was beginning to differ from the larger movement, which mostly remained the same. As is discussed in this chapter and elsewhere, this is attested in the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT. As the community developed, its ideology and practice became more predominantly spiritualised. See the Rule of the Community, and 4Q174, which emphasises this view. Also see these respective chapters in this book. 24 Refer to Charlotte Hempel’s discussion concerning the origin of the movement in Hempel, “Community Origins,” 316-29 and Damascus Text, 49. 22

174

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

1:3-9a; 2:8b-9a, 11-13 and 3:12b-17a), and the emergence of the movement described in several stages (in CD 1:9b-11a; 3:10c-4:4a and 5:20-6:11a).25 Hempel argues that at one level (or stratum) the former category (the movement’s emergence described as a single event) describes and was composed by a parent movement, whereas at another level the latter category describes and was redacted by an offshoot of the parent movement. With regard to the laws, Hempel’s literary classification of D cleverly arranges material into four categories reflecting four different strata: material which reflects a general orientation; material which reflects a communal orientation; miscellaneous regulations; and miscellaneous traditions and redacted material.26 Hempel, similar to Baumgarten, contends that these laws have a broader application, perhaps appealing to the wider Israel nation.27 However, based on Hempel’s deduction that these general regulations correlate more with 4Q159, MMT and the Temple Scroll, it is more plausible that the general regulations in D express the ideology of the larger DSS movement which was made up from various Essene communities (of which the Qumran-related community also was part).28 Upon further investigation of the laws in D (particularly according to Hempel’s arrangement), this material is more clearly ordered according to Hempel’s first two categories only (material which reflects a general orientation and material which reflects a community orientation). Building on Hempel’s literary structure, at one literary level the laws that reflect a general orientation See Hempel, “Community Origins,” 316-29. Hempel’s work is reflected in a revised version of her dissertation. Refer to note 20 for full citation. 27 See Hempel, “Community Origins,” 25-72 (70-2 in particular) and Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Disqualification of Priest in 4Q Fragments of the ‘Damascus Document,’ a Specimen of the Recovery of pre-Rabbinic Halakha,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991 (ed. Jullio T. Barrera and Louis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 2,513. 28 Concerning the Essenes and their link to the Dead Sea Scrolls, refer to note 2 in the Introduction of this book. Also see the chapter on Philo and Josephus. 25 26

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 175 reflect the composition and ideology of the larger DSS movement (which coincide with the above classification of the movement’s emergence as a single event). At another literary level, later redacted material from the community-oriented regulations, and elsewhere, reflects the later ideology of the Qumran-related community, which subsequently coincides with the descriptions of the movement’s emergence in several stages. This redacted material reflects a similar ideology in the later writings of the Qumranrelated community.29

D. CULTIC MATTERS IN THE M ANUSCRIPTS OF D 1. Introduction

In view of the literary structure of D, sacrificial and purity related matters are outlined according to their various strata. Each stratum sets forth a favourable view of the sacrificial cult with slight variation. These variations reflect the different literary strata of D, which highlight either (1) the ideology of the larger DSS movement (which included the Qumran-related community) or (2) the later views of the Qumran-related community only, especially after its ideology was beginning to differ from the ideology of the larger movement. Consequently, as the Qumran-related community settled at Qumran (becoming the Qumran community) its spiritualised views continued to be carried out. As noted in the chapter on Qumran Archaeology, the spiritualised ideology is evidenced by the disposition of space at Qumran.30

Unlike later sectarian texts that were composed by the Qumran-related community (like MMT, the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium), the redacted material in D expresses the early variant ideology of the Qumran-related community before it fully separated from the larger scrolls movement. The community composed later sectarian texts after a split had fully taken place from the larger scrolls movement. See the ideology reflected in MMT, the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium in the respective chapters of this book. 30 Refer to this discussion in the chapter on Archaeology. 29

176

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

2. Cultic Matter in the Admonition Section of D a. Introduction

In the admonition section of D, cultic matters correspond with both the general and community-oriented regulations. Subsequently, these categories correlate with the larger DSS movement and later the Qumran-related community, respectively. Outlined in the admonition section of D is cultic ideology which opposed what was taking place in Israel. This eventually led to the rise and development of the entire DSS movement. b. Material that Coincides with the Larger DSS Movement

In CD 1:3-5a(=4Q266 2 i 8b-10a), the larger DSS movement describes its rise and development. According to this passage, because of unfaithfulness, God hid his face from Israel and the sanctuary. In view of Jubilees’ influence (Jubilees 30:8, and 15b-16), that Israel is also a proto-sanctuary,31 it is probable that the movement viewed God removing himself from Israel and the sanctuary as suggesting a response concerning some sort of temple or temple cult defilement. Referred to in CD 2:5b-9a, this passage states that on account of blood, God hid his face from the land of Israel (as the sanctuary) and those who turned away from his precepts. God hiding his face from Israel and the sanctuary also alludes to him hiding the exact interpretation of the law from Israel, particularly according to CD 3:13-17a. In CD 3:13-17a, hidden matters in which Israel (as sanctuary-like) has gone astray included the holy Sabbath, feasts, just stipulations, truthful paths, and the wishes of his will. These were the ‫ נסתרות‬which also was behind the idea in CD 2:5b-9a(=4Q266 2 ii 6-8a).32 These matters also involve recognizing the correct calendar.

See this discussion in the chapter on Jubilees. Here, certain persons are prohibited from entering Israel because of impurity. A similar view concerning the sanctuary-like nature of Israel is found later in the Temple Scroll and MMT. 32 Also see 4Q266 2 i 5. 31

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 177 According to CD 1:4b-5a(=4Q266 2 i 10b-12a), God’s response (his hiding his face) was remedied after he re-established his covenant with a remnant from Israel. As illustrated in D and later in the Rule of the Community, this covenant was made without sacrifice.33 Although not explicitly mentioned here, it is likely that the remnant participated in certain sacrifices after being delivered from Babylon. The makeup of this remnant suggests that it was a priest-like community, which consisted of both priests and laity. In this regard, along with what was currently taking place among Jerusalem’s temple establishment, D most likely recorded certain cultic legislations because of its priest-like makeup. At one literary level, according to CD 1:5b-7a; 2:11-12; and 3:12a-14, the makeup of the remnant consisted of some laity (Israel) as well as priests from the line of Aaron. These descriptions reflect the people that made up the initial DSS movement, which also represents the earliest core of D. At another literary level, according to CD 1:9b-11a; 3:17b4:4a (particularly considering 3:12a-16a); and 6:4a-7a (in light of 6:2-3), Levites,34 priests and the Sons of Zadok are described as being part of the remnant group. According to this stratum, which reflects the later vantage point of the Qumran-related community, the priests are described as the converts of Israel. This is a different group than those who were raised up from Israel. This latter group made up the initial remnant in D, whereas the converts of Israel were a later addition to the text. With reference to the converts of Israel, also see CD 14:3-6a. The makeup of this remnant is further found in 4Q266 3 ii 10; 5 ib 15-16; and 8 iii 4-5. c. Material that Coincides with the Qumran-Related Community CD 3:21b-4:2a

The makeup of the remnant in CD 1:9b-11a; 3:17b-4:4a and 6:4a7a differs from what has been described according to the

See discussion below, especially in the chapter on the Rule of the Community, concerning this matter. 34 The elevated status of Levi likely was influenced by Jubilees 30-32. Refer to this discussion in the chapter on Jubilees. 33

178

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

viewpoint of the larger DSS movement. The descriptions here attest to the viewpoint of the Qumran-related community after its ideology was beginning to differ from the larger DSS movements’. In CD 3:21b-4:2a, the leaders of the movement, the Levites, the priests, and the Sons of Zadok, are described as the ones who maintain the service of the temple and who offer the fat and blood after Israel had strayed. In this passage the leadership is viewed as participating in sacrifice.35 Although the ideology of the Qumran-related community in D was beginning to differ from the larger DSS movements, the Qumran-related community yet physically remained part of the larger movement, i.e., they had not yet separated and relocated to Qumran. Bearing this in mind, some of their beliefs remained the same. This is the case where the Qumran-related community is described as participating in sacrifice (noted above). Although both participated in some form of sacrifice initially, the larger movement viewed all Israel as sanctuary-like whereas the Qumran-related community view only the movement and particularly itself as proleptically serving as a sanctuary. Later, the community related to Qumran (both before and during the Qumran stage) viewed the same sacrificial and purity related matters in more of a predominantly spiritualised way. This predominantly spiritualised view was the key factor controlling the developing ideology of the Qumran-related community.36 The ideology of the community is also later attested in MMT and the Temple Scroll.37 CD 3:18b-20

Regarding the ‫נסתרות‬, the Qumran-related community in CD 3:18b-20 viewed the larger DSS movement as erring from this path. Consequently, they understood God as atoning and The idea of the later Qumran-related community participating in temple sacrifice is also noted in the legal section of D. Particularly pertinent is their performing sin-offerings in CD 9:14a; 14:19b(=4Q266 10 i 13); and 4Q266 11:1-8a(=4Q270 7 i 15b-21a), where guilt-offerings are also made. 36 Refer to note 23 above. 37 Concerning the ideology between the two, refer to the chapter on MMT. 35

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 179 pardoning them once again. CD states here that God built a sure house for them in Israel. Moreover, long life and all the glory of Adam was granted to those who remained steadfast in God. According to this passage, the Qumran-related community viewed the entire movement (from its perspective) as proleptically serving as a sanctuary, which, according to Brooke, anticipated living long life and attaining all the glory of Adam.38 The view of attaining all the glory of Adam was influenced from the book of Jubilees (3:11-14 and 8:9). Here, Adam is described as the first priest who made spiritualised offering to God. Adam as priest in the garden likely was taken as a model to emulate.39 The view of the community as a proleptic sanctuary living in the glory of Adam is further developed in the Qumran-related community’s Rule of the Community and 4Q174.40 CD 4:13-5:13a

CD 4:13-5:13a served as polemic against Jerusalem’s current temple establishment. These lines discuss the three nets of sin that have caught Israel: fornication; wealth; and the defilement of the temple. Each of these matters is concerned with the defiling of the temple. Some of these issues are further elaborated here.41 Israel is described as being involved in improper sexual relations. This includes polygamy, taking two or more wives, which the redactor describes here as committing multiple acts of fornication. Next, Israel (its men) is also charged with lying with her who sees the blood of her menstrual flow. This matter is also discussed in 4Q266 6 ii 1-4(=4Q272 1 ii 7b-17 + 4Q273 5). This passage deals with the regulation regarding a woman with an emission.42 See Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 289-91. Also see Wise, “4QFlorilegium,” 175-9, who also takes up this discussion. 39 Refer to this discussion in the chapter on the book of Jubilees. 40 See the Rule of the Community, and 4QFlorilegium chapters. 41 The relation of wealth being associated with the temple is discussed below. 42 With regard to the impurity of emissions, also see 11Q19 XLV 7b-10a, 11-12a, 15-17a; and XLVIII 16-17a. Also see discussion of emissions in Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, “Levitical Purity in the New Testament Gospel,” in “What Does the Scripture Say?” Studies in the Function of Scripture 38

180

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

A man who approached such a woman was viewed as becoming impure. Both needed to go through a process of purification, which included waiting until sunset after the eighth day before being able to eat anything holy or enter the temple. Taking this passage into consideration, along with the above passage, Israel was guilty not only of engaging in this practice, but also of not waiting until sunset after the eighth day before entering the temple.43 This idea is similarly found in 11Q19 XLVIII 16-17a. Lastly, Israel was guilty of being involved with prohibited uncle-niece marriages. This prohibition is also extended to include relations between aunts and nephews. This regulation is also later dealt with in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 LXVI 12-17). The above sexual matters were highlighted by the Qumranrelated community as polemic against what was currently taking place in Israel, and in particular Jerusalem.44 Taking into consideration the movement’s overall view, that Israel (in light of Jubilees), and Jerusalem in particular, is part of the temple, sexual acts occurring near the city of the temple were considered as defiling both the city of the temple and the temple itself.45 CD 6:11-7:3b(=4Q266 3 ii 17-24)

In CD 6:11-7:3b(=4Q266 3 ii 17-24), members of the covenant are described as participating in the temple service. Following Malachi 1:10, members were given the priestly instruction not to enter the temple to kindle its altar in vain. According to the Qumran-related community, this prohibition was concerned with in the Gospels and the Letters of Paul (ed. Craig A. Evans; Library of New Testament Studies 47: Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 16; New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 179-193. 43 For discussion on the tebul yom, refer to the chapter on MMT. 44 Two of these regulations are also noted in the Temple Scroll. The Temple Scroll notes these regulations in reference to the city of the temple, Jerusalem. Because of this, Israel, in these stipulations, is viewed as synonymous with Jerusalem. 45 This idea is repeatedly noted in early sectarian writings like CD 12:1b2a(=4Q271 5 i 17b-18a), 4Q270 7 i 11-13a, discussed below, 11Q19 XLV 11-12, and MMT B 74-82. Also see the above discussion concerning the sanctuary-like status of Israel-Jerusalem. This idea is seen throughout the Temple Scroll. See the various regulations in 11Q19 XLV-XLVII.

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 181 following the exact interpretation of the law, which included abstaining from (1) wicked wealth which defiles; (2) the wealth of the Temple; (3) mixing the clean with the unclean and the holy with the common; (4) fornication; and (5) uncleanness. Members also were instructed to observe the correct calendar, which included keeping the Sabbath days, festivals, and fasting days. In view of CD 3:13b-16; 4Q266 2 i 5, the above matters were viewed as ‫נסתרות‬. The redactor of the above lines used this Malachi reference for his own interpretative purpose. Malachi 1:10 is a passage concerned with priestly prohibition. Certain priests are accused here of kindling the fire on the altar in vain. These priests were accused of despising the Lord’s name by offering polluted food on the altar, which included offering blind, sick, and lame animals. God’s response to this was: Oh, that someone among you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hands.46

According to CD 6:11-7:3(=4Q266 3 ii 17-24), the new covenanters that entered the usus were similarly instructed with this priestly prohibition. They, too, were instructed not to enter the temple to kindle its altar in vain, but rather, to close the door. It is likely that this prohibition was viewed in a two-fold way. The redactor of these lines may have wanted to prevent new covenanters from defiling the temple, its sacrifice, and the altar, especially when they begin participating in the cult. Also, this prohibition may have served as polemic against the current temple establishment in Jerusalem. The priestly establishment in Jerusalem likely participated in one or more of the above prohibited acts. CD 6:11-7:3(=4Q266 3 ii 17-24), considering the priestly prohibition of Malachi, clearly concerns a priest-like community. This community was instructed to adhere to the exact interpretation of the law and to abstain from a variety of wicked acts. This passage, as with all biblical passages, unless otherwise indicated, is taken from the New Revised Standard Version. 46

182

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

According to D, the exact interpretation of the law was revealed to the remnant community only. According to 4Q266 2 i 5, these particular interpretations were the hidden matters (‫ )הנסתרות‬that were uncovered for them. Moreover, CD 1:8b-11a(=4Q266 2 i 12a-15a) stresses that while the remnant was yet blind, hidden matters were made known to them via the Teacher of Righteousness. 3. Cultic Matters in the Legal Section of D a. Material that Coincides with the Larger DSS Movement

D also deals with laws that are general in orientation, which likely were composed by as well as describing the ideology of the larger DSS movement. Cultic laws in D,47 which Hempel indirectly notes as corresponding more with MMT and the Temple Scroll48 than the Rule of the Community,49 consist of the following: •

The regulation dealing with the purification with water in CD 10:10b-13(=4Q266 8 iii 9b-10 + 4Q270 6 iv 2021), which is concerned with the purity of Israel as sanctuary,50 and the people of Israel.

The headings of most of the laws cited in this chapter are borrowed from Baumgarten, “Damascus Document,” 166-7; “Cave IV, V, VI Fragments Related to the Damascus Document,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Texts (ed. James Charlesworth, Joseph M. Baumgarten and Michael Davis; PTSDSSP; vol. 2; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995), 60-63 and Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 29192. 48 Although some of these laws correspond with MMT and the Temple Scroll, it should not be thought that both were composed by the same larger movement that composed D. Since the laws dealt with in MMT and the Temple Scroll also reflect an early ideology of the Qumran-related community, similarities in some laws can be found. For discussion on the laws in MMT and the Temple Scroll, see the respective chapters in this book. 49 See Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document, 25-72, where these cultic matters are listed among other general regulations. 50 This regulation, like the regulations noted above, was influenced by Jubilees. Refer to note 31 above. 47

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 183 •

•

• • •

•

• • •

The Sabbath code in CD 10:14-11:18a(=4Q270 6 v + 4Q271 5 i 1-12a) (particularly the instructions for the Sabbath sacrifice which partly corresponds with the Sabbath sacrifice in Jubilees and Temple Scroll). The prohibition of sexual relations in Jerusalem in CD 12:1b-2a(=4Q271 5 i 17b-18a) (which somewhat corresponds to 11Q19 XLV 11-12a). Regulations regarding interacting with Gentiles in CD 12:6b-12a. The regulation with regard to freewill offerings in CD 16:13-17a(=4Q271 4 ii 12a-14a). The stipulations regarding the disqualification of priests in 4Q266 5 ii 1-16(=4Q267 5 iii 1-8 + 4Q273 2:1-2 and 4 i 5-11). The priestly regulation concerning skin disease in 4Q266 6 i 1-13(=4Q269 7 + 4Q272 1 i-ii 2 and 4Q273 4 ii), which concerns the purity of the city of the temple. The regulation regarding fluxes in 4Q266 6 i 14(=4Q272 1 ii 3-7a). The regulation pertaining to purification after childbirth in 4Q266 6 ii-iii 2. Regulations with regard to agricultural matters, like gleanings in 4Q266 6 iii(=4Q267 6 + 4Q270 3 ii), the handling of the vineyard and fruit trees in 4Q266 iv (which corresponds with the Temple Scroll and MMT) and tithing in 4Q271 2:1-6(=4Q272 3 iii 13-15).

Other general oriented regulations related to the cult include the purity status and prohibition of certain offerings and materials in 4Q269 8 ii 1-6(=4Q270 3 iii 19-21 + 4Q271 2:7-13). The above laws are described as prohibitions. Despite Hempel’s contention that general oriented regulations lack polemical reference to any particular community, the larger DSS movement composed these laws as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple authority. Moreover, these laws are concerned with the purity of the people of Israel, the city of the temple, and the temple itself.

184

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION CD 11:17b-18a(=4Q270 6 v + 4Q271 5 i 1-12a)

Regulations concerning the Sabbath are given in CD 10:1411:18a. Of particular interest is the Sabbath sacrifice, which according to CD 11:17b-18a states that no one is to offer anything on the altar on the Sabbath except the Sabbath sacrifice. This instruction suggests that the larger movement participated in the Sabbath sacrifice. Further insight regarding this regulation is found in both Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. Unlike in CD, Jubilees 50:10-11 notes that this sacrifice was to be given along with the daily offering. This view is similarly given in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 XIII 10-16). The difference between this regulation described here in CD and later in the Temple Scroll, is that the latter was a product of the early Qumran-related community. The community perhaps was trying to cohere with what Jubilees instructed. The Qumran-related community viewed larger movement’s practice of the Sabbath sacrifice as polemic. This was one of the many issues that led to the eventual split of the community from the movement. The community also viewed the description of the Sabbath sacrifice in D as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple establishment. The Sabbath sacrifice likely was observed according to a different calendar than the 364-day one embraced by the community. CD 12:1b-2a(=4Q271 5 i 17b-18a)

CD 12:1b-2a further reiterates that sexual acts in Jerusalem defile the city of the temple and the temple itself. This passage contends that sleeping with a woman in the city of the temple is a defiling act. The Temple Scroll similarly highlights this prohibition. Like CD 4:13-18a, Jerusalem is considered as part of the temple. The restriction of performing certain acts in the city of the temple is also described in the Temple Scroll.51 This regulation served as polemic against what was taking place in Jerusalem already. Jerusalem’s temple priests perhaps were laxer concerning this stipulation than the scrolls movement.

51

Refer to notes 44 and 45.

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 185 CD 12:6b-12a

Regulations with regard to interacting with gentiles are given in CD 12:6b-12a. Of particular cultic concern is the prohibition of selling clean animals or birds to the gentiles (in lines 8b-9a) and anything from the granary or press (in line 10). These prohibitions, which are partly given later in both the Temple Scroll (11Q19 XLVIII 6a)52 and MMT B 3-5 and 8-9,53 are concerned with preserving the purity of the movement and the temple. According to Teicher, CD 12:6a-7 prohibits community members from offering sacrifices for the gentiles. Teicher contends that ‫אל ישלח איש את‬ ‫ ידו לשפוך דם לאיש מן הגוים בעבור הון ובצע‬should be rendered as “Nobody shall put his hand to slaying for any Gentile in order to get money or make a profit.”54 It is more probable, however, to render ‫ לשפוך דם לאיש מן‬as ‘to shed blood for any Gentile.’ This reading better harmonises with the ensuing lines, 8-9. These lines state, “No-one should sell clean animals or birds to the gentiles lest they sacrifice them.”55 The movement feared that gentiles might offer the animals and grain which they (the movement) sold to them, thus linking the movement to gentile offerings. Based on this view, the movement viewed this link with gentiles as taking part in defiling acts.56 Moreover, in view of certain tannaitic sources,57 it is probable that the DSS movement highlighted these prohibitions, as polemic, against Jerusalem’s current temple authority. The temple authorities may have allowed gentile sacrifice to be offered Only the prohibition of selling animals to the gentiles is given here. These MMT passages deal with the sacrifice of the gentiles and the consumption of the wheat of the gentiles in the temple. 54 See Jacob L. Teicher, “Priest and Sacrifices in the Dead Sea Scrolls, A Question of Method in Historical Research,” JJS 5 (1954): 93. 55 All scroll passages are taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1,(1Q14Q273) and Volume 2 (4Q274-11Q31) Leiden: Brill, 1997 and 1998, unless otherwise indicated. 56 Just as the movement viewed the unbroken streams of liquid as transferring the same purity status, they also view animals or grain that was sold to gentiles for offering as similarly transferring purity status. 57 See t. Makširim 3:3-4; m. Zebah 4:5; m. Terumot 3:9 and t. Terumot 4:12 in particular. 52 53

186

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

on the altar, and the wheat of the gentile (prepared in an improper manner) to be consumed at the temple.58 In view of the above prohibitions, which are also highlighted in later sectarian texts, the Qumran-related community retained this view. CD 16:13-17a(=4Q271 4 ii 12a-14a)

CD 16:13-17a implies that the DSS movement made freewill offerings. This brief passage also is concerned with the purity of the temple. Members and the priests are instructed here not to dedicate anything obtained by unjust means upon the altar. This regulation served as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple establishment. Based on the notion of priestly laxity, this current establishment probably allowed these types of offering to be dedicated upon the altar.59 4Q266 5 ii 1-16(=4Q267 5 iii 1-8 + 4Q273 2:1-2 and 4 i 5-11)60

Certain priestly concerns are given in 4Q266 5 ii 1-16. This passage, which implies priestly participation in temple cultic matters, is concerned mainly with the purification of the people, the temple, and the priests. This passage lists several concerns whereby priests are disqualified from public temple service. Priests who were slow in understanding or had problems with their speech were restricted. These priests were restricted to avoid leading the people in error concerning a capital matter. Similarly, priests who formerly had been taken captive by gentiles were restricted from the temple and the pure food. These priests were considered impure from contact with gentiles. This view may have served as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple authority. In some way, the

See further discussion on these prohibitions in the chapter on MMT. This difference of opinion, between the DSS movement and the current temple authorities, was the result of a time when there was priestly laxity in Jerusalem, especially when universality was encouraged. Refer to J. Baumgarten, “The Essenes and the Temple,” 64, who elaborates on this notion. 60 For the sake of space, I only refer to the 4Q266 reference. 58 59

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 187 temple authority may have allowed for such priests to participate in the temple cult.61 Other Purity Concerns in D

Several other purity concerns are found in the extant D passages. 4Q266 6 i 1-13(=4Q269 7 + 4Q272 1 i-ii 2 and 4Q273 4 ii) deals with the purification process of skin disease. Description of this regulation involves the duty of the priests and concerns the purity of the people of Israel. Moreover, in view of a later description of this concern, in 11Q19 XLVIII 14b-15a, this matter also concerns the land of Israel (as sanctuary), “and in every city you shall make places for those contaminated . . .” Next is the purity matter pertaining to fluxes. 4Q266 6 i 14(=4Q272 1 ii 3-7a) describes the purification process of a man with an emission. This matter is also dealt with in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 XLVIII 14b-15), and likewise is concerned with the land of Israel (as sanctuary) and the people of Israel.62 The regulation regarding the purification of a woman after childbirth is given in 4Q266 6 ii 5. This regulation, as described elsewhere, is concerned with the purity of the land of Israel and the temple itself. This regulation, which follows the regulation of the parturient in Leviticus 12:2-8, was influenced by Jubilees. Jubilees 3:8-14 harmonises Leviticus 12:2-8 with Genesis 2, which dealt with the period, after purification, of Adam and Eve entering the Garden of Eden (as temple). This corresponds to the description of the woman, who has given birth, entering the temple.

See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Disqualification of Priest in 4Q Fragments of the ‘Damascus Document,’ a Specimen of the Recovery of preRabbinic Halakha,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991 (ed. Julio T. Barrera and Louis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:501-13, who discusses this matter. 62 The matter of fluxes is also dealt with in 4Q274 Tohoraa. Refer to Hempel’s notes on this matter in Charlotte Hempel, “The Laws of the Damascus Document,” 48 note 79. 61

188

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

In both cases, the period for waiting was the same.63 The description given here is also alluded to in 4Q265.64 Next, certain agricultural matters are given. These matters likewise are concerned with the purity of the land of Israel as well as its people. 4Q266 6 iii(=4Q267 6 + 4Q270 3 ii) deals with gleanings. 4Q266 iv concerns the handling of the vineyard and fruit trees. Discussed here is the offering of the fruit of the fourth year. Lastly is the regulation on tithing in 4Q271 2:1-6(=4Q272 3 iii 13-15).65 Regarding the offering of the fruit of the fourth year, as is discussed elsewhere, this regulation was influenced by Jubilees. In Jubilees 7:35-36, Noah outlines its stipulations to his children. This regulation is similarly highlighted later in the Temple Scroll (11Q19 LX 02-3) and MMT B 62-63. In 4Q266 IV, this regulation served as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple authority. As is discussed in MMT, in view of later tannaitic sources, Jerusalem’s temple establishment viewed the offering of the fourth-year fruit as belonging not to the priest, but to its owner, where subsequently, they consumed it like the second tithe.66 Various laws dealing with defilement and purification are found in 4Q269 8 ii 1-6(=4Q270 ii 1-6 + 4Q270 3 iii 19-21 and 4Q271 2:7-13). These laws are concerned with the purity of the land of Israel (as sanctuary), the people of Israel, and the temple itself. Although it is not clear what type of sacrifice is being discussed according to 4Q269 8 ii 1, it is clear that it was not to be brought to the temple: “[. . . No]-one [should bring in . . .] with the blood of their sacrifice [. . .].” Based on this, this line is concerned with the purity of the temple. Various kinds of metal used by the gentiles were also prohibited from the temple. Similarly, hides, work clothes and utensils67 Refer to this discussion in the chapter on Jubilees. A full description of this matter is given in the chapter on Jubilees. 65 See Joseph M. Baumgarten’s discussion in his “A Qumran Text with Agrarian Halakhah,” JQR 86 (1995): 1-7. 66 For further discussion on this matter, refer to the chapter on MMT. 67 CD 12:17b-18(=4Q266 9 ii 4b-5a) similarly describes the impurity of utensils which have been in the house of a dead person. Utensils, nails, or pegs in the wall were viewed as unclean in the same manner as tools 63 64

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 189 were prohibited from the temple. These elements were restricted because of their acquired impurity status. These regulations likely served as instructions for the larger DSS movement, as well as serving as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple authority. The temple authority may have allowed one or all the above elements (perhaps associated with gentiles) into the temple area, similar to the wheat of the gentiles and gentile sacrifice in CD 12:6b-12a discussed above. The restriction on hides, work clothes and utensils served as polemic, in that Jerusalem’s temple authority may have failed to view the geographical dimensions of temple in the same way as the scrolls movement. As is discussed later in MMT and the Temple Scroll (which was influenced by Jubilees), Jerusalem’s temple authority failed to view Israel as sanctuary-like, and the city of the temple as part of the temple. b. Material in D that Coincides with the Later Qumran-Related Community

D also highlights laws that are community oriented. These laws reflect the ideology of the Qumran-related community early in their development.68 These redacted laws also coincide more with explicit writings of the Qumran-related community, like MMT, the Rule of the Community, and 4QFlorilegium. Laws that relate to cultic matters consist of: • •

The priestly procedures concerning lost or stolen property in CD 9:10b-16a(=4Q267 9 i + 4Q268 6 iv). Righteous prayer viewed as an equivalent substitute for sacrifice, especially when the sacrifice is defiled, in CD 11:18b-21a (which coincides with the overall ideology in the Rule of the Community69 and 4QFlorilegium).70

used for work. In CD 12:15b-17a(=4Q266 9 ii 2b-4a), the purity status of wood, stones and dust are highlighted. These objects are rendered impure if an impure person has touched them. 68 Refer to note 29 above. 69 See 1QS IX 3-5. 70 Refer to these respective chapters in this book concerning this spiritualised view.

190

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION • •

The stipulation concerning entering the house of prostration in CD 11:21b-12:1a. The regulations regarding the admission of new members into the covenant, in CD 15:5b-16:6a, 4Q266 8 i, 4Q268 6 i-ii and 4Q271 4 ii (which coincides with the admission in the Rule of the Community).

Although the ideology of the Qumran-related community differed from the larger DSS movement, it yet continued to participate in some sacrifices along with the movement. Along with this view, it also developed a more predominantly spiritualised ideology, understanding itself as proleptically serving as a temple and preferring just prayer as a substitute for impure sacrifice. CD 9:10b-16a(=4Q267 9 i + 4Q268 6 iv)

CD 9:10b-16a describes the priestly procedure for dealing with lost or stolen property. Priests were allowed to keep lost or stolen objects if they were left unclaimed by their owners. Regarding lost objects, debtors were to confess to the priest and offer a ram for a sin-offering, which too belonged to the priest. The Qumranrelated community retained this regulation from the larger movement. This regulation also may have served as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple authority, where they (Jerusalem’s temple authority) handled these matters somewhat differently. CD 11:18b-21a(=4Q270 6 v + 4Q271 5 i)

The Qumran-related community participated in some sacrifice, following after the larger movement. Later, the community also developed a more predominantly spiritualised view of itself and sacrifice. CD 11:18b-21a expresses one of the new developing views of the community. In general, this passage is concerned with the purity of the temple and the altar. Explicitly citing Proverbs 15:8, CD 11:18b-21a considers the prayer of the just to be a more agreeable offering than impure sacrifice. In this CD passage, Proverbs 15:8 is cited in reference to the community’s view regarding sending to the altar a sacrifice, an offering, incense, or wood by the hand of an impure person. The impurity of the carrier was viewed by the community as transferring impurity to the

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 191 offerings, which thus defiled the temple and altar. In this case, just prayer was viewed as a substitute for sacrifice.71 CD 11:21b-12:1a

CD 11:21b-12:1a, which is a continuation of CD 11:18b-21a, is concerned with the status and purity of worshiping members. The regulation for entering the ‫ בית השתחות‬reflects a regulation concerning entering the temple. On the basis of this, from the viewpoint of the Qumran-related community, the makeup of the movement (and itself in particular) was priest-like. Moreover, the community viewed its assembly as sanctuary-like: ‫הוא ולא ישביתו‬ ‫את העבודה כולה ]כ[י בית קודש‬. Here, Steudel accurately reads the last part of this phrase with ‫בית‬.72 Moreover, she explores ‫ בית קודש‬as referring to ‫ קהל‬in the previous line. Although exploring this link, she yet maintains that ‫ בית קודש‬refers to ‫ בית השתחות‬as a physical place which functioned like the temple.73 Steudel’s assertion, however, remains untenable. She contends that this physical house is evident among the Qumran ruins. Steudel wrongly assumes that the redacted material in D reflects a community that was resident at Qumran. Based on the overall archaeological and textual evidence, the material dealt with in D reflects an early Qumran-related community during its pre-Qumran stage. Based on this redacted material, the community later constructed a type of spiritualised ‫ בית השתחות‬at Qumran, where prayer was offered.74 In the meantime, ‫ בית השתחות‬may have referred to entering the congregation which also was called a ‫בית‬ ‫קודש‬. This view, which is even more developed later (particularly

Annette Steudel calls this spiritualised prayer the ‫ מעשי תודה‬of 4Q174. If this is the case, this section of CD clearly reflects a later redacted stratum of D. See Annette Steudel, “The Houses of Prostration of CD XI, 21XII, 1- Duplicates of the Temple,” RevQ 16 (1993-1995): 54-62. Also refer to this discussion in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 72 See Steudel, “Prostration,” 50-2. This reading follows S. Zeitlin’s CD facsimile. 73 See Steudel, “Prostration,” 54-7. 74 As Steudel contends, the dining hall at locus 77 likely served as such a place. Refer to her discussion in Steudel, “Prostration,” 58-61. Also see the Archaeological chapter. 71

192

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

in the Rule of the Community and 4Q174), stresses a spiritualised view of the community as temple, which makes spiritualised offerings.75 CD 15:5b-16:6a(=4Q266 8 i + 4Q268 6 i-ii and 4Q271 4 ii)

According to CD 15:5b-16:6a, entering the covenant is synonymous with entering into the congregation. From the perspective of the Qumran-related community, not only was the congregation viewed as the sole locus of God’s covenant, it was viewed as sanctuary-like also, particularly in view of CD 3:18b-20 and 11:21b12:1a.76 CD 15b-16:6a, which was influenced by Jubilees description of the renewing of the covenant in 6:1-4, 15-22; 14:1-20; 15:1-29; 22:1-6, 10-25, 28-30 and 44:1-4, required members to be enrolled with the oath of the covenant, and to adhere to the law of Moses. Subsequently, new members were to be trained and tested for up to one full year. Like Jubilees, 4Q266 11:1719(=4Q270 7 ii) indicates that the assembling of the community is in the third month. The extant portion of these lines also describes the members as cursing those who break the law. This similarly can be seen in the Qumran-related community’s later Rule of the Community.77 On the basis of Jubilees, members in this redacted portion of D were required to adhere to the laws according to their exact interpretation as defined in Jubilees and according to the correct calendar: And the exact interpretation of their ages about the blindness of Israel in all these matters, behold, it is defined in « the book of divisions of the periods according to their jubilees and their weeks ».78

Based on Jubilees description of the renewal of the covenant, members in D may have taken part in cultic regulations. These For discussion of this view, see the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium chapters. 76 This view is later expressed in the Rule of the Community. 77 See the earlier discussion of the renewing of the covenant ceremony in the Jubilees chapter. Also see a similar discussion in the chapter on the Rule of the Community. 78 CD 16:2b-4a 75

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 193 regulations focused on the Festival of Weeks. However, this is not explicitly evident in D. The legal stipulations are overshadowed by the more spiritualised view, that the congregation was sanctuary-like. In view of Jubilees, the liturgical worship that accompanied the cultic celebrations served as substitutes for actual sacrifice. This was the case later, after the community settled at Qumran. Despite the issue concerning cultic matters, observing the renewal of the covenant according to the correct calendar would have served as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple establishment. This establishment adhered to the renewal celebration and its stipulations according to a different calendar than the 364-day one. In CD 15:15b-17 certain persons who were prohibited from entering the congregation are highlighted. No one who was stupid, deranged, feeble-minded, insane, weak eyed (blind), lame, crippled, deaf or under aged, was allowed entry into the congregation. Like 4Q266 5 ii 1-16, where certain priests were prohibited from public service, these persons were viewed as causing some type of impurity in the temple-like congregation. Persons prohibited from entering the sanctuary-like congregation are similarly listed in MMT B 39-54; 4Q174 1 i 21 3b-5a; 1QM VII 4b-6a and 1QSa II 4b-9a. Because of these descriptions, the prohibition against such persons served as polemic against Jerusalem’s temple establishment, which may have allowed at least one or more such person entry into the holy place. According to CD 15:5b-16:6a, certain persons were prohibited because angels were viewed as being resident among the congregation. This idea is closely followed in 1QSa II 4b-9a, and later picked up in the sectarian related Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.79 Taking the above references into consideration, and in view of Jubilees authoritative status, the Qumran-related community viewed entry into the covenant without requiring sacrifice. Unlike in Jubilees, where sacrifice was required, the congregation was viewed as temple-like, which adhered to both cultic and nonSee the ideology expressed in this work. Refer to the respective chapter in this book. 79

194

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

cultic regulations. Concerning the latter, this idea is further developed in the Rule of the Community, where the community even views itself as making atonement without sacrifice.80

E. THE STATUS OF CULTIC M ATTER IN D AFTER THE QUMRAN SETTLEMENT

The continuous transmission and copying of D both before and during the Qumran occupation, from the second century B.C.E. to the first century C.E., illustrates the importance of the document to the Qumran-related community throughout its development. Despite the discovery of D in its medieval form, D likely reached it final compositional form (including the redacted material) before the Qumran settlement. This is evident based on the numerous similarities found between CD and the Qumran Damascus texts which, unlike the Rule of the Community, lack distinct parallel texts that contain variant readings. As the Qumran-related community developed, they viewed D in two ways. As noted in the above discussion, both before and during their occupation at Qumran, the community viewed D, especially its original core which focused on sacrificial regulations, in an ideological and eschatological way. Later, most notably at Qumran, the community read and practiced most of these same sacrificial regulations in a predominantly spiritualised way, viewing their study as well as the recitation of the liturgy that was to accompany the sacrifices as substitutes for the actual sacrifices. This was the case regarding the Sabbath sacrifice in CD 11:17b18a (and demonstrated in Jubilees)81 and the freewill offering in 4Q266 5 ii 1-16. Moreover, based on the Qumran liturgical texts, the recitation of liturgy was also viewed as a substitute for sacrifices concerning the purity practices of:82 Refer to discussion of this idea in the chapter on the Rule of the Community. According to CD 19b, atonement is made through meals and sinofferings. 81 See this demonstrated in the discussion on the Sabbath sacrifice in the chapter on Jubilees. 82 These purity practices give insight into how the miqva’ot were used at Qumran. Refer to the chapter on Archaeology concerning the description of miqva’ot at the Qumran site. 80

CHAPTER FIVE. SACRIFICE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 195 • • • • •

Those caught in immoral sexual acts in CD 12:1b-2a. Those who had skin diseases in 4Q266 6 i 1-13. Those with fluxes in 4Q266 6 i 14. The parturient in 4Q266 6 ii 5 (which is also discussed in Jubilees).83 The offering of the fruit of the fourth year in 4Q266 6 iii-iv (which is also discussed in Jubilees)84

Overall, at Qumran, the community viewed D as polemic. Most of the regulations were viewed as countering how certain sacrificial and purity regulations were currently being practiced among Jerusalem’s temple establishment. Certain regulations and festivals, like in CD 15:5b-16:6a, were viewed as polemic in an idealised way against the calendar which Jerusalem’s temple authority observed. Moreover, sacrificial related matters were viewed in an eschatological way, as that which one day would be observed.

F. SUMMARY

As has been demonstrated in this chapter, D (from a literary standpoint) sets the ideological tone concerning the view of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls. Moreover, three points are evident here: 1) D describes the ideological views of the larger DSS movement. 2) D highlights the ideological views of the Qumran-related community. 3) In noting the views of both aforementioned groups, D alludes to the ideological views of the temple establishment in Jerusalem, which the two former groups viewed in a polemical manner.

The examination of D shows the very beginnings of an ideological strife between the larger DSS movement and its later offshoot group, the Qumran-related community. However, despite these differences, both views formed due to the cultic ideology of Refer to section C.2, “The Place of the Description of Temple Motifs,” in the chapter on Jubilees. 84 Refer to this discussion later in the chapter on MMT, “B 62-63 and 6364.” 83

196

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Jerusalem’s temple establishment being viewed by both groups as defiled. As the entire DSS movement developed, differences occur, especially regarding the ideology on sacrifice. Based on the literary structure of D, the beginnings of this change can be seen. As asserted by several early DSS scholars, in D, the Qumran-related community participated in some sacrifices while at the same time this same community developed a more spiritualised view of the sacrificial cult than the larger movement.85 These changes (discussed in following chapters), which reflected in the later redacted parts of D, become more predominant in the later texts of the Qumran-related community.

