Keter Shem Tov 9781611438666, 2013034674, 1611438667

Citation preview

Keter Shem Tov

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 20

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, which is also available online.

Keter Shem Tov

Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown

Edited by

Shani Tzoref Ian Young

9

34 2013

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 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. 2013

‫ܝ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-61143-866-6

ISSN 1935-6897

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data International Conference on the Dead Sea scrolls (2011 : Mandelbaum House, University of Sydney) Keter shem tov : collected essays on the Dead Sea scrolls in memory of Alan Crown / edited by Shani Tzoref, Ian Young. pages cm. -- (Perspectives on Hebrew scriptures and its contexts, ISSN 1935-6897 ; 20) “This volume contains the proceedings of a conference on the Dead Sea scrolls held in memory of the late emeritus professor Alan Crown in late 2011 at the University of Sydney, Mandelbaum House. This eclectic collection contains 16 articles on a variety of topics within Qumran studies from established scholars in the field such as Emanuel Tov, Albert Baumgarten, William Loader and Shani Tzoref as well as exciting new voices in the field. Topics cover the full range of scholarly study of the scrolls, from the impact of the Qumran discoveries on the study of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to the study of the scrolls themselves and the community organizations presupposed in them, focusing as well on topics as diverse as sexuality, scribal practice and the attitude to the Temple in the scrolls.“--Summary. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61143-866-6 (alk. paper) 1. Dead Sea scrolls--Congresses. I. Crown, Alan David. II. Tzoref, Shani. III. Young, Ian. IV. Title. BM487.I545 2013 296.1’55--dc23 2013034674

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Abbreviations .......................................................................................... vii Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Shani Tzoref and Ian Young Eulogy for Alan Crown ........................................................................... 9 David Freedman Part 1. Qumran Scholarship: Now and Then .................................... 15 Qumran Communities—Past and Present ................................ 17 Shani Tzoref Part 2. Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible........................... 57 The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Proximity of the Pre-Samaritan Qumran Scrolls to the SP .... 59 Emanuel Tov ―Loose‖ Language in 1QIsaa ....................................................... 89 Ian Young The Contrast Between the Qumran and Masada Biblical Scrolls in the Light of New Data. ............................................113 Ian Young Part 3. Reception of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls ..................121 A Case for Two Vorlagen Behind the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab) .............................................................123 Stephen Llewelyn, Stephanie Ng, Gareth Wearne and Alexandra Wrathall ―Holy Ones‖ and ―(Holy) People‖ in Daniel and 1QM .......151 Anne Gardner What has Qohelet to do with Qumran?...................................185 Martin A. Shields 4QTestimonia (4Q175) and the Epistle of Jude.....................203 John A. Davies

v

vi

KETER SHEM TOV

Plant Symbolism and the Dreams of Noah and Abram in the Genesis Apocryphon ............................................................217 Marianne Dacy Part 4. Community and the Dead Sea Scrolls ..................................233 What Did the ―Teacher‖ Know?: Owls and Roosters in the Qumran Barnyard .................................................................235 Albert I. Baumgarten Exclusion and Ethics: Contrasting Covenant Communities in 1QS 5:1–7:25 and 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 ........................................259 Bradley J. Bitner Eschatology and Sexuality in the So-Called Sectarian Documents from Qumran .........................................................305 William Loader Part 5. The Temple and the Dead Sea Scrolls .................................317 A Temple Built of Words: Exploring Concepts of the Divine in the Damascus Document .........................................319 Dionysia A. van Beek 4Q174 and the Epistle to the Hebrews....................................333 Philip Church The Temple Scroll: ―The Day of Blessing‖ or ―The Day of Creation‖? Insights on Shekinah and Sabbath .........................361 Antoinette Collins List of Contributors .............................................................................375 Index of Authors ..................................................................................377 Index of Ancient Sources ....................................................................385

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABR AnBib ANESSup BA BAR BBR BDAG

BASOR Bib BBR BTS BZAW CAT CahRB CBQ CBQMS CDSSE CQS CurBR CRINT DJD

Anchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Analecta Biblica Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplements Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin for Biblical Research Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979; 3d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000) Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblica Bulletin for Biblical Research Bible et terre sainte Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Geza Vermes, ed., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin, 1998) Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Currents in Biblical Research Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Discoveries in the Judaean Desert vii

viii DSD DSSSE EB EDSS ECDSS EJL ErIsr ETL EvQ HALOT

HSS HTR HUCA ICC IEJ IES JBL JJS JNES JQR JQRMS JSem JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOT

KETER SHEM TOV Dead Sea Discoveries Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) Études Bibliques Lawrence H. Schiffman and. James C. VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls Early Judaism and Its Literature Eretz-Israel Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses The Evangelical Quarterly Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johan Jakob Stamm, eds., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson; 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999) Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary (53 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark) Israel Exploration Journal Israel Exploration Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series Journal of Semitics Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

ABBREVIATIONS JSOTSup JSPSup JTS LDBT LNTS NETS

NICNT NIGTC NovTSup NRSV NTOA NT NTL NTS OBO OTG OTL OTM OTS PG PNTC QC RB RevQ SBLDS SBLEJL

ix

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplements Journal of Theological Studies Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; Bible World; London: Equinox, 2008) Library Of New Testament Studies Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament New Testament Library New Testament Studies Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Oudtestamentische Studiën (Old Testament Studies) J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologia graeca [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca]. (162 vols.; Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857–1886) Pillar New Testament Commentary Qumran Chronicle Revue Biblique Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature

x

KETER SHEM TOV

SBLANEM Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Near East Monographs SBM Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SBth Studia Biblica et Theologica SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJSHZ Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series TD Theology Digest TDOT G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Green; 8 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–) THAT Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann, eds., Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (2 vols; Stuttgart: C. Kaiser, 1971–1976) TLG Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier, eds., Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works (3d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary TRE Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller, eds., Theologische Realenzyklopädie (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977–) TS Theological Studies TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism TynBul Tyndale Bulletin TZ Theologische Zeitschrift VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebräistik ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION Shani Tzoref and Ian Young Alan David Crown, whose memory we honour with this volume, is known the world over for his fine scholarship. His range of scholarly interests was quite breathtaking, and he had read deeply in an extremely wide variety of areas. Thus, for example, publications by Alan Crown can be found on topics ranging from the climate of the ancient world1 to the role of the messenger in the Ancient Near East,2 to finding references to the Reubenites as ‚armchair warriors‛ and to the flatulence of sheep in Judges 5:15–16!3 Alan is, however, best known for his work on the Samaritans and on the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Samaritan studies, his contributions span the full range of the field, but he particularly specialized in the medieval Samaritan scribes. Within his specialty he paid particular attention to the characteristics of the individual scribes, and scribal practices used by the Samaritans. His magnum opus, Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts (TSAJ 80; Tubingen 2001) has become the standard work on this topic. In this monograph, Alan dealt with such topics Alan D. Crown, ―Toward a Reconstruction of the Climate of Palestine 8000 B.C.–0 B.C.,‖ JNES 31 (1972): 312–30. 2 Alan D. Crown, ―Tidings and Instructions: How News Travelled in the Ancient Near East,‖ JESHO 17 (1974): 244–71; idem, ―Messengers and Scribes: The ‫ סץש‬and ‫ מלאך‬in the Old Testament,‖ VT 24 (1974): 366–70. 3 Alan D. Crown, ―Judges V 15b–16,‖ VT 17 (1967): 240–42. 1

1

2

KETER SHEM TOV

as codicology, the morphology of paper, Samaritan paleography, bindings of manuscripts, columnar writing and the Samaritan Masorah. Alan was one of the persons who started the international Société des Études Samaritaines, an organisation that meets every few years in international meetings. The first international congress of this organisation took place in 1988. In addition, Alan compiled several important tools for the research of the Samaritans: A Companion to Samaritan Studies (ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer, Abraham Tal; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993); A Catalogue of the Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Library (London: British Library, 1998); A Bibliography of the Samaritans (Metuchen: American Technological Library Association and Scarecrow, 1984); and The Samaritans (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989). This volume is not just to honour Alan Crown the international scholar, however. The Alan Crown we knew as our teacher, mentor and friend means so much more to us, and changed for the better our lives and the lives of countless others who knew him. As the Head of the Department of Semitic Studies at the University of Sydney, he provided leadership, strengthened the Hebrew and Biblical Studies programs, and expanded Jewish Studies by founding the Jewish Civilisation, Thought and Culture program. The current Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies, the descendent of Semitic Studies, has been successful in all these areas because of the foundation that Alan Crown laid. Alan was an inspirational teacher and mentor. The first thing that people remember about Alan is his sense of humour. As a teacher he knew how to run a fun class, and how to see the humour in so many subjects that could have been discussed very sombrely and so much less interestingly. His students have many fond memories of laughing so much in his classes that they could hardly breathe. The fun was a way to engage his students and lead them into his own deep knowledge of the subject. The combination of fun and engaged learning gave many of his students in Sydney a lifetime passion for Hebrew, Biblical, and Jewish Studies. Alan did more than get the interest of his students. He taught them how to think critically. We scholars sometimes have a tendency to argue along the lines of: Well, I’ve studied this subject for 30 years, so what I say is right—because I say so. Alan taught his students to relentlessly question everything and not to remain

INTRODUCTION

3

comfortable with a scholarly consensus just because lots of people had signed on for it. Instead, he taught his students to ask: How do they know that? What is the evidence that leads the scholar to that conclusion, and does it really lead to that conclusion? Alan’s relentless questioning of settled scholarly conclusions can be seen clearly in his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1994, he and Lena Cansdale questioned the common theory that the scrolls were at Qumran because an Essene sectarian community lived there.4 In 2005 he returned to the question of Qumran again, building on the earlier article by arguing that Qumran was not a sectarian settlement, but was rather a way-station for pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem.5 Alan’s contribution to Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship was in fact far greater than these and other publications. Alan was appointed by the director of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Judaic Studies at Yarnton to be the administrator of the Qumran project, working with the editor-in-chief of the scrolls, Professor Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, managing the financial side of the project. In this role he was instrumental in the work that led finally to the complete publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series. Alan Crown passed away in November, 2010. The sense of loss felt by his many friends and colleagues is summed up in the eulogy given by his friend, Rabbi David Freedman, which is reproduced in this volume. One of the projects he had in mind in his last days was an idea for an international conference in Sydney at Mandelbaum House, the University of Sydney residential college that he was instrumental in establishing. Ian Young and Shani Tzoref were appointed by the Mandelbaum Council to continue

Alan D. Crown and Lena Cansdale, ―Qumran: Was It an Essene Settlement?‖ BAR 20/5 (1994): 24‒35, 73‒78; cf. Lena Cansdale, Qumran and the Essenes: a Re-evaluation of the Evidence (TSAJ 60; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1997), based on a PhD thesis supervised by Alan. 5 Alan D. Crown, ―An Alternative View of Qumran,‖ in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented To Professor Abraham Tal (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Moshe Florentin; Jerusalam: Bialik, 2005): 1*‒24*. 4

4

KETER SHEM TOV

with Alan’s vision, now conceived as a conference in Alan’s memory. The Dead Sea Scrolls Conference in Memory of Emeritus Professor Alan Crown was held on October 31 to November 1, 2011 at Mandelbaum House. In conjunction with the conference, Fisher Library at the University of Sydney put on display the Dead Sea Scrolls facsimiles it had acquired due to Alan’s agency. Alan’s longtime colleague and friend, Emanuel Tov gave the keynote address to a packed lecture room, and was followed by two days of intriguing papers and stimulating discussion. We are pleased that most of the presenters at the conference were able to develop their papers into the articles now found in this volume. In Part 1, ‚Qumran Scholarship: Now and Then,‛ Shani Tzoref, in ‚Qumran Communities—Past and Present,‛ gives an overview of the history of scholarship on the Qumran scrolls. In particular she traces the evolution of Qumran studies into a field that is a model of interfaith collegiality and cooperation. This she contrasts with the move towards insularity that characterized the people of the scrolls in antiquity. Part 2 contains articles under the theme: ‚Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible.‛ Emanuel Tov, in ‚The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Proximity of the Pre-Samaritan Qumran Scrolls to the SP,‛ investigates the relationship between the medieval text represented by manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch and those Qumran scrolls commonly classified as ‚pre-Samaritan,‛ as well as the relationship of this group of texts to the Septuagint. Through a detailed analysis of 4QpaleoExodm, 4QExod-Levf, 4QNumb, 4QRPa, and 4QRPb he argues that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the pre-Samaritan texts form a firm sub-group to which the Septuagint Pentateuch is clearly related. Ian Young, in ‚‘Loose Language’ in 1QIsa a,‛ investigates the language of 1QIsaa, the best preserved of the Qumran biblical scrolls, in comparison with Masoretic Text Isaiah. He concludes that while all parts of MT Isaiah as well as 1QIsa a evidence supposedly ‚late‛ linguistic features, no part of either of them has the linguistic profile of ‚Late Biblical Hebrew.‛ Rather, the importance of 1QIsaa is as witness to the fluidity of linguistic features in ancient manuscripts.

INTRODUCTION

5

In 2005, a Festschrift was published in Honour of Alan Crown under the title Feasts and Fasts.6 Ian Young returns to the subject of his contribution to the Festschrift7 in ‚The Contrast Between the Qumran and Masada Biblical Scrolls in the Light of New Data.‛ He summarizes the relevance of the full presentation of the data there for the argument that the assemblages of biblical texts at Qumran and Masada are in sharp contrast. Part 3 contains articles under the theme: ‚Reception of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls.‛ Stephen Llewelyn, Stephanie Ng, Gareth Wearne and Alexandra Wrathall, in ‚A Case for Two Vorlagen Behind the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab),‛ seek to account for features in the visual display of the text of the Habakkuk Pesher. Through a detailed discussion of scribal features such as the distribution of crosses and vacats, as well as other features of the scroll, they argue for the use of more than one source in 1QpHab. Anne Gardner, in ‚‘Holy Ones’ and ‘(Holy) People’ in 1QM and Daniel,‛ investigates whether the referents of the Hebrew root ‫‚ רדש‬holy‛ in these two texts are earthly or heavenly. After a detailed review and critique of scholarship on both texts, she argues that in both the apocalyptic chapters of Daniel and 1QM the majority of references to ‚holy ones‛ are to human beings who are on the earth. Martin A. Shields, in ‚What has Qohelet to do with Qumran?‛ asks how the biblical book of Qohelet was received and understood by the community of the scrolls. Focusing particularly on the Qumran Wisdom works (4Q) Instruction and the Book of Mysteries, as well as the Community Rule, he argues that that the Scrolls do not directly quote Qohelet, but that the Scrolls evidence

Marianne Dacy, Jennifer Dowling and Suzanne Faigan, eds., Feasts and Fasts A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown (Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 11; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, University of Sydney, 2005). 7 Ian Young, ―The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text: A Statistical Approach,‖ in Dacy, Dowling and Faigan, eds. Feasts and Fasts, 81–139. 6