On this point refer to the discussion of J. Baumgarten, “Sacrifice and Worship,” (1953): 141-59 (see note 17 in the Introduction of this book). Also see Gaston, No Stone. 85

CHAPTER SIX. THE VIEW OF SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

Like the Damascus Document (D), the Temple Scroll is also a preQumran sectarian text which was composed by the larger DSS movement. Like D, this work underwent considerable redactional activity, and reflects the ideology of the Qumran-related community which also composed these redacted sections. Based on this, the Temple Scroll is contemporaneous with D (which also contains redacted material, hence demonstrating the views of both the larger DSS movement and the Qumran-related community), being composed in its final form only slightly later.1 Whereas D in its final form is a composition concerned with daily directives, the Temple Scroll in its final form reads in an idealised and eschatological way. This stylistic difference is despite the fact that the majority of cultic regulations in the Temple Scroll correlate with regulations in D. It is difficult to determine what the initial intent of the Temple Scroll was, but in its final form it is presented in an idealised and eschatological way. Unlike D, where the Qumran-related community developed both a more spiritualised view of certain cultic matters and at the same time participated in some sacrifice,2 the Temple Scroll See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 275, who similarly describes the Temple Scroll as contemporaneous with D. 2 Refer to the chapter on the Damascus Document, which highlights the Qumran-related community’s ideology regarding cultic matters. 1

197

198

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

reflects a slight literary shift and ideological development concerning the cult. This work presents itself as a later composed sectarian document,3 in which the Qumran-related community viewed sacrificial, purity and temple related matters in more of a spiritualised way and as ideological and future directives. This overall spiritualised ideology of the Temple Scroll centres on the view of the temples corresponding to certain periods. The Temple Scroll’s cultic views hinge on the understanding of column XXIX, lines 8-9, of 11Q19 in particular.4 The emphasis on cultic matters in the Temple Scroll shows that the community not only revered the temple and sacrifice, but it also understood them as polemic against the Jerusalem temple authority and establishment. At the heart of the cultic matters is the 364-day calendar, which has been influenced by the book of Jubilees. Other matters concern the modus operandi for how certain cultic regulations were to be carried out. The overall aim of this chapter is to examine the tone of the Temple Scroll, which consequently conveys how sacrificial matters are to be understood. An examination of a key passage (11Q19 XXIX 8-9) is undertaken to understand the document’s tone. Based on this examination, this chapter determines how cultic matters in the Temple Scroll are to be read (in an ideological way, metaphorically, in an eschatological way as future directives, or as daily directives). To determine the Temple Scroll’s cultic ideology, this chapter investigates the provenance of the text, which in the past, has affected scholars’ overall interpretation of the text’s sacrificial and temple related matters.

B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS

The Temple Scroll is extant in five distinct manuscripts from two caves. Three are from cave 11 (11Q19-21) and two are from cave 4 (4Q524 and 4Q365a). The dating of the manuscripts ranges from 150 B.C.E. to circa 50 C.E. 11Q19 (or 11QTa) is the largest and the longest preserved manuscript from Qumran. Found in Later than D in particular. This chapter will follow 11Q19. This version reflects the most complete edition of the Temple Scroll. 3 4

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

199

1956, it consists of sixty-six columns in total with 19 sheets measuring 8.148 meters.5 It is made up of mostly three or four columns per sheet and represents the handwriting of two different scribes, columns 1-5 representing one copyist, and the rest of the scroll representing another copy. According to Yadin,6 the palaeography of the script of scribe B dates from 25 B.C.E.-25 C.E, and the writing of scribe A dates slightly later.7 11Q20 (or 11QTb) consists of forty-three fragments, which are arranged into fifteen columns.8 The handwriting of this MS is similar to 1QpHab, thus indicating that 11Q20 was copied at Qumran.9 Additions and corrections also were made to this manuscript in a different hand.10 11Q20 follows the contents of 11Q19, but the former contains some differences, which include thirteen unidentifiable fragments.11 11Q21 (or 11QTc?) is supposedly from cave 11 (however, this is uncertain) and consists of three small fragments. The first coincides with 11Q19 III 14-17, whereas fragments two and three are almost independent, and without overlap.12 This manuscript dates to circa 50 C.E. It has been estimated that the first sheet consisted of five columns. According to Yadin, if this was the case, an extra 60 cm would have been added to the scroll making it 8.75 meters long. See Yadin, Hidden Law, 57. 6 Yadin was the first person to fully analyse, decipher, and translate the Temple Scroll in general. He mainly worked with 11Q19 and 20, which became the deciphered archetypes which others followed. 7 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.9-39. 8 Florentino García Martínez is credited with this ordering. See his “11QTempleb: A Preliminary Publication,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991 (ed. Julio T. Barrera and Louis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 363-90. 9 Cf. Sidnie White Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Text (CQS 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 13. 10 This reflects the redactional activity of the Qumran-related community. Refer to discussion at the first paragraph above. 11 García Martínez suggested that both works represent the different versions of the same work. See his “11QTempleb,” 390. 12 Elisha Qimron suggests that fragment 3 should be located at the beginning of column 48 of the Temple Scroll. Refer to his The Temple Scroll: A 5

200

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

4Q524, also known as 4QRouleau du Temple (or 4QRT), comes from cave 4 and is the oldest extant copy of the Temple Scroll. This manuscript dates from 150-25 B.C.E.,13 and consists of thirty-nine fragments, most of which overlap with 11Q19. One fragment overlaps with 11Q20, and sixteen are unidentifiable. According to Crawford, 4QRouleau du Temple represents an earlier edition of the Temple Scroll, which underwent further editing at Qumran thus producing the composition preserved in 11Q19.14 4Q365a (or 4QTemple?) from cave 4 consists of five fragments. These fragments were initially identified as a New Jerusalem text. Later, they were viewed as part of 4QReworked Pentateuchc. The handwriting of 4Q365a is similar to 4QRPc, thus dating palaeographically to circa 125-75 B.C.E. 4Q365a eventually became associated with the Temple Scroll.15 Some parts of this scroll (particularly parts of fragment 1 and 2) follow 11Q19. Crawford correctly asserted that 4Q365a represented a part of the source material used for the redaction of the Temple Scroll.16 This study follows 11Q19 since it represents the most complete edition of the Temple Scroll. The palaeographic dating of this version, as well as 11Q20 and 21, attest to the transmission, copying and importance of the Temple Scroll at Qumran. This work Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996), 69. 13 This date is given according to Emile Puech; see his “Fragments du plus ancien exemplaire du Rouleau du Temple (4Q524),” in Legal Text and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995 Published in Honour of J. M. Baumgarten (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 19-64 and “4QRouleau du Temple,” in Textes Hebreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579): Qumran Grotte 4.XVIII: (DJD XXV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 85-114, pls. vii-viii. 14 See Crawford, Temple Scroll, 14. Also cf. note 10 above. Editing likely occurred by the community before Qumran, similar to the redacted parts of D. 15 See Sidnie White Crawford, “4QTemple?” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Text, Part 1 (DJD 13; ed. Harold Attridge et al.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 319-20. 16 Crawford, Temple Scroll, 15.

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

201

was viewed in an ideological and eschatological way throughout its transmission among the Qumran-related community. Stegemann also describes the importance of the transmission of this work. However, he, followed by several others, untenably views the texts as non-sectarian.17 In consideration of the dating of 4Q524,18 the Temple Scroll is contemporary with D, composed by the larger DSS movement. This attests to the similarities concerning most sacrificial, priestly, purity and temple regulations in Temple Scroll with a number of the cultic laws in the original composition of D.19 Similar to D, the Qumran-related community likely redacted the Temple Scroll during its later development. Against the view of Yadin and others,20 this may have been the case regarding the polemic Stegemann contends that the Temple Scroll was a third or fourth century composition. He thus maintained that the ideology of the scroll was embraced by the community based on ideological similarity. See his contention in Hartmut Stegemann, “Is the Temple Scroll a Sixth Book of the Torah- Lost for 2,500 Years?” BAR 13 (1987): 28-35 and “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll and its Status at Qumran,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium of the Temple Scroll. Manchester, December 1987 (ed. George J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 123-48. Also see Wentling, “Unravelling,” 64 and Levine, “The Temple Scroll,” 7 and 21, who similarly describes the Temple Scroll as non-sectarian. Moreover, they contend that this text was embraced and reinterpreted by the community to apply to its outlook. See discussion below. The Temple Scroll likely was a late 3rd to early 2nd century B.C.E. work, which was contemporary with D. As rightly pointed out by Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible,’” 43-68, the text was authoritative Pseudepigraphal. Refer to note 7 in the Introduction of this book for reference citations. 18 Both MSS date before the founding of the Qumran community, which began circa 100 B.C.E. Refer to the chapter on Archaeology, where de Vaux’s Period Ia is challenged. 19 On the basis of these similarities, the Temple Scroll also reflects the influence of Jubilees. See the chapter on Jubilees, which demonstrates this influence. Also see the chapter on the Damascus Document, which highlights some of the similarities between D and the Temple Scroll. 20 Yigael Yadin and others date the composition of this scroll congruously with the palaeographic date of the oldest extant MS (4Q524); they suggest that its composition was around the days of John Hyrcanus or earlier based on columns LVII to LIX of 11Q19, which presumably was a polemic 17

202

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

concerning the king in columns LVII to LIX.21 This illustration reflects the sentiments of the community concerning the Hasmonean kingdom. Other redacted parts reflected other current developments.22

C. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TEMPLE SCROLL’S CONTENT

A large part of the Temple Scroll is written as a direct address from God (‫ )יהוה‬presumably to Moses.23 Even though the Temple Scroll is a composition of the larger DSS movement, it is presented as resembling (through its structure and content) the canonical

regarding the Hasmonean kingdom; see Yadin, The Temple Scroll), 1.17 (and especially) 39. Cf. Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz, “Does the Temple Scroll Date from the First or Second Century B.C.E.?” in Temple Scroll Studies (ed. George J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 91-7, and “Notes à propos de la datation du Rouleau du Temple,” RevQ 10 (1981): 447-52, who gives an even later date for the scroll’s composition. It has been suggested that the Teacher of Righteousness authored this text. This suggestion is improbable. This text dates earlier than this figure. Others have argued for a fourth to sixth century B.C.E. compositional dating of the Temple Scroll, viewing columns LVII and LIX as reflecting a contention against the kingdoms that led Israel into exile. Cf., Stegemann, “Literary Composition,” 127-131, 142 and 144. Also see Lawrence Schiffman, “The Millennium Ceremony in the Temple Scroll,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill 1994), 258, and Crawford, Temple Scroll, 24-6. As the community developed, the scroll went through a redactional process which reflected the current ideas and circumstances (polemically) which it faced. The redactional process may have also included scribal additions. 21 See the discussion concerning this issue in Crawford, Temple Scroll, 5760. 22 For discussion on the redactional elements of the scroll, see Wise, Critical Study, 101-21 and 155-94. 23 This is attested throughout the scroll. However, this is particularly evident according to 11Q19 XLIV 5, “You shall al[lot] to the sons of Aaron your brother.” Passages cited from the Temple Scroll come from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar’s, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 2000). Cf. this citation with Yadin, Hidden Law, 66.

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

203

Torah, in that its status at Qumran was just as authoritative.24 The text presents itself as assembling an oral tradition of the Torah, which was given on Mount Sinai alongside the Pentateuch.25 Many of the sacrificial regulations put forth in the Temple Scroll are identical to those of the Pentateuch. However, the Temple Scroll expresses regulations concerning several new cultic festivals as well as descriptions of the temple not known in the Pentateuch. Yadin terms the Temple Scroll’s additional regulations as additional Torah. He suggests that the scroll codified many biblical injunctions as well as included considerable ancillary texts, “as though it were part of the very words uttered by the Lord on Mount Sinai.”26 Loosely following White’s outline,27 the contents of the Temple Scroll consist of the following: •

The majority of the first forty-six columns deal with the construction of the temple (the temple which was supposed to be built by Jerusalem), in 11Q19 III 1-XIII 8 and XXX 3-XLVI 18, and regulations concerning cultic festivals in 11Q19 XIII 9-XXX 2.

Although there was no fixed canon of scripture at the time of the Qumran occupancy, the Temple Scroll was perceived equal to the Pentateuch. Yadin’s assertion of the Temple Scroll as being the essential Torah of the community composed by its founder, the Teacher of Righteousness, is untenable. However, he is accurate in describing the scroll as additional Torah to the five books of the Pentateuch, particularly according to the community. Yadin suggested that both had the same level of authority. See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.390-2 and Hidden Law, 66 and 226-9. Also Cf. Stegemann, “Literary Composition,” 127 and “Is the Temple Scroll?” 28-35, who suggested that the scroll was a sixth book of the Torah, “supplementing the Pentateuch and with the same level of authority.” Crawford is correct when she describes the biblical texts as being fluid (nonfixed canonically) during this time, thus allowing for variations in authoritative MSS. See Crawford, Temple Scroll, 19. Also refer to the discussion at note 7 in the Introduction of this book. 25 The Pharisees put forth an assertion concerning their later writings. They viewed these writings as being passed down from earlier forms of oral traditions. See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Law of the Temple Scroll and its Provenance,” FO 25 (1988): 86-8, who discusses this. 26 Yigael Yadin, Hidden Law, 64. 27 See White, Temple Scroll, 29. 24

204

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION • •

• •

Various purity regulations given in 11Q19 XLVII 01-LI 10. A mixture of other regulations like legal stipulations; sacrifices; vows; oaths and idolatry cited in 11Q19 LI 11LVI 11. Discussion concerning the laws of the king in 11Q19 LVI 12-59. Various laws dealing with the life in the land in the remainder of the scroll.

This chapter mainly focus on the first 46 columns of the Temple Scroll.

D. THE COMPOSITIONAL STATUS OF THE TEMPLE SCROLL: DETERMINING ITS P ROVENANCE

In the past, scholars have read the Temple Scroll to determine its provenance. This has been the case regarding the text’s view of the temple(s) as well as sacrificial regulations. Scholars read the Temple Scroll in one of two ways: (1) as a sectarian text which expressed the sectarians’ view of sacrifice and the temple(s) or (2) as a non-sectarian text which yet was brought into the community and preserved for particular reasons. As briefly cited above, Yadin followed by others maintained that the Temple Scroll was sectarian primarily based on viewing the scroll’s sacrificial regulations as similar to sacrificial regulations in other sectarian texts. According to Yadin, cultic similarities could be found between the Temple Scroll, D, and the book of Jubilees (the latter which Yadin rightly noted as an authoritative text to the DSS movement).28 Yadin further asserted that the Temple Scroll was sectarian based See Yadin’s discussion in his The Temple Scroll, 1.99-142, 285-385 and 398. Also see Yigael Yadin, “Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980 (ed. Gene M. Tucker and Douglas A. Knight; BSNA 6; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 153-69. Also see the similar position of Milgrom, The Temple Scroll, 119-20. Also cf., Wacholder, Redefining, and Maier, The Temple Scroll, 4 who both contend that the Temple Scroll is pre-Qumran. For discussion on the authoritative status of Jubilees, refer to the chapter on Jubilees. Also see the discussion at note 7 in the Introduction of this book. 28

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

205

on sacrificial regulations being carried out according to a calendar similar to the Qumran-related sectarians (as seen in other sectarian texts).29 Based on these two observations, Yadin rightly inferred that the Qumran-related community viewed the Temple Scroll’s sacrificial regulations, temple plan and sacrifices in an idealised way.30 The Temple Scroll as a pre-Qumran sectarian text coheres better with the overall ideology and development of the Qumranrelated community. The final form of the Temple Scroll, expressing similar cultic views with the larger DSS movement, along with there being evidence of redacted material (which can be ascribed to the Qumran-related community) highlights cultic matters in both an idealised and eschatological way. Moreover, this work aligns itself with both the development and ideology of the Qumran-related community, especially after this community developed a more spiritualised view of sacrificial and temple related matters. Based on this alignment, the Temple Scroll can be more easily viewed as being composed after D and before MMT (discussed later).31 This compositional understanding of the Temple Scroll coheres better than the view of the text as non-sectarian, put forth by Levine and Stegemann.32

29

7.

See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.99-122 and “Is the Temple Scroll?” 162-

Maier similarly describes the temple of the Temple Scroll as an ideal sanctuary. Initially suggesting that it was an idealised version of the second temple, he later construed it as the ideal sanctuary for the twelve tribes as it should have been built as the first temple. See Maier, The Temple Scroll, 93 and “The Architectural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in the Light of the Temple Scroll,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (ed. George J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 23. 31 Refer to the chapter on MMT. 32 Contending that the Temple Scroll was non-sectarian, Levine, “The Temple Scroll,” 7 and 21, suggests that the community embraced and reinterpreted the text to apply to its outlook. Stegemann similarly describes the Temple Scroll as non-sectarian. He ascribes the text to the 3rd to 4th century B.C.E. See Stegemann, “Is the Temple Scroll?” 28 and “Literary Composition,” 128. Also see note 17 above. 30

206

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Although the non-sectarian position contends that the community came to embrace the ideas in the scroll, this position fails to adequately recognize or fully understand the literary structure and ideological significance of the text, which includes considerable redacted material. Moreover, the non-sectarian position raises several unsettling questions. If the community embraced a non-sectarian Temple Scroll, did they only embrace the final form? If this was the case, who was responsible for the redacted sections and why was it important for the text to be redacted? Alternatively, if the text was embraced before its final form, did the community redact it bringing it into line with its own views? These questions remain unanswered, especially among those who support the view that the Temple Scroll was a non-sectarian composition.

E. THE BASIS ON WHICH TO U NDERSTAND THE TEMPLE SCROLL’S CULTIC REGULATIONS 1. Introduction

In consideration of the sectarian provenance of the Temple Scroll, several matters are explicit. The Temple Scroll presents an illustration of an actual temple plan with real festivals and sacrificial regulations. According to the Qumran-related community, it was the temple establishment that all Jerusalem should have followed originally. Since the scroll was not observed in this way (by all Jerusalem), it is probable that the community viewed the text in four distinct ways throughout its development. •

•

33

Firstly, as the Temple Scroll was redacted, it was viewed in an idealised way. The Temple Scroll’s temple plan and sacrificial regulations were viewed as that which should have been observed initially. Secondly, the text was also viewed in an eschatological way: not only believing that the scroll’s temple establishment should have replaced the already existing temple and cult but believing that its cultic institutions would one day be inaugurated at the end of days.33

See below for discussion on this idea.

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL •

•

207

Thirdly, the transmission and copying of the scroll served as a polemic and protest against Jerusalem’s priestly institution, temple cult, and constructed temple. The Temple Scroll coinciding with other sectarian texts cited various cultic matters differently than Jerusalem’s temple establishment. This difference was based on either the observance of these matters being in accord with the 364-day calendar, or the modus operandi concerning their regulations.34 Lastly, the study of the Temple Scroll, which according to the community illustrated how cultic injunctions were to be observed, served as a substitute for sacrificial worship (an idea which was later adopted in rabbinic Judaism).

Along with study, the community recited liturgy, which normally accompanied certain cultic festivals and offerings, as a substitute in place of actual sacrifices. Robert Kugler35 described the Temple Scroll’s regulations, as well as cultic regulations in later sectarian texts like 4QMMT, the New Jerusalem text, 2Q24 4, 4Q156, 4Q26a, 4Q276-277 and 4Q375, as being written at Qumran as an attempt to resolve the community’s crisis regarding their separation from Jerusalem’s temple and cult. According to Kugler, the community substituted for sacrificial worship by redefining it: The community did arrogate to itself priestly roles, requirements, and practices as if to become a temple community in the desert.36

Kugler further maintained that the community rewrote biblical rubrics of sacrifice through harmonising and narrowing exegesis,

Concerning the cultic differences between Jerusalem’s temple establishment and the Qumran-related community, see the various textual chapters in this book. In particular, refer to the chapters on the Damascus Document and MMT, which describe the basis for the differences. 35 See Robert A. Kugler, “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 90-4. 36 See Kugler “Rubrics,” 91-2. 34

208

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

and such was their reason for the composition of the Temple Scroll (and other texts, as mentioned above): A number of prominent scrolls deal at length with the temple and temple sacrifice. They reveal time and again that through the exercise of their exegetical imagination the group, separated from actual practices in the temple, speculated at length on the nature of what should transpire there according to biblical precepts.37

Kugler’s assertions are unconvincing. Although he highlights other texts that make explicit reference to the spiritualised ideology of the later Qumran-related community, he dismisses these citations without giving any concrete reasons why.38 Despite the explicit evidence, he rejects the community’s later view of itself as sanctuary-like which made spiritualised offering. Based on the manuscript evidence (discussed above) Kugler’s overall assertions wrongly assume that the Temple Scroll was composed at Qumran. This idea ignores the on-going debate regarding the scroll’s compositional date and recensional history. Moreover, this assertion also fails to understand the literary structure of the text as well as the overall historical development of the larger DSS movement and later offshoot group (the Qumran-related community). Next, Kugler unconvincingly suggests that the community solved its faith crisis (its separation from the temple and cult) with rewriting biblical rubrics of sacrifice through harmonising and narrowing exegesis. This assertion, too, fails to understand the overall cultic ideology of the Qumran-related community as well as the literary structure and development of the non-biblical sectarian texts.

Kugler, “Rubrics,” 92. See Kugler, “Rubrics,” 90-2, where he highlights such passages as 1QS V 1-7; VIII 5-6, 8; IX 3-6; X 4; 4Q409; 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6-7; and even the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. 37 38

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

209

2. The View of the Temples in the Temple Scroll a. Introduction

Kugler’s overall argument largely ignores the meaning of the Temple Scroll’s temple and cultic set-up. In view of its literary structure, its redacted elements which illustrate the ideology behind the Qumran-related community, the Temple Scroll reads as a polemical, ideological, and eschatological document.39 This reading seems to be based on 11Q19 XXIX 8b-10, which determines the overall cultic understanding of the text. Column XXIX 8b-10 alludes to at least two distinct temples correlating with at least two different periods. The significance in determining the provenance and compositional date of the Temple Scroll is vital in determining the identity of the text’s temple plan and cult, as well as the already existing temple establishment in Jerusalem. Stegemann, who views the Temple Scroll as a third or fourth century B.C.E. document, contends that the scroll’s temple plan, which both alludes to and is against the Second Temple which was established after the Babylonian exile, is written as polemic.40 However, if the view that the Temple Scroll derived from oral tradition from Mount Sinai is correct (as the text presents itself, and also put forth by Stegemann),41 then perhaps, as Michael Wise suggests, the idealised temple of the Temple Scroll stands in opposition to the Solomonic (first) temple.42 Both above assertions, however, are improbable, particularly because they do not cohere with the overall ideology and development of the Qumran-related community. Although Stegemann unconvincingly asserts a third or fourth century B.C.E. date for the composition of the Temple Scroll, his assertion that the temple Wise astutely contends that the Temple Scroll is a blueprint for the eschatological period. According to him, it was to function during the first stage of the eschaton. 40 See Stegemann’s “Literary Composition,” 132-42 and “Is the Temple Scroll?” 32-3. 41 See Stegemann’s overall argument in Stegemann, “Literary Composition,” 123-48. 42 See Wise’s discussion on this point in his, “4QFlorilegium,” 112. 39

210

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

and cult which the Temple Scroll opposed was the Second Temple, is probable. Even though the composition of the Temple Scroll is sectarian, this same Second Temple was extant up to the time of the community’s destruction. b. The Number of Temples Alluded to in the Temple Scroll

Based on the dating of the manuscripts (above), the Qumran-related community continued to copy, read, and study the Temple Scroll, even after its settlement at Qumran. The scroll continuously expressed its sentiments concerning the temple and cult under the priestly led Hasmonean rule and Herodian temple project.43 Bearing this historical time frame in mind, the scroll alludes to five temples: •

• •

• •

The idealised temple as described in the scroll. This is the temple which should have been constructed instead of the Second Temple under Nehemiah. It is also probable that this temple and cult were viewed in somewhat of an eschatological way.44 The eschatological temple which God was to build on ‫יום‬ ‫הבריה‬, particularly as discussed in 11Q19 XXIX 8b-9. The Second Temple that followed the Solomonic temple. This was the current temple in Jerusalem which the temple plan of the Temple Scroll opposed. The Herodian temple alluded to in 11Q19 LVII-LIX. The community as temple-like, particularly based on the spiritualised use of the text by the community.

Concerning the last temple reference, the community as templelike was indirectly alluded to by the way the Qumran-related community read, studied, and transmitted the Temple Scroll (as polemic in an idealised and eschatological way). Taking into consideration the rift that developed between the entire DSS movement and Jerusalem’s temple establishment, and the cultic reasons for this rift, the recognition and use of the scroll’s content

43 44

Refer to note 21 above. See discussion below.

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

211

suggests that the community in some way spiritualised it.45 This spiritualised view and use of the scroll, as seen in light of later sectarian writings, suggests that the community viewed itself as sanctuary-like where its lifestyle and practices served as an interim substitute for the current illegitimate temple and cult during its separation from the Jerusalem temple worship.46 The Interpretation of 11Q19 XXIX 8b-10

Crucial to determining not only the number of temples alluded to in the Temple Scroll, but also the overall cultic understanding in the Temple Scroll, is 11Q19 XXIX 8b-10: ‫ואקדשה ]את מ[קדשי בכבודי אשר אשכין עליו את כבודי עד‬ ‫יום הבריה אשר אברא אני את מקדשי להכינו לי כול הימים‬ 47

‫כברית אשר כרתי עם יעקוב בבית אל‬

Moreover, as illustrated elsewhere, the overall understanding of the view of the temples here has been based on the interpretation of the time periods when the temples were to be inaugurated. With regard to the number of temples alluded to, in the above passage God is described as sanctifying of his temple ‫עד יום‬ ‫ הבריה‬when he creates his temple. Many have suggested that ‫עד‬ ‫ יום הבריה‬bridges the distinction between the idealised temple and the eschatological temple. Yadin suggested that the first part of this passage,‫ואקדשה ]את מ[קדשי בכבודי אשר אשכין עליו את כבודי‬, was to be understood as an earthly man-made temple which God commanded to be constructed in the promised land.48 For Yadin, this was the interim temple, which was to stand until the day of

Refer to this book’s Introduction, which highlights the historical factors that led to the rise of the DSS movement and later offshoot group. Also see some discussion of this in the chapter on the Damascus Document. 46 Refer to this discussion in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. Particularly see 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6-7. Also see Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 289, whose description of ‫מקדש אדם‬, which suggests that this temple is made up of men (the community) which anticipates the final sanctuary, is to be adopted. 47 This passage is found preserved in 11Q19. 48 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.182 and Hidden Law, 113. 45

212

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

creation (or blessing49) when God would replace it with his temple according to the covenant he made with Jacob at Bethel. With regard to Yadin’s understanding of the last part of this passage, he misconstrues the meaning of the covenant of Jacob.50 Yadin refers to Jubilees 1:7, which states that God promised to build his sanctuary among his people, and 31-32, which describes God as warning Jacob not to build a temple at Bethel.51 However, these two passages do not fully accord with column XXIX 10.52 In contrast to Yadin, Wise astutely describes this covenant as a patriarchal covenant given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which the Temple Scroll reaffirms.53 The Meaning of ‫ עד‬with Regard to the Number of Temples

Yadin eventually asserts a two-temple theory based on the interpretation of the term ‫ עד‬in the above passage. If Yadin’s two-temple theory is correct, then Wise’s assertion, which describes both temples as eschatological, seems appropriate.54 Wise describes these temples as serving a two-stage eschaton function55 with the first stage consisting of the idealised Temple, constructed at the end of days (or being a temple for the end of days), and the second stage consisting of a temple created by God, which replaces the former temple at the day of creation. Although Yadin states otherwise, his position also implies a two-stage eschaton function of

Wacholder asserts this meaning based on his view of Qimron’s postulation, and his reading of certain photographs. See Wacholder, Dawn, 238 note 127. 50 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.184 and 2.125. Also see Yadin, Hidden Law, 113-5. 51 See Yadin, Hidden Law, 114-5. 52 Cf. Wacholder, Dawn, 28, who is correct in noting that the name Jacob synonymously represents ‫בני ישראל‬. This view would support Yadin’s assertion. 53 See this discussion in Michael O. Wise, “The Covenant of the Temple Scroll XXIX, 3-10,” RevQ 14 (1989-1990): 54-9. 54 See Wise, “Covenant,” note 37 and “4QFlorilegium,” 113. 55 This idea was common during the Second Temple period. 49

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

213

the temples.56 In spite of Wise’s two-stage eschaton theory, he is uncertain about the eschatological nature of cultic regulations. He thinks that the sacrificial cult ceased at the day of creation.57 Moreover, regarding the idealised temple of the Temple Scroll, Wise views this temple as synonymous with the ‫ מקדש אדם‬of 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6.58 Yadin and Wise’s assertions concerning a two-temple theory asserts a straightforward meaning for the term ‫עד‬, as “until,” in column XXIX 9. This conveys the idea that two temples are directly inferred, the idealised temple and the temple that God will create ‫ ביום הבריה‬. Against this view, Wacholder has contended that a contradiction exists regarding this two-temple theory. Based on his interpretation of 11Q19 XXIX 7-10, Wacholder contended that the notion that the glory of God will dwell forever on a temple that will only be replaced later is contradictory. Wacholder extends the motif of eternity, conveyed in line 7, as influencing his interpretation of ‫ עד‬as ‘during’ or ‘when.’ Based on this, Wacholder thus renders 11QT XXIX 7-10 as: I shall dwell with them forever and shall sanctify My sanctuary with My glory when I make My glory dwell upon it during the day of blessing when I shall create My sanctuary to establish it for Myself for all time, in accordance with the covenant which I made with Jacob at Bethel.59

Wentling, who is similarly followed by Kampen,60 too, rendered ‫ עד‬as ‘during.’ Like Wacholder, she, too, viewed the Temple Scroll Yadin views the community as being instructed by God to construct the idealised temple in the future. However, Yadin views this future time as pre-eschatological. See Yadin’s above contentions. 57 See Wise, “4QFlorilegium,” 116. 58 This view has been rightly rejected by George J. Brooke, who understands ‫ מקדש אדם‬as referring to the temple-community. Refer to note 46 above and Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 289. Also see the chapter on 4QFlorilegium for a fuller discussion of this subject. 59 Wacholder, Dawn, 22. Also see 23-4. 60 John Kampen attempts to revise Wacholder’s one-temple thesis. He, however, offers no new supporting evidence. See John Kampen, “The Eschatological Temple(s) of 11QT,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. John 56

214

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

as describing one temple. However, unlike Wacholder, who viewed the temple plan of the Temple Scroll as the eschatological temple, Wentling viewed this temple as referring to the community. Maintaining that the Temple Scroll was dependent on biblical citation, Wentling conjectured that 11QT XXIX 8b-9a (“and I shall concentrate my miqdash by my glory, for I shall dwell upon it (him) with my glory until (during) the day of blessing”)61 was dependant on Ezekiel 37:38 (“I, Yahweh, am consecrating Israel when my miqdash is in their midst”).62 On the basis of this, she suggested: If the author of 11QT is dependant upon Ezekiel 37 at this point, the substitution of ‘my miqdash’ for ‘Israel’ may point to significant redactional activity on the part of the author and a further clue to the self-understanding of the Qumran community.63

Wentling64 viewed this dependency as supporting the ideology of the community as a spiritual temple, which supports the view of others.65 The assertion of a one-temple theory in the Temple Scroll, however, is unconvincing. It is unconvincing primarily because it opposes the overall ideology of the Qumran-related community. Two temples in the Temple Scroll cohere with the overall ideology of the community’s anticipation of the eschatological temple which is also inferred in most of the sectarian texts. Such texts

C. Reeves and John Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 85-97. 61 Wentling’s translation. See Wentling, “Unravelling,” 68. 62 See note 61. 63 See Wentling, “Unravelling,” 68. 64 See Wentling, “Unravelling,” 71-2. 65 The first two scholars to elaborate on the view of the temple as community (before the publication of the Temple Scroll) were Gärtner, The Temple, 1-46 and J. Baumgarten, “Exclusion,” 82-4. Subsequently this view has been upheld and further developed by Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 285-301. For discussion on this idea, refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium.

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

215

include D, MMT, the Rule of the Community, and 4Q174 with which this book deals. c. The Number of Temples as they Allude to Various Periods

Although Yadin rightly distinguishes between two different periods, the day of Belial or period of wickedness (which according to him was the time the scrolls were written), and the day of blessing (‫)יום הבריה‬, he untenably contends that the latter, ‫יום הבריה‬, signifies or is synonymous with the end of days ‫אחרית הימים‬.66 On the basis of this reading, Yadin describes the temple that God will create in 11Q19 XXIX 9 as the eschatological temple of the end of days. Yadin advances his earlier reading of 4Q174 1 i 21 2:2-4, particularly about the phrase ‫מקדש יהוה‬.67 In view of the Temple Scroll, he reads this phrase, which he views as further explicated by the phrase ‫ מקדש אדם‬in line 6a (noted as the house which God will establish for him ‫)באחרית הימים‬, as both concurring and expounding 11Q19 XXIX 9. Yadin, like many before him,68 thus viewed ‫ מקדש אדם‬as an eschatological material temple. Yadin alludes to the time of Belial (the period of wickedness) as the time when the community was an interim temple which offered spiritualised sacrifice. Following Flusser’s contention (mentioned above), Yadin suggested that the community supposedly viewed the temple (and its worship) which God will create as replacing the temple and sacrifice of the period of wickedness, particularly in light of 1QM after the final battle:69

See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.177 and 83. Dimant also takes this position. See Dimant, “4QFlorilegium,” 173. 67 See Yadin “A Midrash,” 95-6. 68 In particular, see the views put forth by McKelvey, The New Temple, 51; Klinzing, Die Umdeutung, 82-3; McNicol, “Eschatological Temple,” 139 and Flusser, “Two Notes,” 99-109. Also see this discussion in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 69 Flusser and McNicol arrived at this idea before the publication of the Temple Scroll. Yadin adopts this view because of the Temple Scroll. See Flusser’s and McNicol’s discussion in chapter one (particularly in section B.4. entitled, “The View of the Community as Sanctuary in the Initial Debate about Sacrifice”). 66

216

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION We must distinguish between the sect’s concept of the “days of Belial” and its views on the time to come. The scrolls were written at a time when the sect, abstaining from the Temple worship, had developed an alternate way of life and worship, in lieu of the Temple ritual, until the End of Days.70

Based on Yadin’s discussion, he implies that the idealised temple described throughout the scroll is synonymous with the community as temple.71 Unlike the arguments of earlier scholars concerning the view of preserved sacrificial regulations,72 Yadin is silent on this issue. He, however, described references to spiritualised sacrifice (which he calls negative attitudes toward sacrificing) as dating back to a time (the day of Belial) when the sect was not able to participate in sacrifice in Jerusalem.73 The fundamental flaw with Yadin’s arguments is that he fails fully to understand the meaning of ‫אחרית הימים‬, which thus caused him to misconstrue the overall historical and ideological development of the larger DSS movement and later Qumran-related community. In failing to understand these groups, he thus misinterprets the overall development and meaning of the sectarian texts and their literary structure. Brooke contended that the meaning of ‫ אחרית הימים‬conveyed the meaning of the time before the end. He suggested that this term incorporates both the historical present and eschatological future.74 On the basis of this, ‫אחרית הימים‬ and ‫ יום הבריה‬are two distinct times, slightly overlapping with one another. Based on the distinct meaning of these two phrases, the ‫ מקדש אדם‬of 4Q174 is a different temple from the temples of the Temple Scroll.

Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.186. Also see page 1.402. See note 48 above. Also see the discussion here, where reference is made concerning this note. 72 Cf., J Baumgarten’s seminal study, “Sacrifice and Worship,” 141-59. Also see the views of John Allegro, John Strugnell, Frank M. Cross, Solomon Steckoll, Louis Feldman, and Lloyd Gaston in chapter one. 73 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.186. 74 See Brooke, Exegesis, 175-8. Also refer to this discussion in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 70 71

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

217

Yadin’s above assertions fail to understand the overall cultic ideology of the community as well as misses the point that in both the Temple Scroll and 4Q174, the later Qumran-related community viewed itself as a proleptic last days (eschatological) templecommunity which anticipates the eschatological temple referred to in 11Q19 XXIX 9.75

F. THE TEMPLE SCROLL’S CULTIC MATERIAL AS PROTEST

Cultic regulations and the temple plan as described in the Temple Scroll (different from the Solomonic, Second, and Herodian temples) was understood as a type of protest by the community against the current priestly leadership, temple, and cult at Jerusalem.76 Milgrom described the Temple Scroll’s expanded cultic laws as protest (by the community) against the Wicked Priest who may have arrogated certain Leviticus privileges (i.e. believing the he was entitled to certain privileges).77 This idea corresponds with and reinforces what 1QpHab VIII 8-13,78 16 and CD 4:15-1879 put forth, which stresses a polemic against the current priestly leadership. This idea of protest also sheds light on the covenant in CD

For a full discussion on this idea, refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. This idea harmonises the ideology of the Temple Scroll with 1QpHab and CD (as polemic against the current priestly leadership). 77 Here, Milgrom is talking about the Levites’ elevated status of being able to perform priestly cultic duties. This idea was influenced by the book of Jubilees. For discussion of this idea, refer to the chapter on the Jubilees. Also see Jacob Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978): 503-4. Also cf., Jacob Milgrom, “Further Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JQR 71 (1980): 98, where Milgrom notes the Temple Scroll as describing a further reason as to why the community was antagonistic toward the temple establishment. 78 This passage reads: “Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest who was called loyal at the start of his office. However, when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, he deserted God and betrayed the laws for the sake of riches. And he robbed and hoarded wealth from the violent men who had rebelled against God. And he seized public money, incurring additional serious sin. And he performed repulsive acts by every type of defiling impurity.” 79 This passage describes the three nets of Belial that ensnared Israel, the third being the defilement of the temple. 75 76

218

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

6:11-14, which formed to avoid contact with the desecrated practises of Jerusalem’s temple cult.80 The Temple Scroll depicts how the community thought the temple was to be constructed, and also how cultic regulations were to be observed by all Jerusalem. This protest idea thus led to an eschatological anticipation by the community for the future construction of the scroll’s temple, as well as the anticipation of the temple which God was to construct. Simultaneously, while the community waited in anticipation, it viewed itself as an interim temple-like community. Adopting Wise’s terminology, the idealised temple discussed throughout the scroll, and the temple in which God, himself, was to build (according to 11Q19 XXIX 9) both were viewed in an eschatological way by the community. Both temples likely were viewed as functioning during a two-stage eschaton period.81

G. THE U SE OF THE TEMPLE SCROLL AT QUMRAN: ITS STUDY AND PRACTICE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR S ACRIFICE

Like the Damascus Document, the presence of the Temple Scroll at Qumran suggests that the community held its cultic mandates, purity regulation, and detailed temple construction in high regard. As similarly asserted by Schiffman,82 the scroll’s content was studied during this time in anticipation of a future restoration. This restoration envisioned the actual setting up of an elaborate temple complex and extended cultic regulations. Until this time, hope in this eschatological restoration and study of the scrolls injunctions served to prepare for this new day. This hope and study served as an interim substitute for actual sacrificial worship, wherein the community became sanctuary-like. As the community developed, and ultimately settled at Qumran, this spiritualised ideology became increasingly predominant. The idea that

For discussion of the CD passages, refer to the chapter on the Damascus Document. 81 For a full discussion of the eschatological temples, and the two-stage eschaton function of these temples, refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 82 See Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 274-6. 80

CHAPTER SIX. SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL

219

study was viewed as a substitute for sacrifice also coheres with Yonge’s reading of Philo, in Prob. 75, discussed in chapter two. Extensive cultic regulations found in the Temple Scroll, as well as in other texts found at Qumran, like D, 4QMMT, Jubilees,83 1Q22, the Qumran works on Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and several liturgical texts also found (whose worship content coincides with the cultic festivals and regulations found in the above texts),84 demonstrates that the study and spiritualization of cultic matters was very important to the members of the developing Qumranrelated community. The new Qumran community used these texts (found in the Qumran area and copied via Qumran’s scriptorium) in a spiritualised way. Other texts that stressed the importance of study include the following: • • •

1Q28a I 6-9, which describes the importance of being educated and instructed (studied) in the book of Hagu.85 1QS VI 1-8, stressing the importance of studying the Torah and its legislation day and night, continually. 11QPsalmsa and 11Q5 18, which cites a prayer of salvation to God, for those who do not study.

The importance placed on study clearly suggests that this practice was one way in which the new Qumran community substituted for the sacrificial cult. Based on the content in the above texts, and in view of the cultic nature of the Qumran site (which shows that the inhabitants adopted a more spiritualised approach to sacrificial worship), the community observed certain festival and holy days not only by studying them in anticipation of their restoration, but by offering prayer and praise liturgy in place of actual animal For discussion on these works, refer to the respective chapters in this book. 84 For discussion on the liturgical text, refer to the various textual chapters in this book. 85 Yadin postulates the book of Hagu as possibly being a reference to the Temple Scroll. He conjectures that the scroll bears canonical status at Qumran. Yadin thus asserts that the Temple Scroll, perhaps being synonymous with the book of Hagu, is mentioned in CD, 1QS and 1QSa. See Yadin, Hidden Law, 225-6. 83

220

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

sacrifices according to the 364-day cultic calendar. This spiritualised ideology is demonstrated throughout this study, particularly in the chapters on the Rule of the Community, 4QFlorilegium, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.

H. SUMMARY

The tone of the Temple Scroll has determined how sacrificial regulations and the description of the temple plan was to be read. The Temple Scroll’s explicit description of two temples, one ideological and another eschatological, has also shed light on two implicit temples, the interim temple which was to function in anticipation of the eschatological one, and the temple of Jerusalem which, because it was viewed as defiled, resulted in the idealisation of the temple (plan) which should have been constructed in its place. In consideration of the ideological and eschatological tone of the Temple Scroll, despite its content correlating with the cultic views of the larger DSS movement, these views were practiced and read in more of a spiritualised way by the Qumran-related community. As the community developed, its spiritualised views became more predominant. As will be discussed in ensuing chapters (particularly the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium), the predominantly spiritualised view is attested in the community’s descriptions and view of itself as a sanctuary-like community which made spiritualised sacrifices.

CHAPTER SEVEN. THE VIEW OF SACRIFICE IN MMT A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

MMT, from Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (“Some Works of the Laws”),1 also referred to as the Halakhic Letter,2 was composed sometime after the Temple Scroll. Like the Temple Scroll, it, too, describes sacrificial and purity related matters as polemic in an idealised and eschatological way. However, unlike the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, MMT is not a composition of the larger DSS movement.3 As the Qumran-related community developed, its ideology developed, becoming more distinct from the larger DSS movement. The community viewed its ideology as being more in agreement with God’s regulations than was the larger movement’s. This is illustrated in MMT. Like the Damascus Document, MMT reflects the tensions that existed within the movement. MMT, however, elaborates more on this matter. At the same time, MMT also notes The title of this document comes from the text itself; see Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell’s composite version, section C column 27 (or 4Q398 Frag. 14-17 ii 3), in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). 2 This is Lawrence Schiffman’s classification. See his, “Origin,” 37-48, and Reclaiming, 84-89. Cf. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1984 (ed. Janet Amitai; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 400-7 and “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran,” IMJ 4 (1985): 9-12. 3 Refer to discussion below. 1

221

222

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the particulars that led to the separation of the entire movement (especially from the vantage point of the Qumran-related community) from Jerusalem’s temple authority and cult. Despite the contention of some scholars,4 the accounts described in MMT reflect the ideology of the Qumran-related community, which although this community was part of the larger movement, ideologically differed from it.5 In MMT, the Qumranrelated community describes its sacrificial and purity related views as polemic against the current temple establishment in Jerusalem. At the same time, this community is trying to appeal to See especially Schiffman, “Origin,” 37-48 and Reclaiming, 84-88, who asserts the position that MMT was a polemical halakhic letter. Cf. Qimron and Strugnell, who rebuff their earlier classification of the document as being a personal letter. Rather, they took up the position that MMT was a polemical treatise or epistle which perhaps was composed by the Teacher of Righteousness who addressed it to the Wicked Priest; see this view in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 119-20. However, in the same work, (see Appendix 3 on page 204-5) Strugnell recants these ideas (MMT being a treatise, and its author being the Teacher of Righteousness). He contends that “the treatise is, at least in Hellenistic literature, a very ill-defined genre. . . So the suggestion, mentioned in the main part of this volume, that this was a treatise rather than a letter, should be withdrawn.” Also see John Strugnell “MMT: Second Thought on a Forthcoming Edition,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam; CAJS 10; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 62-3 and 70-1, where his rehearses these same reservations. Cf. George J. Brooke, “Luke-Acts and the Qumran Scrolls: The Case of MMT,” in Luke’s Literary Achievement (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; JSNTS 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 803, who classifies the document as an open circular. Schiffman, in note 2 above, imposes upon MMT parallel Mishnaic halakha, especially that which relates to the Sadducean-Pharisaic conflict. From this he assumes a Sadducean authorship of MMT. Schiffman contends that a Sadducean authorship of MMT depicts (under the second person pronoun-first person plural pronoun address) a natural polemic against the Pharisees, the current occupiers of the Temple establishment. This position subtlety reads into (as well as imposing upon) the earlier work (MMT) that of the later (the Mishna). 5 For discussion of the ideological differences between the DSS movement and the Qumran-related community, see the Introduction along with the chapter on the Damascus Document. 4

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

223

a fellow group or groups from the same movement, which were sympathetic to Jerusalem’s temple practices or less rigid in their observance to certain sacrificial and purity regulations. It is also probable that some of these regulations served as reminders to the “you” group(s), so that purity and holiness might be maintained. In consideration of MMT’s genre, tone, and content (the overall author-recipient structure, discussed below), regulations are highlighted stressing a three three-fold tension. Based on MMT’s three-fold tension,6 this chapter examines the view of sacrificial and purity related matters in MMT. This chapter analyses these cultic matters with the intent of probing how they may have been read and interpreted by the Qumranrelated group throughout its development. Along with examining cultic matters, this chapter also investigate the genre and tone of MMT with the intent of clearly determining the document’s author-community and recipient(s). Throughout this chapter, MMT’s cultic matter is examined alongside certain sectarian texts and rabbinic sources.7 Concerning the former, MMT is examined alongside the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll in particular. These two works explicitly describe the cultic ideology of the larger DSS movement throughout its development.8 The aim of reviewing the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll is to determine the character and view of the author-community behind MMT’s sacrificial and purity regulations in relation to the larger movement. Here,

See section C.2, “The Tone of MMT: Determining the Document’s Initial Literary Genre,” below. 7 Although rabbinic sources postdate MMT and the Qumran scrolls in general, seeming comparisons can be made concerning the views of the opponents of MMT’s principal community. This similarity is noteworthy especially if we are to understand the document’s third party (the “they” group) as the predecessors of the oral rabbinic tradition. 8 See the chapters on the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll. With regard to the latter work (the Temple Scroll), refer to section A, “Purpose of this Chapter.” Here, the sacrificial and purity related matters reflect the larger DSS movement, even though they were presented (redactionally) and read by the Qumran-related community in more of a spiritualised way. 6

224

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

similarities and discrepancies will be pointed out.9 At the same time, MMT’s cultic views are examined alongside rabbinic halakha.10 This is done to gain insight concerning the cultic views of MMT’s opponents, as well as illustrate some of the key reasons why MMT’s principal community separated from Jerusalem’s temple establishment and cult.11

B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS

Initially called 4QMishn,12 this document was discovered, identified, materially reconstructed, and partially made into a unified text between 1953 and 1959. Later, after 1981, the work became known as 4QMMT. The document comes from cave 4 and is extant in six fragmentary manuscripts. Each manuscript partly overlaps with one another. The six fragmentary manuscripts are known as 4Q394-4Q399 and date palaeographically from circa 75 B.C.E. (the oldest MS) to circa 50 C.E. The number of extant manuscripts that have been preserved at Qumran attests the importance of MMT to the Qumran-related community. The primary editors of MMT, John Strugnell and Elisha Qimron,13 estimate that about two-thirds of the composition’s original text is found preserved in these extant fragments. MMT preserves about 130 lines from the middle and end of the work,14 which describe some twenty laws mostly concerning sacrifice, priestly gifts, and ritual purity. This investigation into the larger movement does not include the Qumran-related community, which viewed both the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll in more of a spiritualised way, particularly during the latter stages of its development. For further discussion of this matter, see the respective chapters in this book concerning the above texts. 10 See note 7 above. 11 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 1, who interpret the author of MMT as describing these cultic matters as that which caused the sect to secede. Also see Lawrence Schiffman, “Origin,” 37. 12 Jósef. T. Milik was to first make this identification; seen his, “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits du Désert de Juda,” in Volume du Congrès; Strasbourg 1956 (VTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1957), 24. 13 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 1. 14 The beginning of this work is completely lost. 9

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

225

Qimron and Strugnell have combined all six manuscripts into a composite text, which is divided into three parts according to their contents:15 part A16 deals with the exposition of a 364-day solar calendar; part B mainly deals with cultic legal issues; part C is the hortatory address of one particular group trying to persuade its addressee(s) to reconsider their cultic legal views, especially on the basis of the author’s writings (the halakhic descriptions illustrated in part B) and actions (their separating themselves). This chapter refers to the composite text, and mainly focus on sections B and C.

C. A BRIEF A NALYSIS OF MMT’S STRUCTURE AND FORM 1. Introduction

Scholarship has had difficulty in determining the genre of MMT. Since the time of its official publication,17 it has been classified as a polemical document (a letter,18 or a treatise or epistle),19 a list of legal rules,20 an open circular,21 and even a pseudo-letter.22 Qimron and Strugnell’s composite text assumes that the document is correctly ordered, which may not be the case. This study, though, makes no attempt to offer an alternative ordering. 16 The first two fragments of 4Q394 (A 19-21) have later been identified as a separate work from this text. A 19-21 have in fact been identified as part of the 4QCalendrical Documents (4QCalendrical Document Eb or 4Q327 in particular). See James C. VanderKam “The Calendar, 4Q327 and 4Q394,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995. Published in Houour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 17994. 17 The official publication is Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), xiv-235, 8 plates. 18 See note 2 above. 19 Refer to Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe HaTorah, 113-21. 20 See Strugnell, “Second Thoughts,” 63. 21 See Brooke, “Luke-Acts,” 80-3. 22 See Steven D. Fraade, “To Whom it May Concern: 4QMMT and its Addressee(s),” RevQ 19 (2000): 524-6. 15

226

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

First, it is necessary to determine the tone of MMT. Scholarship has classified the initial status of this document as either a polemic to an external adversary or as an internal pedagogical resource composed for the community’s study purposes. Second, the precise genre of MMT (as a letter, a treatise, an epistle, a list, or a pseudo-letter) needs to be determined. Establishing the tone of the document is key to determining its literary genre. Throughout the development of the Qumran-related community, the way MMT was read and interpreted most likely changed. MMT seems to have been composed initially as an epistle, which was addressed to an internal opponent: a group or groups who also belong to the larger DSS movement but who’s sacrificial and purity related ideology was closer to either the current temple establishment in Jerusalem or less rigid in its observance.23 Later, after the Qumran-related community settled at Qumran, MMT took on a different status, similar to an internal pedagogical resource. At this stage, the document was viewed more as an open circular treatise, as well as being viewed in an ideological and eschatological way. At this latter stage, MMT also was studied as a substitute for actual sacrifice.24 2. The Tone of MMT: Determining the Document’s Initial Literary Genre

Qimron and Strugnell debated over the literary genre of MMT. First, they described it as a polemical letter.25 Later, they determined it was a treatise or an epistle.26 However, in the same work, Strugnell distanced himself even from this idea: Rather than a letter, Sections B and C could instead be a treatise. However, the treatise is, at least in Hellenistic literature, a very ill-defined genre, and such a distribution of the As described above, MMT’s regulations could have served as a reminder to the “you” group(s). This is evident where the Damascus Document or the Temple Scroll coheres with MMT’s regulation. 24 See below where this is discussed. 25 See Qimron and Strugnell, “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran,” in Biblical Archaeology Today, 400-7 and “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran,” IMJ 4, 9-12. 26 Refer to note 19 above. 23

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

227

personal pronouns could be expected in many other literary contexts too. So the suggestion, mentioned in the main part of this volume, that this was a treatise rather than a letter, should be withdrawn.27

Strugnell further retreated from the idea, which Qimron maintained, of MMT being classified as an epistle.28 Based on the first three lines of section B, which Strugnell described as a free-standing introduction to a collection of laws, he described sections B and C as a collection of laws modelled after Deuteronomy.29 Strugnell’s assertion, that MMT is a list of laws, disregards one crucial thing about MMT, namely that the material is recorded as discourse. The rhetoric of MMT suggests a two-sided correspondence stated in a conciliatory way. This cordial language is expressed using the personal pronouns (mostly plural), which clearly gives the sense that this document was to be read by an intended second party. The shift from the first-person plural pronoun (we) to the second person plural and singular pronoun (you) illustrates this sense. The text describes the concerns of a “we” party to a “you” party about certain sacrificial and purity matters which a “they” group fails to observe. It is likely that the “we” party represented the Qumran-related community, whereas the “you” party reflected the other group(s) from the larger DSS movement of which the “we” party also was a part. The “they” party likely represented the temple authority in Jerusalem.30 MMT’s discourse between the “we” and “you” groups mentions the actions of a third party (the “they” group) in addressing its concerns. This style of rhetoric is different from legal listings

See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 204. Cf. Strugnell, “Second Thoughts,” 63, where he stresses similar reservations. 28 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 205, and Strugnell, “Second Thoughts,” 67. 29 See Strugnell, “Second Thoughts,” 62-4 and 72. He contends that MMT was a legal proclamation sent to an accepted ruler. He postulates that this ruler was a high priest of Israel who later became known as the Wicked Priest. 30 It is plausible that this third party reflected the group to which the Wicked Priest belonged. 27

228

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

(as is asserted by Strugnell), which usually cover a host of general concerns mainly stated in impersonal language. The initial form of MMT, as an epistle, suggests that it was meant to be read by a specific group, the “you” group. As an epistle, MMT perhaps in some way was also an open circular (as proposed by Brooke),31 which was designed to be heard by a wider audience who identified themselves with the “you” group(s). MMT’s discourse style, however, should not be thought of as polemic between the author-sender and recipient(s), especially since the text does not indicate this.32 There is, however, an indirect polemic between the “we” group and the “they” group. This polemical tone, though, is secondary to the primary tone of the document. The “we” group refers to the “they” group as the ‫רוב העם‬, from which they (the “we” group) separated.33 As Qimron and Strugnell rightly suggest, “it would be unlikely that the writers of MMT would have used ‫ פרשנו מרוב העם‬to refer to the group which they were trying to win over.”34 This illustration clearly depicts the tension that existed between the “we” group and “they” group. It also indicates how the former group viewed and exhorted (un-polemically) the “you” group, which reflects the primary tone of the document. Despite maintaining that the document was polemical, Qimron and Strugnell aptly point out the document’s moderate tone and use of conciliatory epithets, unlike other Qumran texts:35 Finally, we should note that the tone of the polemic in MMT is moderate. The opponents are not called ‫ בני השחת‬or the like, See Brooke, “Luke-Acts,” 81. The tone of MMT is not the same as in other sectarian writings. Refer to 1QpHab 5:8-12; 11:2-8 and 1QS 9:16-17. The tone in these passages is explicitly polemical. 33 See MMT C 7. The separation of the entire movement (which included the Qumran-related community) was ideologically motivated. These ideological differences (highlighted in this chapter in particular) eventually led to a physical separation from the temple establishment in Jerusalem. The “they” group being referred to as ‫ פרשנו מרוב העם‬maintains this view. 34 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 115. 35 Other Qumran texts address their adversaries as ‫בני השחת‬. Refer to 1QpHab in particular. Also refer to note 33 above. 31 32

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

229

but ‫הם‬, and the addressee is treated with respect. It seems that at that time the sect still believed that at least the ‘you’ party, if not as opponents, could still be won over.36

This citation contradicts Qimron and Sturgnell’s assertion that the document was polemical. The “we-you” exchanges seem exhortative. As noted in the texts, the “we” group stressed the need to offer correction, encouragement, and persuasion: These are some of our regulations [. . .] the works which we [. . .]37 You shall not eat of . . .38 You shall [no]t bring an abomination in[to your house for] . . . [And you know that] we have segregated ourselves from the multitude of the peop[le . . .]39 And you k[now that there is not] to be found in our actions disloyalty or deceit or evil, for concerning [these things] we give [. . .] to you we have [written] that you must understand the book of Moses [and] the book[s of the pr]ophets and Davi[d . . .]40 And further it is written that [you shall stray] from the pa[t]h and evil will encounter [you]. And it is writ[ten: and it shall happen when a]ll [these] thing[s shall befall you at the en]d of days, the bles[sing and] the curse [then you shall take it to] your [heart] and will turn [to him with al]l your heart and with [al]l [your] soul at the end [of time].41 And also we have written to you some works of Torah which we think are good for you and your people for we s[a]w that you have intellect and knowledge of the Law. Reflect on these matters and seek from him that he may support your counsel Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 116. 4QMMT B 1-2 (following 4Q394 3-7 i 4-5). Cited passages are from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 2 (4Q274-11Q31) Leiden: Brill, 1998, unless otherwise stated. 38 4QMMT B 4-5 (following 4Q394 3-7 i 7-8). 39 4QMMT C 6-7 (following 4Q397 14-21 i 6-7). 40 4QMMT C 7-10 (following 4Q397 14-21i 7-10). 41 4QMMT C 12-14 (following 4Q397 14-21 i 12-14). 36 37

230

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION and keep far from you the evil scheming and the counsel of Belial, so that at the end of time, you may rejoice in finding that some of our words are true. And it shall be reckoned to you as justice when you do what is upright and good before him, for your good and that of Israel.42

The “we” group, in fact, expresses concern for the “you” group with regard to following the correct sacrificial and purity regulations.

D. MMT’S VIEW CONCERNING SACRIFICIAL AND PURITY RELATED M ATTERS 1. Introduction

In section B of the composite text, MMT, like the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, expresses a high regard for sacrificial and purity related matters. As briefly highlighted above, these cultic illustrations highlight several significant matters: •

•

Firstly, they help to divulge a three-fold tension regarding the identity and cultic ideology of the “we” group (which was the Qumran-related group), the “you” group (which was another group or groups from the same movement to which the “we” group belonged) and the “they” group (which reflected the temple establishment in Jerusalem to which also the Wicked Priest belonged); Secondly, the way which sacrificial and purity matters are listed, in the style of a two-sided address, suggests that this document was intended as an epistle to an internal yet separate fellow group (the “you” group). At the same time, MMT’s cultic matters provide insight concerning the worship ideology of the “we” group’s (the Qumran-related community’s) opponent (the “they”

4QMMT C 26-32 (following 4Q398 14-17 ii 2-8). Brooke somewhat follows this assertion. In noting the similarities between MMT and LukeActs, he describes MMT as a confirmatory instruction to its addressee(s): “(MMT) appear(s) to have been written to confirm, strengthen and assure the reader(s) that the position they have been taught or now hold is indeed the correct or appropriate one.” See Brooke, “Luke-Acts,” 82. 42

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

•

231

group). In this regard, MMT’s sacrificial and purity related descriptions show some of the contentious issues surrounding certain Jewish groups of the late Second Temple period; and Thirdly, MMT’s sacrificial and purity regulations further show some important reasons why MMT’s principal community (the Qumran-related community) separated from Jerusalem’s priestly establishment. Based on this latter point, along with certain linguistic evidence found in MMT’s manuscripts, it is plausible that the Qumran-related community composed this document during their early development.43

The difference in the language of MMT as opposed to the rest of the sectarian scrolls can be understood in several ways. Firstly, MMT reflects a document which bridges the texts that were composed by the larger DSS movement, and texts that were composed by the Qumran-related community. MMT happens to be one of the first texts that was composed by the Qumran-related community. Secondly, MMT reflects the vernacular of the time. Unlike the other sectarian texts, MMT is a correspondence, which is evident in its rhetoric. For discussion concerning the language of MMT, see Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 65-108; William Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 (1999): 235-52; “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 245-55; Emanuel Tov, “The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls found at Qumran and the Origin of these Scrolls,” Textus 13 (1986): 3157; Shelomo Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 38 (1988): 148-63; Joshua Blau, “A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 20-25; Avi Hurvitz, “Was QH a ‘Spoken’ Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 110-14; Jan Joosten, “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period Qumran and the Septuagint,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John 43

232

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

MMT outlines what it deems to be important cultic regulations. As described below, these regulations were initially disclosed to MMT’s recipients (the “you” group and possibly those who identified with them),44 with the intent that they (the recipients) might fully understand and adhere to certain regulations.45 MMT mainly is concerned with the correct guidelines for maintaining cultic purity and holiness not only for the people of Israel, but also for the priests, the temple, and the land of Israel as well as all Jerusalem. MMT also is concerned with the correct observance of sacrificial regulations. Correctly observing these regulations was associated with maintaining holiness and purity. Regarding the geographic locale concerning the observance of certain cultic regulations, MMT’s principal community (the Qumran-related community) held a different view from its opponents (the “they” group), while at the same time exhorting the “you” group (another fellow group or groups from the same scrolls movement to which the principal community belonged) to maintain and observe the sanctity of Jerusalem and the land of Israel. Based on t. Kelim 1:12, the “they” group understood the temple as one of the camps (out of three) in Jerusalem. The temple

Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 115-30; Menahem Kister, “Some Observation on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 137-65; Elisha Qimron, “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 232-44; Also see Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSM 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) and Martin Abegg, “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. Peter Flint and James C. VanderKam; vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 325-57, particularly concerning an overview of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 44 For the discussion concerning MMT’s possible recipients, see below. 45 This is the implication in 4QMMT C 10, 26 and especially 31. ‫ כתבנו‬is the term which introduces the stated intent of this document.

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

233

was considered the camp of God.46 This camp conceivably was viewed by the “they” group as the central place mainly where purity laws were observed. MMT, however, took a different view: And we think that the temple [is the place of the tent of meeting, and Je]rusale[m] is the camp; and out[side] the camp [is outside of Jerusalem;]; it is the camp of their cities.47

Jerusalem was further designated as the most important and sacred camp among Israel, which God had chosen: Jerusalem is the holy camp, it is the place which he has chosen from among all the tribes of [Israel, since] Jerusalem is the head of the ca[mps of Israel . . .]48

The extension of the temple and the camp here (also alluded to in the Temple Scroll, which reflects the ideology of the “you” group or groups), in contrast to the view of the “they” group, suggests that the location where certain cultic regulations were to be observed needed to be re-evaluated. In MMT, the principal community may have viewed the locale of where their opponents’ regulations were observed as being in error. According to MMT, regulations that were to be practiced outside the camp were to be practiced outside Jerusalem, whereas the opponents, understanding outside the camp to be outside the Temple only, may have practiced these same regulations inside Jerusalem. This probably was the case concerning: • •

•

The prohibition of bringing the wheat of the Gentiles into the sanctuary (B 3-5).49 Slaughtering animals outside the temple and the prohibition of bringing and using their bones and hides in Jerusalem (B 18-23). The overall place where slaughtering animals was to take place (B 20-35).

As opposed to the temple mount (which was the camp of the Levites) and the rest of Jerusalem (which was the camp of the Israelites). 47 4QMMT B 31-33. 48 4QMMT B 60-62. 49 The inclusion of this passage assumes that Qimron and Strugnell’s partial reconstruction is correct. 46

234

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION •

• • •

The regulations concerning admission into the assembly and possibly the temple for the Ammonite, the Moabite, the bastard, and the one with mutilated genitalia (B 3949). The restriction of the blind and deaf from entering the temple area (B 49-54). The prohibition of dogs from entering Jerusalem (B 5862). The prohibition of lepers from entering the holy place (B 64-72).50

According to MMT, the “they” group failed to observe the aforementioned regulations properly, thus incurring impurity among themselves (wrongly viewing themselves as the established priesthood), the temple, the people, and throughout Jerusalem. This defilement caused the DSS movement, which included both the “you” and “we” groups, to separate from Jerusalem’s temple establishment, and in the case of the “we” group (the Qumran-related community), to eventually to leave Jerusalem altogether and to re-settle at Qumran. Regarding the priests, 4QMMT B 10-17, 26-27, 62-64 and 79-82 shows that there is an interest in priestly regulations, practises, and gifts, most of which are concerned with assuring that both they (the priests) and the people of Israel remain pure. MMT expresses concern to the “you” group for observing sacrificial and purity regulations correctly, something which the “they” group fails to observe. This is illustrated from the following passages: • • •

•

4QMMT B 3-5 (already mentioned above). 4QMMT B 9-13 (which describes the modus operandi for the consumption of the cereal offering). 4QMMT B 13-17 (which outlines the correct purity regulations for those dealing with the preparation of the heifer of the sin-offering ceremony). 4QMMT B 18-23 (already noted above).

See Qimron’s discussion of the leper in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 166-70. Also see Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The ‘Halakha’ in Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah,” JAOS 116 (1996): 515. 50

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT • • • • • • • • • •

235

4QMMT B 27-35 (already noted above). 4QMMT B 36-38 (which describes the ruling for sacrificing a pregnant animal). 4QMMT B 39-49 (already noted above). 4QMMT B 49-54 (which describes the purity status of the blind and deaf). 4QMMT B 55-58 (which describes the purity status of unbroken streams of liquid). 4QMMT B 58-62 (already noted above). 4QMMT B 62-64 (already noted above). 4QMMT B 64-72 (already noted above). 4QMMT B 73-74 (which describes the unclean state of a corpse). 4QMMT B 75-82 (which describes the prohibitions of diverse kinds including priestly marriage).

2. Description of MMT’s Cultic Content a. B 3-5 and 8-9

Based on Qimron’s reconstruction of MMT B 3-5, the wheat of the gentiles should not be eaten or brought into the temple.51 However, due to the fragmentary state of this text, it is not known why the reader should not consume this grain nor allow it to be brought into the sanctuary. Insight concerning this matter is found in both rabbinic sources and the Damascus Document. In view of the rabbinic source, t. Makširim 3:3-4,52 it may be that MMT considered the wheat of the gentiles impure because of how it was prepared. The millstones used for grinding the grain as well as the water used for preparing the wheat may have been viewed

See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 46-7. Also refer to note 49 above. 52 “Joshua b. Peraḥiah says ‘Wheat which comes from Alexandria is susceptible to uncleanness because of their irrigation-wheel.’ Said sages, ‘if so, let it be susceptible to uncleanness to Joshua b. Peraḥiah and insusceptible to uncleanness to all Israel.’” See Jacob Neusner’s translation in The Tosefta: Sixth Division, Tohorot, The Order of Purities (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1977), 310. 51

236

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

as impure.53 MMT’s opponents (the “they” group) may have willingly permitted grain prepared in this way to be brought into the sanctuary.54 At the same time, especially on the basis of the Damascus Document discussed below, this regulation may have served as a reminder and exhortation to the recipients of MMT (the “you” group or groups) to maintain purity in the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and among the people. In MMT B 8-9, there is a similar concern as that described in the above regulation (B 3-5), especially concerning the sacrifice offered by the gentiles. Due to the fragmentary condition of this passage, it is not clear why this sacrifice is stated. However, m. Zebah 4:5 sheds some light. This tannaitic source suggests that offerings made by gentiles were acceptable in the temple. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that no one should be held liable to the transgression of the law regarding its offering or slaughter. This is the opposite view of both MMT B 8-9 and the Damascus Document. Concerning the former, the latter part of this passage stresses that gentile sacrifice somehow was likened to a woman who whored. Further insight into this passage is found in the Damascus Document. CD 12:9-10 instructs its reader not to sell clean animals or birds to the gentiles, lest they sacrifice them.55 In view of CD and the tannaitic source, it is probable that MMT’s opponents accepted the sacrifice of the gentiles, which came from inappropriate animals. MMT’s principal community viewed the acceptance of the sacrifice of the gentiles in the sanctuary as defiling. Moreover, in view of CD (cohering with B 8-9), MMT’s regulation also served as a reminder and exhortation to the “you” group so that they might maintain purity. Regarding gentile defilement in general, the Damascus Document correlates with both MMT B 3-5 and B 8-9. In the Damascus On this point see Qimron in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 148 note 77, who aptly refers to Aaron Aescoly’s view, which describes the Falasha as rejecting the bread and flour of the gentiles for fear of impurity being caused by the liquids and gentile millstones used in its preparation. Cf. Tobit 1:10-12 and Daniel 1:8. 54 Also see m. Terumot 3:9 and t. Terumot 4:12, which validates the gentile’s offerings. 55 Also cf. 4Q266 8 ii 1-3. 53

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

237

Document, certain regulations regarding gentile defilement (in general) are outlined. CD 12:6-11 prohibits the reader from shedding gentile blood. CD 12:9-10 instructs the reader not to sell clean animals or birds to the gentile, lest he sacrifice it. 4Q266 5 ii 5-6 refers to the impurity of a priest taken captive by a gentile,56 and 4Q269 8 ii 1-3 prohibits gentile sacrifice. These passages correspond with MMT’s view concerning gentile defilement. Based on these descriptions, both MMT and the Damascus Document were concerned with trying to prevent impurity caused by gentile acts. b. B 5-8

MMT B 5-8 opposes both rabbinic halakha and sectarian writing. This regulation describes the cooking of a purification offering in a bronze or copper vessel. B 5-8 alludes to Leviticus 6:17-22,57 which states that a bronze vessel must be scoured and rinsed with water after a sin offering has been cooked. Due to the fragmentary nature of this passage, the context in which this regulation appears is not known. M. Zebah 11:7-8, however, sheds some light concerning this matter. This tannaitic source makes a distinction between several types of offerings that can be cooked in a vessel (Less Holy Things, Most Holy Things, Hallowed Things, and un-consecrated things). M. Zebah stresses that a vessel can be reused without washing (scoured and rinsed) throughout a feast period.58 In the case of cooking a peace offering, each day’s cooking was believed to cleanse the remnants of See Joseph Baumgarten’s interpretation of this passage (in Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document, 18:51). 57 This especially can be seen in key similar wording used in our passage and Leviticus 6:21 (‫ מרק‬,‫ כלו‬and ‫)בשל‬. Qimron asserts an alternative view, which harmonises with 11Q19XXXV 10-15 and XXXVII 8-XXXVIII 10. This view, put forth by Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The ‘Halakha’ in Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (MMT),” JAOS 116 (1996): 512-3, postulates this passage as relating to the mandatory separation between the priest and laity’s offering. This view follows Ezekiel 46. Whichever view is taken, this passage yet falls into at least one of our three categories. 58 This tanna suggests that a vessel could be cleaned up to two days and one night after cooking a peace offering, and a day and a night after cooking a sin offering. 56

238

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the previous day’s offering.59 This tannaitic source further suggests that an offering can be cooked in an unwashed vessel after a Most Holy Thing has been cooked, thus elevating this new offering to the standard of a Most Holy Thing.60 Considering the above sources relating to B 5-8, MMT’s opponents (the “they” group or groups) cooked their purification offerings in unclean (thus impure) vessels.61 They may have used their cooking vessels repeatedly without scouring and rinsing them with water. According to MMT, it is also probable that the opponents cooked forbidden sacrifices in these vessels,62 like the un-consecrated offerings that are stated in the tannaim.63 The vacant parts surrounding MMT B 5-8, “the flesh of their sacrifices . . . in the Temple court . . . with the broth of their sacrifices,” may refer to the “they” group eating these improper and impure sacrifices in the Temple court, thus defiling its (the Temple court’s) sanctity.64 It is also probable that MMT’s regulation served as a reminder and exhortation to the “you” group (the larger DSS movement), who also could have observed this regulation, particularly the way in which the cooking vessels were handled, and the sacrifices were cooked and consumed, in a manner less rigid than MMT’s description. The Temple Scroll (11Q19 XXXV 10-15 and XXXVII 8-XXXVIII 10) alludes to the separation of various sacrifices. However, there are no instructions regarding how they were to be cooked.

On this point, see Herbert Danby’s translation in. The Mishna, (Zebahim 11:7; London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 485 note 1. Also refer to b. Zebaḥ 97a. 60 This tannaim states that any offering that is cooked after a Most Holy Thing (especially if enough remains to give flavouring) must, itself, be consumed as if it were a Most Holy Thing. 61 This is the view likely taken by the principal community of MMT (the “we” group). 62 See Qimron on this point in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 149. 63 Refer to the discussion above. Also refer to M. Zebah 11:8. 64 Cf. CD 12:9-10. 59

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

239

c. B 9-11

MMT B 9-11 is opposed only to rabbinic halakha, which likely reflected the ideology of the “they” group. Qimron has reconstructed the heading of this passage based on the term [‫שהמנ]חה‬ appearing as the subject in the second line. Based on this term, Qimron describes this passage as dealing with the cereal offerings of well-being sacrifice. The main emphasis here, however, is the allotted time in which this offering must be consumed. B 9-11 instructs that the offering must not be left overnight, but rather, consumed before sunset. Qimron notes that this passage is similar in phraseology to Leviticus 7:15.65 However, Leviticus, along with what has been recorded in 11Q19 XX 7-13, which Qimron also describes as shedding light on B 9-11, talks about the consumption of a different sacrifice, possibly the thanksgiving offering of well-being sacrifice. Although the phrase “well-being offering” is not mentioned explicitly in 11Q19 XX 7-13, a similarity in procedural terms can be seen:66 [And that which is at the loins an]d the fat tail, next to the backbone; and th[ey] shall b[urn] . . .[all on the altar,] together with their cereal offering and their libations, a burnt offering, a plea[s]in[g] odour [before the Lord.] And they shall offer any cereal offering with a drink offering, according to the [ordinance . . . And] of [eve]ry cereal offering [wh]ich is offered with frankincense or dry, they shall take a handful, its(?) [memorial portio]n, and burn on the altar, and the rest of it they shall eat in [the i]nn[e]r court. The priest shall e[at] them [unleavened;] it shall not be eaten leavened. On that day it shall be eat[en before] the sun goes [down.]67

In this passage, only the priest can eat the cereal offering brought either with frankincense or dry. Unlike the cereal offering brought with the libation, which was wholly consumed by fire on the altar, the cereal offering that was brought either with frankincense See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 150-2. 66 See Schiffman, “Miqṣat,” 436-8, concerning this point. 67 See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 2.88-90. 65

240

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

or dry was to be eaten before sunset. Rabbinic literature parallels the Temple Scroll passage concerning which cereal offering was and was not to be eaten.68 Numbers 15:3-13 also sheds some light on B 9-11. As described by Josephus, in Ant. 3.237, the sacrifice of well-being offering in this passage was to be wholly consumed on the altar by fire, hence leaving nothing for the priest to eat.69 In Qimron’s construction of B 9-11, the cereal offering of well-being sacrifice is to be eaten after the suet and the flesh are sacrificed. Considering the Temple Scroll, the tannaitic source, and Numbers, it is posited that the cereal offering of well-being sacrifice was not supposed to be eaten. Based on this, Qimron’s reconstruction should be amended. Based on Leviticus 7:15, amending MMT B 9-10 as, ‫]ואף על‬ ‫ תודת[ זבח השלמים‬should be considered. The Leviticus passage noted here describes the consumption of this ‫ תודת‬as that which should be eaten before morning.70 With regard to the [‫שהמנ]חה‬ appearing later in B 9-11, rabbinic sources (m. Men. 6:1; 7:1 and t. Men. 8:23) attest to the thanksgiving offering being referred to as cereal offering interchangeably.71 It is probable that MMT’s opponents (the “they” group) consumed the thanksgiving offering of well being sacrifices past sunset, up to midnight. This position coincides with what m. Zebaḥ 5:5 and 6:1 state. These Mishnaic illustrations state that the meal offering (in 6:1) and well-being offering (in 5:5) could be eaten up to midnight. The consumption of this sacrifice past sunset was viewed by MMT’s principal community as incurring impurity, and as B 12-13a infers, “leading the people into sin.” Based on the reconstruction of B 9-11, especially correlating with 11Q19 XX 7See the Sifra on Leviticus 6:7-9, Also cf. Eyal Regev’s views regarding this point in his “The Sectarians Controversies About the Cereal Offerings,” DSD 5 (1998): 42-5. 69 See Regev “Sectarian Controversies,” 38, who discuss this matter in detail. 70 This phrase should be understood as synonymous with “at sunset.” See Eyal Regev for this discussion. 71 Cf. the notes in Regev, “Sectarian Controversies,” 54 note 64 in particular. 68

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

241

13 which explicitly describes the ideology of the larger DSS movement, this regulation served as a reminder and exhortation to the “you” group(s) in order that purity might be preserved. d. B 13-17 and 64-72

MMT B 13-17 as well as B 64-72 opposes rabbinic sources only. Both B 13-17 and 64-72 carry the general idea of waiting until sunset, after being immersed, to become ritually pure. In MMT B 13-17, the purification process involved those who participated in the red cow of purification offering. Those involved included the person who slaughtered the cow, the one who burned it, the one who gathered its ashes, and the one who sprinkled the waters of purification. This regulation borrows from Numbers 19. In MMT B 64-72, the purification process concerning leprosy is given. After the leper had been shaven and immersed, he had to wait until sunset on the eighth day before being rendered pure, after which he was permitted to eat the holy foods (‫)קודשים‬. The idea of waiting until sunset, after being immersed, to become ritually pure is similarly found in 11Q19 XLV 7-10, 17-18; XLIX 1921, LI 2-5; 4Q266 6 ii 4 and 4Q269 8 ii 3-6. 11Q19 XLV 7-10 describes a person who has a seminal emission as impure. This person was to immerse himself and wash his clothes on the first and third day. After immersing on the third day, he was rendered pure at sunset, thus allowing him to enter the Temple. 11Q19 XLV 17-18 describes the purification process of the leper. The leper was considered impure for seven days, where on the seventh day he was purified after bringing his purgation offering. After this purification process, the leper was allowed access to the purity (‫ )טהרה‬in the temple city. However, he had to wait until the eighth day at sunset before being rendered completely pure, and thus allowed to eat the pure food (‫ )קודשים‬and enter the sanctuary.72

For discussion of the difference of the pure food (‫ )טהרה‬and the sacred food (‫)קודשים‬, see Elisha Qimron in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 168 note 166. Also refer to this same work (Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 166-70), as well as note 50 above for a full discussion about leprosy. 72

242

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

11Q19 XLIX 16-21 describes a person who has had contact with a human corpse as impure.73 This person was to wash his clothes and immerse on the first, third and seventh day. On the third and seventh day, he also was to be sprinkled with the waters of purification and wash his utensils. After sunset on the seventh day, he was rendered pure, thus being able to touch the pure food. 11Q19 LI 2-5, which refers to Leviticus 11:29-38, describes the person that has touched an impure creeping dead animal as impure. This person was to wash his clothes and immerse, after which he would be rendered clean after sundown. 4Q266 6 ii 4 describes the impure state of a woman with a discharge. She was to wait until sunset after eight days of her purification process before being allowed to eat anything holy or to enter the Temple. 4Q269 8 ii 3-6 describes the pure man who had waited until sundown as the one who sprinkles the waters of purification on impure utensils and clothing. The aforementioned illustrations, generally coinciding with MMT B 13-17 and 64-72, likely served as a reminder and exhortation to the recipient(s) of MMT so that they might maintain purity. Moreover, these same illustrations contrast with the rabbinic view, which reflect the view of MMT’s opponents.74 Rabbinic halakha allowed a person who had immersed without waiting until sunset (called a ṭebul yom) to participate in certain cultic ceremonies.75 With regard to B 13-17, tannaitic sources described a ṭebul yom as being qualified to participate in all aspects of the red cow ceremony. M. Parah 3:7-8 described a ṭebul yom as qualified to burn the cow. In this tannaitic source, the rabbis intentionally defiled the priest who was to burn the cow. This priest was persuaded by the rabbis to perform his task immediately after being immersed, yet without waiting until sunset, to show the invalidity of the Sadducees’ views. According to b. Yoma 43b, b. Yebamoth 73a and b. Zebaḥim 17a, a ṭebul yom also was qualified to sprinkle Discussion concerning the purity status of a corpse is also found in MMT B 73-74. 74 Refer to note 7 above. 75 The ṭebul yom could participate in all sacred rites outside of the consumption of sacrifices or Terumah. See m. Kelim 1:5 and t. Parah 3:6. 73

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

243

the waters of purification in the red cow ceremony.76 In the case of the leper, rabbinic sources stressed that he only needed to immerse if he wanted to eat the hallowed foods.77 Regarding B 13-17 based on the above-mentioned sources, MMT’s opponents (the “they” group or groups) did not wait until sunset, after being immersed, before performing the red cow ceremony. Hence, MMT’s principal community viewed the ashes used in making the waters of purification as defiled. Moreover, this defiled purification water most likely was sprinkled by an impure person, a ṭebul yom.78 e. B 18-23 and 27-35

Due to the fragmentary condition of B 18-23, much of what has been reconstructed of this passage is based primarily on other source references. Thus, this passage relates to descriptions in both the Temple Scroll and rabbinic sources. The first part of this passage, B 18-20, correlates with 11Q19 XLVII 7-18, which Qimron also postulated.79 The 11Q19 passage stresses that the hides of animals slaughtered outside the temple were not to be brought into the city of the temple. Moreover, only the hides that were slaughtered at the temple were permitted to be used in Jerusalem.80 The reconstruction of the ensuing portion of this passage, B 21-23, is similar to Leviticus 11. Based on Qimron’s construction, B 21-23 states that it is forbidden to make handles from the In the case of the ṭebul yom participating in all aspects of the red cow ceremony see Lawrence Schiffman, “Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 1 (1994): 289-90. 77 See m. Hag. 3:3. Also cf. m. Neg. 14:2-3. Also refer to Elisha Qimron in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 16670, who discusses the matter of the leper in more detail. 78 In consideration of all the purification regulations, it is noteworthy to highlight that the numerous miqva’ot at Qumran were used to perform these observances during the Qumran stage of the community’s development. For discussion of Qumran miqva’ot, see the chapter on Archaeology. 79 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 155. 80 Also cf. 11Q19 LII 16-LIII 4, which states a similar provision regarding the slaughter and eating of the pure animal with blemishes. 76

244

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

vessels of bones and hides of unclean animals. This passage further states that whoever carries the carcass of an unclean animal is not allowed to have access to the pure food. Qimron gives two reasons for his reconstruction. First, he assumes that ‫ידות‬, in line 21, was made from animal bones. Secondly, he highlights the similar order which both Leviticus 11 and B 21-23 follows. The regulation concerning the carcass of the unclean animal is mentioned before the regulation concerning the clean animal.81 B 21-23 also corresponds with 11Q19 LI 4-5, which states that carrying the carcass, hide, or bones of an unclean animal transmits impurity.82 If B 21-23 does indeed follow the idea of Leviticus 11 (which states that the carcass of an unclean animal transmits impurity) as well as 11Q19 XLVII 7-18 and LI 4-5 (which describes the bones, the carcass, the hide, and the meat of an animal as transmitting impurity), then this MMT passage contrasts with the rabbinic view. M. Hull. 9:1-2 (which perhaps reflects the view of MMT’s opponents, the “they” group)83 states that only the flesh of an unclean animal transmits impurity, whereas its carcass, when treated, is viewed as clean.84 In consideration of the above correlations, MMT’s opponents allowed the bones and hides of animals slaughtered outside the temple to be brought into the temple city. As stated above, it also See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 155. 82 Regarding the impurity status of bones, also see B 72-74. In this passage, the bones of a dead person are described as transmitting impurity. For discussion of this passage see Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 170-1; Moshe Bernstein “The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. (ed. John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 36, and note 16 there; and Yaakov Elman, “Some Remarks on 4QMMT and the Rabbinic Tradition: or, When is a Parallel not a Parallel?” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. (ed. John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein; SBLSymS 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 102. 83 See note 7 above. 84 Cf. also b Hull. 47b and m. Yad. 4:6, which describes a dispute between the Sadducees and the Pharisees about which books make the hands unclean. 81