6

KETER SHEM TOV

an evolution in the concept of Wisdom stimulated by Qohelet’s thought. John A. Davies, in ‚4QTestimonia (4Q175) and the Epistle of Jude,‛ investigates the question of the purpose of the Qumran Testimonia scroll through a comparison with the New Testament Epistle of Jude. After analysing both documents, he argues that 4QTestimonia is a set of notes for a talk, the citations of biblical texts being intended to call to the speaker’s mind a broader context and a midrashic exposition to reinforce his points. Marianne Dacy, in ‚Plant Symbolism and the Dreams of Noah and Abram in the Genesis Apocryphon,‛ discusses the function of symbolism involving plants in 1QapGen, the Genesis Apocryphon. With detailed notes on the texts, she argues that plant symbolism permeates the whole of the attested sections of the Genesis Apocryphon. Part 4 contains articles under the theme: ‚Community and the Dead Sea Scrolls.‛ Albert I. Baumgarten, in ‚What Did the ‘Teacher’ Know?: Owls and Roosters in the Qumran Barnyard,‛ discusses the consensus view of the Qumran covenanters as fervent believers in the imminent redemption of the world. With a detailed analysis of Pesher Habakkuk, he argues that this text presents the Qumran ‚teacher‛ not as proclaiming the imminent end of the world (like a ‚rooster‛) but suggesting that the present darkness would continue on for some time (an ‚owl‛). Bradley J. Bitner, in ‚Exclusion and Ethics: Contrasting Covenant Communities in 1QS 5:1–7:25 and 1 Cor 5:1–6:11,‛ critically re-examines the specific and recurrent comparison many have made between the Community Rule, 1QS 5:1–7:25, and the New Testament First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor 5:1–6:11. Through a detailed analysis of each text, and scholarship on them, he offers methodological reflections on the comparative method, and calls for an emphasis on the differences as well as the similarities between the two texts. William Loader, in ‚Eschatology and Sexuality in the SoCalled Sectarian Documents from Qumran,‛ builds on his broad study of sexuality in Second Temple Period sources to discuss the attitude of various Qumran texts to these issues, in particular the common connection of the scrolls with ‚celibacy.‛ After a wideranging discussion of the texts in the context of other Jewish texts

INTRODUCTION

7

from the period, he concludes that the scrolls do not promote permanent celibacy, nor do they speak about supposed dangers inherent in sexual passions. Part 5 contains articles under the theme: ‚The Temple and the Dead Sea Scrolls.‛ Dionysia A. van Beek, in ‚A Temple Built of Words: Exploring Concepts of the Divine in the Damascus Document,‛ investigates the connection between the Damascus Document and the Jerusalem Temple. Through a detailed discussion of the text, she argues that the ideology that dictates the organization and structure of the Damascus Document is guided by the structure of the Jerusalem Temple. Philip Church, in ‚4Q174 and the Epistle to the Hebrews,‛ investigates connections between the Qumran text and the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews. Through a detailed analysis of both texts, and scholarship on them, he argues that both texts partake in a conversation about eschatological expectation that was being conducted in the Second Temple period, and that both texts anticipate the time when God and his people will dwell together in the eschaton. Antoinette Collins, in ‚The Temple Scroll: ‘The Day of Blessing’ or ‘The Day of Creation’? Insights on Shekinah and Sabbath,‛ focuses on a damaged phrase from the Temple Scroll 29:7–10. With a detailed discussion of this passage in the overall context of the Temple Scroll, she argues for a grounding of this text in concepts of covenant, Sabbath, blessing, and creation. Many people deserve thanks for their help during the conference and the production of this book, but we take this opportunity to single out just a few names. We would like to thank the Mandelbaum Trust for their support for the conference and this book, both moral and financial. Naomi Winton, the Executive Officer of the Trust was simply amazing in the degree of her commitment to seeing that the conference ran as a fitting tribute to Alan. Her efficiency and constant good humour made even the difficult parts of the task enjoyable. Emanuel Tov was a brilliant keynote speaker, not just for his paper, but also for the fact that he went out of his way to meet with and encourage the scholarship of the other participants at the conference. We are grateful to Katie Stott for suggesting that this book should be published by Gorgias Press, and to Katie and Melonie Schmierer-Lee for seeing it

8

KETER SHEM TOV

through from idea to final form. Finally, we would like to thank Alan’s daughters Jacqui and Aviva for their support of the conference and this book as tributes to Alan’s memory.

EULOGY FOR ALAN CROWN This eulogy was delivered by Rabbi David Freedman at the funeral service for Emeritus Professor Alan Crown AM, November 3rd 2010, Sydney Chevra Kadisha, Woollahra. Friends, if you were to open the website of Mandelbaum House, you will find the following—Emeritus Professor Alan Crown AM has been a Trustee of the College since its inception and is Chairman of the Mandelbaum Council and Joint Master. Emeritus Professor in Semitic Studies at the University of Sydney, he is a world renowned scholar and author. In these few lines we know already that we are here today to honour an exceptional person. More than that, we come together to perform a mitzvah, to accompany dear Alan (Asher David ben Avraham Ze‘ev) on his final journey, to pay a tribute to him, and in so doing bring comfort, consolation and a healing of the spirit to his family. Halvayat Hamet—to accompany a human being and assist in their burial, in Jewish terms, is a deeply significant and spiritual act. The very word Levayyah, which is the Hebrew word for a funeral, means exactly this—to join with someone, to escort them along the way. The most spiritual of the tribes of Israel, the tribe of ‫( לוי‬the Leviyim) is so called because they assisted and escorted all of Israel along the road of Torah and mitzvot in ancient days. Within Jewish tradition, we believe however, that there is a world beyond this—it is known as Olam Haba—the World to Come—and it will be there that Alan will receive his full reward for every good act undertaken, every sweet word spoken and every mitzvah performed. Our prayers and thoughts are with him and his dear family today. As I embark on this tribute—I have to pause and admit that it is an impossible task to give a full account and description of a human being; his life, his experiences, his passions, ambitions, his successes and achievements in the short space of ten or fifteen minutes.

9

10

KETER SHEM TOV

But even if one could do this with the average human being—with Alan Crown it would be utterly preposterous—for Alan was different from the average person—there was in fact nothing average about him at all. On a personal note, it was my good fortune many years ago on arriving in Australia—to seek advice from Professor Alan Crown in my work as a teacher at Masada College. Since those early days, I have been blessed to work closely with Alan at the Board of Studies, at Mandelbaum House and at Sydney University. He has been for me—a mentor, a source of great knowledge, a father figure—and one who has continually encouraged me in fields of learning and lecturing—he has genuinely made a difference to my life. Today, I stand here not really as a rabbi, but more as a friend—it would be somehow presumptuous of me to describe myself as a colleague, that would infer that I was somehow his equal—but he treated me as if I was—he was one of the finest men I have had the privilege of meeting and although none of us are irreplaceable—Alan Crown comes pretty close to the mark. I said to his daughters the other day—he was in feet and inches pretty short—but in stature—he was a giant of a man. Tributes flowed as news spread of his passing yesterday—Professor Stephen Garton, Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University wrote so succinctly what so many of us feel and know to be true—that Alan had made a huge contribution to the University, to the community and to the world of scholarship more generally. But more personally, he added, Alan was simply a wonderful human being. Shana Kerlander, CEO of Mandelbaum House, wrote as follows— ―Alan was a visionary and put 100% into his commitments, including the College. He treated everyone equally and fairly. He cared about the well being of residents and staff. He also instilled confidence in the staff, and never questioned decisions we made and supported us in all our endeavours with the college.‖ Dr Jennifer Dowling, Lecturer in Yiddish Language and Culture at the University of Sydney since 1997—recalls his unique sense of humour, we can all relate to that—but she also remembers him as a mentor and friend from the time they first met at Oxford in 1988. Associate professor Suzanne Rutland also wrote beautifully of Alan— speaking of the mid-1960‘s when she was attending his lectures, she commented—―He was an excellent lecturer and it was clear that he had a deep well of knowledge,‖ and she added, ―I believe the fact that the University of Sydney is the only university to have a full program in Classical Hebrew, and for that matter in Modern Hebrew, is a real tribute to Alan‘s dedication and perseverance. In the 1950s, the University of Melbourne‘s Department of