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

245

is likely that this animal slaughter was performed in the wrong geographic locale.85 Moreover, the opponents likely made vessels from these hides and bones, which they used for carrying things into Jerusalem. According to MMT, each of these observances was viewed as incurring impurity upon the temple and the temple city. A similar view is stressed concerning B 27-35. This passage is concerned with where animals should be slaughtered. Due to the fragmentary condition of this passage, it has been only partially reconstructed. However, this passage correlates with the Temple Scroll (11Q19 LII 13-15), which in turn corresponds with both Leviticus 17:2ff, and Deuteronomy 12:29ff.86 11Q19 LII 13-15 instructs its reader to slaughter the ox, the sheep, and the goat inside the temple if their gate is nearer than three days walk to the temple. In MMT, the end of the passage, B 35, states, ‫ אי[נם שוחטים במקדש‬. . .]. In view of this passage along with the ruling in 11Q19, MMT’s opponents did not observe this ruling, like B 18-23. Moreover, at the same time, MMT’s recipient(s), the “you” group(s), viewed both B 18-23 and 27-35 as a reminder (especially based on similar rulings in the Temple Scroll) to preserve purity. f. B 36-38

MMT B 36-38 correlates with sectarian writing as well. In consideration of the Temple Scroll, B 36-38 served as a reminder to MMT’s recipient(s) (the “you” group or groups), that they might maintain purity concerning this matter. At the same time, rabbinic halakha also sheds light on this passage, most likely expressing the views of MMT’s opponents, the “they” group. Partially preserved in only three manuscripts (MMTa, MMTc and MMTd), Qimron’s reconstruction of B 36-38 shows this passage as being concerned with the sacrifice of pregnant animals. This passage instructs its reader not to sacrifice a mother and its foetus on the same day. Moreover, the foetus found in its mother’s For this point see section D.1. above. See DJD X, 156-7, on this point. Also Cf. Schiffman, “Miqṣat,” 447 and Kugler “Rubrics,” 102-4. 85 86

246

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

womb could be eaten only if it was ritually slaughtered. This reconstructed reading, though, is a bit ambiguous. However, if this reconstruction is accurate, it should be understood as taking issue with MMT’s opponents, the “they” group, regarding two issues: (1) recognizing that a foetus is distinct from its mother and similarly requiring ritual slaughter before its consumption and (2) that slaughtering the foetus should not occur on the same day of its mother’s slaughter. If Qimron’s reading is accepted, the latter portion of line 36, ‫]את[ האם ואת הולד ביום אחד‬,87 echoes Leviticus 22:28, ‫ושור או שה אותו‬ ‫ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד‬.88 Moreover, B 36-38 also partially corresponds with 11Q19 LII 5-7. 11Q19 LII 5-7 states that sacrificing a pregnant cow, sheep, or goat is an abomination. This passage further instructs its reader not to slaughter a cow or a sheep with its young on the same day. The reader is also prohibited from killing a mother and its young on the same day.89 The latter half of this passage could be viewed as referring to either a male or female parent with its young. This explicit ruling, though, is not seen in the above MMT passage. However, 11Q19 LII 5-7 does harmonise with B 36-38 particularly in inferring that an embryo is, indeed, a separate creature, which if found in its mother’s womb (most likely by surprise) also would require ritual slaughter alongside its mother. In consideration of MMT’s ruling, this slaughtering occurred on a different day than that of its parent. 11Q19 LII 5-7 as well as B 36-38 describe both sacrificial and nonsacrificial slaughter.90 Considering the correlation between both MMT B 36-38 and 11Q19 LII 5-7, rabbinic halakha takes an opposite view. M. Hull. 4:5, which reflects the view of MMT’s opponents, suggests that in most cases both a mother and its foetus are considered the same. Taken from Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe HaTorah, 50. 88 See Qimron on this point in DJD X, 157. Cf. Kugler, “Rubrics,” 104-5 (especially notes 41 and 42). 89 This ruling correlates with Deuteronomy 22: 6-7. Also cf. Kugler, “Rubrics,” 104 note 41 in particular. 90 See Lawrence Schiffman on this point in “Miqṣat,” 449-51. Also cf. Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 158. 87

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

247

This tannaitic source, however, does debate whether a ninemonth-old foetus required slaughtering. In this halakha, some sages thought it was necessary to slaughter a nine-month-old foetus, whereas others considered it unnecessary. According to the above tannaitic source, some sages considered the foetus clean upon the slaughtering of its mother. It was further stated by Rabbi Simeon (in the same Mishnah passage) that the slaughter of a ram even rendered its five-year old child clean. Based on the above source descriptions, MMT’s opponents, the “they” group, held a similar view as that taken in the tannaitic source (which is against both MMT and the Temple Scroll). It is probable that the opponents considered the foetus as part of its mother, thus not needing to be slaughtered separately. Moreover, some of these opponents did in fact view the foetus as distinct from its mother. However, these opponents most likely slaughtered the foetus on the same day the mother was slaughtered. g. B 39-49

MMT B 39-49 opposes the view of the rabbinic sources, which the “you” group(s), the recipients of MMT, were somewhat sympathetic toward. This regulation served as a reminder and exhortation to the recipients of MMT, because of their laxity concerning certain persons (viewed as impure by MMT’s principal community) entering the temple. This may be the case only regarding the ‫ גר‬in CD 14:3-4a and 11Q19 XI 6 and XL 5-6. Although B 39-49 is extremely fragmented, Qimron highlights Deuteronomy 23:2-4 as one of the main sources used in its reconstruction. He describes this passage (B 39-49) as a list of persons prohibited from entering the congregation. Included in this list is the Ammonite, the Moabite, the mamzer, and the person with mutilated genitalia. The phrase “enter into the congregation” has caused debate concerning its meaning. It has been described as either referring to entry into the Temple, marriage between Jews and the prohibited class, or both.91 If Qimron’s See Bernstein, “Employment,” 37-8, who takes the view that ‫ בקהל‬refers only to marriage. Joseph Baumgarten, on the other hand, understands this term as referring to the Temple; see his J. Baumgarten “The 91

248

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

construction is accepted, B 39-49 referred to both ideas, especially in light of Lamentations 1:10 and Nehemiah 13:23-31. The former passage provides a basis on which to understand ‫ בקהל‬as referring to the temple, whereas the latter can be viewed as giving reference to marriage. Another sectarian text that provides further insight regarding B 39-49, is 4Q174.92 This work, which also was composed by MMT’s principal community (the Qumran-related community, especially during the latter stages of its development), supports the view that “entry into the congregation” refers to entry into the temple.93 4Q174 1-2 i 3-4 puts forth a similar list of prohibited persons. The Ammonite, the Moabite and the mamzer are mentioned here along with the foreigner and the ‫גר‬, which are not mentioned in B 39-49.94 Regarding marriage, 4Q270 5: 14-16(= 4Q269 9:1-3) instructs a (Jewish) father not to give his daughter away in marriage to an unfit person. No specific detail, however, is given concerning this unfit person. M. Yad. 4:4 viewed in light of m. Yeb. 8:3 suggests that “entry into the congregation” only refers to marriage. This source describes the prohibition of the Ammonite and the Moabite from “entry into the congregation” (marrying Jews). Exclusion of the ‘Netinim’ and Proselytes in 4Q Florilegium,” in Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 77. Among those who view ‫ בקהל‬as referring to both the temple and marriage, see Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 158-60; Schiffman, “Place of 4QMMT,” 94 and Hannah K. Harrington, “Holiness in the Laws of 4QMMT,” in Legal Text and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 122. Also cf. Kugler, “Rubrics,” 106-8. 92 Like MMT, this work is the composition of the Qumran-related community. However, unlike MMT, 4Q174 was composed during the Qumran stage. For further discussion of this work, refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 93 In this reference, the temple refers to the community itself. Refer to discussion concerning this matter in the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium chapters in this book. 94 For discussion on this list of prohibited persons, see the chapters on the book of Jubilees and 4QFlorilegium.

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

249

It is probable that MMT’s opponents, to which MMT’s recipients (the “you” group or groups) were sympathetic, likewise, understood this phrase as referring to marriage only. Based on this, MMT’s opponent may have allowed prohibited persons access into the temple, perhaps in view of MMT B 8-9, to offer gentile sacrifice. In the case of the “you” group, only certain prohibited persons may have had access to the temple, like the ‫גרים‬, which according to CD 14:3-4a and 11Q19 XI 6 and XL 5-6,95 were allowed entry into the temple-congregation. h. B 49-54

MMT B 49-54 opposes rabbinic writings only, while at the same time serves as a reminder and exhortation to MMT’s recipients, particular considering their seemingly similar views to MMT. B 49-54 served as a reminder to the “you” group(s) so that they might maintain purity concerning this matter. MMT B 49-54 takes issue concerning the purity regulations of the blind and deaf persons. According to B 49-54, both persons are to be restricted from entering the temple. This passage follows Leviticus 21:17ff.96 Here, priests are prohibited from approaching the sanctuary to sacrifice if they have defects. Among the various defects mentioned is blindness. The deaf, however, are not mentioned in this passage. Unlike Leviticus, in MMT B 49-54, regulations concerning the deaf and the blind are germane to a more general, nonpriestly, audience. Here, the Temple Scroll sheds additional light. 11Q19 XLV 12-14 states that the blind are restricted from entering the city of the Temple, lest they defile it. Yadin has suggested that ‫ עור‬refers to all defects, including deafness.97 However, in light of the MMT passage, which clearly describes the restrictions of the deaf as well as the blind, this idea needs to be reconsidered. For discussion concerning the meaning of ‫ גר‬see the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. 96 This idea was first put forth by Yadin in his Temple Scroll 1.224 and 2.136. 97 See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 160-1 and Yadin, The Temple Scroll 1.224 and 2.136 concerning this point. 95

250

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

It may be that 11Q19 XLV 12-14 only partially correlates with B 49-54. The Damascus Document and the Rule of the Congregation (the latter of which also was composed by the principal community), as well, illustrate concern regarding the blind and deaf.98 CD 15:15-17, 4Q266 8 i 6-7 and 1QSa 2:4-9 list the blind and the deaf among those who are restricted from entering the congregation. According to these texts, these persons are restricted because angels are present in the congregation. The regulations according to these passages correspond with B 49-54 in the sense that “entrance into the congregation” can be viewed as synonymously referring to the Temple.99 In this regard, the passage under consideration also can be understood as generally corresponding with B 39-49. Both MMT passages (B 49-54 and B 39-49) are concerned with the purity of the temple and the temple city. Like Leviticus and the Temple Scroll, the rabbinic sources treat the blind and deaf separately. Although the general view of both agrees with the sectarian texts, there is a slight variance. According to b.Hag 2b, a deaf person was treated as mindless. As also pointed out by Qimron, m. Ter 1:1 states that he may set aside Teruma. However, according to t. Ter 1:1, he is allowed to partake in the pure food. Against MMT’s principal community, the “they” group may have allowed the deaf access to the pure food. Moreover, as m. Hull 1:1 notes, they also may have allowed the blind to slaughter.100 i. B 55-58

MMT B 55-58 opposes rabbinic sources only, which likely reflected the view of MMT’s opponents (the “they” group). According to B 55-58, the unbroken stream of liquid poured from one container to the next shares equal cleansing or uncleansing status. If one container (or vessel) is clean and the other is unclean, this It should be noted that the description given in the Rule of the Congregation only serves as support to the ideological view of the principal community of MMT (who likewise composed this text). 99 This has already been noted above concerning B 39-46. 100 See Qimron’s discussion of this matter in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 161 and note 132 there. 98

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

251

regulation contends that the liquid from both now becomes unclean. The above view is opposed to rabbinic literature, which contends that most unbroken streams between clean and unclean vessels do not affect the status of either.101 M. Yad 4:7 stresses this view as a point of contention between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the former group holding the same view as being taken by MMT’s principal community, the “we” group.102 Moreover, according to m. Tohar 8:9, an uninterrupted flow of liquid from one vessel to the next is not considered connective This act neither determines cleanness nor uncleanness. The above rabbinic ruling likely reflected the view of MMT’s opponents, the “they” group, with which the recipients, the “you” group or groups, were sympathetic. Unfortunately, there is no parallel regulation in the texts of the larger scrolls movement (the recipients of MMT) to determine this matter. Despite this, it yet can be concluded that B 55-58 was listed to serve as a reminder and exhortation to the recipients of MMT, in order that purity might be maintained concerning this matter. j. B 58-62

In MMT B 58-62, the principal community opposed the “they” group over 1) not observing all of Jerusalem as the holy place, and 2) not maintaining purity in Jerusalem through the practice of certain regulations. See Lester Grabbe, “4QMMT and Second Temple Jewish Society,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 93-4, who suggests that considering m. Maks 5:9, only viscous liquids conduct the state of cleanness-uncleanness in rabbinic literature. 102 With regard to the view that MMT and the rest of the scrolls reflect a Sadducean movement, see Schiffman, “Place of 4QMMT,” 86-94; “Community without Temple,” 267-70 and Ya’akov Sussmann, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Talmudic Observations on Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (4QMMT),” in Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 179-200. For discussion of this entire matter, refer to chapter one in this book. 101

252

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

B 58-62 describes the prohibition of dogs from entering the holy camp. This restriction was given to prevent dogs from eating the bones from the sanctuary. The appearance of this regulation is concerned with the purity status of dogs. However, this passage was given to convey the general message of preserving purity in Jerusalem. This seems likely on the basis that no parallel source relating to the purity status of dogs can be found. MMT’s principal community viewed all of Jerusalem as the holy camp. Given that the above interpretation of B 58-62 is correct, the “they” group (MMT’s opponents) allowed dogs in Jerusalem, not viewing the entire city as the holy camp. Qimron looks to extraneous (non-sectarian or rabbinic) references to shed light on this view. He thus describes MMT B 58-62 as being concerned with preserving purity in Jerusalem.103 This ruling likely also served as a reminder and exhortation to MMT’s recipients, the “you” group or groups, who also were sympathetic to the views of the “they” group. k. B 62-63 and 63-64

MMT B 62-63 and 63-64 both oppose the rabbinic ruling, which likely reflected the views of the “they” group. These regulations served as a reminder and exhortation to the recipients of MMT (the “you” group or groups), who although similarly reflecting MMT’s ruling, held a different view from MMT’s principal community regarding the legitimate identity of the priesthood.104 B 62-63 notes that the fruit of the fourth year planted in Israel belongs to the priests. This ruling follows Leviticus 19:23-25 and 27:30.105 Similarly, B 62-63 coheres with both the Temple

See his discussion in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 163-4, where he compares the above regulation with The Edict of Antiochus III; b. Qam 7:7; Matthew 7:6; and 11Q19 XLVI 1-2. 104 This possibly was the case considering the internal split suffered by the larger movement, which subsequently led to the rise of the Qumran community. 105 See Schiffman, “Miqṣat,” 454 and Qimron, in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 164 and especially note 147 there, who both discuss this connection. 103

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

253

Scroll (11Q19 LX 02-3)106 and the Damascus Document (4Q266 6 iv), which subsequently reflects the ideology of the larger DSS movement.107 The book of Jubilees influenced and later enforced the fruit of the fourth-year regulation. According to Jubilees 7:3536, Noah instructed his children to plant every kind of fruit tree in the cities that they were to build. He instructed them not to pick any of the fruit, for eating, for three years. In the fourth year, they (Noah’s children) were to offer the fruit as first-fruits before the Lord, with the remaining fruit to be consumed by the priests before the altar. The ruling above is opposed to rabbinic halakha, which (as noted earlier) likely reflected the views of MMT’s opponents. According to m. Ma’aser Sheni 5:3,108 the fruit of the fourth year is akin to the second tithe, which as Schiffman similarly asserts “was to be brought up to Jerusalem and eaten by the owner.”109 Considering this view, MMT’s opponents similarly brought the fruit of the fourth year and consumed it themselves. The recipients of MMT (the “you” group or groups) may not have viewed the fruit of the fourth year as like the second tithe. However, they may have consumed it, viewing itself as the legitimate priesthood. Regarding B 63-64, the tithe of cattle and flock, likewise, are described as belonging to the priests. This regulation follows Leviticus 27:32 and 2 Chronicles 31:6. In Leviticus, the tithe was to pass under the rod, which thus was declared holy unto the Lord. As with B 62-63, this regulation similarly correlates with the first few lines of 11Q19 LX, which reflects the view of the larger DSS movement. The above regulation is opposed to rabbinic halakha, which conceivably reflects the views of the “they” group. According to m. Zebah 5:8, the flesh of the tithe belongs to the owner. The blood of the tithe is to be sprinkled while its fat is to be offered For discussion of this passage refer to Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.162. Also see Schiffman, “Miqṣat,” 452 and Elisha Qimron in Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 165-6. Also see 11Q19 XXXVIII 1-7, which discusses how the fruit is to be consumed. 107 Refer to note 8 above. 108 Also see t. Ma’aser Sheni 5:16 109 See Schiffman, “Miqṣat,” 455. 106

254

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

on the altar. The flesh of the tithe is to be consumed by its owner in Jerusalem. Based on this ruling, it is probable that the “they” group, MMT’s opponents, consumed the tithe, like the fruit of the fourth year and the second tithe. Moreover, like in B 62-63, the recipients of MMT consumed the tithe, viewing itself as the priests. On the basis of the above regulations (the consumption of the fruit of the fourth year and the tithe), B 62-63 and 63-64 caused some dispute between the “we” and “you” groups concerning the interpretation of priestly legitimacy, which yet was a purity matter regarding the temple and Jerusalem. l. B 75-82

Although there is no rabbinic ruling on MMT B 75-82, this passage may have served as an exhortation and reminder to the “you” group(s) concerning the priestly practices of the “they” group. This passage remains ambiguous concerning the term ‫זנות‬.110 Qimron contends that this passage describes the illegal marriages between the priests and Israelites, which follows Leviticus 21:7, 13-15 and Ezekiel 44:22.111 Qimron suggests that this idea is similarly referred to in the Damascus Document (4Q271 1 i 9-10). According to his reading of this passage, the prohibition of mixing Israelites with priests in marriage is comparable to the law of prohibited mixtures as noted in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11. Mixing diverse kinds of animal species, clothing materials and seeds for planting were prohibited in these latter two passages.

Kugler has stressed this in his “Rubrics,” 111. See Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 171-6. Qimron views the distinction between priestly holiness and Israel’s holiness as following 1 Chronicles 23:13 and similarly expressed in 1QS 9:5-6. Qimron’s view heavily relies on the construction of this section. See Robert Kugler’s discussion of this in his “Halakic Interpretive Strategies at Qumran: A Case Study,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 135-6. 110 111

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

255

Baumgarten112 followed by Kugler and others113 understands ‫ זנות‬in B 75-82 as describing the illegal marriages between the Israelites in general (which includes both the priests and the people) and foreigners.114 This reading, which is more likely, was influenced by the book of Jubilees. In Jubilees 30:13-17, all Israel was prohibited from marrying foreigners based on what had happened to Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, in Shechem.115 Despite the reading of B 75-82, Hempel notes that some priests were criticised for their nuptial practices.116 It could be that these priests were the “they” group, who married foreigners, similar to B 39-49 with regard to allowing foreigners to enter into the community.117 Bearing this in mind, B 75-82 likely served as a reminder and exhortation to the “you” group in order that purity might be maintained concerning this matter. 3. Conclusions on MMT’s Cultic Content

Taking into consideration the above cultic regulations, MMT probably was composed as an epistle intended for an internal addressee, as indicated by the document’s rhetorical structure. The aforementioned cultic regulations underscore the major tensions between the Qumran-related “we” group (or community) and the priestly “they” establishment at Jerusalem on the one hand, and the Qumran-related “we” group and the larger DSS “you” movement on the other hand. The above regulations addressed to the

See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The ‘Halakha’ in Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah (MMT),” 515-6. 113 See Kugler, “Rubrics,” 111; “Interpretive Strategies,” 135-39 and Grabbe, “4QMMT,” 103 and notes 53 and 54 there. 114 Both scholars compare the term ‫ זנות‬with its use in 4Q513 and the Damascus Document. 115 See discussion of this passage in the chapter on the book of Jubilees. 116 See Charlotte Hempel, “The Laws of the Damascus Document and 4QMMT,” in The Damascus Document A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4-8 February, 1998 (ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther Chazon and Avital Pinnick; STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 75. 117 See above discussion concerning the MMT passage. 112

256

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

“you” group illustrate some of the concerns that led to a later Essene split.118 MMT’s sacrificial and purity matters clearly denote MMT’s reverence for the temple establishment at Jerusalem. MMT illustrates which sacrificial and purity matters were important to the principal community. The document also gives insight concerning how these matters were exegetically understood. MMT’s cultic regulations also held a pedagogical interest as well as an ideological and eschatological status to the Qumran-related community, especially after this community settled at Qumran. The extant MS copies of MMT preserved at Qumran can attest this. The continual transmission of MMT suggests that the document later served a different purpose from its initial one, after a split had developed between the community and the larger movement. After this split, MMT perhaps was viewed as a treatise. The newly formed Qumran community likely viewed MMT’s cultic regulations in an idealised and eschatological way, as that which was to be observed in the latter days (‫)אחרית הימים‬119 in Jerusalem.

E. SUMMARY: THE STATUS OF CULTIC M ATTER IN MMT AFTER THE QUMRAN SETTLEMENT

The number of extant MMT manuscripts found at Qumran120 attests to the significance of the status of the document throughout the Qumran-related community’s development. Based on the dating of the extant manuscripts, this text served as an epistle initially, which was addressed to an internal fellow group. Later, after the principal community settled at Qumran, the document took on a different status. This later status resembled an open For discussion on the DSS movement as Essenes, refer to the chapter on the Philo and Josephus. Also see the Groningen Hypothesis concerning the description of the internal Essene split. See García Martínez, “Qumran Origins,” 113-36. Also refer to the Introduction of this book which discusses this issue. 119 See 4QMMT C 21-22, “And this is the end of days, when they will return in Israel to the L[aw . . .]. 120 These MSS were found at Qumran’s cave four. According to Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah, 112, cave four is generally held to be the principal library at Qumran. 118

CHAPTER SEVEN. SACRIFICE IN THE MMT

257

circular treatise which served as an internal pedagogical resource that focused on sacrificial and purity issues. The study of this document as a pedagogical resource likely was viewed by the community as a substitute for sacrifice. The recitation of the liturgy that normally accompanied many of the sacrificial and purity practices also became substitutes in place of the actual sacrifices.121 After the community’s settlement at Qumran, MMT served as a reminder (in view of its cultic descriptions) of the differences that existed between the community’s cultic views in contrast to that of other communities (and in particular, the priestly establishment in Jerusalem). Because of the community’s predominantly spiritualised views, actual regulations were read in more of a spiritualised way. This also was the case concerning the cultic content in Jubilees, D, and the Temple Scroll. Although the community did not participate in the temple cult, it likely viewed the study of MMT’s (as well as Jubilees,’ D’s and the Temple Scroll’s) sacrificial and purity regulation, as well as the recitation of its liturgical worship, as a substitute for sacrifice. MMT also was viewed in an eschatological and idealised way. After the community settled at Qumran, they may have viewed this document’s cultic matters as those which should be recognized in all Jerusalem, and which, in fact, one day would. The community felt that at the end of days they would return to Jerusalem and God would restore the temple and its worship to its proper sanctity. MMT’s preservation could have served as a reflection and reminder of this. With regard to MMT serving as an internal treatise, a number of the above regulations likely were re-interpreted to suit a more spiritualised ideology.122 The purity requirements for new The miqva’ot at Qumran served the later purity cleansing needs of the community, especially during their Qumran occupation. Also see the chapter on Archaeology. 122 Some of MMT’s regulations probably were viewed and carried out in the same way as discussed above. For instance, regarding the cooking of certain foods in clean vessels in B 5-8, this regulation could have been viewed in the same way as discussed above despite the community’s, now, more spiritualised ideology. The same is probably the case 121

258

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

members coming into the Qumran community, discussed in 1QS, may have had B 3-5; 8-9 and 75-82 in mind, particularly regarding the general idea of being cleansed from previous gentile contact (especially if prospective members came to Qumran from gentile populated areas). The same initiation ceremony of new members also could have had B 39-49 and 49-54 in mind, chiefly concerning the restriction of both foreign, and impure persons from entering the holy place (the holy place being interpreted here as the community itself).123

regarding the regulation concerning unbroken streams of liquid in B 5558. Without the aspect of sacrifice, the consumption of meals in B 9-11. The ṭebul yom in B 13-17 and 64-72, and the prohibition of dogs in the holy place (which was the community), also was read similarly to the above descriptions. 123 The restriction of certain foreign persons from entering the holy place (the community as sanctuary) is later described in the Qumran document 4Q174. Refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium, which also mentions this matter.

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE VIEW OF CULTIC MATTERS IN THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY A. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

Like MMT, the Rule of the Community is a composition of the Qumran-related community. Also composed before the community’s settlement at Qumran, this text reflects a predominant shift in the literary descriptions and ideology of the sacrificial cult. Earlier sectarian texts (like D, the Temple Scroll, and MMT) allude to (1) the tensions that existed within the larger DSS movement while at the same time stressing a polemic that existed between this larger movement and the temple authority in Jerusalem, and (2) the ideology of either the larger DSS movement or the Qumranrelated community citing actual sacrificial regulations yet read in a particular way. The Rule of the Community on the other hand notes its sacrificial views in a metaphorical way. Consequently, most of the community’s ensuing texts follow this literary shift.1 Like the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, the Rule of the Community also has been redacted, hence being preserved in no fewer than three to four different literary forms dating from two different periods.2

Refer to the chapter on 4QFlorilegium concerning this matter. Also cf., the literary cultic descriptions in the chapter on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. For an outline of the chronological order of the sectarian texts in this book, see the Introduction. 2 Concerning this second point, see discussion below. 1

259

260

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

The Rule of the Community (‘S’ hereafter) was one of the first texts composed by the Qumran-related community. This work chiefly describes the community’s sacrificial views in a predominantly spiritualised manner. Although some spiritualised cultic views are found in parts of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll,3 S predominantly spiritualises the sacrificial cult, reinforcing the pre-Qumran cultic propensity of the Qumran-related community. This also is unlike MMT, which in its textual descriptions deals with actual sacrificial practices. This shift in the recorded literature of the Qumran-related community is explicit throughout the manuscripts of S. This chapter examines S regarding its views concerning sacrifice and other cultic related matters. These matters are investigated according to the extant S manuscripts, which variously portray the sacrificial ideology of the Qumranrelated community throughout its development. Cultic matters in the manuscripts of S are mostly concerned with regulations germane to: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Priestly authority and duties. Purity issues. Stipulations concerning atonement. Entering the covenant.

Throughout the manuscripts of S, which attests to the Qumranrelated community both before and during its Qumran occupation, the ideology of cultic matters is mostly similar. The minor differences that do exist attest to the community’s developing views.4 Despite this, as is shown throughout S, the community throughout its development understood itself and its overall cultic ideology as being able to establish harmony with God’s creation. Moreover, both before and during the occupation at Qumran, the community understood itself as a divinely elected templelike community, whereby purity and atonement could be achieved. Along with this spiritualised view, the community Although there are hints of a spiritualised view of sacrifice, both the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document solely use explicit sacrificial descriptions. For discussion of this refer to the chapters on the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll. 4 These differences are due to redactional activity during copying. 3

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

261

predominantly viewed its study, praise, and prayer as substitutes for actual animal sacrifice. This spiritualised self-understanding is attested from both the pre-Qumran and Qumran literary material of S.5

B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS

Initially named the Manual of Discipline, Serekh ha-Yaḥad, which means the Rule of the Community, is preserved in twelve manuscript copies from three caves: 1QS from cave 1, 4Q255-264 (also referred to as 4QSa-j) from cave 4, and 5Q11 (5QS) from cave 5. Other probable manuscript copies of S have been found in cave 5, 5Q13,6 and cave 11, 11Q29.7 Although other texts of the Qumran-related community (before Qumran) do not explicitly describe the spiritualised ideology of the community, elements of this view were held in an implicit way, which is reflected in the redacted parts of both the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll. For discussion of the various stratum, ideologies and groups reflected in the Damascus Document, refer to this respective chapter. 6 This text, preserved from 28 extant fragments, cites 1QS III 4-5 as well as an expression from 1QS II 19. This work also parallels parts of 1QS XXI, the hymns section, as well as the introduction and penal code sections of CD. For more information concerning this text, refer to Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Sectarian Rule (5Q13),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translation: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth et al; PTSDSSP; vol. 1; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994), 132-3. Also cf., Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 155-90. Milik has entitled this cave 5 work, A Rule of the Sect, and describes it as dating palaeographically between the second half of the second century B.C.E. and the first half of the first century C.E. (see Jósef. T. Milik, “Une règle de la secte,” in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, Le rouleau de cuivre, 181-3. 7 Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar describes this fragment as relating to the penal code sections of 1QS and the 4QS material. See his “A Newly Identified 11QSerekh ha-Yaḥad Fragment (11Q29)?” In The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years After Their Discovery, 1947-1997 (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 285-92. This cave 11 text also has been preserved in the official DJD series. See Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11: 5

262

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

1QS was among the first manuscripts found in the cave 1 discovery in 1947. Millar Burrows with the assistance of John Trevor and William Brownlee originally published it in 1951.8 In 1994, Elisha Qimron provided a new reading of the manuscript.9 Associated with the cave 1 text of the Rule of the Community is 1QSa, also called the Rule of the Congregation, and 1QSb, called Words of Blessings. Both texts were copied on the same scroll as 1QS. The Rule of the Congregation is also attested in nine cryptic works from cave 4 (4Qpap cryptA SEa-i),10 whereas 1QSb is preserved in only one copy which is very fragmented. The contents of both works relate to one another as well as to 1QS. The Rule of the Congregation and the Words of Blessings also correlate with parts of the Damascus Document, the War Scroll, the Temple Scroll, 4Q503, and the Angelic Liturgy.11 1QS (including 1QSa12 and (11Q2-18, 11Q20-30). (DJD XXIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 4334 and plate L. 8 The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Vol. II, Fasc. 2 Plates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline. New Haven, 1950. 9 Elisha Qimron and James H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth et al; PTSDSSP; vol. 1; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994), 1-51. 10 Also referred to as 4Q249a-i; see Stephen J. Pfann et al. Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts. (DJD XXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 51574. 11 Some of these correlations are listed in James H. Charlesworth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Rule of the Congregation (1QSa),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth et al; PTSDSSP; vol. 1; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994), 109; and “Blessings (1QSb),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls; Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth et al; PTSDSSP; vol. 1; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994), 119-21. 12 The cave 4 cryptic works of the Rule of the Congregation predate 1Qsa. They roughly date from circa 200-100 B.C.E. See Pfann et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXVI: Cryptic Texts, 515-74. The early dating for these works yet is distinct ideologically from the larger DSS movement. Like the redacted material in D, which highlights some spiritualised views, the 4QSE works similarly reflect a later ideological development in light of the probable

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

263

1QSb) dates palaeographically from 100 to 75 B.C.E. and is the longest and best-preserved S manuscript.13 In 1956, information concerning 4QS material was made public. This information was made known initially by Milik, who later, in 1960, 1972 and 1977, identified the contents of ten 4QS fragments as well as discussing their redactional history. From 1991 up until the publication of the official DJD edition of the 4QS fragments in 1998,14 there were several detailed studies concerning the literary structure of S in light of the 4QS material.15 The 4QS manuscripts are written on papyrus and leather and date from circa 125 B.C.E. to circa 50 C.E. Most of the works’ contents correlate with 1QS. However, there do remain some significant variances.16 5QS material (5Q11) is very fragmented and difficult to read, although, some words correspond to 1QS II 4-7 and II 12-14. 5Q11 has been described as dating between 150-1 B.C.E.17

late 3rd century B.C.E. dating of the Damascus Document. See the Introduction for a fuller discussion of this matter. Also refer to the chapter on the Damascus Document for discussion of its dating. 13 Cf., Qimron and Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” 2. 14 Alexander and Vermes suggests that about seventy percent of the entire text of 1QS correlates with 4QS material. See Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, Qumran Cave 4. XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-yaḥad and Related Texts. (DJD XXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). 15 Most of these works examined the correlation between the content of 1QS and the 4QS material. See especially Geza Vermes, “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4.” JJS 42 (1991): 250-55 and Elisha Qimron, “Manuscript D of the Rule of the Community from Qumran Cave IV: Preliminary Publication of Columns 7-8.” Tarbiz 60 (1991): 434-43. Qimron and Strugnell transcribed most of the 4QS material in 1994. See Qimron and Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” 1-51. See Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 5-9, who provides a history of scholarship concerning this matter. 16 See Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-yaḥad and Related Texts, 1-4, who chart the correlations between 1QS and the 4QS material. 17 See James H. Charlesworth, “Possible Fragment of the Rule of the Community (5Q11),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents

264

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

C. THE LITERARY STRUCTURE, FORM AND REDACTION HISTORY OF S

Regarding the literary structure of the 4QS texts, their fragmentary nature precludes a thorough literary examination. In consideration of the significant parallels between these texts and 1QS, the 4QS material is viewed in light of the structural analysis of 1QS. Concerning the various forms of S, the differences can be illustrated in two ways: (1) through the palaeographical dating of the S manuscripts and (2) by their literary content. The pre-Qumran form(s) of S is attested by S manuscripts which date before circa 100 B.C.E. Manuscripts which date considerably after 100 B.C.E., particularly around the time of 4Q259, 261 and 264 (which all date after 50 B.C.E.), attest to the Qumran form(s) of S.18 4Q255 dates to about 125 B.C.E.-50 B.C.E. This is the oldest extant S manuscript and attests to a pre-Qumran form of S. On the basis of this dating, the form of this text most likely dates no later than the fourth quarter of the second century B.C.E. 4Q257 and 1QS, which both date to approximately 100 B.C.E, also presuppose a pre-Qumran date The form of these texts dates to no later than the beginning of the first century B.C.E.19 It looks as if the above three texts represent an early form of S, which probably were composed during the later pre-Qumran stages of the Qumran-related community.20 In relation to the literary content of S, there are textual and literary differences which also attests to the different forms of S. (ed. James H. Charlesworth et al; PTSDSSP; vol. 1; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994), 105. 18 Even though there are distinctly differently forms of S, which date both before and during the occupation at Qumran, the composition of S is still very much a pre-Qumran sectarian text. As described above, the variant forms of S attest to redactional activity during copying. 19 This assumption is based on certain Qumran archaeological evidence which points to the start of a communal settlement around 100 B.C.E. See Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 64. Also refer to the Archaeology chapter which discussed this issue. 20 This group can also be called the pre-Qumran group.

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

265

These differences exist between the 4QS manuscripts, and between the 4QS and 1QS manuscripts. There are at least four different forms of S;21 at least one form is reflected in the content of 1QS and 4Q257; another form is reflected in 4Q259; another form perhaps reflected in 4Q255; and yet another in 4Q256 and 258.22 Considering the four different forms, and based on the dating of these manuscripts, two different forms are pre-Qumran (1QS, 4Q255 and 257) and two are Qumranic (4Q256, 258 and 259). Scholarship has differed with regard to the literary structure and form of S. Gagnon cites a range of views concerning the literary structure.23 The views consist of the literary structure of S being comprised of five major sources divided into thirty fragments scattered haphazardly throughout the work;24 it being comprised of six sections, which follow a literary unity;25 and it being a product of literary evolution, which consists of an early nucleus of material that expands over the course of four sequential stages. Of the three views presented above, the last one is most intelligible. This view was initially put forward by Murphy-O’Connor.26 His work represented the first attempt to explain comprehensively the composition of S. He described the four stages of S It is possible that 4Q255 reflects yet another text form of S. Cf., Alexander and Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-yaḥad and Related Texts 12. 22 Although these two texts are similar, 4Q258 lacks reference to columns I-IV of 1QS. 23 See Robert A.J. Gagnon, “How Did the Rule of the Community Obtain its Final Shape? A Review of Scholarly Research,” in Qumran Questions (ed. James H. Charlesworth; TBS 36; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 67-85. 24 This was the primary view of Henri E. Del Medico; see his L’énigme des manuscrits de la Mer Morte (Paris: Plon, 1957), 160. 25 This is the view of Pierre Guilbert, “Le plan de la Règle de la Communauté,” RevQ 1 (1959): 323-44. He divides S in the following way: I 16III 12, dealing with entry into the covenant; III 13-IV 26, dealing with the doctrine of two spirits; V 1-VII 25, dealing with internal regulations of the community; VIII 1-IX 11, which he describes as denier degré d’implantation de la Communauté: La vie au désert; and 9:12-11:22, which he describes as the rules for the personal training of new members. 26 See his “‘La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté,’” RB 76 (1969): 528-49 and “Community, Rule of the (1QS),” ABD 1.1109-11. 21

266

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

as correlating with de Vaux’s archaeological periods of occupation.27 These four stages, which virtually reflect no ideological differences, can be outlined as followed:

1) The first stage comprised of 1QS VIII 1-10a, 12b-16a and IX 3-10a.28 As Philip Alexander asserts, this may well be the oldest material in S, which goes backs to a pre-Qumranian stage of development.29 Gagnon notes that Murphy-O’Connor describes this material, particularly the refrain “when these exist in Israel,” in VIII 4, 12b and IX 5b, combined with “to go to the desert,” in 8:14, as a manifesto for the community’s anticipation to go to Qumran and live as a spiritual temple which could atone for the land.30 2) The second stage comprised of 1QS VIII 10b-12a, and 16b-IX 2. According to Murphy O’Connor, the community at this stage developed the need for penal legislation. 3) The third stage consisted of 1QS V 1-13a; and VI 8b-VII 25.31 According to Murphy-O’Connor, this stage experienced a transition regarding institutionalisation and democratisation.32 This view is based on the appearance of rules concerning the conduct of a general community (VI

Particularly de Vaux’s later beliefs, beginning with Period Ia dating back as far as 152 B.C.E. See his “Fouilles,” (1956): 534-45 and Archaeology. Cf., de Vaux’s initial view in “Fouilles,” (1954): 206-36. 28 Before Jean Pouilly’s analysis concerning this stage, Murphy-O’Connor included 1QS VIII 10b-12a as part of stage 1. See Jean Pouilly, La règle de la Communauté de Qumran: Son évolution littéraire (CahRB 17; Paris: Gablda, 1976). 29 See Philip Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh Ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17 (1996): 441. Although this view is plausible, based on the dating of the manuscript of 1QS (100 B.C.E.), which coincides with the start of the Qumran occupation, the entire composition of 1QS dates to a pre-Qumran period and ideology. Cf., Murphy-O’Connor, “Community,” 1.1109-10. 30 See Gagnon, “How Did the Rule?” 76. Cf., Murphy-O’Connor, “Community,” 1.1111. 31 For Murphy-O’Connor’s earlier view concerning the texts of this stage, see Gagnon, “How Did the Rule?” 79-81. 32 See Murphy-O’Connor, “Community,” 1.1111. He contends that these changes also correlate with de Vaux’s archaeological Ib phase. 27

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

267

8-13), the admission of new members (VI 13-23), and the further explication of penal rules (VI 24-VII 25). 4) The fourth stage comprised of 1QS I 1-IV 26; V 13b-VI 8a; and X 9-XI 22. Murphy-O’Connor described these three passages as coming from independent traditional elements. Despite this, he ascribed them to the same stage, particularly because they served the same purpose, i.e., of revitalising the fervor of the community.33

Murphy-O’Connor’s literary analysis is tenable only in the sense that it is plausible that there could have been four clearly defined textual divisions of S. Outside of this, certain modifications need to be made. Since it is more reasonable to accept a Qumran occupation around 100 B.C.E.,34 it is difficult to adopt this four-stage hypothesis as running parallel to de Vaux’s archaeological periods, particularly beginning with de Vaux’s Period Ia.35 Rather, it is more probable to view the entire composition and redaction of 1QS (along with 4Q256 and 258) as being developed in the preQumran period, yet also copied at the start of the Qumran settlement. Dating this composition before the Qumran settlement suggests that for the most part the cultic ideology of the Qumranrelated community remained the same up until their early settlement at Qumran. Despite some redactional activity in the later manuscript copies, overall, this ideology went through very little change. Apparent differences are highlighted in certain manifestations of priestly authority. This is evident when a comparison is made between 1QS and the 4QS documents, particularly 4Q256 and 258.36 See Murphy-O’Connor, “La genèse,” 537 and “Community,” 1.1111-2. See the Archaeology chapter. Also cf., Magness, “Qumran Archaeology,” 64. 35 See de Vaux’s analysis in Archaeology. Also cf., note 19 above. 36 Despite the contention of some scholars (Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. (STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997); Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration.” DSD 4 (1997): 137-56; Charlotte Hempel, “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa.” DSD 3 (1996): 253-69 and Geza Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok-Priest-Congregation,” in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift fur Martin Hengel zum 33 34

268

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

D. PRIESTLY AUTHORITY IN S: 1QS V 1-10 IN VIEW OF 4Q256 IX 2B-3A AND 4Q258 I 2-3A

Regarding priestly authority in the community, 4Q256 and 258 lack certain references that are preserved in 1QS. Particularly evident are references concerning the Sons of Zadok in 1QS V 1-10. The communal converts acquiesce to the authority of these priests as well as to the multitude of the men of the community. According to the author of this text, both groups (the Sons of Zadok and the multitude of the men of the community) were to decide by lot concerning every affair involving law, property, and judgement, without offering or participating in any form of actual sacrifice.37 1QS V 1-10 describes the Zadokite priests as possessing all that had been revealed concerning the Law of Moses. Moreover, these priests were described as the interpreters of God’s will, and the keepers of the covenant (as in Jubilees). These references, however, are lacking in the parallel texts of 4Q256 and 258. There is no mention of the Zadokite priests. Rather, communal converts were to acquiesce to the authority of the Many. The Many were given the authority in every matter involving the law and possessions,38 however, without performing or participating in any type of actual sacrifice. The variation between these texts suggests not only different forms of S, but also different ideologies concerning communal authority. The 4QS material most likely attests to a later Qumran

70. Geburtstag. (ed. Hubert Cancik et al.; vol. 1; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997), 375-84), it is more intelligible to conclude that the composition of these manuscripts date chronologically after the composition of 1QS. See especially Philip Alexander on this point in “Redaction-History,” 437-53. Also cf., Paul Garnet, “Cave 4 MS Parallels to 1QS V 1-7: Towards a Serek Text History.” JSP 15 (1997): 67-78. 37 The redacted parts of the Damascus Document highlight the Sons of Zadok (as well as the Levites and the Many) as part of the larger DSS movement and later Qumran-related community. These redacted sections reflect the viewpoint of the Qumran-related community. 38 See 4Q256 IX 2b-3a(=4Q258 I 2-3a).