EULOGY FOR ALAN CROWN

11

Semitic Studies was the leader in the field. It was later subsumed and Classical Hebrew was lost. Alan made sure that this never happened at the University of Sydney. His legacy is the strength of our department in the three fields of its name—Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies. He also ensured that the library resources were there and was central to the foundation and maintenance of the Archive of Australian Judaica. I think the depth, but also the breadth of his knowledge, became his hallmark over the years. It is to his credit that so many of his doctoral students fill key positions around the world.‖ Rabbi Raymond Apple, who worked so closely with Alan, until his retirement from the Great Synagogue and subsequent Aliyah to Israel—sent the following via email to me, yesterday afternoon: ―Others will assess Alan as a world-class scholar: I would like to speak of him as a teacher, colleague and dear friend. His students had unbounded admiration for his seemingly limitless erudition—in my case, I would constantly consult him whatever academic project I was working on—and the whole university knew that this was a uniquely gifted pedagogue. Over the years in which I taught in his department we could say to one another, ―I will be away next week—can you give my classes for me?‖ Though for me doing his teaching meant much more preparation because I did not have everything at my fingertips as he did. We worked together to create Mandelbaum and it was amazing how skilfully he mastered building and financial issues; we shared the title of College Master even though after I moved to Israel he had to do most of the work. He was one of those great men who remained accessible and human and one even tolerated his coffee-drinking and occasionally inappropriate humour. Marian and I were delighted to have him and Sadie at our home, and to be invited to theirs, even when hospitality began to be too much for Sadie. I asked him to launch my book of memoirs this year because his friendship and support had meant so much to me, and his speech on that occasion was vigorous and generous. A chaver, a mensch. How can the sun still shine when Alan has left us?‖ The Torah portion for this Shabbat, read in synagogues around the world is Toldot—a difficult word to translate—the sort of word that I would have sought help from Alan to fully appreciate. From the verb Yalad to be born—it may refer to our history, our origins—or perhaps ―progeny,‖ our descendents, the generations that come after us—or perhaps simply: ‫אלה תולדת יקחר‬, this is the story of the family of Isaac. We each have a family—but Alan, being different, not quite like the rest of us, had more than one—of course primarily his dear wife, Sadie, to whom he

12

KETER SHEM TOV

was completely devoted, he passed away on their 52 nd wedding anniversary—he loved dearly his two daughters Aviva and Jacqui, and their families, Kevin and David—and his grandchildren—Carolyn, Stacey, Richard, Julia, Emma and Ben, and Michael; we also have in our thoughts today, his sister Marina in England, and his brother, Philip with Anita in Israel, and his brother Irwin who passed away some time ago. No doubt, their recollections were of a father and grandfather, rather than professor and teacher. They recall how he was in the British army in Cyprus and how one day he and the rest of the troop were standing holding rifles, ready to fire and the sergeant called his name and he turned around with the rifle in his hand and nearly annihilated every one in sight. Or how, after arriving in Melbourne in 1959, he always insisted on being the ‗English Gentleman‘, wearing a suit and tie for all occasions. I am reliably informed that he was a really wonderful cook but one of his earliest experiments was with a series of unmentionable spreads which were supposed to accompany meats but which the children named ‗the horribles‘ because that‘s exactly what they tasted like. The grandchildren have their own special memories of him. Richard, for example, remembers when Alan taught him his Bar Mitzvah portion in just 6 weeks, because unfortunately the rabbi (who shall remain nameless!!!!) would fall asleep during Richard‘s lessons. Not only a student of Hebrew, Alan wrote a series of stories for the grandchildren, which were called the ‗Adventures of Mr Flop‘ and also wrote a series of stories called the ‗Roo and Bushy‘ tales which he signed with a paw print. To Jacqui and Aviva, he was simply ―Dad.‖ Jewish traditions were always upheld with all the family coming together to celebrate the festivals. His corny jokes made them cringe and laugh at the same time. (It was no different with us, I can assure you!) He was always ready to absorb new knowledge and ideas and was constantly emailing the family articles about new discoveries in science and medicine. He was very proud of the achievements of all his grandchildren and enjoyed many lively discussions with them. Above all else—he was completely and utterly devoted to Sadie, whom he visited in the Montefiore Home each and every day without fail, staying for dinner every single night from when she first became a resident, more than 2 years ago. My friend and colleague Rabbi Shmuel Cohen said to me this morning, when I told him the sad news of Alan‘s passing, that he had never witnessed such unconditional love and support from one human being to another; it was, he said, deeply humbling, the act of a deeply religious person. But then for Alan, as I mentioned, there were other families, truly families who loved and respected him as if he was their own kith and kin; those

EULOGY FOR ALAN CROWN

13

associated with Mandelbaum can surely relate to this, as can my dear colleagues from the NSW Board of Studies, who treated Alan at one and the same time with deference and affection. He loved working at the Board and each one of you was so kind and thoughtful to him. His career must also be mentioned. Alan was born in Leeds, England Sept 28, 1932, to Abraham and Sarah Crown. He settled in Australia in 1959. His distinguished academic career led him to the University of Sydney, where he was a member of the Semitic Studies Department of the University from 1962, retiring at the end of 1996. He held a personal chair in Semitic Studies, and was head of Semitic Studies from 1985-1996. He was also Senior Associate Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and was a visiting professor at University College, London. He was an acclaimed international expert on the Samaritans, and has published widely on this topic and many others, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, Yiddish language and culture, Jewish education, Zionism and Australian Jewry. In retirement he continued writing papers, contributing to academic journals and providing articles for up-coming encyclopedias. A Festschrift entitled: Feasts and Fasts: A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown was launched at Mandelbaum House on April 11th, 2005. Finally, I am reminded of Maimonides‘ Mishneh Torah—Hilchot Talmud Torah—in his magnum opus, he gave all the laws of Torah study and wrote—‫יששאל‬-‫—כתש תושה—השי מונח ועומד ומוכן לכל‬that the CROWN of Torah can be acquired by any Jew, unlike the crown of priesthood and monarchy—which can only be acquired by a descendent of Aaron, the High Priest or David, King of Israel. Alan may not have been a priest, nor a king—but by name and by nature—he wore the crown of Jewish learning. He may have inherited the name Crown from his parents, but he earned the title ―CROWN,‖ the Crown of Torah, through his own merit, his sharp intellect and his deep respect for scholarship. He will be remembered by his family, his colleagues and his students—his own Toldot so to speak— generations of those who learnt from him, admired him and loved him— ‫אלה‬ ‫—תולדות ש' אשש דוד בן אבשהם זאב‬this is the story of Alan Crown,

‫— יהי זכשו בשוך‬may his memory be for a blessing— Tehi Nishmato Tserura Bitsror Hachayyim and may his soul be bound up in the bond of eternal life Ve-nomar amen

PART 1. QUMRAN SCHOLARSHIP: NOW AND THEN

15

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES— PAST AND PRESENT* Shani Tzoref The history of the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls has attracted almost as much public interest as the contents of the Scrolls themselves. Today, the Scrolls are again making headlines, as the Israel Antiquities Authority (my home institution) and the Israel Museum have partnered with Google Inc. to upload digitized images of the manuscripts.1 For most of the twentieth century, the extensive media fanfare focused on dramatic controversies, conspiracy theories, exclusion, lawsuits, divisions and divisiveness. In the current study, to honor the memory of Alan Crown, I call attention to a phenomenon that has received less attention but is of more lasting significance: the evolution of Qumran studies into a field that is a model of interfaith collegiality and cooperation. I will outline the three phases that have been perceived in this evolutionary process, and demonstrate how these phases correlate with developments in the scholarly consensus about the For Prof. Alan Crown, in warm appreciation and gratitude, and with particularly fond memories of our committee sessions for setting the NSW Higher School Certificate; his personal interest in and support of students, colleagues, and anybody who crossed his path; and his contagious sense of humor and smile. 1 The Israel Antiquities Authority site, http://www.deadseascrolls. org.il/, contains new spectral images of Scrolls fragments and scanned images of infrared photographs of the Rockefeller Museum corpus taken in the 1950s and 1960s. The Israel Museum site, http://dss. collections.imj.org.il/project, contains images of the relatively complete scrolls housed at the Shrine of the Book. *

17

18

KETER SHEM TOV

identification of the community of the scrolls. Finally, I will suggest that the modern progression towards global cooperation may be seen as a mirror image of a move towards insularity that characterized the people of the scrolls in antiquity.

1. THREE PHASES OF QUMRAN SCHOLARSHIP: ACCESS AND PUBLICATION (LINEAR MODEL) The model of three stages of Qumran studies, or three generations of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars, has been portrayed by some as a linear progression. The linear model is relevant with respect to access and publication: 1) The first generation was a period of Acquisition and Allocation, when access to the texts was limited to a closed circle of official scholars. 2) The second phase, a time of Breaking Barriers, was about opening the field, especially physically, in terms of access to unpublished texts; it was also an era of rejection of established interpretations and analyses. 3) Finally, we reach today‘s phase of Cooperation and Collaboration, and complexity in analysis. Phases 1 and 2 have been discussed at great length, especially by Lawrence H. Schiffman,2 Neil Asher Silberman, 3 and, most recently, by Weston Fields.4 Some highlights are summarized here.

Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, The Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), esp. pp. xxi–xxiv and Part 1, ―Discovery and Disclosure: Liberating the Scrolls,‖ 1–61 (ch. 1 is entitled ―Shepherds and Scholars: Secrets of the Caves‖ [3–19]; ch. 2 is ―Scholars, Scrolls, and Scandals‖ [21–31]); idem, ―Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Significance of the Scrolls for Judaism and Christianity‖ and ―The Many ‗Battles of the Scrolls,‘‖ in Archaeology and Society in the 21st Century: the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Case Studies (ed. Neil A. Silberman and Ernest S. Frerichs; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001), 160–68; 188–210. 3 Neil Asher Silberman, The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism, and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls (NY: Putnam‘s, 1994). 2

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

19

1.1. Phase 1: Acquisition and Allocation, a Closed Circle In concrete physical terms, the restriction and separateness of the first generation of Qumran scholarship is evidenced by the fact that three of the first seven scrolls found in Cave 1 were acquired by Prof. Eliezer Sukenik of the Hebrew University, for the University, and were published in west Jerusalem in Israel, while the remaining four were published by the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) based in east Jerusalem, then part of Jordan. The timing and location of the discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 1 near Qumran in 1947 placed the scrolls squarely in the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict associated with the UN partition vote of that year and the establishment of the State of Israel. The coincidence of the partition vote and the Scrolls discovery was romanticized and dramatized by Sukenik‘s son Yigael Yadin, the Israeli statesman and archaeologist who is most well-known for his excavation of Masada, in his book Message of the Scrolls.5 Among the uglier aspects of the modern historical context of the discovery was the politically motivated ostracism of Israeli and Jewish scholars from the large-scale publication process. With the discovery of Cave 4, and its many thousands of fragments, an ―international‖ team was established at the Palestine Archaeological Museum (later the Rockefeller Museum) in East Jerusalem, to produce the official

Weston W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History, Vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). This very comprehensive account, the first of an anticipated two-volume work, covers events of the first phase, from 1947–1960. Fields conducted extensive personal interviews with individuals involved in the discovery, acquisition, and publication of the scrolls, and tracked down many unpublished records. Fields also refers to the numerous (and frequently conflicting) first-person accounts and memoirs that have been published by early scrolls scholars, which are important sources for the initial phase. 5 Yigael Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls (London: Simon and Schuster, 1957). The excerpts that Yadin quotes from his father‘s diary are especially dramatic and moving. See also, idem, ―A Biography of E.L. Sukenik,‖ (Hebrew) ErIsr 8 (1967): 12–20. 4

20

KETER SHEM TOV

publication of the scrolls corpus.6 There is some uncertainty as to whether there was a conscious effort to include a balance of Protestants and Catholics on the original team,7 but it is clear that ecumenical sensitivity did not extend to Jews. Israeli and Jewish scholars were deliberately excluded from this enterprise, in part due to expedience—it was considered a given that Jordan would not grant entry to east Jerusalem to a Jew or Israeli—and in part due to the anti-Israel sentiments of the original publication team.8 Another illustration of the policy of exclusion, also outlined in Yadin‘s book, is Yadin‘s complicated clandestine operation to acquire the four Dead Sea Scrolls of the original lot of seven from Cave 1 that had been photographed and published by ASOR, but kept in the possession of the Syriac Archbishop Athanasius Samuel who had purchased them from the Bedouin discoverers. The premise of this classic tale of intrigue and chutzpah is that the seller, and even large segments of the international community, would not have tolerated the sale of the scrolls to Israel.9 The official excavation of Cave 4 and the initial publication of the texts took place under the auspices of G. Lankester Harding, the British director of the Jordanian Antiquities Authority along with the Dominican priest Roland de Vaux of the French École Biblique. 7 The nationalities and denominational affiliations of the original team are listed in James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 229 (in ch. 7 ―Controversies About the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ 227–41). Fields (Full History, 192) dismisses claims that denomination played a role in the selection of scholars for the international team. 8 See Fields, Full History, 437–38; Schiffman, ―Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ 162; Silberman, The Hidden Scrolls, 84–85. Evidence of antiZionism and antisemitism on the part of the original team members appears throughout Fields‘ book, though he generally attempts to mute it. The most well-known declaration from a member of the team comes from a later period, John Strugnell‘s infamous 1990 interview in the Israeli newspaper Ha‘aretz. See below, n. 25. 9 See the explicit remark by the early Scrolls scholar, William H. Brownlee, ―One severe limitation upon any prospective buyer was that he must not be a Jew… Even if the metropolitan himself had been willing to 6

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

21

An unusual comment upon the segregated scholarship is found in correspondence between two members of the original team, a personal letter written by John Strugnell to John M. Allegro on 15 October, 1955 (somewhat prefiguring his later removal from editorship of the team due, in part, to antisemitic statements): Apparently the Jew who is preparing the full-scale commentary on the Hodayot has signed a contract with the Mosad Bialiq which means not only that it will appear in Hebrew, but also that he promises not to allow a translation into any other language. That sort of parochial obscurantism makes me sick.10

The letter contains a post-script: ―Did you notice that in the photograph in the London News there was an awful lot of unpublished Pesher clearly legible? I wonder what fool will try to produce a first edition.‖11 To my knowledge, no attempt was made to publish the text that was pictured in the 1955 Illustrated London News. In 1961, however, Jacob Licht, the author of the Hebrew commentary on Hodayot condemned by Strugnell in the above quote, published three columns of Pesher Nahum on the basis of a poor-quality photograph that he found in a brochure for the Rockefeller Museum, put out by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan in that year.12 Licht‘s maverick publication is the exception that proves the rule. The small official team retained exclusive publication rights for the Qumran texts through the 1950s and 1960s and into the

sell to a Jew, he would have been ostracized by his own people‖ (in an unpublished manuscript, Phenomenal Discoveries, cited by Fields, Full History, 241). 10 From the Allegro Archive, cited in Fields, Full History, 259–60. 11 The reference is to a photo of a pesher on Psalms, now known as 4Q171 Pesher Psalms A, that appeared in G. Lankester Harding, ―Where Christ Himself may Have Studied: An Essene Monastery at Khirbet Qumran,‖ Illustrated London News 227 (September 3, 1955): 379–81. 12 Jacob Licht, ―Additional Pages of Pesher Nahum,‖ Molad 19 (1961): 454–56.

22

KETER SHEM TOV

1970s and 1980s.13 As time wore on, publication slowed and funding began to evaporate. Scholars who had written about the scrolls in the first two decades of Qumran studies began to pursue other avenues of research. 14 When Israel annexed East Jerusalem, including the Rockefeller Museum, following the 1967 Six-Day War, some perceived an opportunity for change. Instead, the government of Israel left the management of the Scrolls publication to the existing team of scholars, choosing to maintain the status quo in this matter as in so many others. 15 Edmund During the 1950s and 1960s, Israeli archaeologists uncovered additional texts in the Judean desert. This material, mostly documentary papyri from Masada and from Bar Kokhba caves, was published by Jewish and Israeli scholars. See, inter alia, Hanan Eshel, ―Excavations in the Judean Desert and at Qumran under Israeli Jurisdiction,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research (ed. Devorah Dimant; STDJ 99; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 381–400, at 382–87. The official publication team also published separate lots of Bar Kokhba era texts that the Rockefeller Museum had purchased from Bedouin. For the most part, these texts were of less interest to Christian scholars than the earlier sectarian material from Qumran. 14 Despite the frustrations and limitations, scholars outside the official publication team made significant contributions in the early decades of the field. Comprehensive overviews, according to geographic and national categories, are provided in the articles in Dimant, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective. On early Israeli Scrolls scholarship in particular, see esp. eadem, ―Israeli Scholarship on the Qumran Community,‖ 237–80, and Emanuel Tov, ―Israeli Scholarship on the Biblical Texts From the Judean Desert,‖ 297–313. See also, Emanuel Tov, ―Israeli Scholarship on the Texts from the Judean Desert,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (ed. Robert A. Kugler and Eileen Schuller; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 123– 27. 15 On the Israeli policy of maintaining ―status quo‖ in matters of conflict, see, inter alia, Daphne Barak Erez, ―Law and Religion Under the Status Quo Model: Between Past Compromises and Constant Change,‖ Cardozo Law Review 30 (2009): 2495–2507. Marlen Eordegian, ―British and Israeli maintenance of the status quo in the holy places of Christendom,‖ International Journal of Middle East Studies 35/2 (2003): 307–28. The 13