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

269

ideology.39 The authority of the Many in both the 4QS texts and 1QS consisted of both priests and laity.40

E. THE M AKEUP OF THE COMMUNITY OF S

Throughout the manuscripts of S, the makeup of the community is alluded. Referred to as the community of the Sons of Light (in 1QS I 9; II 16; III 13), and the Many (in 1QS VI 1b, 7b),41 this group is made up of some lay Israelites, as well as priests. According to S, the latter group is referred to simply as priests, the sons of Aaron, or the Levites. The Sons of Zadok are also mentioned, but only in the 1QS text. 1QS representing one of the oldest copies of S mentions these priests in an authoritative role.42 As Philip Alexander contends, it may be that these priests died out during the early stages of the Qumran settlement, hence the reason for them not being mentioned in the later 4QS texts.43 Despite this fact, according to 1QS II 19-23,44 V 1-26,45 and IX 7-946 priests are clearly depicted as the leaders of the community. In S, the duties of the priests are non-sacrificial. Unlike the sacrificial regulations and the sacrificial duties of the priests in the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT,47 priestly

Philip Alexander rightly notes the possibility of the Zadok priests phasing out (possibly dying off) during the later Qumran period. See his “Redaction-History,” 450-1. Also cf., James H. Charlesworth and Brent Strawn, “Reflections on the Text of Serek Ha-Yaḥad Found in Cave 1V.” RevQ 17 (1996): 414 plus note 47. 40 According to 1QS V 8b-9a, the makeup of the Many, consisting of priests and non-priests, is described via their rank during their sessions. Also cf., 1QS II 19-23. 41 The Many are similarly highlighted in the redacted parts of the Damascus Document only. See note 37 above. 42 See 1QS V 2b-4a, and 9a. Also refer to the discussion above. 43 Refer to note 39. 44 This passage describes the hierarchy of the community. 45 This passage states that everyone in the community acquiesces to the authority of the sons of Zadok the priests. 46 This passage describes the sons of Aaron as the only ones that have the authority concerning matters of judgement. 47 For discussion on the sacrificial ideology in these texts, refer to the respective chapters in this book. 39

270

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

duties only included pronouncing blessings and curses,48 instructing,49 examining over members,50 offering up prayer and praises, giving reproach, and safeguarding the covenant. It is plausible that these priestly duties functioned as substitutes for actual sacrificial practices, whereas in the bulk of the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT, there is legislation for priests with regard to sacrifice.51 This is described explicitly in B 9b-13a, 13b17; CD 3:21b-4:2a; 6:11-7:3b; 9:13-14a52, as well as assumed in an implicit way in B 17-20, 25-27, 36-37, 63a-64b and CD 11:17b20a.53

F. CULTIC M ATTER IN M ANUSCRIPTS OF S 1. Introduction

Cultic matters conveyed in the manuscripts of S mostly argue a similar ideology. In view of the dating of the S manuscripts (despite redactional activity), this similar ideology reflects the constant views of a particular historical developing community (i.e.,

As illustrated in the first four columns of 1QS, in particular 1QS I 18b19; II 1b-18, priests and Levites administered this duty. These duties likely followed the renewing of the covenant festival, influenced by Jubilees 6; 14:1-20; 15:1-29; 22:1-6, 10-25, 28-30 and 44:1-4. This priestly duty also is attested based on 4Q266 11:17-19(=4Q270 7 ii). Also refer to discussion in both Jubilees and the Damascus Document chapters. 49 Since the priests are depicted as the leaders of the community, particularly as seen in 1QS II 19-23, it is probable that the instructor of the community was a type of priest as well. 50 In 1QS V 20b-22a, under the authority of the priest, the sons of Aaron, persons enrolling in the community were to examine their spirits, with regard to their complying with the deeds of the law. 51 In both the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll (however, mainly the Damascus Document) sacrificial duties reflect the position of the larger DSS movement and the Qumran-related community in their early development (before a split had taken place). 52 Also cf., CD 16:13-14a. 53 See the view of sacrifice and sacrificial regulations in the chapters on the Damascus Document and MMT. 48

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

271

the Qumran-related community both before and during the Qumran settlement).54 The community reflected in the extant S manuscripts viewed itself as a temple community which made spiritualised offerings and sacrifices through their prayer, praise, and study. Offerings were made via their lips: “the offering of the lips in compliance with the decree will be like the pleasant aroma of justice;”55 “and with the offering of the lips he shall bless him;”56 “with the offering of the lips I shall bless him, in accordance with the decree recorded for ever;”57 “the precept will be engraved on my tongue to be a fruit of eulogy, and a portion (of offering) of my lips;”58 “I shall bless him with the offering that issues from my lips in the row of men.”59 “Without the flesh of burnt offerings and without the fats of sacrifice.”60 These vocal blessings were the spiritualised offerings that were viewed as substitutes for sacrifice. This most likely is why the hymn and praise section of S (1QS X 9-XI 22(=4Q256 XX 1-7 + 4Q258 X 1-8 + 4Q260 IV 1-V 6) and 4Q264 1:1-10) was constructed.61 Moreover, the S community viewed itself as a place where individuals and the land could be atoned. Unlike in the Damascus Document, where members are atoned through meals and sin offerings,62 in all forms of S, atonement is without sacrifice (“without the flesh of burnt offerings and without the fats of sacrifice”).63 For discussion concerning the cultic ideology of the Qumran-related community in the Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll and MMT, refer to these respective chapters. 55 1QS IX 4b-5a. All scroll passages are taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1,( 1Q1-4Q273) and Volume 2 Leiden: Brill, 1997 and 1998, unless otherwise indicated. 56 1QS IX 26b. 57 1QS X 6a. 58 1QS X 8b. 59 1QS X 14b. 60 1QS IX 4b(=4Q258 7:5). 61 See below where this matter is discussed. 62 See CD 14:19b(=4Q266 10:13). 63 1QS IX 4b(=4Q258 VII 5). Also see the discussion below. 54

272

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

2. The Community as Temple; A Source of Atonement a. 4Q259 in Light of 1QS VIII 15-IX 11(=4Q258 VII 4-7a)

Apart from the Sons of Zadok, the S manuscripts predominantly project a similar ideology regarding cult matters. Of particular interest, however, is the absence of cultic material from 4Q259. This text, which parallels 1QS VIII 1-14 and IX 12-21, which immediately follows, lacks the equivalent description of 1QS VIII 15-IX 11. Particularly significant in what is lacking is the reference in 1QS IX 3-5a concerning the community becoming a source of atonement beyond itself. After each member is perfectly enrolled according to his rank, the community is envisaged here as becoming a place which atones for iniquity and sin: When these exist in Israel in accordance with these rules in order to establish the spirit of holiness in truth eternal, in order to atone for the guilt of iniquity and for the unfaithfulness of sin, and for the approval for the land, without the flesh of burnt offering and without the fats of sacrifice – the offering of the lips in compliance with the decree will be like the pleasant aroma of justice and the perfectness of behaviour will be acceptable like a freewill offering.

The author of this text envisages the S community64 as existing eschatologically in Israel to become a place which through the spirit of God65 atones for both individuals (“to atone for the guilt of iniquity and for the unfaithfulness of sin”) and the land. Both God and the community are envisaged here as working in harmony with one another concerning the acts of atonement. It is God’s spirit, holiness and forgiveness working through the members of the community which is envisaged as providing atonement. This atonement is made, however, without sacrifice. Moreover, the community’s praise (“the offering of the lips in compliance with the decree”) is envisaged as being likened with incense offering (“the pleasant aroma of justice”), and their perfectness of behaviour is envisaged as being acceptable like a freewill offering. 64 65

Called the Community of Holiness here. Cf., 1QS XI 14b-15.

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

273

The community in partnership with God is clearly envisaged as providing substitutes for sacrifice. Both their lip praise and perfect behaviour is likened as offering. Once the divine fulfilment of God has come to pass,66 the members of the community established themselves as a holy temple in Israel for the order of the Aaronic priesthood. It is only when this occurs, that these particular priests will subsequently be given authority concerning matters of judgment and goods. Moreover, their word settles the lot of all provisions concerning the entire Community. In 4Q259, the above-mentioned pericope (1QS IX 3-8) is lacking. 4Q259 lacks anything parallel with 1QS VIII 15-IX 11. 4Q259 contains the equivalent of 1QS VIII 1-14, which is immediately followed by IX 12-24 where the final break is at the start of 4QOtot. The differences illustrate a different form of S, but not a different communal ideology.67 Three reasons may support this: 1) The immediate ensuing material, 4QOtot, suggests that this entire work (4Q259) was that of a private copy which only incorporated material that was of particular interest to its reader. Even though 4QOtot may have been a private copy, its content yet remained similar to its official parallels.68 2) Although the same cultic view as described in 1QS is lacking from 4Q259, the ideology conveyed yet was a continuous pre-Qumran and Qumran cultic ideology. This is attested via the parallel description of this material preserved in another later 4QS work, 4Q258 VII 4-7a. 4Q258 being a later manuscript than 1QS preserve the Qumran form of this continual cultic ideology. 3) Although the community as a source of atonement ideology is not illustrated in this 4Q259 passage, 4Q259 yet reflects this idea in its texts. This can be seen in 4Q259 II

Particularly IX 5b-8. Refer to discussion in section C. of this chapter. 68 If 4Q259 is a private unofficial copy of S, differences that do exist have nothing to do with the community’s official view of the cult. For discussion of this issue, see Markus Brockmuehl, “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS),” RevQ 17 (1997): 543. Also cf., Charlesworth and Strawn, “Reflections,” 414-6. 66 67

274

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION 9b-18, which loosely parallels 1QS VIII 1-10a, and 4Q258 VI 1-4a.

b. 4Q259 II 9b-18 in Light of 1QS VIII 1-10a(=4Q258 VI 1-4a)

Another passage that describes the community as sanctuary-like, and which is also a source of atonement, is 1QS VIII 1-10a and its parallels in 4Q258 and 259. The aforementioned passages describe the community as a place where God atones for both the individual and the land. In these parallel passages, twelve men and the three priests are described as being the vehicle whereby sin is atoned. Because of their (these fifteen members) adherence to all revealed law, their implementing truth, judgment, compassionate love, and unassuming behaviour to preserve faithfulness in the land with firm purpose and repentant spirit, atonement for sin has been made possible. This passage describes three things that establish atonement: (1) doing justice, (2) undergoing trials, and (3) walking with everyone in the measure of the truth according to God’s regulated time. Moreover, this atonement process was viewed as bringing individuals in harmony with creation.69 According to 1QS VIII 4b-10(=4Q258 VI 1-4a + 4Q259 II 13b-18a), when the above mentioned is envisaged in Israel, the community is viewed as becoming a temple community under the authority of the Aaronic priests for the land Israel (“a holy house for Israel and the foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron”).70 Subsequently, this community will be a place (a temple) where atonement is possible for the land and individuals (“to atone for the land and to render the wicked their retribution . . . And these will be accepted in order to atone for the land and to decide the judgment of the wickedness. . .”).71 Additionally, this community is envisaged as making spiritual offerings:

Refer to 1QS VIII 1-4(=4Q259 II 9b-13a) in particular. 1QS VIII 5b-6a(=4Q259 II 14b-16a). Also cf., 1QS VIII 9b-10a. 71 1QS VIII 6b-7a, 10b(=4Q258 VI 4a). 69 70

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

275

It (the Community) will be the most holy dwelling for Aaron with eternal knowledge of the covenant of justice and in order to offer a pleasant aroma.72

The parallel passages (in 1QS, 4Q258 and 259) stress a continuous pre and Qumran cultic ideology. This ideology likewise stresses that atonement can be received without sacrifice. c. 1QS III 4-12(=4Q255 II 1-9 + 4Q257 III 6-14 + 4Q262 1:1-4)

A similar ideology regarding the community as a place where God atones is found in 1QS III 4-12(=4Q255 II 1-9 + 4Q257 III 6-14 + 4Q262 1:1-4). Whereas 1QS IX 3-5a(=4Q258 VII 4-7a) describes the community as a place that atones for the individual and the land, these passages describe the community as a place which atones mainly for the individual. This ideology is similar throughout the various texts of S and suggests a continuous ideology about the community’s pre-Qumran and Qumran stage. 1QS III 4-6a(= 4Q257 III 6-14 + 4Q262 1:1-4) describes the person with the stubborn heart as not being able to become clean by the acts of atonement, nor being purified by the cleansing waters or the waters of ablutions, nor being made holy by the seas or rivers. It is probable that the references to being sprinkled with cleansing waters (which refers to the purification offering involving the red cow) and being made clean with the waters of ablutions gives evidence for how the numerous miqva’ot at the Qumran site were used. Unlike the biblical requirement of purification by water being accompanied by atoning sacrifice (in Leviticus 14:8 and 15:13), no sacrifice is mentioned here. According to 1QS III 6b-7a, the spirit of the true counsel of God atoned for an individual. This true counsel of God resided in

1QS VIII 8b-9a(=4Q258 VI 2b-3a); cf., 4Q259 II 17. In view of an incense altar found at Qumran, the community probably offered a type of incense offering here which was viewed as a substitute for sacrifice. This view can later be attested in the community’s 4Q174. Refer to discussion of this in the chapter on 4QFlorilegium. Also see the discussion of this altar in section C.2.e. in the chapter on Archaeology. 72

276

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

the community, which incidentally is called the community of his counsel. The individuals that made up the S community were active participants with God concerning atonement. On the basis of 1QS III 4-6a(= 4Q257 III 6-14 + 4Q262 1:1-4), only an individual with a pure heart was able to become cleansed through atoning acts and purified with cleansing waters and the waters of ablutions. According to 1QS III 7b-12(=4Q255 II 1-9), the Holy Spirit which resided in the community cleansed all iniquity. The spirit of uprightness and humility atoned for sin, and compliance with all the laws of God cleansed the flesh, by being sprinkled with cleansing waters and being made holy with the waters of repentance. This purification process not only cleansed and atoned an individual, but these acts also rendered an individual as being in harmony with creation as divinely elected. This is suggested by 1QS III 9b-12: May he, then, steady his steps in order to walk with perfection on all the paths of God, as he has decreed concerning the appointed times of his assemblies and not turn aside . . . in this way he will be admitted by means of atonement pleasing to God, and for him it will be the covenant of an everlasting Community.

This overall passage (1QS III 7b-12(=4Q255 II 1-9), like other atonement passages in S, likewise conveys the same ideology. Being atoned for was without sacrifice. Being atoned for, rather, required walking perfectly on all the paths of God concerning appointed times. G. Entering into the Covenant

According to S, entering the covenant of God required no sacrifice. Unlike biblical legislation, which describes the covenant between God and humanity as cultic,73 S makes no such stipulation. As with D, entry into the community satisfied the requirement of entering into the covenant.74 This is the case particularly because Refer to Genesis 15 and Jeremiah 34:18-19 in particular, where the covenant participants, after having slaughtered and cut an animal in two, pass between the divided parts. 74 See 1QS V 6b; also see 1QS II 25b 73

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

277

of how the community was envisaged as establishing the covenant: “And all those who enter in the Rule of the Community shall establish a covenant before God in order to carry out all that he commanded . . .”75 Likewise, “. . . those who freely volunteer in the Community to set up his covenant . . .”76 Moreover, priests were given certain duties here, particularly concerning the safeguarding of the covenant. According to 1QS I 18b-20 and II 4b, 10-12 and 18, priests and Levites were given the authority of pronouncing blessings and curses in the covenant ceremony. In 1QS V 20b-21a, priests also were given authority over the examination of covenant entrants. Entry into the covenant was predicated upon examining one’s own spirit in the community with respect to insight and deeds in the laws. According to V 11b-12a, entry into the covenant was predicated upon an individual seeking God’s decrees to know hidden matter, as well as treating revealed matter with respect, however, without offering sacrifices.

H. CALENDRICAL MATTERS

According to 1QS 1:7b-9a, being part of the covenant was viewed as being in harmony with God’s created order: In order to welcome all those who freely volunteer to carry out God’s decrees into the covenant of kindness; in order to be united in the counsel of God and walk in perfection in his sight, complying with all revealed things concerning the regulated times of their stipulations.

Here, God’s created order comprised certain regulations pertaining to calendrical matters. These revealed things (‫ )נגלות‬correlated with certain appointed or regulated times, which if followed, brought the individual communal member and community in harmony with God’s created order. The covenant members understood this harmony to be active in their community thus creating a purified environment for sustaining the holy presence of God. 1QS I 16. Here, “covenant before God” is synonymous with the “covenant of God,” especially because of how the author of S viewed the community as belonging to God in the first place. 76 1QS 5:21b. 75

278

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Based on this, the community as a source of atonement was possible. Covenant members were cautioned not to stray from any one of God’s orders concerning their appointed times or their feasts: They shall not stray from any one of all God’s orders concerning their appointed times; they shall not advance their appointed times nor shall they regard any one of their feasts. They shall not veer from his reliable precepts in order to go either to the right of the left.

To stray from calendrical matters associated with God’s legislation was, in a sense, to cause disunity with God thus compromising their (the community members) self-understanding of their divine election. This subsequently was viewed by the community as creating impurity, vis-à-vis the stubbornness of their heart. According to the various manuscripts of S, communal members were instructed to bless God according to the correct time, seasons, and periods. This brought them in harmony with God’s creation thus securing their status as a holy community. According to 1QS IX 26b-10:8a, communal members were instructed to bless God during the periods which he decreed.77 And with the offering of his lips he shall bless him during the periods which God decreed: at the commencement of the dominion of light, during its rotation and at its retirement to its appointed abode. At the commencement of the vigils of darkness when he opens his store and stretches them upward and during its rotation, when it retires before the light. When the lights shine out of the holy vault, when they retire to the abode of glory. At the entry of the seasons in the days of the new moon together with their rotations during their stations renewing each other. It is a great day for the holy of holies, and a sign vacat of the opening of his everlasting mercies for the beginnings of the seasons in every future age. vacat At the commencement of the months in their seasons, and of the holy days in their sequence, as a reminder in their seasons. With the offering of lips I shall bless him, in accordance with the decree recorded forever. At the commencement of the years and in the turning of their seasons, when the decree of their disposition is carried out, on its prescribed day, one after another; the season of the harvest up to summer, the season of seed-time up to the season of the grass, the seasons of the years up to their seven-year periods. At the commencement of the sevenyear periods up to the moment decided for deliverance. 77

CHAPTER EIGHT. THE RULE OF THE COMMUNITY

279

I. SUMMARY: THE OVERALL V IEW OF OFFERING PRAISE, PRAYER AND STUDY AS SUBSTITUTES FOR SACRIFICE

As the Qumran-related community developed, it developed a more predominantly spiritualised view concerning the temple and sacrificial related matters. Although this spiritualised view was beginning to develop early in their formation, which was preQumranic, until the Rule of the Community, this idea was sparsely demonstrated.78 The Rule of the Community demonstrates a clear shift in the literary descriptions and ideology of the community, which predominantly viewed the temple and sacrificial related matters in a spiritualised manner. Throughout the various forms of S, the Rule of the Community predominantly shows that the community viewed itself as sanctuary-like which atoned and made spiritualised offerings as substitutes for sacrifice. Along with this, S shows that study likewise was viewed as important, which also was viewed as a type of substitute for actual sacrifice. In the hymn section of S, which most likely was addressed to the Maskil, playing music and singing praises and blessings, via the offering of the lips, was viewed as establishing harmony with God’s created order: “the playing of my harp according to his (God’s) holy order, and the whistle of my lips I shall tune to its correct measure.”79 These spiritualised offerings were performed in the covenant community day and night,80 and they were viewed as providing a type of deliverance.81 This particular ideology is seen throughout the various manuscripts of S (4Q258 IX 710a; X 6a(=4Q260 III 1-3a + IV 3b-4a), which variously illustrates the continuous ideology of the community both before and during the Qumran stage. With regard to study, throughout the manuscripts of S, the developing community was instructed to keep constant watch throughout the year via study, prayer and praises: “They shall eat together, together they shall bless and together they shall take In the case of the 4QSE material, descriptions here mirror what parts of the redacted sections of D say. See discussion of this in Pfann’s work (refer to note 12 above for the reference to his work). 79 1QS X 9. 80 See 1QS X 10b, and 14b 81 Refer to 1QS X 17b in particular. 78

280

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

counsel.”82 Similarly, “And the Many shall be on watch together for a third of each night of the year in order to read the book, explain the regulation, and bless together”83 As demonstrated in S, these acts were substitutes for sacrifices.

82 83

1QS VI 2b-3a(=4Q258 II 7b + 4Q263 1:3b-4a). 1QS VI 7b-8.

CHAPTER NINE. THE VIEW OF SACRIFICE IN THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

Like the Rule of the Community, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice resembles the spiritualised ideology of the Qumran-related community. Although the text is not a composition of the sectarian community, its content harmonises with it. Highlighted in this text are: (1) the spiritualised view that praise is likened to sacrifices; (2) the view that these spiritualised sacrifices are heard and performed in the divine realm; and (3) that the offering of this liturgy is in the presence of the divine which achieves harmony with God. The liturgical aspect of the document is similar to various other liturgical texts also found at Qumran.1 Moreover, the document’s spiritualised ideology is analogous to the Rule of the Community. As the Qumran-related community settled at Qumran, their spiritualised ideology was more prevalent. As illustrated in the Rule of the Community, some of these practices included offering prayer and praise according to the 364-day cultic calendar. Liturgical worship, which normally accompanied the sacrificial regulations and cultic festivals, now were viewed as the equivalent of sacrifices. Along with the Rule of the Community, the Songs See throughout this chapter where these texts are mentioned. For a discussion of the liturgical texts, refer to the references in section C.5., “The Status of Liturgical Texts in the Debate about Sacrifice,” in chapter one. 1

281

282

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

of the Sabbath Sacrifice was just one of the many liturgical texts that demonstrated the spiritualised view of the community. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice presents itself as a liturgical text, which describes sacrifice taking place in a heavenly temple with emphasis on an angelic priesthood. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice concerning its views of sacrifice. Our examination will look at three particular aspects simultaneously: 1) The literary function of the work in relation to the Qumran community who preserved it. 2) The ideology of heavenly sacrifice in relation to the cultic ideology of the community. 3) The nature of the angelic priests and heavenly temple in relation to the community.

B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, from Shirot ‘Olat Ha-Shabbat, also called the Angelic Liturgy, is extant in ten fragmentary copies, eight from Qumran cave 4 (4Q400-407, also referred to as Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificea-h), one from Qumran cave 11 (11Q17), and one from Masada (Mas1k). The title of this work was first given by John Strugnell. It was adapted from the headings within the text that introduce each of the Sabbath Songs, ‫שיר עולת השבת‬ (in 4Q400 1 i 1; 2:8; 4Q401 1-2:1; 4Q403 1 i 30; 1 ii 18; 4Q404 2+3AB 12; 4Q405 8-9:1; 20 ii 21-22:6; 4Q406 1:4b). The extant manuscripts of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice date from circa 75 B.C.E. to circa 50 C.E., the oldest manuscripts being the cave 4 texts. A portion of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice initially was made known by John Strugnell. He published material from the cave 4 manuscripts in 1960.2 Later, in 1965, Yigael Yadin published a preliminary report of the Masada text;3 this was followed in 1982 by A. S. van der Woude who published the cave 11 text.4 4Q405 and 4Q403 1 i in particular. See Strugnell, “the Angelic,” 31845. 3 Yadin, “Excavation at Masada,” 105-8. 4 van der Woude “Fragments,” 311-37. 2

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 283 In 1985, Carol Newsom published an edition of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice containing all the extant copies, including all of the extant 4Q texts.5

C. L ITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT

The various manuscripts of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice make up a unified literary composition. Although these manuscripts are fragmented, enough information makes the overall content comprehensible. This information is evidenced by the re-occurrence of various words and phrases in the texts themselves, as well as textual overlapping which exists among the various manuscripts. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice contains thirteen Sabbath Songs correlating with thirteen consecutive Sabbaths. These thirteen Songs represent only a quarter of a solar-calendar year. However, it is possible that these thirteen Songs were recited throughout the year (52 weeks), the cycle being repeated four times.6 If this were the case, the sectarian community recited these Songs in the place of the Sabbath Sacrifices. This is apparent throughout the entire work in that songs, blessings and praises were offered to God in the heavenly temple. Regarding when the Sabbath Songs were recited, Carol Newsom describes them as corresponding to the first quarter of the yearly cycle only. She thus describes these Songs as heavenly mystical visions, which when recited by the sectarian community members, evoked hypnotic visions of a heavenly-angelic priesthood, a heavenly temple, and its furnishings, as well as cultic activities that took place in the heavenly realm. Newsom classified the recitation of these Songs as spiritual exercises.7 Newsom rejects the idea that these Songs were actually recited as Newsom, Songs. Also see her DJD edition, “Shirot ‘Olat Hashabbat,” in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part I (DJD 11; ed. Esther Eshel et al.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 173-401 and plates xvi-xxxi. 6 On this argument see Johann Maier, “Shire ‘Olat Hash-Shabbat. Some Observations on their Calendric Implications and on their Style,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18-21 March 1991. (ed. Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2.543-60. 7 See Newsom, Songs, 19, 59. Also cf., Falk, Daily Sabbaths, 137. 5

284

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

accompanying the Sabbath Sacrifice, or that these Songs were recited to serve as substitutes for sacrifice.8 Newsom’s view concerning these Sabbath Songs, particularly as mystical visions for spiritual exercises is untenable. The sectarian community likely viewed the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as archetypical of what actually took place with their praise offerings. The community may have likened itself (as analogous) to the Sabbath Songs’ priests and heavenly temple as well as viewing the ideology of the document’s heavenly worship as reflecting their own earthly worship. The sectarian community may have viewed the recitation of these Songs as fulfilling their obligation of participating in the temple worship, albeit in the heavenly temple.9 Despite Newsom’s contention regarding the actual times when the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice were recited, it is possible that each Sabbath Song was recited once during each quarterly cycle, thus being recited four times a year.10 This is plausible in that due to the uncertain provenance of this work’s composition,11 the sectarian community viewed the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice differently from its author’s original intent (if initially composed only to recognize the first thirteen Sabbaths of the first quarter of the year). The way that the Sabbath Songs are described attest to variant readings. Even if the original author intended to refer only to the first quarter of the year, the Sabbath Songs could have been

See Newsom, Songs, 18-9, 59; also “‘He Has Established for Himself Priest:’ Human and Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman. JSPSup 8/ASORM 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 114. 9 Cf., Crispin H. P. Fletcher-Louis, “Heavenly Ascent or Incarnational Presence? A Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1998 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 367-99; and All the Glory of Adam; Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 43; Leiden, Brill, 2002), who contends that the sectarian community viewed itself as angelomorphic. 10 Refer to note 6. 11 See this discussion below; also refer to notes 17 and 26. 8

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 285 used in quarterly cycles among the sectarians.12 On the basis of this it is possible that the recitation of these Songs either accompanied the Sabbath sacrifice (for 52 weeks),13 or they served as substitutes for the Sabbath sacrifice. To determine this matter, we must establish the content of sacrificial language throughout the sectarian scrolls which presupposes a harmonisation between the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the rest of the non-biblical sectarian scrolls. The sectarian community embraced the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a liturgical text, the study and recitation of which served as an acceptable substitute for sacrifice. This is attested in light of already established Sabbath liturgy which accompanied the Sabbath sacrifice (as attested in 11QPsa;14 4Q504 8 recto 1ff; and 1-2 vii 4ff).15 This factor suggests that the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice was taken as additional Sabbath liturgy, which served not as substitutes or additions to the already established Sabbath liturgy, but rather as substitutes for the Sabbath sacrifice itself.16 The idea of praise liturgies serving as sacrificial substitutes is also attested to in explicit sectarian literature. It is not clear whether Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice was a sectarian composition. This is mainly due to the document’s linguistic attributes.17 Although there are some similarities between

Because of the way each Sabbaths was recorded (numbered without any specific names of the month), it is possible to attest the above variant readings. 13 Falk, Daily Sabbaths, 137-8, favours this supposition. 14 11QPsa 27:7 in particular. 15 Also see 4Q503. 16 Cf., Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 293, particularly note 67, who follows this same understanding. 17 For a full discussion concerning this matter, see Newsom, Songs, 1-4; “Sectually Explicit Literature from Qumran,” in The Bible and its Interpreters (ed. William H. Propp, Baruch Halpern, and Daniel N. Freedman; BJSUSD 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 179-85; James H. Charlesworth and Carol Newsom The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (ed. James H. Charlesworth; vol. 4b; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999), 4-6, and James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (ECDSS 6; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 89-91. 12

286

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and other sectarian texts (like Berakot, Songs of the Sage,18 the Damascus Document,19 Rule of the Community,20 the Thanksgiving Hymn21, the War Scroll22, and Blessings23), significant differences, however, appear (like the use of the term ‫ אלוהים‬for angels,24 as well as the use of kingship language).25 These differences have led many to believe that the composition of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice was non-sectarian.26 However, despite this debate, the number of manuscript copies found at Qumran suggests that the sectarian community embraced this work, particularly its cultic ideology.

D. CULTIC MATTER IN THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 1. Introduction

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice refers to both metaphoric (spiritualised) and literal sacrifice. In 11Q17 9:3-5; 4Q400 1 i 14b; 4Q405 23 i 5-6 and 94:2, there is explicit reference made about sacrifice, offering the ‫עולת‬.27 Although three of these passages are fragmented, they imply that the angelic priests participated in sacrifice. Along with this, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice also refers These texts exhibit similar vocabulary and thematic imaging. See Charlesworth and Newsom Angelic Liturgy, 9, and Davila, Liturgical Works, 89-91. 19 CD A 2:9-10; 6:11-14 in particular. 20 1QS II 15; VII 14 in particular. Also refer to notes 17 and 26. 21 1QH I 19-20; III 5, 21-22, 35; XI 7-13; XIII 11-12 in particular. Also refer to notes 17 and 26. 22 1QM IV 12; IX 5 and XV 12 in particular. Also refer to notes 17 and 26. 23 1QSb III 25-26; IV 24-26 in particular. Also refer to notes 17 and 26. 24 This is rarely used in sectarian literature. For a description of angelic terms in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, see Newsom, Songs, 23-38, and Charlesworth and Newsom, Angelic Liturgy, 6-7. 25 Only a single reference of the community as the yahad appears in 4Q402 4:5. Other disputed similarities include the general use of the term maskil for the instructor, and the illustration of the general reference concerning the solar calendar. Refer to notes 17 and 26. 26 See note 17 above. Also cf., Fletcher-Louis, Glory of Adam, 252-3; and Falk, Daily Sabbaths, 126-30. 27 This is discussed in detail below. 18

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 287 to spiritualised sacrifice. Most of these passages describe praise as possible substitutes for sacrifice. This idea is seen throughout the Sabbath Songs, particularly in the function of the angelic priests and the heavenly temple. Regarding the praise offerings of priests, the angelic priests as well as angelic priestly images (which were engraved on celestial elements within the temple) are described as offering tongues of praise and blessings in the heavenly temple.28 Elements in the heavenly temple are described as offering praise. This includes the engraved angelic images, the chariot throne(s), and the debirim. Another reference concerning spiritualised sacrifice (discussed below) is found in 4Q400 1:16b. The angelic priests are described as making atonement for sin, yet with no explicit reference to sacrifice. The above cultic references depict ideological similarities regarding the sectarian community and the Sabbath Songs’ priests. Other similarities between the two include the priestly duties of teaching (4Q400 1:17b compared with 1QS V 8-9; VI 14; and 4Q266 5 ii 1-4, 8-9; 11:8),29 worshiping with one another (between humans and angels in 4Q400 2:1-2=4Q401 14:7-8; 4Q400 2:5b-7 compared with 1QHa XI 21; XIX 11-13; 1QSb II 8b-9a; and 1QS XI 8),30 and serving in the heavenly temple (4Q400 1:3b-4a, 10, 17a, 19).

See this discussion below under “The Praise Offerings of Tongues as Substitutes for Sacrifice,” (summation) section. 29 Cf., Florentino García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel; Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999), 309-11. 30 Also cf. 1QM, 1QH III 21-23, 24-36 and 1QS III 20-26. 28

288

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

2. The Sacrificial Ideology of the Angelic Priest and the Sectarian Priesthood a. Introduction

In following Devorah Dimant’s contention,31 the sectarian community, particularly its priests, viewed itself as a group which functioned and lived like angels. In light of the Sabbath Songs, the community may have likened itself to an angelic priestly community. Similar duties exist between both the angelic priesthood and the sectarian priests.32 According to 1QS II 1-18 and 4Q403 1 i 10b-29(=4Q404 2+3AB:1-11+4Q405 3 ii 1-19+Mas1k ii 2426); and 13:2-7, both the sectarian and angelic priests pronounced blessings over their respective assemblies.33 Sectarian and angelic priests similarly made offerings of praise. Moreover, these praise offerings likely were viewed as substitutes for sacrifice. This idea is equally expressed in the sectarian Rule of the Community (1QS IX 4b-5a, 26; X 6, 8b-9, 14b, 17b, 22b-23), 4Q174 (1 i 21 2:6-7), the Damascus Document (CD A 11:20b-21a in particular), and the non-sectarian34 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400 2:7; 4Q403 1 ii 26b; and 4Q405 23 ii 12 and most likely 4Q400 1 i 14b).35 In 4Q400 1 i 14b, angelic priests are described as making holy offerings in the heavenly temple; yet nothing regarding the nature or type of this offering is mentioned. This reference could be referring to the ‫עולם‬. However, considering the overall context of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (as a praise liturgy), it is more Here, in “Men as Angels,” 96, Dimant contends that in the Qumran community the sectarians conceived their own existence as analogical to that of angels. Moreover, she suggests that this belief was anchored in the community’s understanding of its function in their own historical context. 32 See Dimant, “Men as Angels,” 93-103, who examines these similarities. 33 See citations below. 34 Non-sectarian in its composition only. See Newsom, “Sectually Explicit,” 179-85 concerning this point. Also refer to notes 17 and 26. 35 Also see the praise and blessing passages listed in “Praise Offerings of Tongues as Substitutes for Sacrifice” (summation) section below. Cf., with 1Q34, 1Q34bis, 1QH, 4Q507, 4Q508, 4Q509+505, 4Q286-90, 4Q280, 4Q409, 4Q503, 4Q504, 4Q506, 4Q512, and 4Q414. 31

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 289 likely that this holy offering refers to the offerings of praise. Furthermore, these offerings of praise took place in the heavenly temple, which possibly replaced literal sacrifice. According to lines 10-14 of 4Q400 1 i, the angelic priests, called servants of the holy of holies, are described as functioning in the Temple, yet with only spiritualised offerings going forth: Because he has established them [for] himself to be the [most] ho[ly ones, servants in the ho]ly of holies. […] … in the temples of the king […] in their territory and in their inheritance […] They do not tolerate anyone whose path is de[praved.] There is n[o] impurity in their holy offerings.36

This ideology is seen not only in the praise offerings (as substitutes for sacrifice) of the angelic priests, but also the praise offerings of the temple structure (particularly the angelic priestly images).37 Other passages in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice that make explicit reference to offerings of praise are 4Q400 2:7; 4Q403 1 ii 26b; and 4Q405 23 ii 12.38 b. Praise Offerings of Tongues as Substitutes for Sacrifice

Both the sectarian community and the angelic priests display a similar ideology concerning praise as a spiritual sacrifice. These references cite offerings as coming from the praises of tongues or the lips.39 The sectarian community most likely viewed these references as reflective of their cultic ideology; thus, it is probable that the sectarians viewed themselves as analogous to the Sabbath Songs’ priests.

All scroll passages are taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1,( 1Q14Q273) and Volume 2 Leiden: Brill, 1997 and 1998, unless otherwise indicated. 37 See “Praise Offerings of Celestial Elements as Substitutes for Sacrifice” section below. 38 This latter passage (4Q405 23 ii 12) is described below. Compare these passages with the above-mentioned references in Rule of the Community. Both literary references describe praise as a type of offering. 39 See the Rule of the Community and Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice citations above. 36

290

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION Examples: 4Q400 2:7

In 4Q400 2:7 offering is mentioned in connection with praise, “What is the offering of our tongue of dust compared with the knowledge of the divinity[ies? . . .].” Although fragmented, the ensuing passage (line 8) goes on to describe a song, as well as an exhortation to extol God. Here, an earthly group compares its praise offering to that of angelic priests. The sectarian community likely viewed this passage as an indirect reference to the offering of praise as a substitute for sacrifice. 4Q403 1 ii 26b

4Q403 1 ii 26b is another passage in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice that mentions the offering of tongues. Although the context of this passage is fragmented, there is enough information to suggest that praise offering is intended. This passage is embedded within the eighth Sabbath Song, where the angelic priests (including the chiefs of the princes, the seven priesthoods, and holy councils) are exhorted to praise God: And the chiefs of the congregation of the king in the assembly […] and exalted praises to the king of glory, and magnification of [G]od to the God of gods, to the king of purity. And the offering of their tongues . . .40 Based on the preceding lines of this passage, the offering of tongues took place in the heavenly sanctuary. In lines 20-21 and 24, the priests are associated with the inner sanctum (“priests of the inner sanctum”), as well as being located in the sanctuary, “seven prie[sthoods] in the wonderful sanctuary for the seven holy councils.” c. Summary

Based on 4Q400 2:7 and 4Q403 1 ii 26b, praise is described as a type of offering, an offering which was viewed as an acceptable sacrifice. This is the main ideology of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice especially regarding sacrificial worship. It is plausible to 40

4Q403 1 ii 24b-26.

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 291 conclude that the sectarian community viewed the praise offerings of tongues of the angelic priests as equivalent to their praise offerings of tongues. Other passages which highlight praise and blessings are 4Q400 1 i 1b-3a; 2:1(=4Q401 14 i 6-7), 3b-4; 3 ii+5 8b; 4Q401 1-2:2; 13:2; 16 1-3; 4Q403 1 i 1-9(=4Q404 4:2b-10+4Q405 4, 5, 69, 6, 58, 57+Mas1k ii 1-23), 30b, 31b-33a, 36b-40, 42-43a; 1 ii 18b, 20; 4Q404 1:1-3; 2-3AB 12b-13; 4Q405 8-9:1-7; and perhaps 3 i 2; 3 ii+5 1. These passages make implicit reference to offerings of praise as acceptable substitutes for sacrifice. 3. The Sacrificial Ideology of the Heavenly Temple and Community as Temple a. Introduction

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice also describes the praise offerings of the heavenly Temple and its furnishings. This also is pertinent to the praise offerings of the sectarian community as temple. As noted in sectarian literature, the sectarian group described itself as a temple community. In the Rule of the Community (1QS IX 6), the community is described as being set apart as an everlasting plantation, a house (temple) of holiness, and an assembly of holiness for Aaron. Moreover, in 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6-7 there is reference to a ‫מקדש אדם‬, which offered the works or deeds of thanksgiving ‫מעשי תודה‬.41 This ‫ מקדש אדם‬most likely was the community itself. Based on this, it is possible to conclude that the sectarian community viewed the praises offered by the Sabbath Songs’ heavenly temple (its furnishings) as comparable to itself as temple and its praises as substitutes for sacrifice. In the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the heavenly temple with its furnishings is described as offering praises to God. In 4Q403 1 i 41, seven debirim are described as singing praises to God, along with the entire structure of the holy of holies:

41

Cf., Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 285-301.

292

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION With them praise all the fou[ndations of the hol]y of holies, the supporting columns of the most exalted dwelling, and all the corners of his building.42

Elements in the sanctuary included the chariot thrones, vestibules, and engraved images. Each of these temple objects are described as offering praises to God while in the temple. The offering of praises in the temple without mention of sacrifice suggests that these praises served as substitutes for sacrifice. The praise offerings of the heavenly temple (its elements and furnishings) are viewed as correlating with the praise offerings of the community as temple. It is possible that the sectarian community interpreted these references as similarly describing themselves. To the sectarians, the recitation of these particular temple praises most likely was envisaged as being heard in the heavenly realm. Several references in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (discussed below) allude to this. b. Praise Offerings of Temple Elements as Substitutes for Sacrifice

Praise offerings in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice were offered in the heavenly temple. Instead of actual sacrifices being offered there, praises and blessings were offered. This ideology is similar to the sectarian community’s. The sectarians most likely viewed the praises offered by the temple structures as equivalent to their praises (as substitutes for sacrifice). The recitation of these praises, by the sectarian community, most likely was envisaged as being spiritually heard and offered in the heavenly temple. Let us now look at examples of temple praises. Examples: 4Q403 1 ii 11b-17

4Q403 1 ii 11 describes the voice of blessings of both the angelic priests and the engraved angelic images. Called the chiefs of the inner shrine (‫)מראשי דבירו‬,43 the engraved images are described as 4Q403 1 i 41 The engraved angelic priests are also called spirits of the holy of holies and the spirits of God. 42 43

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 293 offering blessings, which are thus heard by the heavenly-angelic priests who respond with rejoicing: And the voice of the blessing of the chiefs of his inner shrine […] And the voice of the blessing {is heard} is glorified when the gods hear it . . .44

Here, it is likely that the sectarian community viewed this passage as depicting the interaction between themselves (as the “gods” who hear it) and the angelic priests (as the “chiefs” of the holy of holies) as participating in temple worship together.45 From lines 13-17, the temple elements are described as singing psalms, and offering praises and blessings. Line 13 describes all the decorations of the debir as singing psalms. Line 14 describes the debir as exchanging praises (“inner shrine to inner shrine, with the sound of holy multitudes”). Line 15 describes the various merkabot as offering praises together, along with angelic beings (the cherubim and the ofanim)46 who offer blessings (bless wonderfully). Line 16 refers to the engraved images in the temple as offering praise in the debir. It is probable that the sectarian community viewed these heavenly temple praise offerings as acceptable substitutes for sacrifice.47 The praises of the heavenly elements most likely were viewed as replacing actual offerings and blood sacrifices. Moreover, the sectarian community viewed these temple praises as analogous to their praises, i.e., as a community as temple. 4Q403 1 ii 27-45=4Q405 11:2-548

Another reference which describes the praise offerings of the temple is 4Q403 1 ii 27-29(=4Q405 11:2-5). In these passages, the 4Q403 1 ii 11b-12. Here, mention concerning angelic priests (chiefs) most likely refers to the engraved images. 46 Regarding the ophanim being an angelic being, see 4Q405 20 ii 2122:3, and 9. Also cf., Divila, Liturgical Works, 131. Also refer to note 24 regarding angelic beings. 47 This most likely was due to the sectarian’s position (and non-participation) concerning the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem. 48 See “Praise Offerings of Tongues as Substitutes for Sacrifice” section above. 44 45

294

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

holy of holies is broken up into seven regions. Each one is described as offering tongues of praise in successive order. The praises of each are described as increasing seven times louder than the previous.49 Lines 30-45, of 4Q403 1 ii, describes tongues of praises, psalms, and blessings. However, due to the fragmentary nature of these passages it is not clear what or who the subject of this liturgy is. Nevertheless, based on the context of the previous passages, some temple structure is offering these praises. 4Q405 14-15 i 1-8=11Q17 iv

Yet another reference concerning temple praises is found in both 11Q17 iv and 4Q405 14-15 i 1-8. These passages describe certain celestial images as offering praise to God in the sanctuary. 11Q17 iv preserves six lines that are not extant in 4Q405 14-15 i 1-8, whereas 4Q405 14-15 i 1-8 preserves five concluding passages not found in 11Q17 iv. In these passages, certain angelic images are described as praising God. These angelic beings are described as being engraved on certain structures within the temple. In lines 7-10 of 11Q17 iv(=4Q405 14-15 i 1-4), these images are described as offering praises and the tongue of blessing. According to 4Q405 14-15 i 1-4, the celestial beings (engraved on the vestibules of the entrances, as well as in the debirim) are depicted as being radiant and multi-coloured. Moreover, they seem to be priestly angels. They are described as the angels (‫)רוח‬50 of the holy of holies, who sing and offer tongues of blessings to God. According to lines 2-3(=11Q17 iv 10b), the sound of their praises can be heard: And from the likeness [of gods (comes) a so]und of blessing for the king of those who exalt, and their wonderful praise is for the God of the divinities.

Based on this passage, the sectarian community envisaged itself as analogous to these engraved images. The sectarian community viewed the different temple elements as comparable to the different members of its community. Just as the different members of

49 50

Cf. Davila, Liturgical Works, 134. Refer to note 24 for the various terms used for angels.

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 295 the community made up the praise of the community in total, the praises of the heavenly temple elements most likely were viewed as making up the general temple praises. 4Q405 15 ii-16=11Q17 v

In 4Q405 15 ii-16(=11Q17 v) angelic images are described as offering praise and blessings in the sanctuary. These images are described as being engraved on both sides of the veil in the debir and are described as being multi-coloured. These angelic beings most likely were cherubim, as line 9 of 11Q17 v alludes to. According to lines 6-8 of 4Q405 15 ii-16(=11Q17 v 5-6), their voices are heard, which were the joyful praises of thanksgiving. In line 5 of 4Q405 15 ii-16(=11Q17 v 4), there is a reference to these angelic images (cherubim) as blessing other angelic beings, “And they will bless [the gods of all…]” However, from the context of this passage, it is not quite clear who is blessing whom. The important fact stressed here is that here is yet another example of temple structures offering praise in the sanctuary. 4Q405 19=11Q17 vi

Another passage that describes the praise offerings of angelic images is 4Q405 19 (=11Q17 vi). These images offer praises while in the sanctuary. According to this passage, angelic images are described as being in the debir and being wonderfully embroidered and multi-coloured: A[l]l their [constructions are] of h[ol]y things wonderfully embroidered […] multi-coloured [… fi]gures of effigies of gods, engraved around their glorious brickwork . . . 51

These angelic images are called spirits of eternal divinities, spirits of the wonderful vault, spirits of knowledge of truth and of the justice in the holy of holies, effigies of the living angels, effigies of shining spirits, and holy angels.52 Moreover, these images are described as praising and blessing continually.

51 52

4Q405 19 5-6a(=11Q17 vi 6-7a). See note 24.

296

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION 4Q405 20 ii 21-22:6-14=11Q17 vii 9-14

In this passage, angelic priests are a description of the praises offered by the angelic cherubim. This passage, unlike the above passages, conveys to the angelic priesthood (the deputy princes) the worship that takes place among the angelic images in the sanctuary. The praises and blessings of the angelic cherubim are also depicted. This passage, the twelfth Sabbath Song, conveys to the angelic priests (the deputy princes) the worship that takes place in the tent of God. Cherub angels fall down to bless God. Their very movement represents the sounds of exultation: The [cheru]bs fall down before him, and bl[es]s. When they rise the murmuring sound of gods [is heard,] and there is an uproar of exultation when they lift their wings, the [murmur]ing sound of gods.53

Moreover, the cherub angels are described as blessing the image of the throne-chariot, as well as singing praises. At this point, a physical description of the angelic images is given. They are fiery, luminous, and multi-coloured. Moreover, they are referred to as spirits of the holy of holies, whose voice (offerings) resound of blessings and praise, rejoicing and exaltation: And when the ophanim move forward, the holy angels return; its glorious [wh]eels with the likeness of fire, the spirits of the holy of holies. Around them is the likeness of streams of fire like electrum, and a [lum]inous substance gloriously multi-coloured, wonderful colours, blended. The spirits of living [g]ods move constantly with the glory of [the] wonderful chariots. And (there is) a murmuring voice of blessing in the uproar of their motion, and they praise the holy one on returning to their paths. When they rise, they rise wonderfully; when they settle, they [sta]nd still. The sound of glad rejoicing becomes silent and there is a clam blessing of gods in all the camps of the gods. [And] the sound of praise[s] […]from among all the[ir] divisions on [their] side[s … and] all their enrolled ones exult, each o[n]e in [his] station.54 53 54

4Q405 20 ii 21-22:7b-8a. 4Q405 20 ii 21-22:9b-14.

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 297 4Q405 23 ii 12

The context surrounding 4Q405 ii 12 (particularly beginning from line 1) suggests that angelic engraved images offered praises to God in the heavenly sanctuary. These celestial beings are depicted as spirits of the holy of holies, spirits of glory, holy ones, and chiefs.55 Moreover, they are portrayed as being clothed with multi-colours: In their wonderful stations there are spirits (with) multi-coloured (clothes), like woven material engraved with splendid effigies. In the midst of the glorious appearance of scarlet, the colours of the light of the spirit of the holy of holies, they remain fixed in their holy stations before [the k]ing, spirits of pure colours in the midst of the appearance of the whiteness. And the substance of the spirit of glory is like work from Ophir, which diffuses [lig]ht. And all their decorations are mixed purely, artful like woven material. These are the chiefs of those wonderfully clothed for service, the chiefs of the kingdom of the holy ones of the holy king in all the heights of the sanctuaries of the kingdom of his glory.56

Here, the chiefs (angelic images) are described as making praise offerings. These praises are described as the tongues of knowledge. Moreover, they offer blessings to God. It is likely that the sectarian community (as temple) likewise viewed this passage as analogously describing itself as offering praises as substitutes for sacrifice. 4. Atonement without Sacrifice

With regard to atonement, priests in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are described as making atonement for sin, yet with no explicit reference to sacrificing or offering;57 this ideology accords with explicit sectarian literature. The idea of atonement being made without sacrifice is similarly found in the Rule of the Community (1QS IX 4=4Q258 VII 5; 1QS VIII 1-10a=4Q258 VI 1-4a;

Refer to note 24. 4Q405 23 ii 7b-12a. 57 Cf., Falk, Daily Sabbaths, 136. 55 56

298

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

4Q259 II 9b-18; and 1QS III 4-12=4Q255 2:1-9 + 4Q257 III 614 + 4Q262 1:1-4). In the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, the angelic priests make atonement without sacrifice, whereas in the Rule of the Community, the community makes atonement without sacrifice. This ideology (making atonement without sacrifice) is in contrast to other sectarian literature (CD 14:19b=4Q266 10:13), which explicitly makes reference to atonement being made through sacrifice.58 On the basis of this, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice most likely was used in light of a later sectarian ideology (this being the late pre-Qumran and Qumran stage in contrast to the early pre-Qumran stage).59 5. Sacrifice; Offering The ‫ עולה‬or Not Offering the ‫עולה‬60

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice make several references with regard to offering or sacrificing. These references imply that offering actual sacrifice took place in the heavenly temple. 4Q405 23 i 5-6; 94:2; and 11Q17 9:3-5 explicitly mentions offering ‫עולה‬. 4Q405 94:2

4Q405 94:2 only preserves the word (‫‘ )הזבחים‬sacrifices.’ It is difficult to know what is implied here due to the fragmentary nature of this passage. Little can be said concerning the context of this passage except that it most likely accords with the overall context of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, as a praise liturgy which describes the offering of praise as a substitute for sacrifice. In consideration of this, ‫ הזבחים‬appears in such a context. 4Q405 23 i 5-6

4Q405 23 i 5-6 refers to offering as well. This passage, likewise, is too fragmented to know its full context. However, on the basis of the surrounding passages, “offering” likely refers to praise This refers to a particular stage within the sectarian movement. Refer to the chapter on the Damascus Document. 59 Regarding the different stages of the sectarian community, refer to the Damascus Document chapter. 60 See 4Q400 1 i 14b already discussed above. 58

CHAPTER NINE. THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE 299 offering of the temple structures.61 In lines 6-7, angelic images are described as offering praises as well as rejoicing, “The gods praise him [when] they [beg]in to rise, and all the spi[rits of] the pure vau[lt]s rejoice in his glory.” Line 7 describes these images as making sounds of blessing from all their divisions. Moreover, the voice of the gates from the vaults are described as praising as well: And there is a sound of blessing from all their divisions which recounts the vaults of his glory. And its gates praise with jubilant voice.

In lines 8-10, the gates of holiness are described as offering blessings and praises. The entrance and exit gates declare the glory of the king. The gates bless and praise when the angels of God exit and enter. Here, these temple structures offer blessings and praises within the heavenly temple. It is likely that the sectarian community (as temple) viewed these lines as analogously describing its praises, as well as the recitation of them being spiritually heard and offered in the heavenly temple. 11Q17 9:3-5

In 11Q17 9:3-5, there is explicit mention concerning sacrifice. This passage refers to the ‫עולה‬, particularly in light of lines 4 and 5, which mentions the aroma of the offering along with the aroma of the libation. Reminiscent of Numbers 28, this passage implies that the angelic priests offered sacrifice in the heavenly temple. However, due to the fragmentary nature of this passage, it is not fully known what is implied. Considering the overall context of Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a praise liturgy, sacrificial references were viewed in a spiritualised manner. Praises, songs, and blessings could have been analogously compared with these cultic terms. Praises, songs, and blessings could have been viewed as acceptable substitutes for sacrifice, the aroma of offerings, and the aroma of libation. This, however, is conjectural. 61

Cf., Divila, Liturgical Works, 156.

300

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Despite this supposition, it is plausible that resulting from the overall context of the Sabbath Songs (as a praise liturgy), the sectarian community viewed these references as spiritualised (depending on what the text originally said). It is also probable that the sectarian community viewed these references as eschatological, if originally describing literal sacrifice.

E. SUMMARY

The analysis enumerated above infers that the Qumran community viewed Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a document stressing its own priestly duties and cultic ideology. Moreover, it is likely that the sectarians viewed Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as the heavenly counterpart to their earthly cultic ideology. Based on the above enumerations, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice was viewed as a document which stressed the community’s view of what took place in the heavenly realm in correlation with what transpired on earth. In consideration of this, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice most likely typified the community’s understanding of what took place in both the heavenly and earthly cult worship. Due to the community’s self-understanding, not only as akin with angels and the heavenly temple, but also as dwelling among angels in the community (“He unites their assembly to the sons of heaven in order to form the council of the community;”62 “For the angels of holiness are among their [congre]gation,”63), it is likely that the community used the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a Sabbath liturgy which was to be recited during each Sabbath. This act most likely was envisaged as being heard and offered in the heavenly temple as an acceptable substitute for sacrifice.

62 63

1QS XI 8. 1QSb II 8b-9a. Also cf. 1QM, 1QH III 24-36 and 1QS III 20-26.

CHAPTER TEN. THE VIEW OF SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM A. PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER

4QFlorilegium (also known as 4Q174 or 4QEschatological Midrash)1 is yet another sectarian text that was composed by the Qumran-related community. However, unlike the Rule of the Community, this work was composed at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium furthers expresses the spiritualised views of the community, which are similar to what the Rule of the Community and the non-sectarian Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice express, with reference to the temple and sacrifice. Moreover, based on its contents, 4QFlorilegium serves as a polemical document with reference to Jerusalem’s temple and sacrifice. The overall purpose of this chapter is to examine 4QFlorilegium’s spiritualised cultic matters. Like the Temple Scroll, the notion of sacrifice is scrutinized on the basis of 4QFlorilegium’s view of temples, which highlights three different temple expressions that allude to several temples and time periods. Along with this, certain purity issues concerning these temples are also investigated. Various arguments have been put forth about 4QFlorilegium’s temples. This chapter briefly highlights some of these arguments to set this document’s cultic ideology in its proper context. These matters are also examined in association with the ideology of the Qumran community, which spiritualised both itself as a temple

1

See below for discussion of the various titles of this manuscript.

301

302

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

community and its praise liturgy along with burning incense2 as substitutes for actual animal sacrifice, particularly concerning its overall development.3 This is done to show that these cultic matters portrayed a similar sectarian ideology during both the preQumran and Qumran stages. As a Qumran sectarian composition,4 4QFlorilegium (hereafter 4Q174) contains both messianic and eschatological ideas that convey several pre-Qumran cultic ideas. This is the case based on how the Temple Scroll is read, in an idealised way in anticipation of an eschatological temple and establishment. Moreover, the document’s messianic and eschatological ideas also expand on scripture.5 The principal extant fragments of this text contain a thematic interpretation of Deuteronomy 33, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalms 1-2. In this study, focus is on the eschatological tenets of 4Q174 where the principal extant fragments convey the idea of several temples (and their respective cultic practices) that correlate with different periods.

B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EXTANT M ANUSCRIPT

Found in Qumran cave 4 (in 1952), 4QFlorilegium is extant in only one manuscript consisting of twenty-six fragments. Allegro provisionally named the text Florilegium in 1956.6 Habermann (in 1959)7 and Vermes (in 1968)8 later suggested the name ‫הימים‬ ‫מדרש על אחרית‬.9 Brownlee suggested a similar name (4Q

See below where this matter is discussed more in detail. Refer to the Damascus Document chapter which list the different stages of the sectarian community. 4 This is the case via the use of language which describes the community as presently dwelling in the latter days (as opposed to the wicked era only, during a pre-Qumran stage). 5 See below for this discussion. 6 See John M. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,” JBL 75 (1956): 176. 7 See Abraham M. Habermann, Scrolls from the Judean Desert (Jerusalem: Machbaroth Lesifurth Publishing, 1959), 173. 8 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968), 243. 9 Also cf., Yadin’s suggested name appearing in “A Midrash,” 95-6. 2 3

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

303

Midrashim) in 1964,10 which was qualified by Steudel (who named it 4QMidrEschat) in 1991.11 The manuscript dates palaeographically to the second half of the first century B.C.E., and according to Steudel, contains six different columns.12 Fragments 13 make up the main body of what survives of the text. There are several thematic interpretative units which deal with certain parts of scripture (Deuteronomy 33, 2 Samuel 7, and Psalms 1 and 2 in particular).13 4Q174 1 i 21 2:1-13 makes up one thematic unit of the text. This section is an interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:10-11 (which, according to Brooke, is interpreted through the secondary use of Exodus 15:17-18) and 2 Samuel 7:11-14 (which is interpreted through the secondary use of Amos 9:11).14 Another thematic unit is made up of 4Q174 1 i 21 2:14-2:6. This section is an interpretation of Psalms 1:1 (which, according to Brooke is interpreted through the secondary use of Isaiah 8:11 and Ezekiel 37:23) and 2:1 (which includes a secondary quotation of Daniel 11:32, 35, and 12:10).15 Subsequent units have been described by Brooke as consisting of column 4-5, containing parts of Psalms 5:3 with interpretations, and column 6, which contains a secondary quotation of Isaiah 65:22-23 with interpretations. See William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. With Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 88 note 52. 11 See Annette Steudel, “4QMidrEschat: « A Midrash on Eschatology » (4Q174+Q177),” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-22 March 1991 (ed. Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner; STDJ 11; vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2,531-41 (particularly 536). Also see her Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidr Eschata-b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werdes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 12 See Steudel, “4QMidrEschat,” 532-3 (particularly note 8), and Der Midrasch. 13 For a thorough discussion of the thematic structure of Florilegium, see Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). 14 See George J. Brooke, “Florilegium,” EDSS 1.297. 15 See Brooke, “Florilegium,” 1.298. 10

304

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

This study focuses on fragments 1-3 (the main extant body of this manuscript), which contains a range of cultic terms, including three temple expressions, eschatological themes, purity issues and the ideology of the community as temple which makes spiritualised offerings in place of actual animal sacrifice.16

C. CULTIC MATTER IN 4QFLORILEGIUM 1. Introduction

Cultic matter in the principal extant fragments of 4Q174 emphasizes the spiritualised ideology of the sectarian community. The community, here, is described as a sanctuary that was established and stood in opposition to the current standing temple in Jerusalem. This description is demonstrated using three different temple expressions ‫ מקדש יהוה‬,‫ מקדש ישראל‬,‫מקדש אדם‬,17 which allude to several temples that correlate with the different stages of the sectarian community.18 Along with this, the sacrificial ideology of the temple community also is described. The community is described as offering incense (‫ )מקטירים‬and praise liturgy in place of actual animal sacrifice.19 This spiritualised sacrifice took place in opposition to the sacrificial practices of the current temple in Jerusalem (the ‫)מקדש ישראל‬,20 which according to 4Q174 1 i 21 2:5 was viewed by the sectarians as being laid waste (defiled). In demonstrating the above argument, certain cultic terms need to be clarified. In the principal extant fragments of 4Q174, See discussion below. Concerning the reading ‫מקדש יהוה‬, see Steudel, Der Midrasch, 25 and García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 18 The different stages of the community are highlighted in the Damascus Document. In mind here is the Qumran-related community during its preQumran and Qumran stage (refer to the Damascus Document chapter for this discussion). 19 The offering of incense coincides with the evidence at the Qumran site, whereas previously noted, Elgvin, Incense Altar, 27 and Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles, 140 pl. 291 describe a certain incense altar. 20 4Q174 1 i 21 2:5 describes the ‫ מקדש ישראל‬as being laid waste in the past. It is likely that this temple continued to be viewed in this way during the current time, thus leading to the establishing of the sectarian’s cultic ideology. 16 17

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

305

three different temple expressions are given, ‫ מקדש יהוה‬,‫מקדש ישראל‬ ,‫מקדש אדם‬. Primary emphasis, however, only is on ‫מקדש אדם‬. This is the main temple expression that the other expressions elaborate. In line 2b of 4Q174 1 i 21 2, an initial description of this temple is given. In this passage, reference is made to the house which God will establish (or build) in the latter days21 ‫הבית אשר‬ ‫ ]יכין[ ל]וא [באחרית הימים הואה‬22 Upon its reading, this passage refers to a temple that is not yet established. The use of the verbal third person imperfect “‫( יכין‬he will establish),” or “‫( יבנה‬he will build, in Brooke’s reading)” suggests a future act. However, upon further reading, this temple (‫ )הבית‬exists in the present. Lines 3-5, describes this temple in juxtaposition to another temple having already been laid waste by foreigners (‫)ולו ישמוהו עוד זרים‬. According to 4Q174 1 i 21 2:5b, this new temple, which is described as ‫מקדש‬ ‫ישראל‬, is viewed by the sectarian community as defiled, ‫ולוא‬ ‫ ישמוהו עוד זרים כאשר השמו בראישונה את מקד]ש י[שראל‬This is the very reason that led to the establishment of the ‫ בית‬of the ‫אחרית הימים‬.23 In line 3, the ‫ בית‬of the ‫ אחרית הימים‬is further described. On the basis of the quotation in Exodus 15:17-18, it is also called the ‫מקדש יהוה‬: (i.e., ‫כאשר כתוב בספר ]מושה מקדש[ יהוה כ]ו[ננו ידיכה יהוה‬ ‫)ימלוך עולם ועד‬. This explication of the ‫ בית‬is even further unravelled in line 6. Here, this particular temple is given the expression ‫מקדש אדם‬. As Michael Wise correctly asserts, line 6, ‫ויואמר לבנות לוא‬ ‫מקדש אדם‬, refers back to the quotation of Exodus 15:17-18 (in line 3 of 4Q174 1 i 21 2) as further explication.24 However, in noting

Latter days is a more appropriate meaning of ‫אחרית הימים‬. See below for discussion. 22 This term is also used in Florentino García Martínez, Devorah Dimant, and Annette Steudel’s readings. See, respectively, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1,( 1Q1-4Q273), 352 (concerning this particular reference see note 57 below); “4QFlorilegium,” 166 and 168, where she discusses this term’s use; and Der Midrasch, 25. This is in contrast to Brooke, Exegesis, 86 and 100, who uses the third person imperfect ‫( יבנה‬he will build). 23 This idea is discussed in more detail below. 24 See Michael O. Wise, “That Which Has Been is That Which Shall Be: 4QFlorilegium and the ‫מקדש אדם‬,” in Thunder in Gemini and Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of the Second Temple Palestine 21

306

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

this, Wise misinterprets the meaning of both line 3 (the Exodus quotation), and line 6 of 4Q174:1 i 21 2. In line 3, Wise asserts that ‫ כ]ו[ננו‬is a plural imperative which refers not to ‫ידיכה‬, describing the hands of the Lord, but to an unexpressed you plural which implies Israel. Although Wise gives no translation for this quotation, he most likely renders it as, “The temple of YHWH you (plural) shall establish with your hands. YHWH shall reign forever and ever.” Based on this, Wise, likewise, misinterprets 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6. He contends here that ‫ ויואמר‬is a command directed not to God himself, but to the unexpressed subject of ‫לבנות‬, they (which implies Israel). According to Brooke,25 the Exodus quotation should be read with a polel instead of an imperative. Wise’s use of the imperative causes him to view ‫ מקדש אדם‬and ‫מקדש יהוה‬26 as different expressions describing the same temple which he views as physical.27 Moreover, in consideration of this, Wise also equates the two aforementioned expressions as similar to the idealised temple of the Temple Scroll (the temple that Israel was supposed to build):28 The ‫ מקדש אדם‬of 4QFlor is best considered as identical with the temple that the TS (Temple Scroll) orders ‘Israel’ to build. It is a temple for the End of Days, but it would function only in the first stage of the eschaton. It would later be supplanted by the temple created by God. The terminology of 4QFlor happily supports this interpretation provided that the first and

(JSPSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 168-74. Wise describes this as further explication on the basis of the author’s structuring method. 25 See Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 291. 26 Wise cites this expression as ‫מקדש אדוני‬. 27 See Wise “That Which Has Been,” 164ff and 184. Also see Flusser, “Two Notes,” 99-109; McNicol, “Eschatological Temple,” 133-41; Schwartz, “Three Temples,” 83-91; Menachem Ben-Yasher, “Noch Zum Miqdaš ‘Adām in 4QFlorilegium,” RevQ 10 (1979-1981): 587-8; Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.182-7 and 2.129; and Wacholder, Dawn, 93-4, who similarly views ‫ מקדש אדם‬as a physical temple. 28 Although Schwartz views ‫ מקדש אדם‬and ‫ מקדש יהוה‬as reflecting two different temples, he too views the former as referring to the idealised temple of the Temple Scroll. Refer to note 27 for Schwartz’s reference.

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

307

third temples, the ‫ מקדש אדוני‬29 and the ‫ מקדש אדם‬can be shown to be identical30 (which is in fact what Wise sets out to prove).

To leave the polel as it stands allows for both temple expressions (‫ מקדש אדם‬and ‫ )מקדש יהוה‬to be in accord with the spiritualised ideology of the sectarian community. In this sense, ‫ מקדש אדם‬can still be viewed as a clarification of ‫מקדש יהוה‬,31 but on different grounds from those asserted by Wise.32 2. ‫מקד ש אד ם‬ a. Introduction

Regarding the above temple expressions, primary focus is on the ‫מקדש אדם‬. This expression, which has been variously interpreted,33 describes both the sectarian community and its cultic ideology. Brooke correctly asserts that this term most likely means ‘sanctuary of man’ or even ‘sanctuary of Adam.’34 Baumgarten and Vermes35 have similarly stressed the former meaning, whereas only Wise and Brooke put forth the latter.36 Despite Wise’s conclusion for the latter meaning, he, however, untenably views ‫ מקדש אדם‬as a physical eschatological sanctuary which will be established in the future where the sectarian community will serve as priests. As

Whereas 4Q174 clearly uses the characters ‫ יהוה‬for Lord, Wise instead uses ‫אדוני‬. 30 See Wise, “That Which Has Been,” 164. 31 ‫ מקדש אדוני‬according to Wise. 32 See Wise, “4QFlorilegium,” 113 and 121; “That Which Has Been,” 164 and 168-74; Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 289, respectively. On this point, Brooke states, “Wise in a detailed and intriguing study of ‫ מקדש אדם‬has rightly proposed that ‫ מקדש אדם‬should be seen as a clarification of ‫מקדש‬ ‫ אדוני‬of Exodus 15:17-18. 33 Yadin and Flusser for example define this term as a sanctuary made by God standing amongst men. See “A Midrash,” 95-8 and “Two Notes,” 99109, respectively. Also see the various interpretations as described by Wise in “That Which Has Been,” 157-60. 34 Refer to Brooke, Exegesis,” 92 and 177-8, and “Miqdash Adam,” 287ff. 35 See J. Baumgarten, “Exclusion,” 76 and 82ff; and Geza Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (3rd ed., Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 293-4. 36 This view is discussed below. 29

308

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

already cited, Wise misconstrues the meaning of this term based on:

1) His misunderstanding of the cultic ideology of the community (which was predominantly spiritualised during the later stages of its development).37 2) His textual interpretation of 4Q174 1 i 21 2:2b-7a (cited above). 3) His view of the time when this document was written.

Regarding the latter point, Wise views this text as being written during the wicked era (‫)קץ הרשיע‬,38 during the pre-Qumran stage of the sectarian community. The ‫ מקדש אדוני‬does not refer to a temple that exists in the present, the Wicked Era. Therefore the author cannot have in mind a ‘community as temple,’ as so many scholars have thought, if by that concept one means a community with which he is contemporary. The reference must be to a physical temple that does not yet exist, but which will come to function in the first period of the eschaton.39 Based on Wise’s assertions, he views the reference to ‫אחרית‬ ‫ הימים‬in 4Q174, as well as in D and S, as referring to the future eschatological period. Contrary to Wise, it is likely that 4Q174, as well as most of D and S, was written during ‫אחרית הימים‬, the current period which was after ‫קץ הרשיע‬. Whereas Wise views the term ‫ אחרית הימים‬as ‘end of days,’ it is more appropriately rendered as ‘latter days’ as suggested by Brooke. Here, Brooke convincingly argues that ‫ אחרית הימים‬conveys the sense of la suite des jours, which incorporates both the historical present, and the eschatological future.40 Bearing this in mind, ‫ מקדש אדם‬conveys three specific ideas: This is attested throughout the sectarian texts both at pre and Qumran stages. 38 This idea is based on Wise’s view of 4Q174 correlating with the Damascus Document. According to Wise, the Damascus Document was written during this same period. This, he suggests, was the period out of which the sectarian community arose. See Wise, “That Which Has Been,” 1656. Also see the discussion below. 39 See Wise, “That Which Has Been,” 166. 40 Refer to Brooke’s discussion of this in his Exegesis, 175-8. 37

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

309

1) (As cited above) a community that is a present interim sanctuary which makes spiritualised sacrifice. 2) A proleptic last days temple community which was created in anticipation of the temple that God will create (the heavenly temple on earth) ‫ביום הבריה‬.41 3) Considering its anticipation and reflection of the heavenly temple, a proleptic Edenic sanctuary proleptically dwelling in the glory of Adam. It is here that the community functioned as a reflection, in anticipation, of the time when the Edenic-paradisiacal temple would be restored. As described partly by Brooke, it is here, at the time of restoration, that the community will share in and inherit42 all the glory of Adam.43

According to lines 5b-7a of 4Q174 1 i 21 2, and rightly asserted by Dimant,44 ‫ מקדש אדם‬is described as established in opposition to ‫מקדש‬ ‫ישראל‬. The former (discussed later) is based on purity concerns, where foreigners are described as having laid waste the latter temple in the past.45 On the basis of this, God is described as building for himself a temple of man – Adam, “‫ויואמר לבנות לוא מקדש אדם‬,” for there to be offering in it for him, smoke offerings before him as works of thanksgiving ‫להיות מקטירים בוא לוא לפניו מעשי תודה‬. b. ‫מ קד ש אדם‬: Community as Interim Temple

Regarding the above three ideas concerning ‫מקדש אדם‬, the first describes the sectarian community as an interim temple which spiritualises animal sacrifice. According to 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6, the ‫ מקדש אדם‬is described as being built for there to be offering for God, smoke offerings as works of thanksgiving, ‫מקטירים לפניו מעשי‬ This particular temple, which incorporates both 4Q174 and the Temple Scroll, is described in 11Q19 XXIX 9. 42 My emphasis. This is based on a general understanding of the term, as seen from other Qumran texts (CD 3:12b-20 and 4QpPsa 1-10 iii 1-2 in particular). Wise and Brooke discuss this in detail. See “That Which Has Been,” 174-84, and “Miqdash Adam,” 289-91, respectively. 43 See Brooke, “Florilegium,” 1.298. Also see below where this is discussed. 44 See Dimant, “4QFlorilegium,” 176-7. 45 Refer to note 20 above. 41

310

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

‫תודה‬. Wise notes the Hebrew Bible’s use of ‫( קטר‬the root of ‫)מקטירים‬ as referring either specifically to the burning of incense, or to the act of sacrifice in general.46 Against the views of Yadin, Schwartz and McNicol,47 4Q174 most likely referred to the former meaning for ‫מקטירים‬.48 This is the case for two reasons: 1) It is in line with the textual and archaeological evidence of the sectarian community, which gives no evidence of actual animal sacrifice being performed.49 2) It accords with the overall development of the Qumranrelated community, which came to develop a more spiritualised view of offering substitutes for actual animal sacrifices.

Regarding the first reason, certain sectarian texts (1QM 2:5; 1QS 3:11; 8:9; 9:5; 4Q259 2:15; 4Q265 7 ii 9; 4Q266 11:4 and 4Q270 7 i 18) allude to the community as offering incense (‫)מקטירים‬.50 These particular references in light of the pre-Qumran dating of their composition reflect a pre-Qumran stage ideology for the offering of incense. As cited previously, archaeological evidence at Qumran also suggests that incense offerings occurred among the sectarians. Torleif Elgvin correctly (although tentatively) suggests this in his discussion of an altar, Schøyen 1655/4, found at Qumran.51 Humbert and Chambon mention another incense altar found at Qumran. They describe this altar as the object located at locus 101, “avec la pierre de fermeture.”52

See Wise, “That Which Has Been,” 160. See Yadin,” A Midrash,” 95-6, Schwartz, “Three Temples,” 85 and McNicol, “Eschatological Temple,” 140. 48 The same meaning is given in 1QM II 5. 49 Refer to Archaeology chapter (section C.3.e.) which discusses this matter. 50 Brooke similarly cites some of these references in his assertion regarding ‫מקטירים‬. He describes ‫ מקטירים‬as a continuation of the metaphoric language of the eschatological temple; refer to Brooke, Exegesis, 187. 51 Elgvin suggests that for certain reasons (its style, decoration, and the way it was found) this altar could have been used during the last stage of the Qumran sectarian occupation or during a post-sectarian Qumran occupation. See Elgvin, “Incense Altar,” 27. 52 Refer to Humbert and Chambon, Fouilles, 140 pl 291 in particular. 46 47

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

311

Along with the above, the temple community’s offering of incense (‫ )מקטירים‬is linked to the idea of Eden as temple where, likewise, incense offering occurred as sacrifice. This is described in Jubilees 3:27, where Adam is described as burning frankincense, galbanum, stacte, and aromatic spices as an incense offering at Eden. These same spices were burned as an offering during sacrifice in Jubilees 16:24.53 The aforementioned descriptions illustrate the spiritualised ideology of the community as temple, which made spiritualised sacrifices, including actual incense offerings. Based on this ideology, reading 4Q174 1 i 21 2:7a as ‫( מעשי תודה‬with the dalet, as works of thanksgiving) rather than ‫( מעשי תורה‬with the resh) seems conclusive. This reading has also been affirmed through the careful examination of the phrase under microscope.54 c. ‫מקד ש אד ם‬: A Community Which Anticipates the Temple That God Will Build

Concerning the second idea conveyed from ‫מקדש אדם‬, the idea that this temple is a proleptic last days temple community is implied. It is implied on the basis of viewing ‫ מקדש אדם‬as a clarification of ‫( מקדש יהוה‬cited in section C.1 above). According to 4Q174 1 i 21 2:2b-3a, this particular temple is described as a temple during ‫אחרית הימים‬. Moreover, as Brooke correctly asserts, this is a temple not made with human hands. In view of this reading, ‫מקדש אדם‬ reflects and anticipates the temple that God will create on ‫יום‬ ‫הבריה‬, which also is not made with human hands. This particular idea of ‫ מקדש אדם‬correlates with the view of temples in the Temple Scroll, particularly the one described in 11Q19 XXIX 9. This is the For further discussion on this matter, refer to the chapter on the book of Jubilees (which served as an authoritative source). 54 This reading, against Dimant, follows Brooke, Strugnell and others. See Dimant, “4QFlorilegium,” 169; Brooke, Exegesis, 87 and 108; “Miqdash Adam,” 288; and John Strugnell (who initially suggested in favour of reading ‫)מעשי תודה‬, “Notes en Marge du Volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,’” RevQ 7 (1970): 221. Also refer to Torleif Elgvin who discusses this matter in his “An Incense Altar,” 28, and note 33. Along with Brooke, he notes Puech, Steudel and Kuhn as following the correct reading (‫)מעשי תודה‬. 53

312

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

case based on certain time periods described within both the Temple Scroll and 4Q174. In the Temple Scroll, two temples are implied, the idealised temple (described in most of the composition as that which should have been built by Israel), and the temple described as that which will be built by God in 11Q19 XXIX 9 on ‫יום הבריה‬.55 Based upon the Temple Scroll’s temples (discussed in chapter six), the second idea conveyed from ‫ מקדש אדם‬is understood on the basis of a two-stage eschaton correlating with two different periods. In the Temple Scroll, whereas one temple will be built on ‫יום הבריה‬, the other temple (the idealised one) was anticipated by the community as functioning during ‫אחרית הימים‬, the same period when they themselves as ‫ מקדש אדם‬functioned. In view of both pre-Qumran and Qumran sectarian texts (CD 4:3b-4a; 6:11; 1QSa 1:1; and 1QpHab II 5ff), the ‫ מקדש אדם‬is explicitly cited as functioning during this time.56 Regarding ‫ מקדש אדם‬and ‫מקדש יהוה‬,57 Wise understands both the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document as shedding light on these expressions.58 He asserts that there are three different periods (‫קץ הרשיע‬,59 ‫אחרית הימים‬, and ‫ )יום הבריה‬which correlate with the above temple expressions. Regarding the different periods, Wise describes them as designating precise times that are distinct from one another. ‫ק ץ הר שיע‬

‫ קץ הרשיע‬describe a past period. In 4Q174 1 i 21 2:5-6, the ‫מקדש‬ ‫ ישראל‬is explicitly mentioned as being a temple of the past which foreigners laid waste: Refer to the Temple Scroll chapter. According to the Damascus Document (1:4bff), the sectarian community arose at the end of the wicked era, just before the eschaton. Also see See Annette Steudel, “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16 (19931995): 227 note 12, who list the various occurrences in sectarian texts of the term ‫אחרית הימים‬. 57 Refer to note 28 above. 58 See Wise, “That Which Has Been,” 165-6. 59 The age of wickedness from CD 6:10-11, 14; 12:23-13:1; 15:6-7 in particular. 55 56

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

313

Foreigners shall not again lay it waste as they laid waste, in the past, the temple of Israel on account of their sins.60

Moreover, this passage (4Q174 1 i 21 2:6) further implies that a present temple was to be constructed in opposition to the past one, “And he commanded (‫ )ויואמר‬to build for himself a ‫מקדש‬ ‫אדם‬.”61 With regard to Wise’ above view concerning the transition from the ‫ קץ הרשיע‬to the ‫אחרית הימים‬, if this is correct, we should further view ‫ קץ הרשיע‬as the time when the ‫ מקדש ישראל‬along with its cultic regulations functioned (which 4Q174 1 i 21 2:6a illustrates). This temple and its cult stood during ‫אחרית הימים‬, which continued to be viewed by the sectarians as profaned. This is implied in the following lines, particularly by the fact that a ‫מקדש‬ ‫ אדם‬was established to function as an interim sanctuary in opposition to Jerusalem’s temple.62 ‫אחרית הימים‬ The term ‫ אחרית הימים‬most likely conveyed the sense of “latter days.”63 With regard to the second idea conveyed from ‫מקדש אדם‬ with reference to the Temple Scroll, it is probable that ‫אחרית הימים‬ consisted of two sub-stages, one being an early stage of ‫אחרית‬ ‫הימים‬, where the sectarian community viewed itself and its cult as an interim sanctuary and cult, and another sub-stage, a later stage of the ‫אחרית הימים‬, where the sectarians anticipated the idealised temple and cult of the Temple Scroll as functioning. Despite Wise’s view, that ‫ מקדש אדם‬and the idealised temple describe the same identical temple, they, were in fact, descriptions of different temples. Bearing this in mind, the ‫( מקדש אדם‬also known as the ‫מקדש‬ All sectarian writings are taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1,( 1Q14Q273) and Volume 2 Leiden: Brill, 1997 and 1998, unless otherwise indicated. 61 Refer to section C.1 above. Also see Brooke “Florilegium,” 1.297, who similarly notes 4Q174 1:5-6 as referring to a past and present temple. 62 Here it is important to point out that the ‫ מקדש ישראל‬continued to function (although in error according to the sectarians) even after the ‫מקדש‬ ‫ אדם‬was established. 63 Refer to this discussion above. Also see note 40 above. 60

314

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

‫)יהוה‬64 was a last days temple community which also anticipated the idealised actual temple during a later time of the ‫אחרית הימים‬, as well as a final eschatological temple on ‫יום הבריה‬. This view expands on Brooke’s view. Brooke describes the community as an interim sanctuary which only anticipates a final sanctuary, the one described in 11Q19 XXIX 9.65 This view, however, only partially describes the community’s anticipation especially in consideration of actual temple regulations described in other sectarian texts. Regarding the idealised temple described in the Temple Scroll, the sectarian community anticipated both it and its cult as one day being realised in Jerusalem. This is not only what the Temple Scroll describes but is also what is alluded to by the cultic regulations in D and MMT. This is also how the sectarian community read parts of Jubilees. ‫י ו ם ה ב רי ה‬ Although 4Q174 makes no explicit reference to this period, it is alluded based upon the two-stage eschaton theory. Wise’s theory concerning the two-stage eschaton, however, is limiting. Wise describes this theory as only consisting of the ‫מקדש אדם‬, and the temple that God will create on ‫יום הבריה‬. Wise takes this view based on assuming the former temple expression (‫ )מקדש אדם‬being analogous to the idealised temple which the Temple Scroll describes and the ‫מקדש יהוה‬. Wise views these different expressions as describing the same identical temple.66 Although the ‫ מקדש אדם‬is identical to the ‫מקדש יהוה‬, this particular temple is different from the idealised temple which the Temple Scroll describes. Both the ‫ מקדש אדם‬and the idealised temple are described as functioning during the ‫אחרית הימים‬, whereas the final sanctuary is the one that will function during ‫יום הבריה‬.67 Or ‫ מקדש אדוני‬according to Wise. This idea, initially put forth by Strugnell, “Notes,” 163-276), is also put forth by Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 286-91; and “Florilegium,” 1.297. Also see below for this discussion. 66 See Wise, “That Which Has Been,” 164. 67 Wise correctly notes, in “That Which Has Been,” 163-85, that each of the above temple expressions (the ‫מקדש אדם‬, which is also the ‫;מקדש יהוה‬ 64 65

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

315

d. ‫מקד ש אדם‬: A Community That Reflects and Anticipates the Edenic Temple

Regarding the third idea conveyed from ‫מקדש אדם‬, in consideration of the community’s reflection as well as anticipation of the heavenly temple (the temple that God was to build on ‫)יום הבריה‬, the sectarian community as ‫ מקדש אדם‬viewed itself as a reflection in anticipation of the Edenic Temple. Moreover, based on this, it is plausible that the ‫ מקדש אדם‬community also viewed itself as presently living in anticipation in the glory and inheritance of Adam. Brooke contends (against Wise) that three sectarian textual references suggest this. According to Brooke, CD 3:12-4:4; 4Q171 2:27-3:2a and 3:10-11 suggests both a present reality and an eschatological hope for the community dwelling in the glory and inheritance of Adam. Taking into consideration Brooke’s contentions, it is probable that “in the community, God has inaugurated the reestablishment of Eden, the sanctuary of Adam.”68 As regards the eschatological future, the community anticipated the paradisiacal temple as that which would come to pass when God, himself, would build his temple on ‫יום הבריה‬. In the meantime, the community most likely viewed itself as presently reflecting this position. This is how the sectarians viewed reference to Eden in both their texts and in Jubilees. In Jubilees 3:8-14, 27 and 8:19, this is implied. In Jubilees 3:8-14, which corresponds with the sectarian’s 4Q265 7 ii 11-17 and 4Q266 6 ii 5-13, the Garden of Eden is likened as a sanctuary, where Adam and Eve had to be purified according to the purity regulation of the parturient in Leviticus 12:2-8 before entering. In the Eden-sanctuary Adam served as humanity’s first priest, where his deeds (‫מעשי‬, which according to Jubilees 3:14ff was the keeping of the garden) and incense offerings (‫מקטירים‬, which according to Jubilees 3:27, and also demonstrated by the discovery of an incense altar at the

the idealised temple; and the temple which God will construct on the ‫יום‬ ‫ )הבריה‬are eschatological. 68 See Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 291.