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

23

Wilson, the noted American literary figure who captured popular attention and imagination with his accounts of the Scrolls, wrote in the aftermath of the 1967 war of his expectation that ―both Israeli and Gentile scholars are, one hopes, for the first time, at last, in a position to examine the whole mass of the scrolls, to confer about them, and to pool their findings.‖16 His assessment was premature, but developments in the 1970s and 1980s did ultimately lead to such broader access. 1.2. Phase 2: Breaking the Barriers, Broadening the Field One of the factors that have been credited with infusing the new spirit of the second generation into Qumran studies is actually associated with the first generation figure Yigael Yadin. Yadin‘s acquisition of the Temple Scroll in 1967, and his publication of this monumental work along with a Hebrew commentary in 1977, simultaneously mitigated and reinforced the marginalization of Jewish scholars within Qumran studies. Scholars with fluency in adoption of the ―status quo‖ approach was itself an implementation of status quo, following a policy first introduced by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Mejid in 1852 with respect to Christian holy sites in Palestine. 16 Edmund Wilson, The Dead Sea Scrolls 1947–1969 (NY: Oxford University Press, 1969), 259. Wilson also noted (ibid.) that before he left Jordan on the eve of the war in 1967, de Vaux had asked him to ―give his regards to Yadin and to say to him how much he regretted ‗the barrier‘ that had prevented them from meeting anywhere except in Paris or London.‖ [That last qualification is tantalizing. Geza Vermes reports that when he met Yadin for the first time at a conference in Cambridge in 1954, he agreed to Yadin‘s request that he [Vermes] ―act as his letter box for his correspondence with Father de Vaux and other Qumran scholars in Jordan:‖ Geza Vermes, Providential Accidents: An Autobiography (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1998), 108. Schuller similarly notes that Yadin and another member of the team, Pierre Benoit, communicated by means of a postal box, and that Weston Fields has confirmed that he has records of some of their correspondence. Eileen Schuller, ―The Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish-Christian Dialogue,‖ in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition: a Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin (ed. Patricia Walters; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 45–58, at p. 56].

24

KETER SHEM TOV

modern Hebrew—almost exclusively Jews, in that era17—were given access to a wealth of new material, but it was specifically halakhic material.18 During this time, Qumran halakha became a specialty niche for Jewish scholars, though they continued to function under the handicap of being barred access to unpublished material.19 Even more significantly, an active campaign began in the 1980s to ―free the scrolls‖ from the monopoly of the ―international team.‖ Two of the most active agents in this campaign have written lively accounts of their perspectives and roles in this second phase of access and publication.20 Beginning in 1980, Emanuel Tov, Elisha Qimron, and Devorah Dimant became the first Israeli scholars to join the authorized publication team.21 The first two One non-Jewish scholar of the first generation who was in fact conversant in Modern Hebrew was not a member of the international team—William Foxwell Albright, who described the Hebrew he learned as a student in Jerusalem the 1920s as ―archaic Modern Hebrew.‖ See the description of his opening address to the 1965 World Congress of Jewish Studies, in Moshe Bar-Asher, ―Linguistic Activism,‖ in Studies in Modern Hebrew (Jerusalem: Keter, 2012), 93–120, at 116 n. 105. I thank Jonathan Howard for this reference. 18 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977). See Schiffman, Reclaiming, 26; idem., ―Many ‗Battles,‘‖ 192–93; Wilson,―The June War and the Temple Scroll,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls, 263–72; Silberman, Hidden Scrolls, 162–72. 19 See Alex P. Jassen, ―American Scholarship on Jewish Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in Dimant, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective, 101–54; Aharon Shemesh, ―Israeli Research of the Halakhah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in ibid., 345–61. Shemesh states (349) that ―almost all scholars engaged in study of Qumran halakhah have been educated at traditional Yeshivot with academic training in Talmudic studies.‖ 20 Geza Vermes, ―The Battle Over the Scrolls: A Personal Account,‖ ch. 16 in Providential Accidents 188–209; Hershel Shanks, Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls: And Other Adventures of an Archaeology Outsider (NY: Continuum, 2010), 125–60. See also, Schiffman, Reclaiming, 26–31. 21 James C. VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 388; Schiffman 17

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

25

project directors, Roland de Vaux and Pierre Benoit, each retained their positions until their deaths. When John Strugnell formally succeeded Benoit in 1987, there was some opposition to his appointment, and a good deal of pressure to broaden the field of scholars involved in the project. Both Geza Vermes of Oxford University and Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, prominent figures in this campaign, identified antisemitism as one of the factors in the unfairness of the then-status quo.22 It is perhaps a ―providential accident,‖ to borrow the title of Vermes‘s memoirs, that a key figure in opening access to the Scrolls was a scholar who was born a Jew, converted to Catholicism, survived the Holocaust as a young priest, and later came to re-identify as a Jew.23 In his memoirs, Vermes describes the role played by Alan Crown during this transitional period in the late 1980s.24

(―Many Battles,‖ 193) names these three scholars as members of an expanded team of twenty recruited by Strugnell in 1984. Besides the copies of the PAM photographs held in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, additional copies were deposited in the Huntington Library as well as at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, and Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati (VanderKam and Flint, ibid., 393). 22 See Vermes, ―The Battle Over the Scrolls;‖ Shanks, Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls. 23 Vermes, Providential Accidents. His parents perished in Auschwitz. Besides his work on the Scrolls, Vermes is best-known for his contribution to the study of the historical figure of Jesus, particularly the Jewish background of his life, thought, and ministry. See, inter alia, Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: a Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973). 24 Vermes, ibid. He notes in particular (197–98) his consternation that after Alan Crown had been involved in negotiations to arrange for the storage of copies of photographs of the Scrolls at Oxford, in 1989, Crown held the key to the room with the photographs, while resident Oxford scholars were denied entry and access to the material.

26

KETER SHEM TOV

In 1990, Strugnell was removed from his position 25 and Emanuel Tov became the director of the international committee and the editor-in-chief of the project. In 1991, the Huntington Library in California decided to grant access to all ―qualified scholars‖ to a complete set of negatives that had been entrusted to the Library.26 In that same year, Shanks published the first volume of an edition that was produced with the assistance of computer technology from an ―unauthorized‖ copy of a concordance that had been provided to official editors.27 Also in 1991, Shanks Strugnell‘s dismissal, on medical grounds, followed upon an interview for the Israeli newspaper Ha‘aretz (November 9, 1990) in which he made a number of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli statements. See Avi Katzman, ―Chief Dead Sea Scroll Editor Denounces Judaism, Israel; Claims He‘s Seen Four More Scrolls Found by Bedouin,‖ BAR 17/1 (1990): 64–72; Hershel Shanks, ―An Interview with John Strugnell: Ousted Chief Scroll Editor Makes His Case,‖ BAR 20/4 (1994): 40. It would be too facile, however, to point to Strugnell as an obstacle to Jewish participation in Scrolls research. He was the first to invite an Israeli scholar to work with the unpublished material, and he had close collaborative relationships with a number of Jewish and Israeli colleagues, including some younger scholars whom he mentored. A substantial number of Jewish scholars were among the dozens of ―friends and colleagues‖ who signed a letter of support that was published as ―No evidence of Anti-Judaism in Strugnell‘s Work,‖ BAR 17/2 (1991): 15. In fact, the topic of this conference paper was suggested to me by the late Prof. Hanan Eshel, whose relationship with Strugnell was elemental to his appreciation of the interfaith collegiality in the field of Qumran studies. Following Prof. Strugnell‘s death in 2009, the Strugnell family entrusted Prof. Eshel with the responsibility and honor of transporting his cremated remains from Boston to Israel for interment in the École Biblique in Jerusalem. 26 Vermes, ―The Battle Over the Scrolls,‖ 203. 27 This was the first of four volumes produced from the index-card concordance by Martin Abegg, using then-cutting-edge computer analysis tools: Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, eds., A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: the Hebrew and Aramaic texts from Cave Four (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991–1996). The volumes were carefully labeled as preliminary editions ―reconstructed 25