316

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Qumran site) served as ‫( מעשי תודה‬similar to the ‫ מקדש אדם‬community in 4Q174 1:6-7) which were spiritualised offerings.69 The community viewed itself as presently living in the glory of Adam because of their right worship. According to Brooke, they envisioned right worship as Eden restored.70 This reflective view of Eden is alluded to in CD 3:12a-4:4. With reference to offering actual sacrifices in 3:21-4:4, as described in the chapter on the Damascus Document, this reference probably was viewed by the community (especially during its later development) in an eschatological way, as functioning in either the idealised temple or the temple for ‫יום הבריה‬, during the second stage of the eschaton.71 3. ‫ מקד ש ישראל‬in Opposition to ‫מק דש אד ם‬

As cited above, the principal extant fragments of 4Q174 highlight several cultic issues surrounding three different temple expressions. As concluded earlier, ‫ מקדש יהוה‬and ‫ מקדש אדם‬refer to the same temple,72 which was also eschatological.73 This particular temple was in opposition to the ‫מקדש ישראל‬. The ‫ מקדש אדם‬and ‫ מקדש ישראל‬are mentioned in conjunction with particular purity matters. According to 4Q174 1: i 21 23b-4a which expands on Deuteronomy 23:2-4,74 certain people (like the Ammonite, the Moabite, the bastard, the foreigner, and the ‫)גר‬75 will be prohibited from entering the ‫ מקדש אדם – מקדש יהוה‬because of their purity status. With regard to the ‫ גר‬and the ‫ובן נכר‬, both classes seem to Regarding the Jubilees’ reference, refer to this respective chapter (section C.2). 70 See Brooke, “Miqdash Adam,” 298. 71 Cf., both Brooke’s and Wise’s discussion of this in “Miqdash Adam,” 289-90 and “That Which Has Been,” 177-9, respectively. 72 Refer to section C.1 above. 73 Refer to note 65 above. 74 Here, Joseph Baumgarten notes, in “Exclusion,” 76, that the sectarian community understood the biblical prohibition to “enter into the congregation of the Lord” as referring to the eschatological temple community. 75 Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1, (1Q1-4Q273) and Volume 2 Leiden: Brill, 1997 and 1998, renders this term as proselyte. Here, however, this term conveys the sense of sojourner. See below for discussion concerning this matter. 69

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

317

be additions in 4Q174, which are not found in Deuteronomy’s list. J. Baumgarten correctly asserts that the ‫ ובן נכר‬was probably derived from Ezekiel 44:9. Moreover, he asserts that the ‫ ובן נכר‬was the legal equivalent to the bastard (‫)ממזר‬, which Deuteronomy 23 explicitly lists.76 The list of those prohibited from the ‫מקדש אדם – מקדש יהוה‬, including the ‫גר‬, all are foreign.77 Moreover, according to this passage, these individuals were indirectly viewed in opposition to a group which dwells in the midst of the holy angels (particularly with regard to the temple):78 This (refers to) the house into which shall not enter [. . . for]ever either an Ammonite, or a Moabite, or a bastard, or a foreigner, or a proselyte,79 never, because his holy ones are there.

4Q174 suggests that these impure persons will be prohibited from the temple of the latter days (‫)אחרית הימים‬,80 the ‫מקדש אדם – מקדש‬ ‫יהוה‬, for two reasons, (1) because of their foreign status, and (2) because of their past sins concerning the ‫מקדש ישראל‬. With reference to the second reason, there is no description of the particular

See Joseph Baumgarten, “Exclusion,” 77-84 (80-18 in particular). Wise, Critical Study, 170, also supports this view, but he nonetheless dismisses Baumgarten’s reference to rabbinic literature as further support to this argument: “If Baumgarten is right, a process of association reinforces Ezekiel’s exclusion of the foreigner. To my mind, however, the passage in Ezekiel fully suffices for the explanation, without recourse to rabbinic literature.” Also cf., Gerald Blidstein, “4Q Florilegium and Rabbinic Sources on Bastard and Proselyte,” RevQ 8 (1972-1975): 431-5, who similarly compares the use of 4Q174’s use of ‫ גר‬and ‫ ובן נכר‬with rabbinic literature. 77 Wise also follows this contention. See Wise, Critical Studies, 169-75. Also see discussion below. 78 Cf., CD 15:15b-17 and 1QSa 2:3a-9a, which, in light of Yadin’s contentions, accord with 4Q174’s ideology. 79 According to García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1,( 1Q1-4Q273) and Volume 2 Leiden: Brill, 1997 and 1998, this is from ‫וגר‬. 80 This reading follows Brooke’s. Refer to above discussion. Also refer to discussion in section C.1 above. Also cf., Michael Wise’s discussion concerning this matter in Wise, “4QFlorilegium,” 115 (particularly note 45). 76

318

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

(sin) action. In 4Q174 1 i 21 2:5b-6a, these persons (described as foreigners) are only described as having profaned the ‫מקדש ישראל‬: Foreigners shall not again lay it waste as they laid waste, in the past the tem[ple of I]srael on account of their sins.

It is probable (as Yadin suggested) that these foreigners were impure because of physical blemishes. This suggests a third reason for their prohibition. As Baumgarten points out, Yadin reads the lacuna at the beginning of line 4 (of 4Q174) as, “a man in whose flesh there is a permanent blemish.”81 If this reading is correct, then the exclusion of foreigners, which included the Ammonites and the Moabites, and those with physical ailments from being part of the ‫( מקדש אדם – מקדש יהוה‬congregation) are also seen at both pre-Qumran and Qumran stages, via their texts. The restrictions of foreigners as well as those with physical blemishes is seen in the pre-Qumran text 4Q394 8 iii 9b-14(= 4Q396 1:5-6 + 4Q397 5:1-4). Like 4Q174, the Ammonite, the Moabite and the bastard are explicitly mentioned. The restriction of foreigners only is seen in Jubilees 16:25. The prohibition of only those with physical blemishes is seen in the pre-Qumran texts 1QSa 2:3b-9a and CD 15:15b-17, and the Qumran text 1QM 7:45.82 Whereas the above citations along with 4Q174 explicitly restricts the ‫ גר‬from the ‫( מקדש אדם – מקדש יהוה‬congregation), the ‫גר‬ is, however, described as participating in the covenant ceremony according to the Damascus Document: Blank Rule of the assembly of all the camps. All of them shall be enlisted by their names: the priest first, the levites second, the children of Israel third, ‫ והגר‬fourth.83

81

6.

See J. Baumgarten, “Exclusion,” 76. Also see Yadin, “A Midrash,” 95-

Refer to Philip R. Davies discussion concerning this matter in his “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness,” EDSS 1.966-7. 83 CD 14:3-4a (also refer to verse 6). 82

CHAPTER TEN. SACRIFICE IN 4QFLORILEGIUM

319

Moreover, 4QpNah 3-4 ii 9 also describes the ‫ גר‬as being associated with the community, albeit ranking lower than the princes, priests, and people.84 There is a seeming discrepancy concerning the meaning of ‫גרים‬. As suggested by Wise,85 this term carried more than one meaning. Baumgarten, on the other hand, asserts only a single meaning, proselyte.86 Baumgarten suggests that although the ‫גר‬ (the proselyte) participated in communal activities (as seen from CD 14:3-4a and 4QpHab 3-4 ii 9), they yet remained restricted from the temple, which also included becoming part of the temple community, based on their lower legal status. According to Baumgarten, this view is illustrated in 4Q174 and alluded to in 11Q19 XI 6, which designates a specific courtyard for the ‫ גר‬along with daughters.87 Baumgarten bases his views in light of rabbinic literature, which he assumes describes a similar tradition for 4Q174.88 His assertions, however, are untenable for several reasons. First, he misapprehends the contention of 11Q19, which suggests that the ‫ גר‬entered the temple space albeit the outer court. This is seen in 11Q19 XI 6 as well as XL 5-6, which both place the ‫ גר‬in the temple. Secondly, Baumgarten ignores the diverse meanings of ‫גר‬. Wise, on the other hand, traces the development of the meaning(s) of ‫גר‬, as both proselyte and sojourner.89 In 4Q174, ‫ גר‬conveys the meaning sojourner (as Wise correctly contends), whereas Here, both CD and 4QpNah (as well as 11Q19 XI 6 and XL 5-6 discussed below) follow the ideology behind Ezekiel 47:21-2. 85 See Wise, Critical Study,” 169-75; and “The Eschatological Vision,” 16971. 86 See J. Baumgarten, “Exclusion,” 75-87, and “Exclusion from the Temple: Proselytes and Agrippa I,” JJS 33 (1982): 215-25. 87 Refer to Baumgarten’s discussion concerning this passage in “Proselytes,” EDSS 2.700-1. Also see his “Exclusion,” 81-2 (particularly note 24). 88 See J. Baumgarten, “Exclusion,” 75-87, and “Exclusion from the Temple,” 215-25. Also cf., Blidstein, “4Q Florilegium,” 431-5, who expresses similar views. 89 See Wise, Critical Study, 169-75; and “Eschatological Vision,” 155. Also see Theophile J. Meek, “The Translation of the Ger in the Hexateuch and its Bearing on the Documentary Hypothesis,” JBL 49 (1930): 172-80. 84

320

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

in CD and 4QpNah ‫ גר‬means proselyte. Regarding the former, this meaning accords with list of other foreigners in 4Q174, all of whom were prohibited from entering the holy place. Because of this, the ‫ מקדש ישראל‬along with its sacrificial cult most likely was viewed by the ‫ מקדש אדם – מקדש יהוה‬as defiled.

D. SUMMARY

Based on the above analysis, 4Q174 clearly is a further discussion on the spiritualised ideology of the community related to Qumran. In this text, the eschatological anticipation of the community is highlighted on the basis of its sanctuary-like interim status. The community is thus described as a latter days proleptic ‫מקדש אדם‬. Here the community is an Adamic sanctuary-like community living in anticipation of both the eschatological temple, which God will create on ‫יום הבריה‬, and the restored Edenic sanctuary. Moreover, 4Q174 1 i 21 2:3b-4 and 6b-7a serve as a polemic against the ‫ מקדש ישראל‬and its purity regulations, particularly concerning certain individuals having been allowed entry into this temple-like community. It is because of this that the community viewed the ‫ מקדש ישראל‬as being laid waste. This expression not only refers to a past temple, but also a present temple which was yet viewed as profaned. This was the case in that it led to the eventual emergence of the Qumran-related community to view itself as a ‫( מקדש אדם‬also known as the ‫ מקדש יהוה‬of the ‫)אחרית הימים‬ which opposed not only Israel’s temple, but its sacrificial cult as well. It is probable that the community became a proleptic interim sanctuary that made spiritualised sacrifice. Although there is no explicit mention regarding the sacrificial cult of the ‫יום הבריה‬, it is probable that the sacrificial cult of the idealised temple, which is described in the various pre-Qumran and Qumran writings, as well as being in force during the second stage of the eschaton was in force during this time also.

CONCLUSION Based on this present examination, sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls can be understood as being part of a larger two-fold discussion. Firstly, sacrifice sheds light on the literary structure and development of the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls. This structure and development attest to the composite nature of some texts such as the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll which subsequently shows redacted layers of literary material describing variant views of sacrifice.1 Secondly, sacrifice sheds light on the ideological development of the entire DSS movement. Within the context of both this literary and ideological development, two-streams of thought concerning sacrifice are conveyed. Both views consequently can be understood in a diachronic or a synchronic way. Based on this two-fold understanding, this examination answers the three questions put forth at the outset of this study: •

•

Is there evidence of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls? If so, how is it to be characterized (literal or metaphorical)? Is there evidence in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls which describes the sacrificial ideology of the related movement and its various communities? If so, does this evidence either support or dismiss the view that these communities offered animal sacrifice?

Redacted material is also found in the Rule of the Community (refer to this particular chapter in this book). Unlike the Damascus Document and the Rule of the Community, the ideology of sacrifice remains unchanged. 1

321

322

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION •

Is there a unified view concerning the idea of sacrifice in the non-biblical scrolls?

With reference to the first question, there is evidence that both the idea and practice of sacrifice is described throughout the various non-biblical sectarian scrolls. Moreover, this idea and practise is described in both a literal and a metaphorical way. Regarding the former, sacrifice is described in the both the Damascus Document (D) and the Temple Scroll,2 particularly as that which connotes the perspective of the entire DSS movement, which includes the Qumran-related community during its early pre-Qumran settlement stage. Some of the regulations highlighted include CD 11:17b-18a and 11Q19 XIII 10-16, which suggests that the movement participated in the Sabbath sacrifice; CD 16:13-17a, which implies that the movement made freewill offerings; and 4Q266 5 ii 1-16, which suggests that the movement was concerned with the purity standards regarding participating in the temple cult. Alternatively, the community related to Qumran predominantly spiritualise many of the same abovementioned regulations: i.e., they viewed them in an idealised and eschatological way, as that which should be observed which consequently was hoped to be restored in the future. This alternative view of sacrifice is demonstrated by the fact that these same regulations were copied during the community’s Qumran stage, after its separation from the larger movement,3 and they were copied in light of its (the community’s) predominantly spiritualised view of the sacrificial cult. The community’s predominantly spiritualised views are attested in some of the redacted parts of D and the Temple Scroll, and in its later composed works like S and 4QFlorilegium. In both the redacted materials and later composed works, the idea and practice of sacrifice is described in a more figurative way. According to CD 11:18b-21a, righteous prayer is viewed as an equivalent substitute for sacrifice. In the Temple Scroll, based on reading 11Q19 XXIX 8-9 as describing two temples: one ideological and Refer to these respective chapters in this book. D manuscripts date as late as the middle of the first century C.E. The latest manuscript copy of the Temple Scroll dates to around 50 C.E. 2 3

CONCLUSION

323

the other as eschatological, sacrificial regulations thus are presented in an idealised and eschatological way. Also, regarding the alternative view of sacrifice, the community viewed itself as sanctuary-like, which atoned and made substitutes for sacrifice. As is attested in 1QS III 4-12; VIII 1-10a and VIII 15-IX 11, the community atones, “without the flesh of burnt offering and without the fats of sacrifice.”4 Moreover, according to 1QS IX 4b-5a, 26b and X 6a, 8b and 14b, as well as the previously cited passages, spiritualised sacrifice is offered through prayer and praise. Like S, 4QFlorilegium (particularly 4Q174 1 i 21 2:3-6) likewise describes the community as sanctuary-like (‫ )מקדש אדם‬which offers a type of substitute for sacrifice (‫)מקטירים‬ In consideration of the significant number of liturgical texts found at Qumran, which further attest to the view that prayer and praise were viewed as substitutes equal to sacrifice, the community viewed the liturgy that normally would have accompanied the various sacrifices as replacing the actual sacrifices. Such liturgy included:5 the liturgy that accompanied the daily sacrifice (described in 11Q19 XIII 10-16; CD 11:17-21a; 1QS IX 26-XI 22; 1QHa V 12-14; XX 4-11 [XII 4-11]; 1QM XIV 12-14; 4Q503,6 11QPsa, 4Q408, and Words of the Luminaries); the liturgy that accompanied the Festival of Weeks, the Renewing of the Covenant (described in CD 2:11-3:21; 4:6b-10; 16:2b-6a; 4Q266 11:17ff; 1QS I 18b-II 17; 1Q34 3 i 9; 3 ii 1-8; 4Q509 131-132 ii 5 and 11Q19 XIV 7b-18 in light of Jubilees 13:8-9; 24:21-23 and 31:3); the liturgy that accompanied the sacrifices during the Memorial Days (noted in 1Q34 1+2 1-4; 11QPsa 27:7a-8b; CD 11:18b-21a and 1QS X 6-9); the liturgy that accompanied the sacrifices during the Festival of Tabernacles (described in 11Q19 XXVII 10-XXIX 1 in light Jubilees 16:20-31); the liturgy that accompanied the sacrifices during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (described in 11Q19 XVII 10-16; 4QCalendrical Document Ea (4Q326) 1:3 and 1QS IX 4b(=4Q258 VIII 5). A fuller discussion of these sacrifices, and the liturgy that accompanied, is outlined in the chapter on Jubilees. 6 Regarding assumptions that this work is based on the lunar months, see the discussion by Glessmer, “Calendars,” 253-5. 4 5

324

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

4QTemple? (4Q365a) 1:2-7); the liturgy that accompanied the Day of Atonement (discussed in 11Q19 XXV 10-XXVII 10 in light of 1Q34+34bis, 4Q507, 4Q508 and 4Q505+509 and in 1QS III 412; VIII 1-10a; IX 3-6a and XI 14b-15 with how the community viewed itself as atoning); and the liturgy that accompanied the Sabbath sacrifices (described in CD 10:14- 11:18a; 11Q19 XIII 1017 in light of the Sabbath liturgy described in 11QPsa; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; 4Q403 and Words of the Luminaries). With reference to the second question asked at the outset of this study, the sacrificial ideology of the related movement as well as a particular related offshoot group is described. These ideologies are evidenced based on the non-biblical sectarian texts ordered according to their chronological development. This chronology presupposes the historical reconstruction of the larger DSS movement experiencing an internal schism that resulted in the development of an offshoot group that eventually settled at Qumran. Based on this historical reconstruction, the chronology of texts ordered in this book describes the views and actual practice of sacrifice by the larger DSS movement, and the more figurative views of sacrifice and the temple as held by the Qumran-related community. The actual practice of sacrifice is attested in the documents that were composed between the late third to early second century B.C.E. Such documents included the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll.7 These works make explicit reference to sacrificial descriptions.8 Texts that relate to the ideology of the offshoot group (i.e., the Qumran-related community) refer to alternative practices as substitutes for sacrifice. These works, namely the Rule of the Community, 4QFlorilegium, a host of liturgical texts (cited above) and including most of the redacted parts of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, describe prayer, praise, study, and incense offering as substitutes for actual animal sacrifices (i.e., spiritualised sacrifice).9 The composition of these works date Refer to these respective chapters in this book. For a list of these descriptions, see the Jubilees’ chapter (section C.4 in particular) as well as the chapters on the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll. 7 8

CONCLUSION

325

later than the core material of the Damascus Document and the Temple Scroll, works composed by the larger movement. Based on the historical reconstruction and chronological development set forth, evidence supports the fact that the movement participated in some animal sacrifice. CD 11:17b-18a and 11Q19 XIII 10-16 (described above) suggests that the movement participated in the Sabbath sacrifice. CD 16:13-17a suggests that the movement made freewill offerings. 4Q266 5 ii 1-16 suggests that the movement was concerned with the purity standards regarding participating in the temple cult. These sacrifices suggest that the entire movement, which included the Qumran-related community during it pre-Qumran early stages, participated in certain non-temple associated or non-calendrical binding sacrifices. With reference to the Qumran-related community, although they participated in some sacrifices early in their development (along with the larger movement), they did not participate in animal sacrifice during their Qumran settlement. Later literary evidence such as the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium suggests this. As described in these respective chapters in this book, these works maintain that the community viewed itself as a sanctuary-like entity which atoned and offered prayer, praise, and incense offerings as substitutes for sacrifice. Similar to this literary evidence, archaeological evidence supports this contention. The archaeology of Qumran (discussed in the Archaeology chapter in this book) yields no evidence to support the contention that animal sacrifice took place. With reference to the third question presented at the outset of this study, there was a unified view of sacrifice up to a point. Based on the historical reconstruction of the DSS movement, the larger movement and the Qumran-related movement, particularly during its early pre-Qumran stage, were unified with regard to participating in sacrifice. As is attested in CD 11:17b-18a and 11Q19 XIII 10-16; CD 16:13-17a; and 4Q266 5 ii 1-16, both participated in various types of sacrifice. Moreover, both groups were unified with regard their opposition to Jerusalem’s temple cult. Such issues included: 9

Refer to the explicit references discussed above in this chapter.

326

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION 1) The legitimacy of the priesthood. 2) The purity of the temple. 3) The purity and proper procedure concerning the sacrificial regulations. 4) The observance of festal and holy days, which included offering various types of sacrifices according to the correct calendar. Here, the entire movement took issue over recognizing these events according to the 364-day solar calendar, in opposition to the lunar one which Jerusalem’s temple authority and establishment observed.

However, as the community developed, its views on sacrifice gradually changed from the larger movements. Despite being opposed to Jerusalem’s temple cult, which was yet similar to the larger movement, this group developed it views also in response to the larger movement. Regulations from MMT B 3-82 imply that the community separated from the larger movement due to a difference of ideology regarding the modus operandi of certain regulations. This MMT text highlights the fact that the community took issue with its parent movement over not being as strict in its response to the defiling cult deeds of the Jerusalem temple establishment. As demonstrated in the works composed by the community (the Rule of the Community and 4QFlorilegium in particular), a more figurative view of sacrifice developed. The community developed a predominantly spiritualised view of sacrifice, viewing itself as sanctuary-like which atoned without offering animal sacrifices. In place of this, it offered prayer, praise and incense offering as substitutes equal to sacrifice. Only during this later time was there a non-unified view of sacrifice. In sum, the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls can be read in a two-fold way, which demonstrates the ideology of at least two groups from the same movement. As this study has demonstrated, the view of sacrifice reflects the ideology of the larger DSS movement and the later Qumran-related community. Most of the information in this study reflects the views of this later group, which even though it took a more predominantly spiritualised approach to sacrifice, preserved earlier material that reflected the actual practice of sacrifice. Based on the above examination, the community during its later stages of development read this material

CONCLUSION

327

(1) in a more spiritualised way, (2) in an idealised way, and (3) in an eschatological way. Viewing itself as a proleptic sanctuarylike community which also reflected the final eschatological temple that God was to build (which was also viewed as Eden restored), the community viewed its study, prayer, praise, and offering of incense as substitutes in place of the actual sacrifices. Based on the textual, archaeological, and classical information given throughout this study, religious sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates how a Jewish community functioned and lived as a religiöse Gemeinde ohne Tempel und eigentliches Opfer while the temple was yet standing. This was not common before the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple around 70 C.E. This was commonly seen only after this time (post 70 C.E.), particularly during the rise of rabbinic Judaism. In view of the idea of sacrifice in the non-biblical sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, many of the sacrificial substitution performed by the Qumran-related community correlate with and may even influence the sacrificial view in rabbinic Judaism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abegg, Martin G. “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 325-58 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Allegro, John M. Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158-4Q186). DJDJ V. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962. ———. “Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrāšîm.” Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958): 350-54. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1956. ———. “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956): 174-87. Alexander, Philip. “The Redaction-History of Serekh Ha-Yaḥad: A Proposal.” Revue de Qumrân 17 (1996): 437-53. Alexander, Philip and Geza Vermes. Qumran Cave 4.XIX: 4QSerekh Ha-Yaḥad. DJD XXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Attridge, Harold W. et al. Qumran Cave 4.V111: Parabiblical Texts. Part I. DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Baillet, Maurice. “Fragments du Document de Damas Qumrân, Grotte 6.” Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 513-23. Baillet, Maurice, Joseph T. Milik and Roland de Vaux. Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, Le rouleau de cuivre. DJDJ III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Baumgarten, Albert I. “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration.” Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 137-56. 329

330

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

———. “Josephus on Essene Sacrifice.” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 169-83. ———. “The Rule of the Martian as Applied to Qumran.” Israel Exploration Journal 14 (1994): 121-42. ———. “The Paradox of the Red Heifer.” Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 442-51. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Damascus Document.” Pages 166-70 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. “Proselytes.” Pages 700-1 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James C. VanderKam and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. “The ‘Halakha’ in Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116 (1996): 512-16. ———. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266273). DJD XVIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ———. “The Red Cow Purification Rites in Qumran Texts.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 112-9. ———. “A Qumran Text with Agrarian Halakhah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 86 (1995): 1-7. ———. “Purification After Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees.” Pages 3-10 in New Qumran Texts and Studies. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. “Disqualification of Priest in 4Q Fragments of the ‘Damascus Document’, a Specimen of the Recovery of pre-Rabbinic Halakha.” Pages 503-13 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991. Edited by Jullio T. Barrera and Louis V. Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ———. “Exclusion from the Temple: Proselytes and Agrippa I.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 215-25.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

331

———. “The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts.” Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 15665. ———. Review of Yigael Yadin, Megillat ha-Miqdaš, The Temple Scroll. Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 588. ———. “The Essenes and the Temple: A Reappraisal.” Pages 5774 in Studies in Qurman Law. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. ———. “The Exclusion of Netinim and Proselytes in 4Q Florilegium.” Revue de Qumrân 8 (1972): 87-96. Repr. pages 75-87 in Studies in Qumran Law. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. ———. “The Essene Avoidance of Oil and the Law of Purity.” Revue de Qumrân 6 (1967): 183-93. Repr. pages 88-97 in Studies in Qumran Law. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. ———. “Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of the Dead Sea (Qumran) Scrolls.” Harvard Theological Review 46 (1953): 141-159. Repr. pages 39-56 in Studies in Qumran Law. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 24. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Baumgarten, Joseph M with Michael T. Davis. “Cave IV, V, VI Fragments Related to the Damascus Document; (4Q266-273 = 4QDa-h, 5QD = 5Q12, 6Q15 = 6QD).” Pages 59-79 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations, Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 2. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995. Beall, Todd S. Josephus Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Temple Scroll and it Calendar: Their Character and Purpose.” Revue de Qumrân 18 (1997): 3-19. ———. “Qumran Calendar and the Sacrifices of the Essenes.” Revue de Qumrân 28 (1971): 587-91.

332

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

———. “The Modern Attempt to Reconcile the Qumran Calendar with the Solar Year.” Revue de Qumrân 7 (1969-1971): 37996. Ben-Yashar, Menachem. “Noch Zum Miqdas ‘Adam in 4Q Florilegium.” Revue de Qumrân 10 (1979-1981): 587-8. Bernstein, Moshe. “The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations.” Pages 29-51 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein. SBL Symposium Series 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Betz, Otto. “The Qumran Halakhah Text Miqṣat Ma’ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT) and Sadducean, Essene, and Early Pharisaic Tradition.” Pages 176-202 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context. Edited by D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. ———. “Le ministère cultuel dans la secte de Qumrân et dans le christianisme primitif.” Pages 163-202 in La secte de Qumrân et les origines du Christianisme. Edited by Johannes van der Ploeg et al. Recherches bibliques 4. Bruges, 1959 Bilde, Per. “The Common Meal in the Qumran-Essene Communities.” Pages 145-66 in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Edited by Inge Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen. Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 1. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament. New York: Scribners and Sons Publishing, 1961. Blau, Joshua. “A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 20-5 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Blidstein, Gerald. “4Q Florilegium and Rabbinic Sources on Bastard and Proselyte.” Revue de Qumrân 8 (1972-1975): 431-5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Bosker, Baruch M. “Philo’s Description of Jewish Practices.” Pages 1-27 in Protocol of the Thirtieth Colloquy: 5 June 1977. Berkely: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1977. Bouchnick, Ram. “Meat Consumption Patterns as an Ethnic Marker in the Late Second Temple Period: Comparing the Jerusalem City Dump and Qumran Assemblages.” Pages 303322 in Bones and Identity: Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia. Edited by Nimrod Marom, et al; Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2016. Bowman, John. “Did the Qumran Sect Burn the Red Heifer?” Revue de Qumrân 1 (1958-1959): 73-84. Brockmuehl, Markus. “Redaction and Ideology in the Rule of the Community (1QS/4QS).” Revue de Qumrân 17 (1997): 54160. Brooke, George J. “Florilegium.” Pages 297-8 in vol. 1 of the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. “Miqdash Adam, Eden, and the Qumran Community.” Pages 285-301 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 118. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999. ———. “Luke-Acts and the Qumran Scrolls: The Case of MMT.” Pages 72-90 in Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 116. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———. “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 105-29 in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Karków: Enigma, 1993. ———. “The Significance of the Kings in 4QMMT.” Pages 109-13 in Qumran Cave IV and MMT. Special Report. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. The Qumran Chronicle 1990-1991. Kraków: The Enigma Press, 1991.

334

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

———. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Broshi, Magen. “Was Qumran, Indeed, a Monastery? The Consensus and its Challengers, An Archaeologist View.” Pages 1937 in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947-1997). Edited by James H. Charlesworth. North Richland Hills: Bibal, 1998. ———. “The Archaeology of Qumran – A Reconsideration.” Pages 103-15 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Brownlee, William H. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. With Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah. The James W. Richard Lectures in Christian Religion given at the University of Virginia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Bruce, Frederick F. Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: The Paternoster Press, 1956. Campbell, Jonathan G. “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblial Texts:’ A Terminological and Ideological Critique.” Pages 43-68 in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William Lyons and Lloyd K. Pietersen. Library of Second Temple Studies 52. London: T & T Clark International, 2005. ———. Deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. ———. “Essene-Qumran Origins in the Exile: A Scriptural Basis?” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995): 143-56. Cansdale, Lena. Qumran and the Essenes. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 60. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997. Carmingnac, Jean. “La future intervention de Dieu selon la pensée de Qumrân.” Pages 219-29 in Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by Mathias Delcor. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 46. Paris-Gembloux: Duculot University Press, 1978.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

335

———. “La Notion d’Eschatologie dans la Bible et à Qumrân.” Revue de Qumrân 7 (1969-1971): 17-31. ———. “Notes sur les Pesherim.” Revue de Qumrân 3 (19611963): 505-38. ———. “L’utilité ou l’inutilité des sacrifices sanglants dans la ‘Règle de la Communauté’ de Qumrân.” Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 524-32. Callaway, Philip. “Exegetische Erwägungen zur Tempelrolle XXIX, 7-10.” Revue de Qumrân 12 (1985): 95-104. Charles, Robert H. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Vol 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. ———. Maṣḥafa Kufālē or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees. Anecdota oxoniesia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895. Charlesworth, James H. “Possible Fragment of the Rule of the Community (5Q11).” Pages 105-7 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Vol. 1 Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. ———. “The Origin and Subsequent History of the Authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Four Transitional Phases Among the Qumran Essenes.” Revue de Qumrân 10 (1980): 213-33. Charlesworth, James H. and Carol Newsom. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Vol. 4b. Mohr (Siebeck): Tübingen, 1999. Charlesworth, James H. and Brent Strawn. “Reflections on the Text of Serek Ha-Yaḥad Found in Cave 1V.” Revue de Qumrân 17 (1996): 403-35. Charlesworth, James H. and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. “Rule of the Congregation (1QSa).” Pages 108-17 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. The Princeton Theological

336

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. ———. “Blessings (1QSb).” Pages 119-31 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. Chazon, Esther G. “The Function of the Qumran Prayer Texts: An Analysis of the Daily Prayers (4Q503).” Pages 217-25 in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. ———. “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 265-84. Cohn, Leopold and Paul Wendland. Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae Supersunt. 6 vols. Berlin: Walther de Gruyter, 18961930. Collins, John J. “Introduction.” Pages 1-8 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. Powers in Heaven.” Pages 9-28 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Congar, Yves M. Le mystere du temple: ou, L’économie de la présence de Dieu à sa créature de la Genèse à l’Apocalypse. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1958. Cook, Johann. “Orthographical Peculiarities in the Dead Sea Biblical Scrolls.” Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989-1990): 293-305. Crawford, Sidnie W. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

———. “4QTemple?” Pages 319-20 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Text, Part 1. DJD XIII. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Cross, Frank M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. The Haskell Lectures 1956-1957. London: Duckworth, 1958. ———. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd Rev. and ext. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Crown, Alan D. and Lena Cansdale. “Qumran: Was it and Essene Settlement?” Biblical Archaeology Review 20 (1994): 24-36 and 73-78. Davies, Philip R. “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 965-8 in vol. 1 of the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James C. VanderKam and Lawrence H. Schiffman. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. Behind the Essenes. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. ———. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 25. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. ———. “Calendrical Changes and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of Vanderkam’s Theory.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 80-9. ———. “The Ideology of the Temple in the Damascus Document.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 287-301. Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentaries on Dead Sea Scrolls 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Delcor, Mathias. “Is the Temple Scroll a Source of the Herodian Temple?” Pages 67-89 in The Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ———. “Le Temple d’Onias en Égypte: Réexamen d’un vieux problèm.” Revue Biblique 75 (1968): 188-203. ———. “Repas cultuels essénies et thérapeutes thiases et habouroth.” Revue de Qumrân 6 (1967-1969): 401-25.

338

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

———. “Le Midrash d’Habacuc.” Revue Biblique 58 (1951): 52148. Dillmann, August. Maṣḥafa Kufālēsive Liber Jubilaeorum. Kiel: van Maack. London: Williams and Norgate, 1859. Dimant, Devorah. “Men as Angels: The Self-Image of the Qumran Community.” Pages 93-103 in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Adele Berlin. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture. The Joseph and Rebecca Meyerhoff Center for Jewish Studies, University of Maryland at College Park. Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 1996. ———. “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple.” Pages 165-89 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky ‫זי יל‬. Edited by A. Caquot, M., Hadas, and J. Riaud. Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 1986. Donceel, Robert and Pauline Donceel-Voûte. “The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran.” Pages 1-38 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O. Wise et. al. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Driver, Godfrey R. The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and Solution. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Dupont-Sommer, André. Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey. Translated by E. Margaret Rowley. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952. Elman, Yaakov. “Some Remarks on 4QMMT and the Rabbinic Tradition: or, When is a Parallel not a Parallel?” Pages 99128 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein. SBL Symposium Series 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Elgvin, Torleif. “An Incense Altar from Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002): 20-33. Falk, Daniel L. “Qumran Prayer Text and the Temple.” Pages 10626 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998. Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by Daniel Falk and Florentino García Martínez. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

———. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publication and Tools for Study.Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. P. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 43. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “Heavenly Ascent or Incarnational Presence? A Revisionist Reading of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Pages 36799 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1998. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Flusser, David. “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. VII.” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959): 99-109. ———. “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958): 215-66. Fraade, Steven D. “To Whom it May Concern: 4QMMT and its Addressee(s).” Revue de Qumrân 19 (2000): 507-26. ———. “Interpretative Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran.” Journal of Jewish Studies 44 (1993): 46-69. Gagnon, R. A. J. “How Did the Rule of the Community Obtain its Final Shape? A Review of Scholarly Research.” Pages 67-85 in Qumran Questions. The Biblical Seminar 36. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. García Martínez, Florentino. “Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple.” Pages 303-19 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel; Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 118. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999. ———. “11QTempleb: A Preliminary Publication.” Pages 363-91 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991. Edited by Julio T. Barrera and Louis V. Montaner.

340

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ———. “Qumran Origins and Early History: A Groningen Hypothesis.” Folia Orientalia 25 (1988): 113-36. García Martínez, Florentino and Adam S. van der Woude. “A Groningen Hypothesis of Qumran Origins and Early History.” Revue de Qumrân 14 (1990): 521-44. García Martínez, Florentino and Julio T. Barrera. The People of the Dead Sea Scroll. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1995. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Volume 1 ( 1Q1-4Q273) and Volume 2 (4Q274-11Q31). Leiden: Brill, 1997 and 1998. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude. Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q218, 11Q20-30). DJD XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Garnet, Paul. “Cave 4 MS Parallels to 1QS 5:1-7: Towards a Serek Text History.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15 (1997): 67-78. Gärtner, Bertil. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Text and The New Testament. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gaster, Theodor H. The Dead Sea Scriptures. 3rd Rev. ed. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1976. Gaston, Lloyd. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. Supplement to Novum Testamentum 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Ginzberg, Louis. An Unknown Jewish Sect. Moreshet Series 1. New York: Katv, 1976. Glessmer, Uwe. “Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 213-78 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Vol. 2. Edited by James C. VamderKam and Peter W. Flint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Golb, Norman. “The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Perspective,” The American Scholar 58 (1989): 177-207. ———. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Scribner, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

———. “Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls?” Biblical Archaeologist 48 (1985): 68-82. Grabbe, Lester L. “4QMMT and Second Temple Jewish Society.” Pages 89-108 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995. Published in Houour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Green, Dennis. “To “. . . Send Up, Like the Smoke of Incense, The Works of the Law.” The Similarity of Views on an Alternative to Temple Sacrifice by Three Jewish Sectarian Movements of the Late Second Temple Period.” Pages 165-75 in Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches. Edited by Matthew Dillon. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1996. Guilbert, Pierre. “Le plan de la Règle de la Communauté.” Revue de Qumrân 1 (1959): 323-44. Habermann, Abraham M. Scrolls from the Judean Desert. Jerusalem: Machbaroth Lesifurth Publishing, 1959. Harrington, Hannah K. “Biblical Law at Qumran.” Pages 160-185 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter. W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “Holiness in the Laws of 4QMMT.” Pages 109-28 in Legal Text and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Hayward, Robert. “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 429-43. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond.” Pages 187-96 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Their Historical Context. Edited by Timothy H. Lim. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. ———. “The Laws of the Damascus Document and 4QMMT.” Pages 69-84 in The Damascus Document A Centennial of Discovery: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the

342

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4-8 February, 1998. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther Chazon and Avital Pinnick. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. The Damascus Text. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———. “Community Origins in the Damascus Document in the Light of Recent Scholarship.” Pages 316-29 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition and Redaction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 29. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures.” Pages 67-90 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “The Earthly Essene Nucleus of 1QSa.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 253-69. Hirschfeld, Yizhar. Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. ———. “Early Roman Manor Houses in Judea and the Site of Khirbet Qumran.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57 (1998): 161-89. Hopkins, Jamal-Dominique. “Levitical Purity in the New Testament Gospel.” Pages 179-193 in “What Does the Scripture Say?” Studies in the Function of Scripture in the Gospels and the Letters of Paul. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Library of New Testament Studies 47. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 16. New York: T&T Clark, 2012. ———. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greco-Roman World: Examining the Essenes’ View of Sacrifice in Relation to the Scrolls.” Pages 367-383 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emanuel

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

Tov and Matthias Weigold. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 140.1. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. “The Authoritative Status of Jubilees at Qumran,” Henoch 30 (2009/1): 97-104 ———. Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Khirbet Qumran, The Essenes and Cultic Spiritualization. Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester, 2005. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste. “Reconsideration of the Archaeological Interpretation.” Pages 419-25 in Khirbet Qumrân et ‘Aïn Feshkha II: Études d’anthropologie, de physique et de chimie – Studies of Anthropology, Physics and Chemistry. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jan Gunneweg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003. ———. “L’ éspace sacré à Qumran: Propositions pour l’archéologie.” Revue Biblique 101-102 (1994): 161-214. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Alain Chambon. Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1994. Hurvitz, Avi. “Was QH a ‘Spoken’ Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments.” Pages 110-14 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Jongeling, Bastiaan A. A Classified Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah, 1958-1969. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 7. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Jootsen, Jan. “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period Qumran and the Septuagint.” Pages 115-30 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965. Kampen, John. “The Significance of the Temple in the Manuscripts of the Damascus Document.” Pages 185-97 in The

344

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meeting. Edited by Robert A. Kugler, et al. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. ———. “The Eschatological Temple(s) of 11QT.” Pages 85-97 in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by John C. Reeves and John Kampen. Journal for the Studies of the Old Testament Supplement Series 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Kister, Menahem. “Some Observation on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 137-65 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Klinzing, Georg. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1971. Kugel, James. “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings.” Harvard Theological Review 86 (1993): 1-64. Kugler, Robert A. “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 90-112 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. “The Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and the Levites.” Pages 465-79 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “Priesthood at Qumran.” Pages 93-116 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Vol. 2. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Kuhn, Karl G. “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran.” Pages 65-93 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stehdahl. London: SCM Press, 1958.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Le Judaïsme avant Jésus-Christ. Paris: Gabalda, 1931. Lane, William R. “A New Commentary Structure in 4Q Florilegium.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 343-6. Laperrousaz, Ernest-Marie. “Does the Temple Scroll Date from the First or Second Century B.C.E.?” Pages 91-7 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium of the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. ———. “Notes à propos de la datation du Rouleau du Temple.” Revue de Qumrân 10 (1981): 447-52. Lasor, William S. Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls: 1948-1957. Fuller Theological Seminary Bibliographical Series 2. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary’s Library, 1958. ———. Amazing Dead Sea Scrolls. Chicago: Moody Press, 1956. Levine, Baruch A. “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 232 (1978): 5-23. ———. “Talmudic Material Relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Revue de Qumrân 1 (1958-1959): 391-404. Licht, Jacob. “Time and Eschatology in Apocalyptic Literature and in Qumran.” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 177-82. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Atonement and Sacrifice in the Qumran Community.” Pages 159-71 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Edited by William S. Green. Brown Judaic Studies 9. Vol. 2. Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1980. Liddell, Henry and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon on CDROM. Bible Works for Windows 6.0. 2003. Print ed.: Henry Liddell and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1996. Lightfoot, Joseph B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon. London: Macmillan, 1870. Liver, Jacob. “The Half-Shekel in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature.” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 173-98. Magen, Yizhak and Yuval Peleg. The Qumran Excavations 19932004: Preliminary Report. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology – Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, 2007.