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

27

published a two-volume facsimile edition of a selection of Qumran texts, on the basis of photographs from a source that was not divulged.28 This last publication led to one of the most dramatic episodes in the ―battle for the scrolls.‖ In the ―Publisher‘s Forward‖ that appeared in the introduction to the facsimile edition, Shanks had published an unauthorized copy of a transcription of a text known as 4QMMT (Miqṣat ‗Ma‗aśe haTorah, or the Halakhic Letter).29 One of the official editors of this text, Elisha Qimron, sued Shanks for this infringement upon his intellectual property in a landmark case that ultimately was decided in favor of Qimron by the Israeli Supreme Court. 30 Despite the personal setback for Shanks, the major breakthroughs in 1991 ushered in a new era for Qumran studies. The ―monopoly‖ was broken and the playing field was leveled. 1.3. Phase 3: Cooperation and Collaboration By 2001, all but two of the total forty volumes of the official Discoveries in the Judean Desert series (DJD) were published. Eight of and edited‖ by Abegg and his PhD supervisor Wacholder, since copies of the concordance had been printed privately ―for use by the editors.‖ (A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew and Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Caves II–X: Including Especially the Unpublished Material from Cave IV, Printed from a Card Index Prepared by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, G. W. Oxtoby, J. Teixidor, prepared and arranged for printing by HansPeter Richter [5 vols.; Göttingen: privately published, 1988]). 28 Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, eds., A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991). Shanks himself says he does not know where or how Eisenman acquired the photographs (Freeing the Scrolls, 155). 29 The official edition was published in 1994, Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, in consultation with Yaakov Sussmann and with contributions by Yaakov Sussmann and Ada Yardeni. Miqṣat Ma‘aśe HaTorah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). 30 Israel Supreme Court of Appeals case 54(3) P.D. 817. See Raphael Israeli, Piracy in Qumran: The Battle Over the Scrolls of the Pre-Christ Era (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2008); Shanks, ―Losing in Court,‖ in Freeing the Scrolls, 161–75; VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 388–94.

28

KETER SHEM TOV

these volumes were published during the four decades following the initial discovery; twenty-eight were completed by the expanded, truly international team, in the following decade.31 It is perhaps ironic that 4QMMT, the manuscript at the heart of the lawsuit concerning the breaking of the monopoly, was the first work to have been edited jointly by a baton-passing interfaith team, Strugnell and Qimron.32 Collaboration among individuals has been an important indicator and generator of interfaith dialog in Qumran studies. Prior to the 1990‘s, joint publication by Jewish and Christian Dead Sea Scrolls scholars was extremely rare. In the twenty-first century, this is the norm. The conversations and

See John Noble Wilford, ―Team Is Ready to Publish Full Set of Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ New York Times, Nov. 15, 2001. Despite the relatively slower pace of the original team, there is no basis to conspiracy theories that posit deliberate delays. Thus, for example the sensationalist claims that the Vatican was blocking publication because the Scrolls posed a challenge to Christian faith, popularized in Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (London: Corgi, 1991). The members of the original team were remarkably efficient in their identifications of the thousands of Scrolls fragments. The initial publication rate has been compared favorably to that of other major manuscript finds, such as the Oxyrhynchus papyri. See, inter alia, Michael E. Stone, ―The Scrolls and the Literary Landscape of Second Temple Judaism,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Text and Context (ed. Charlotte Hempel; STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 15–30, at 15. Vermes, however, ridiculed Strugnell‘s appeal to that collection as a benchmark (Providential Accidents, 195). In any case, the faster pace of the final decade may be attributed to the increase in the number of scholars and collaborative methods, Tov‘s skills in managing the large team, and the technological advances of the computer age. 32 Strugnell (DJD X:vii) states that it was Qimron‘s impressive linguistic skills that prompted the invitation to collaborate; the halakhic content of the letter was also relevant, and eventually led to the inclusion of Talmud specialist, Yaakov Sussman to contribute a section, ―The Halakha,‖ ibid., 123–200. 31

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

29

partnerships that began to emerge in ―Phase 2‖ were both cause and effect for a transformation to swift collaborative publication.33 Beginning in the 1980‘s, ―international‖ conferences devoted to the Dead Sea Scrolls began to be truly international, selfconsciously inclusive at first, and then naturally so. A pioneering 1985 conference at New York University (―Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin)‖34 was followed by a number of commemorative conferences marking the fortieth anniversary of the discovery of the scrolls, initiating a trend that has become commonplace. 35 The fiftieth anniversary of the The relationship between Qumran scholarship and formal interfaith dialogue is less clear. See Eileen Schuller, ―The Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish-Christian Dialogue.‖ 34 The conference papers were published in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: the New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman; JSPSS 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). 35 See, inter alia, the volumes of proceedings from conferences in Haifa, Madrid, and Mogilany: Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes, Yad Yizhaq Ben-Zvi, 1992); Julio C. Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, eds., The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March, 1991 (2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992); Zdzisław J. Kapera, Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac: International Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumranica Mogilanensia 2–3; Krakow: Enigma Press, 1991, 1993). See also the review of the Mogilany volume, and of the 1987 and 1989 conferences, by Lawrence H. Schiffman in BAR 20/1 (1994). Schiffman (―Many Battles, 198–99) places these transitional conferences in the second phase of scholarship, when ―scholars of the second (and even third) generation undertook the study of the particularly Jewish issues in the scrolls—Jewish history, law, theology, and messianism.‖ The Mogilany conference was in fact consciously antiestablishment, but, like the others, it also contributed to laying the foundations for a new broader professional community. Schiffman notes that John Strugnell, unlike most of the first generation scholars, was an active participant in these conferences (ibid., 199). An especially 33

30

KETER SHEM TOV

Qumran discoveries was celebrated in an atmosphere of the pursuit of unity, most palpably at the Israel Museum‘s extravagant 1997 congress, ―The Dead Sea Scrolls—Fifty Years After Their Discovery, Major Issues and New Approaches.‖ 36 The editors‘ preface to the volume of the congress proceedings proudly declares that the ―conference was organized in order to guarantee the highest level of international and interconfessional participation.‖37 The Hebrew University‘s Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature was established at that time, with Australian support, and instituted a series of annual international symposia that continues until today. One more recent example of institutional cooperation that I would like to mention is the Notre Dame/New York University program, ―Jewish and Christian Scholars on the Origins of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity,‖ which was constructed as an opportunity for student interaction. 38 noteworthy conference was sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences and the University of Chicago, held at the Blood Center in New York City on 14–17 December 1992. The conference successfully met one of its goals, which was to bring together ―scholars of diverse—even radically diverse—views.‖ The volume of proceedings includes transcripts of the discussions following the presentations, preserving some of the heated debates: Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee, Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; NY: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 1–38. 36 See Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–35, 1997 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000). In Emanuel Tov‘s opening address, ―Five Decades of Discoveries, Editions, and Research,‖ he noted that there had been twenty-two international scrolls conferences from the 1985 NYU conference to the 50 years celebration in 1997 (ibid., 951–60, at 954–55). 37 Ibid., xix. 38 Held in 2005–2007; coordinated by Lawrence Schiffman, James VanderKam, Alex Jassen, and Todd Russel Hanneken.