346

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

———. “Back to Qumran: Ten Years of Excavation and Research, 1993-2004.” Pages 55-113 in Qumran: The Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeological Interpretations and Debates: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Brown University, November 17-19, 2002. Edited by Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, and Jürgen Zangenberg. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 57. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Magness, Jodi. “Were Sacrifices Offered at Qumran,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7 (2016): 5-34. ———. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. “Communal Meals and Sacred Space at Qumran.” Pages 15-28 in Shaping Community: The Art and Archaeology of Monasticism, Papers from a Symposium Held at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum, University of Minnesota, March 10-12, 2000. Edited by Sheila McNally. Biblical Archaeology Review International Series 941. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2001. ———. “Qumran Archaeology: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects.” Pages 46-77 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter. W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “Two Notes on the Archaeology of Qumran.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312 (1998): 40-4. Maier, Johann. “Shire ‘Olat Hash-Shabbat. Some Observations on their Calendric Implications and on their Style.” Pages 54360 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18-21 March 1991. Edited by Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ———. “The Architectural History of the Temple in Jerusalem in the Light of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 23-62 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

———. The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Marcus, Ralph. “Philo, Josephus and the Dead Sea Yahad.” Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 207-209. ———. “Pharisees, Essenes, and Gnostics.” Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954): 157-161. McCready, Wayne O. “The Sectarian Status of Qumran: The Temple Scroll.” Revue de Qumrân 11 (1982-1984): 183-91. McKelvey, (R. J.) Jack. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. McNicol, Allan J. “The Eschatological Temple in the Qumran Pesher 4QFlorilegium 1:1-7.” Ohio Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1977): 133-41. Medico, Henri E. del. L’énigme des manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Plon, 1957. Meek, Theophile J. “The Translation of ‫ גר‬in the Hexateuch and its Bearing on the Documentary Hypothesis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 172-80. Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “The Textual Tradition of the Qumran Community Rule.” Pages 141-7 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995. Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Milgrom, Jacob. “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics: The Case of the Wood Offering.” Revue de Qumrân 16 (1993-1994): 44956. ———. “The Paradox of the Red Cow.” Vetus Tesamentum 31 (1981): 62-72. ———. “Further Studies in the Temple Scroll.” Jewish Quarterly Review 71 (1980): 1-17. ———. “The Temple Scroll.” Biblical Archaeologist 41 (1978): 110-20.

348

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

———. “Studies in the Temple Scroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 501-23. Milik, Jósef T. “Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-reša’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 95144. ———. “Fragment d’une sorrce Psautier (4QPs89) et fragments du Document de Damas, d’une phylactère dans la Grottte 4 de Qumrân.” Revue Biblique 73 (1966): 94-106. ———. “Une règle de la secte.” Pages 181-3 in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, Le rouleau de cuivre. DJDJ III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. ———. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. Translated by John Strugnell. Studies in Biblical Theology 26. Naperville: Allenson, 1959. ———. “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits du Désert de Juda.” Pages 24-6 in Volume du Congrès; Strasbourg 1956. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 4. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Mizzi, Dennis. “The Animal Bone Deposits at Qumran: An Unsolvable Riddle?” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7 (2016): 51-70. Morag, Shelomo. “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations.” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 148-64. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Community, Rule of the (1QS).” Pages 1109-11 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. “The Essenes and Their History.” Revue Biblique 81 (1974): 215-44. ———. “A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document VI, 2-VIII, 3.” Revue Biblique 79 (1971): 210-32. ———. “An Essene Missionary Document: CD II, 14-VI,1.” Revue Biblique 77 (1970): 201-29. ———. “‘La genèse littéraire de la Règle de la Communauté.’” Revue Biblique 76 (1969): 528-49. Naber, Samuel A. Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia. Post Immanuelem Bekkerum recognovit Samuel Adrianus. vol. 4 of Ant. 18.19. Lepzig: B.G. Teubneri, 1902. Neusner, Jacob. The Tosefta: Sixth Division, Tohorot, The Order of Purities. New York: Ktav Publishing, 1977.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

349

Newsom, Carol. “Shirot ‘Olat Hashabbat.” Pages 173- 401 and plates xvi-xxxi in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part I. DJD XI. Edited by Esther Eshel et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. ———. “Sectually Explicit Literature from Qumran.” Pages 17985 in The Bible and its Interpreters. Edited by William H. Propp, Baruch Halpern, and Daniel N. Freedman. Biblical and Judaic Studies from The University of San Diego 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. ———. “‘He Has Established for Himself Priest’: Human and Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot.” Pages 10120 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 8/American Schools of Oriental Research Monographs 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ———. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Nitzan, Bilhah. “The Benediction from Qumran for the Annual Covenantal Ceremony.” Pages 264-71 in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years After their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. ———. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by J. Chipman. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 12. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Niese, Benidictive. Flavii Josephi Opera. vol. 4 of Ant. 18.19. Berlin: Weidmann, 1890. Nolland, John. “A Misleading Statement of the Essene Attitude to the Temple.” Revue de Qumrân 9 (1978): 555-62. Penner, Jeremy. “With the Coming Light, At the Appointed Time of Night: Daily Prayer and Its Importance at Qumran,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 4 (2013): 27-47. Petit, M. “Les Esséen de Philon d’Alexandrie et les Esséniens.” Pages 139-55 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research.

350

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Peuch, Emile. “4QRouleau du Temple.” Pages 85-114, pls. vii-viii in Textes Hebreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579): Qumran Grotte 4.XVIII. DJD XXV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. ———. “Fragments du plus ancien exemplaire du Rouleau du Temple (4Q524).” Pages 19-64 in Legal Text and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995 Published in Honour of J. M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Pfann, Stephen J. et al. Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts. DJD XXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Ploeg, Johannes van der. “The Meals of the Essenes.” Journal of Semitic Studies 2 (1957): 163-75. Pouilly, Jean. La règle de la Communauté de Qumran: Son évolution littéraire. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 17. Paris: Gablda, 1976. Price, Randall. “Qumran Plateau,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 117 (2005). Priest, John F. “The Messiah and the Meal in 1QSa.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 95-100. Pryke, John. “The Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion in Light of the Ritual Washings and Sacred Meals at Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 5 (1964-66): 543-552. Qimron, Elisha. “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH.” Pages 232-44 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996. ———. “Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) in the Light of The Dead Sea Documents.” Pages 349-61 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

351

Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ———. “Manuscript D of the Rule of the Community from Qumran Cave IV: Preliminary Publication of Columns 7-8.” Tarbiz 60 (1991): 434-43. ———. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Monographs 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Qimron, Elisha and James H. Charlesworth. “Rule of the Community (1QS).” Pages 1-51 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Ma’aśe Ha-Torah. DJD X. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. ———. “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran.” Pages 400-7 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1984. Edited by Janet Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. ———. “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran.” The Israel Museum Journal 4 (1985): 9-12. Regev, Eyal. “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notion of Purity and Impurity in Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 243-78. ———. “The Sectarians Controversies About the Cereal Offerings.” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 33-56. Reif, Stefan. “The Second Temple Period, Qumran Research, and Rabbinic Liturgy: Some Contextual and Linguistic Comparisons.” Pages 133-49 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000. Edited by Esther G. Chazon. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Roberts, Bleddyn J. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Essenes.” New Testament Studies 3 (1956-1957): 58-65.

352

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Ruitten, J.T.A.G.M. van. “Eden and the Temple: The Rewriting of Genesis 2:4-3:24 in The Book of Jubilees.” Pages 63-81 in Paradise Interpreted. Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Gerald P. Luttikhuizen. Themes in Biblical Narrative, Jewish, and Christian Traditions. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill 1999. Sarason, Richard. “Communal Prayer at Qumran and among the Rabbis: Certainties and Uncertainties.” Pages 154-72 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000. Edited by Esther G. Chazon. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectarians: Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Qumran Temple? The Literary Evidence,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7 (2016): 71-85. ———. “Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 89-106 in The Actuality of Sacrifice: Past and Present. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz and Yossil Turner. Leiden: Brill, 2014. ———. “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple.” Pages 267-84 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 118. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999. ———. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1995. ———. “Origin and Early History of the Qumran Sect.” Biblical Archaeologist 58 (1995): 37-42. ———. “The Temple Scroll and the Nature of its Law: The Status of the Question.” Pages 37-55 in The Community of the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

353

Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquities Series 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. ———. “The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts.” Pages 82-90 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. ———. “Ordinances and Rules.” Pages 145-75 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Text with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. ———. “Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of the Tevul Yom.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 285-99. ———. “Sectarian Rule (5Q13).” Pages 132-43 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. ———. “The Millennium Ceremony in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 255-72 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. “The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect.” Pages 35-49 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review. Edited by Hershel Shanks. New York: Vintage, 1993. ———. “The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Biblical Archaeologist 53 (1990): 6473. Repr. pages 59-70 in Mogilany 1989. Papers on the Dead

354

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Sea Scrols 1. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Qumranica Mogilanensia 2. Karków: Enigma Press, 1993. ———. “The Sacrificial System of the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, (1985): 217-33. ———. “Miqṣat Ma’aśe Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll.” Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989-1990): 435-57. ———. The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Study of the Rule of the Congregation. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. ———. “The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Laws of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 239-53 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ———. “The Law of the Temple Scroll and its Provenance.” Folia Orientalia 25 (1988): 85-98. ———. Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimonies and the Penal Code.” Brown Judaic Studies 33. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. ———. “Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document?” Pages 15369 in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980. Edited by Gene M. Tucker and Douglas A. Knight. Biblical Scholarship in North America 6. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. ———. “The Temple Scroll in its Literary and Philological Perspective.” Pages 143-58 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Edited by William S. Green. Brown Judaic Studies 9. Vol. 2. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. ———. “Communal Meals at Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 10 (1979-1981): 45-56. ———. The Halakha at Qumran. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquities 16. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Schmidt, Francis. La pensée du Temple: de Jérusalem à Qoumrân. Paris: Les Editions du Seuil, 1994. Schniedewind, William. “Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 245-55 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third

BIBLIOGRAPHY

355

International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage.” Journal of Biblical Language 118 (1999): 235-52. Schofield, Alison. “An Altar in the Desert?” A Response to Jodi Magness, “Were Sacrifices Offered at Qumran?” Journal of Ancient Judaism 7 (2016): 123-135. Schubert, Kurt. The Dead Sea Community: Its Origins and Teachings. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1959. Schuller, Eileen, M. “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetic Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 173-89 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000. Edited by Esther G. Chazon. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. “Prayer, Hymnic, and Liturgical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 153-71 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquities Series 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth. “Cultic Language in Qumran and in the New Testament.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 159-77. Schwartz, Daniel R. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 60. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992. ———. “The Three Temples of 4Q Florilegium.” Revue de Qumrân 10 (1979-1980): 83-91. ———. “‘To Join Oneself to the House of Judah.’” Revue de Qumrân 10 (1979-1981): 435-46. Segal, Michael H. “The Habakkuk ‘Commentary’ and the Damascus Fragments: A Historical Study.” Journal of Biblical Studies 70 (1951): 131-47.

356

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Silberman, Lou H. “Critical Notes: A Note on 4Q Florilegium.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 158-9. ———. “God’s Begetting the Messiah in 1QSa.” New Testament Studies 5 (1958-1959): 218-24. Stallman, Robert. “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 10 (1992): 163-89. Steckoll, Solomon H. “Preliminary Excavation Report in the Qumran Cemetery.” Revue de Qumrân 6 (1967-1969): 323-44. ———. “Marginal Notes on the Qumran Excavations.” Revue de Qumrân 7 (1969-1971): 33-40. ———. “The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis.” Revue de Qumrân 6 (1967-1969): 55-69. Stegemann, Hartmut. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist and Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. “The Qumran Essenes-Local Members of the Jewish Union of the late Second Temple Times.” Pages 83-166 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18-21 March 1991. Edited by Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ———. “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll and its Status at Qumran.” Pages 123-48 in The Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ———. “Is the Temple Scroll a Sixth Book of the Torah- Lost for 2,500 Years?” Biblical Archaeology Review 13 (1987): 28-35. Steudel, Annette. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidr Eschata-b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werdes aus den Qumranfunden. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 13. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. “The Houses of Prostration of CD XI, 21-XII, 1- Duplicated of the Temple.” Revue de Qumrân 16 (1993-1995): 49-68.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357

———. “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 16 (1993-1995): 225-46. ———. “4QMidrEschat: « A Midrash on Eschatology »(4Q174 + 4Q177).” Pages 531-41 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid, 18-21 March 1991. Edited by Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Strugnell, John. “MMT: Second Thoughts on a Forthcoming Edition.” Pages 57-73 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquities Series 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. ———. “The Angelic liturgy at Qumran-4Q Serek Sirot Olat Ha Ssabbat.” Pages 318-45 in Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. ———. “Notes en marge du Volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan.’” Revue de Qumrân 7 (1969-1971): 163-276. ———. “Flavius Josephus and the Essenes: Antiquities XVIII. 1822.” Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958): 106-15. Sutcliffe, Edmund F. “Sacred Meals at Qumran?” The Heythrop Journal 1 (1960): 48-65. Swanson, Dwight D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Tabory, Joseph. “MA’AMADOT: A Second-Temple Non-Temple Liturgy.” Pages 235-61 in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Duty of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000. Edited by Esther G. Chazon. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 48. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel in Light of the Qumran Literature.” Pages 264-84 in Qumran: as piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by Mathias Delcor. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 46.

358

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Leuven: University Press, 1978. Repr. Pages 200-43 in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes. Leiden: Brill, 1989. ———. “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judean Desert.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958): 162-99. ———. “The ‘Manual of Benedictions’ of the Sect of the Judaean Desert.” Revue de Qumrân 2 (1959-1960): 475-500. Teicher, Jacob L. “Priest and Sacrifices in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Question of Method in Historical Research.” Journal of Jewish Studies 5 (1954): 93-9. Thiering, Barbara. “Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple Scroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 5974. Thomas, Joseph. Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie. Gembloux: Duclot, 1935. Thompson, James W. “Hebrews 9 and Hellenistic Concepts of Sacrifice.” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 567-78. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “A Newly Identified 11QSerekh ha-Yaḥad Fragment (11Q29)?” Pages 285-92 in The Dead Sea Scrolls, Fifty Years After Their Discovery, 1947-1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. ———. “Eden and Paradise: The Garden Motif in Some Early Jewish Texts (1 Enoch and Other Texts Found at Qumran).” Pages 37-62 in Paradise Interpreted. Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Gerald P. Luttikhuizen. Themes in Biblical Narrative, Jewish and Christian Traditions. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill 1999. Tisserant, Eugène. “Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubile’s.” Revue Biblique 30 (1921): 55-86, 206-32. Tov, Emmanuel. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988): 5-37. ———. “The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origin of these Scrolls.” Textus 13 (1986): 31-57. Tov, Emanuel and Sidnie White. “4QReworked Pentateuchc.” Pages 290-6 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “System of Government.” Pages 55-8 in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs, and Practices. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Julio Trebolle Barrera. Translated by Wilfred G. W. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Ulrich, Ugene. “Canon.” Pages 117-120 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ———. “Yom Kipppur.” Pages 1001-3 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. “The Origin and Purpose of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 324 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey and Armin Lange. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997. ———. “The Calendar, 4Q327, and 4Q394.” Pages 179-94 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995. Published in Houour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ———. “The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essenes or Sadducees.” Pages 50-62 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review. Edited by Hershel Shanks. New York: Vintage, 1993. ———. “The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4.” Pages 635-48 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991. Edited by Julio T. Barrera and Luis V.

360

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ———. “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 21136 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987. Edited by George J. Brooke. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ———. The Book of Jubilees. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 511. Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Loranii: Peeters, 1989. ———. “Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 13 (1988): 353-65. ———. “2 Maccabees 6, 7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem.” Journal for the Study Judaism 12 (1981): 52-74. ———. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic Monographs 14. Missoula: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1977. Vaux, Roland de. Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1959. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. ———. “Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e, et 5e campagnes.” Revue Bibilque 63 (1956): 533-77. ———. “Fouilles Au Khirbet Qumrân.” Revue Biblique 61 (1954): 206-36. Vermes, Geza. “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok-Priest-Congregation.” Pages 375-84 in GeschichteTradition-Reflexion: Festschrift fur Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Hubert Cancik et al. Vol 1. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1997. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. 3rd Rev. ed. London: SCM Press, 1994. ———. “Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4.” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 250-55. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 3rd ed. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

———. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1975. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Harmondsworth: Middlesex, 1968. ———. “The Etymology of the Essenes.” Revue de Qumrân 2 (1959-1960): 427-50. ———. Discovery in the Judean Dessert. New York: Desclee Company, 1956. Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman. The Essenes According to the Classical Sources. Oxford Centre Textbook 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Viviano, Pauline A. “Source Criticism,” Pages 35-57 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Rev. and enl. ed. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Westminster: John Knox Press, 1999. Wacholder, Ben-Zion. “The Relationship between 11Q Torah (The Temple Scroll) and the Book of Jubilees: One Single or Two Independent Compositions?” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1985): 205-16. ———. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher or Righteousness. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 8. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. ———. Redefining Qumran: New Paradigms and New Paradoxes. (unpublished) Wallace, David H. “The Essenes and the Temple Sacrifice.” Theologische Zeitschrift 13 (1957): 335-38. Weinert, Frank. “A Note on 4Q159 and a New Theory of Essene Origins.” Revue de Qumrân 9 (1977): 223-30. Wenham, Gordon J. “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Pages 399-404 in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literacy, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11. Edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. Sources for Biblical and Theological Studies 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Wentling, Judith L. “Unravelling the Relationship Between 11QT, The Eschatological Temple and the Qumran Community.” Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989-1990): 61-73.

362

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Wernberg Møller, P. The Manual of Discipline. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 1. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Wise, Michael O. “That Which Has Been is that Which Shall Be: 4QFlorilegium and the ‫מקדש אדם‬.” Pages 152-85 in Thunder in Gemini and Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Practice. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. ———. “4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam.” Revue de Qumrân 15 (1991-1992): 103-32. ———. “The Eschatological Vision of the Temple Scroll.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49 (1990): 155-72. ———. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 49. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990. ———. “The Covenant of the Temple Scroll XXIX, 3-10.” Revue de Qumrân 14 (1989-1990): 49-60. Wood, Bryant G. “To Dip or Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1984): 45-60. Woude, Adam Simon van der. “Fragments einer Rolle der Lieder fur das Sabbatopfer aus Hohle XI von Qumran [11QSirSabb].” Pages 311-37 in Von Kanaan dis Kerala. Edited by W. C. Delsman et al. AOAS 211. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982. Yadin, Yigael. The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law in the Dead Sea Sect. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985. ———. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. ———. “Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document.” Pages 15369 in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Addresses 1980. Edited by Gene M. Tucker and Douglas A. Knight. Biblical Scholarship in North America 6. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. ———. ‫מגילת חמקדש‬. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977. ———. “The Excavation at Masada: 1963/64 Preliminary Report.” Israel Exploration Journal 15 (1965): 105-8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363

———. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. ———. “A Midrash on 2 Sam. VII and Ps. I-II (4Q Florilegium).” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959): 95-8. Yonge, Charles D. The Works of Philo Judaeus, The Contemporary of Josephus. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854-1855. Repr. in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. Zeuner, Frederick E. “Notes on Qumran.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960): 27-36.

INDEX Adam, 136-137, 139-141, 179, 187, 309, 311, 315-316 Allegro, John M., 34-35, 38, 302 Altar (s), 1, 4, 26, 33, 36-38, 5051, 55, 61-62, 98, 103, 106, 108, 115, 119-123, 133, 144, 146, 148-149, 153, 155, 180-181, 184, 186, 190-191, 239-240, 253-254, 310, 315 Angelic Beings, 45, 293-295, 297 Angelic images, 287, 292, 294297, 299 Angelic Liturgy, 66, 262, 282 Angelic Priest(s), 282-283, 286288-293, 296, 298-299 Animal Bones, 1, 4, 26, 32-35, 37-38, 50, 55, 62-63, 85, 98, 103, 105, 107-110, 115-121, 123, 244 Animal Sacrifice, 1, 3, 18-19, 23, 28, 33-34, 38, 46, 55, 62-63, 72-73, 76-77, 92, 96, 98, 122, 141, 261, 302, 304, 309-310, 321, 324-326

Apocalyptic, 8, 15 Appointed times, 19, 23-24, 80, 159, 277-278 Ash(es), 33, 107-108, 120, 122, 241, 243 Atone, 31, 135, 145, 161, 266, 271-272, 274-276, 279, 323, 325-326 Atonement, 43, 134, 143-147, 153, 160-162, 194, 260, 271-276, 278, 287, 297298, 324 Bath(s), 98, 100-101, 103-105, 115, 126 Baumgarten, Albert, 56-57, 8081, 87, 89 Baumgarten, Joseph, 27-32, 3740, 42, 46, 48, 52, 81, 8488, 90-91, 137, 174, 255, 307, 317-319 Blood, 19, 144, 148, 160, 176, 178-179, 185, 188, 237, 253, 293 Brooke, George J., 20, 52, 54, 64, 179, 216, 228, 303, 305-309, 311, 314-316 Burial, 106, 120

365

366

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Buried, 26, 103, 106, 108, 110, 116, 118 Burnt Offering(s), 31, 146, 148, 153, 239, 271-272, 323 Cairo Genizah, 26, 28 Calendar, 38, 91, 98, 126, 132, 139-140, 220 Calendrical 12, 20, 55, 132, 143, 156-157, 162-163, 165, 277-278, 323, 325 Cave 1, 97, 129, 261-262 Cave 4, 129, 170, 200, 224, 261-262, 282, 302 Cave 11, 129, 198-199, 261, 282 Caves, 26, 28, 97, 123, 125, 129, 198, 261 Cemetery, 105, 109 Channel(s), 100-101, 104, 116 Cistern, 98-101, 103-105, 113, 115-116, City of the Temple, 180, 183184, 243, 249 Coin(s), 106, 113-115, 117 Community as Temple, 19, 39, 40, 52, 54, 134, 192, 210, 216, 272, 291-293, 304, 308, 311 Congregation, 54, 102, 138, 167, 171, 191-193, 247250, 262, 290, 318 Cross, Frank M., 8-9, 35, 38, 8485, 88, 90 Cultic Ideology, 10, 14, 23, 44, 46-47, 49, 60, 72, 96, 176, 198, 208, 230, 282, 286, 300, 304, 308

Cultic Meal, 34, 98, 104, 114, Cultic Regulations, 12, 132, 192, 194, 198, 206, 218219, 232, 256, 314 Cultic Remains, 26, 32-35, 50, 62-63, 96-97, 100, 103, 106-108, 115-118, 123 Cultic Spiritualization, 1, 18, 19 Daily Sacrifice, 142, 144-146, 164, 184, 323 Davies, Philip, 7, 9, 47, 57, 173 Day of Atonement, 143, 160162, 324 Day of Creation, 20, 21, 212-213 de Vaux, Roland, 8, 32-34, 3637, 51, 55, 61-62, 96-100, 102-120, 122, 266, 267 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1, 25, 29, 92, 98, 195, 321, 326-327 Debate on sacrifice, 1, 27, 32, 39, 43, 46, 55-56, 63 Defile(d), 4, 12, 14, 30, 93, 102, 135-136, 138, 146, 151, 176, 179, 181, 184, 188189, 191, 196, 220, 234, 236-237, 242-243, 249, 304-305, 320 Deposits, 106, 108, 111, 117118, 120-121 Dimant, Devorah, 52, 54, 64, 288, 309 Dogs, 234, 252 DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) Movement, 4, 15, 17-18, 20-24, 28, 60, 69, 71-72, 79-80, 85, 87, 89, 91, 95, 123, 125, 127-128, 131-132,

INDEX 139-140, 142, 144-146, 152, 156-157, 159-160, 162-163, 165, 167-169, 171, 174-178, 182, 185186, 189-190, 195-197, 201-202, 204-205, 210, 216, 220-221, 223, 226, 234, 238, 241, 259, 321322, 324-326 Earthquake, 99, 106, 113, 116 Eden, 64-65, 133-134, 136-137, 187, 309, 311, 315-316, 327 Edenic temple/Edenic sanctuary, 137, 309, 315, 320 Egypt, 36, 111, 149-150 End of days/Latter days, 20, 44, 60, 64, 212, 215, 256-257, 305-306, 308, 317, 320 Engraved images, 287, 292295, 297 Eschatological, 11, 13-15, 132, 138, 140, 142, 145, 152, 160, 163, 194-195, 197198, 201, 205-206, 209210, 212-213, 216, 218, 220-221, 226, 256-257, 272, 302, 304, 308, 315316, 320, 322-323, 327 Eschatological temple, 13-14, 43-45, 53-54, 64, 138, 210-211, 214-215, 217, 302, 307, 314, 320, 327 Eschatology, 20, 24 Eschaton, 14, 20, 21, 212, 213, 218, 306, 308, 312, 314, 316, 320

367 Essene(s), 1, 4-5, 9-10, 14, 2223, 26-28, 32, 35, 39, 4648, 56-58, 71-83, 85-93, 95, 168, 174, 256 Essene gate, 86-87 Excavation(s), 33, 97, 98, 111, 118, 119, 122 Fats of sacrifice, 31, 135-136, 178, 239, 253, 271-272, 323 Festivals, 20, 38, 59, 91, 126, 131-132, 139, 148, 156, 181, 195, 203, 206-207, 219, 281 Fiorenza, Schüssler, 19-20, 48 First Period, 26, 32, 36, 39, 4445, 47, 50-51, 308 First Stage, 21, 212, 266, 306 First-Fruits, 50, 143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 253 Flusser, David, 35, 53, 215 Foreigner(s), 138, 248, 255, 305, 309, 312-313, 316318, 320 Fragmented, 117, 145, 247, 262, 263, 283, 286, 290, 298 Freewill Offerings, 183, 186, 194, 272, 322, 325 Garden of Eden, 133, 134, 136, 187, 315 Gärtner, Bertil, 39, 40 Herod the Great, 114 Halakha, 27, 31, 39, 43, 46, 56, 65, 101, 224, 237, 239, 242, 245-247, 253

368

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Halakhic, 16, 225 Halakhic Letter, 221 Heavenly tablets, 140, 147, 155 Heavenly temple, 21, 40, 45, 282-284, 287-288, 291293, 295, 298-300, 309, 315 Hempel, Charlotte, 62, 171174, 182-183, 255 Herod Archelaus, 99, 114 Herodian, 13, 210, 217 Holiness, 73-75, 92-93, 134135, 138, 223, 232, 272, 291, 299-300 Holy Days, 12, 20, 219, 326 Holy of Holies, 41, 136, 274, 291, 294-297 Humbert, Jean-Baptiste, 37, 6162, 98, 106, 108-109, 111, 117, 119-120, 122, 310 Hyrcanus, John, 98-99 Idealised temple, 54, 210-213, 216, 218, 306, 312-314, 316, 320 Identity, 14, 22-23, 28, 31-32, 46, 55-57, 71, 76, 79, 95, 139, 230, 252 Impure, 26-31, 35, 38, 42, 55, 93, 109 Impurity, 58-59, 82-83, 135, 138, 189-190, 193, 234, 237, 240, 244-245, 278, 289 Incense, 24, 63, 115, 122, 135, 141, 148, 153, 155, 159, 164, 190, 272, 302, 304, 310-311, 315, 324, 327

Interim sanctuary, 53, 211, 215, 220, 309, 313-314 Jannaeus, Alexander, 8, 99100, 102, 106, 113 Jar(s), 103, 110, 112, 117 Jonathan, 99-100, 112-113 Josephus, 4, 14, 26-29, 35, 38, 46-47, 57, 71-72, 77-79, 82, 88-90, 93, 95, 101, 116, 168, 240 Khirbet Qumran, 1, 26, 96-98 Kugler, Robert, 65-67, 207-209, 255 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph, 82-83, 88 Leper(s), 109, 138, 234, 241, 243 Levites, 151-152, 157-158, 177178, 269, 277, 318 Liturgical texts, 55, 64, 67-68, 102, 164-165, 212, 219, 281-282, 285, 323-324 Liturgical worship, 127-128, 141, 149-154, 164-165, 193, 257, 281 Liturgy, 42-43, 66, 102, 128, 134, 139, 144, 146-147, 152, 154-157, 160-165, 194, 207, 219, 257, 262, 281-282, 285, 288, 294, 298, 299-300, 302, 304, 323-324 Locus/loci 4, 104, 107, 111, 116 Locus/loci 23, 107, 116, 120 Locus/loci 23, 107, 116, 120

INDEX Locus/loci 30, 109 Locus/loci 30, 116 Locus/loci 38, 116 Locus/loci 41, 116 Locus/loci 44, 108 Locus/loci 48, 103, 107 Locus/loci 49, 103, 107 115-116 Locus/loci 50, 103, 115 Locus/loci 51, 105, 109, 116 Locus/loci 56, 103, 108, 115 Locus/loci 58, 103, 108, 115 Locus/loci 60, 108 Locus/loci 68, 103-104 Locus/loci 71, 103, 105 Locus/loci 73, 108, 115-116, 120 Locus/loci 77, 104, 108, 110-113, 115-116, 119-120, 122 Locus/loci 80, 103, 108, 115116, 120 Locus/loci 86, 104, 108, 110112, 115-116, 122 Locus/loci 89, 104, 110-112, 115-116 Locus/loci 90, 108 Locus/loci 91, 103, 104 Locus/loci 92, 103, 116, 120 Locus/loci 93, 108 Locus/loci 96, 103 Locus/loci 97, 103 Locus/loci 98, 108 Locus/loci 100, 103, 119 Locus/loci 101, 122, 310 Locus/loci 110, 99, 104 Locus/loci 111, 104, 107, 111 Locus/loci 117, 100, 105, 107, 113 Locus/loci 118, 100, 105, 107, 113

369 Locus/loci 120, 104, 107, 111, 115 Locus/loci 121, 104, 107, 111, Locus/loci 122, 107, 111 Locus/loci 123, 107, 111, Locus/loci 130, 103, 105-108, 115, 120-121 Locus/loci 132, 103, 107-108, 115, 120-121 Locus/loci 135, 103, 107-108, 120 Locus/loci 136, 108 Locus/loci 137, 103, 108 Locus/loci 138, 103-104, 107108 Locus/loci 140, 108 Locus/loci 141, 108 Locus/loci 143, 112 Magness, Jodi, 8, 37, 61-64, 9899, 105-109, 113-114, 116, 119-122 Martínez, Florentino García, 4, 6-7, 9 Masada, 130, 282 McKelvey, R. J., 20 Meal(s), 14, 31-34, 50, 63, 67, 92, 98, 101, 104, 106-111, 113, 116-118, 163, 240, 271 Messianic, 50, 302 Milgrom, Jacob, 47, 52, 217 Milik, Jósef, 8-9, 92, 263 Miqva’ot, 100-105, 107-109, 111, 275 Miqveh, 107-108, 110, 120 Modus operandi, 12, 19, 144, 147, 163, 165, 167, 198, 207, 234, 326

370

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Murphy O’Connor, Jerome, 7, 9, 266-267 Newsom, Carol, 44-45, 283-284 Non-sectarian, 4, 6, 15, 24, 147, 201, 204-206, 252 Numismatic, 8, 99, 113 Offering of the Lips, 31, 43, 154, 271-272, 278-279, 289 Offshoot group, 7-9, 14, 23, 95, 165, 174, 195, 208, 324 One-temple, 53, 214, 312 Palaeographic, 200, 224, 263264 Parent movement, 10, 16, 95, 171, 174, 246, 326 Passover, 143, 162-163 Patriarch(s), 127, 132, 139141, 147-150, 153, 165, 167, 212 Period I, 113-114 Period Ia, 99-100, 105, 113, 120 Period Ib, 99, 102, 105, 108, 113, 116-117, 119 Period II, 99, 106-108, 113115, 117, 121 Period III, 99 Pharisee(s), 46, 251 Philo, 1, 4, 14, 26-28, 47, 57, 71-72, 74-77, 79-80, 82, 92-93, 95, 219 Polemic(al), 14, 24, 55, 58, 126-127, 132, 139-140, 144-147, 152-153, 155-

163, 165, 179-181, 183186, 188-190, 193, 195, 198, 201, 207, 209-210, 217, 221-222, 225-226, 228-229, 259, 301, 320 Pottery, 8, 99, 105-106, 110, 112-113, 116-118, 120121 Praise(s), 24, 43, 65-67, 92-93, 102, 127-128, 139, 144, 146, 148, 155-157, 162163, 219, 261, 270-273, 279, 281, 283-285, 287300, 302, 304, 323-327 Prayer, 22, 24, 29, 31, 43, 49, 65-69, 92-93, 127-128, 139, 142, 144-148, 153154, 156-157, 163-164, 189-191, 219, 261, 270271, 279, 281, 322-327 Pre-Qumran, 7, 11, 168, 197, 205, 260-261, 264-265, 267, 273, 275, 298, 302, 308, 310, 318, 325 Priest-like, 132-134, 139-141, 147, 167, 172, 177, 181, 191 Priesthood, 11-12, 28, 55, 140, 159, 252-253, 273, 282, 288, 290, 296, 326 Priestly, 17, 23, 31, 38, 42, 59, 86, 126-127, 139-141, 158-159, 165, 180-181, 183, 186, 189-190, 201, 207, 210, 217, 224, 231, 234-235, 249, 254, 255, 257, 260, 267-270, 287289, 294, 300

INDEX Proleptic, 13, 19, 21, 64, 178179, 190, 217, 309, 311, 320, 327 Proselyte(s), 138, 317, 319-320 Prototypical sanctuary, 127, 133-134, 137, 139 Purification, 33, 80, 82-84, 8788, 90-91, 98, 100-102, 137-138, 172, 180, 182183, 186-188, 237-238, 241-243, 275-276 Purity, 12, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 28, 37-39, 41-42, 48, 50, 58-59, 61-62, 66, 74-75, 89-93, 101, 105-106, 109, 122, 125, 127, 132, 136, 139, 141, 156, 167, 169, 172, 175, 178, 182-183, 185-188, 190-191, 194195, 198, 201, 204, 218, 221-224, 226-227, 230236, 241, 245, 249-252, 256-257, 260, 290, 301, 304, 309, 315-316, 320, 322, 325-326 Qimron, Elisha, 225-229, 235, 239-240, 243-247, 250, 252, 254, 262 Qumran settlement, 11, 13, 16, 26, 96, 100, 102, 169, 171, 194, 210, 257, 259, 267, 269, 271, 322, 325 Qumran stage, 9, 24, 178, 275, 279, 298, 302, 322 Rabbinic, 38, 57, 101, 207, 223-224, 235, 237, 239-

371 243, 246-247, 249-254, 319, 327 Radiocarbon, 15, 171 Raffinements de purifications, 82-83 Redacted, 7, 17, 60, 145, 168, 173-175, 189, 191-192, 194, 197, 200-202, 205206, 209, 259, 263-264, 267, 270, 321-322, 324 Ritual bath(s), 98, 100-101, 103-104, 115 Sabbath sacrifice, 140, 143-145, 163-165, 183-184, 194, 283-285, 322, 324-325 Sacrificial Cult, 20, 27, 29, 32, 41, 44, 60, 95, 111, 175, 196, 213, 219, 259-260, 320, 322 Sacrificial regulations, 4, 21-22, 24, 30, 46, 52, 55, 67, 89, 101, 127, 142, 147, 152153, 156-157, 194, 203206, 232, 259, 269, 281, 323 Sadducean, 56 Sadducee(s), 242, 251 Sanctity, 13, 31, Sanctuary, 11, 14, 28, 39, 41, 53-54, 62, 64-66, 83, 108, 121-122, 134-138, 140141, 162-164, 176, 178179, 187-188, 212-213, 233, 235-236, 241, 249, 252, 290, 292, 294-295, 304, 307, 309, 313-315, 320

372

CULTIC SPIRITUALIZATION

Sanctuary-like, 54, 62, 96-97, 102, 108, 133, 165, 178, 189, 191, 193, 208, 211, 218, 220, 274, 279, 320, 323, 326-327 Schiffman, Lawrence H., 50, 52, 56-60, 62, 64-65, 159, 218, 253 Schism, 7, 58, 324 Second period, 44-45, 51-53, 65 Second stage, 212, 266, 316, 320 Second Temple, 209-210, 231 Simon, 99-100, 113 Slaughter(ing), 108, 149, 233, 236, 241, 243-247, 250 Smoke offering, 135, 141, 309 Sons of Zadok, 177-178, 268269, 272 Spiritualized sacrifice, 11, 18, 40, 43, 65, 96, 134, 137, 215-216, 287, 304, 309, 320, 323-324 Spiritualization, 10, 18-20, 4142, 219 Steckoll, Solomon, 37, 51, 61, 88, 98, 111-112, 119-120, 122 Stegemann, Hartmut, 9, 63, 201, 205, 209 Stone(s), 36, 108, 111-112, 119-121 Stratum, 106, 173-174, 177 Strugnell, John, 38, 81, 84-85, 88, 90, 224-228, 282 Tannaim, 46, 238 Tannaitic source, 185, 188, 236-238, 240, 242, 247

Teacher or Righteousness, 27, 162, 171, 182 Temple, 30, 40, 125, 305 Temple authority, 24, 58, 125, 183, 185-190, 195, 198, 222, 227, 259, 326 Temple cult, 12, 23, 30-31, 35, 50, 58, 207, 257, 322, 325-326 Temple establishment, 10-12, 24, 59, 64, 67-68, 90, 139, 177, 188, 193, 195-196, 206-207, 209-210, 222, 224, 226, 230, 256 Temple of Adam/Temple of Man, 41, 64, 135, 141, 309, 320 Temple plan, 53, 54, 205-206, 209, 214, 217, 220 Temple worship, 19, 23, 30, 41, 47, 60, 216, 284, 293 Three-temple, 54, 304 Toilet, 105, 109, 116 Tongue, 271, 287, 289-291, 294, 297 Two-temple(s), 45, 51, 53, 212214, 220, 312, 322 VanderKam, James C., 128, 155, 160 Vermes, Geza, 8-9, 73, 76, 302 vessel(s), 104, 106, 110-111, 122, 237-238, 244-245, 250-251 Votive gifts/offerings, 38, 8081, 86-87 Wacholder, Ben-Zion, 51, 53, 213-214

INDEX War Scroll (1QM), 27, 31, 3435, 39-40, 43, 48-50, 60, 146, 158, 193, 215, 262, 286, 310, 318, 323 Wicked Priest, 9, 99-100, 113, 162, 217, 230 Wise, Michael, 20, 52, 54, 64, 209, 212-213, 218, 305308, 310, 312-315, 319 Yadin, Yigael, 35, 45-53, 59-60, 109, 199, 201, 203-205, 211-213, 215-217, 249, 282, 310, 318 Yonge, Charles D., 73, 75, 77, 92, 219 Zadokite, 268 ἀναθήµατα, 38, 78, 80-81, 84, 86 εἰργόµενοι, 78, 80, 82-84, 86-89, 92

373 θυσίας, 29, 37-38, 78, 80, 82, 8485, 90-92 ‫אחרית הימים‬, 20-21, 215-216, 256, 302, 305, 308, 311314, 317, 320 ‫גר‬, 247-249, 316-320 ‫יום הבריה‬, 20-21, 51, 53, 210211, 215-216, 311-312, 314-316, 320 ‫מעשי תודה‬, 291, 309, 311, 316 ‫מקדש אדוני‬, 307-308 ‫מקדש אדם‬, 20-21, 41, 45, 52-54, 64, 137, 141, 213, 215216, 291, 304-309, 311318, 320, 323, ‫מקדש יהוה‬, 215, 304-307, 311, 312, 314, 316-318, 320 ‫מקדש ישראל‬, 304-305, 309, 312313, 316-318, 320 ‫מקטירים‬, 141, 304, 309-311, 315, 323 ‫קץ הרשיע‬, 308, 312-313