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

31

Another landmark conference, primarily in terms of scope, location, and the sponsoring institutions was the 2008 ―The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context‖ held in Vienna, and organized jointly by the University of Vienna and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 39 There is an increasing expectation for specialists in Qumran studies to develop expertise in both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. At a time when some scholars detect signs of a decline in proficiency in Modern Hebrew among scholars of Jewish Studies programs outside of Israel,40 a significant number of non-Jewish Qumran scholars stay abreast of relevant literature published in modern Hebrew, and also present and publish academic papers in Modern Hebrew.41 The Community of scholars working together on discovering and constructing the meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is achieving a level of understanding that could not have been attainable when segments of the Community were working apart from each other and against each other. I will conclude this survey of the cooperative phase of Qumran studies with one particularly noteworthy venture, the Enoch Seminar, founded by Prof. Gabrielle Boccaccini in 2001.42 This is actually a closed group, but membership is not determined by arbitrary criteria or those related to ethnicity or nationality; it is rather subject to demonstration of academic credentials, with special care to incorporate student researchers. As stated on the group‘s website, ―the Enoch Seminar is an academic group of Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, eds., in association with Bennie H. Reynolds III, The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (2 vols.; VTSup 140; Leiden: Brill, 2011). 40 A recent newspaper article refers to such concerns among Israeli academics, Revital Hovel, ―Professors Fume Over Dominance of English Language in Israeli Academia,‖ Haaretz, 12 Oct. 2012. I am grateful to Dr. Hillel Cohen, Co-ordinator of Israel Studies, M.A. Program at Hebrew University, for this reference. 41 See especially the journal Meghillot, which contains the proceedings of the annual Dead Sea Scrolls conference held at Haifa University: http://megillot.haifa.ac.il/index.php/en/meghillot-journal. 42 http://www.enochseminar.org/drupal/. 39

32

KETER SHEM TOV

international specialists in Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins, who share the results of their research in the field and meet to discuss topics of common interest…. It is a shared commitment by the members of the Enoch Seminar that the study of this crucial period offers an important contribution to the understanding of the common roots of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and therefore to better relations among them.‖43 Further advancement in this latest phase of openness and cooperation is anticipated with the IAA-Google website, which offers global public access to spectral-images of the corpus of scrolls fragments and scans of all the PAM negatives in the IAA archives.44 Ibid., accessed 11 December, 2012. See above, n. 1. The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library is emblematic of Schiffman‘s observations regarding important contributing factors affecting the second and third phases described in this paper. At the turn of the millennium he correctly anticipated further rapid progress due to ―a world growing increasingly democratic‖ and ―new technological advances‖ (―Reclaiming,‖ 163). As far as democratization, one full volume of the professional journal Dead Sea Discoveries was devoted to the Scrolls and popular culture (DSD 12/1 [2005]). See also The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008) (ed. Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref; STDJ 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011). As for technology, Schiffman (ibid.) mentioned generally the fields of archaeology, photographic techniques, carbon-14, genetic testing of materials, optical research. To note some specific examples, in addition to Abegg‘s computer reconstruction for the concordance edition (above, n. 27), key information resources have included the microfiche publication of the scrolls in 1992 (The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert [ed. Emanuel Tov with the collaboration of Stephen J. Pfann; Leiden: Brill, 1992]); CD-ROM editions (The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library [3 vols.; ed. Timothy H. Lim in consultation with Philip S. Alexander, vol. 1; Emanuel Tov, vols. 2–3; Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1999, 2006]); the use of photoshop tools for deciphering text (see the anecdotal report of one of the first demonstrations of this use of technology for the scrolls at a 1991 conference in Oxford—with Australian funding arranged by Alan Crown, in Timothy 43 44

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

33

2. TRIADIC DEVELOPMENT MODEL: IDENTIFYING THE COMMUNITY OF THE SCROLLS We turn now to examine the history of the identification of the people of the scrolls through the lens of our 3-phase model. Here, I think that a ‚Hegelian‛ model of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is more effective than a supposition of linear progression: 45 1) Phase 1 was dominated by a ―thesis:‖ the Essene hypothesis. 2) In Phase 2, the consensus view was subjected to a barrage of opposition and the formation of alternative proposals that I would term anti-―Essene hypothesis‖ hypotheses. 3) One of my claims in this paper is that there is currently a broad consensus in Qumran studies that I would identify as Phase 3, a synthesis of the first two phases. This is more difficult to name but may perhaps best be described as H. Lim, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 4; and most recently, a session at the August 2012 conference ―University of Agder: New Discoveries in the Judaean Desert I,‖ devoted to ―Use of Photoshop in Reconstruction of Qumran ‗Biblical‘ Texts‖ with a presentation by Michael Langlois and response by Søren Holst); and a searchable digital edition of the non-biblical Qumran texts developed by Martin Abegg, and available as a module for Accordance Bible Software and Logos Bible Software. On the innovative use of multimedia technology, see also, Stephen Pfann Jr. and Stephen J. Pfann, ―The Second Temple Period Multimedia Educational Suite with an Appendix on the Ceramic and Numismatic Evidence for Qumran‘s Period 1a,‖ in Roitman et al., eds., Contemporary Culture, 683–717. 45 I use the terms ‚Hegelian‛ and ‚thesis, antithesis, synthesis‛ following common parlance, for their heuristic effectiveness, although I recognize that philosophers today commonly maintain that the ‚Marxist‛ use of this dialectic triad of terms, which does not appear in Hegel’s writings, is not representative of Hegel’s thought. See, inter alia, Gustav E. Mueller, ‚The Hegel Legend of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis,‛ in The Hegel Myths and Legends (ed. Jon Stewart; Evanston, Ill: Northwestern, 1996), 301–5.

34

KETER SHEM TOV general agreement concerning attributes shared by ―the [Essene?] Communities of the Scrolls.‖

2.1. Phase 1: Thesis—Essene Hypothesis I have described phase 1 of the discovery and publication of the scrolls as a time of separateness and distrust and divisiveness. In terms of methodological approaches to identifying the people of the scrolls, however, there was a large degree of unity, and a general acceptance of what has come to be known as the Qumran Consensus: the ―Essene Hypothesis.‖ I do not want to misrepresent this phase as one of harmony. For one thing, the Essene ―consensus‖ existed in two polarized versions in the early stages of Qumran scholarship. The ―international‖ literature was dominated by a picture of monastic ascetic Essenes, often said to have been created in the image of the Catholic priest Père Roland de Vaux, the director of the excavations of the Qumran site and the nearby caves and of the publication of the scrolls.46 In contrast, Yadin‘s publications and his Shrine of the Book exhibit at the Israel Museum focused upon the Jewish identity of the Essenes—an identification first put forth by his father Sukenik in the 1940s— and emphasized Jewish continuity.47 An influential figure in early scholarship who shaped popular views about the Scrolls in Israel was the brilliant, original, and often iconoclastic scholar David Flusser. Flusser emphasized similarities between the scrolls and early Christianity, but tended to do so in a way that highlighted the Jewish milieu and origins of Christianity, rather than

See Roland de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1959 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973); Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies: The Haskell Lectures, 1956–1957 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1958); Józef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (trans. John Strugnell; SBT 26; London: SCM, 1959). 47 See Yadin, Message, 176; Eliezer L. Sukenik, Megillot Genuzot: Scrolls that Were Stored Away from an Ancient Genizah Found in the Judean Desert, First Survey (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1948) 1:16–17 (Hebrew). 46

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

35

overshadowing them.48 Moreover, the first ―battles of the scrolls‖ emerged during this period, and some of the more blatant and public controversies of phase 1 related to this question of identification.49 See, inter alia, the recently translated volume of select articles from his ouvre: David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period (trans. Azzan Yadin; 2 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007–2009). See also the portrait of Flusser in Wilson, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 78–84, 247–55, and passim. Flusser‘s influence in highlighting the Christian significance of the Scrolls in Israeli society is noted in Schuller, ―The Dead Sea Scrolls and JewishChristian Dialogue,‖ 50. 49 Early battles were fought over the authenticity and antiquity of the manuscripts, and then about their significance, and the identification of their authors. Thus, Schiffman (―Many ‗Battles,‘‖ 187): ―in the early 1950s, it was customary to speak of ‗the battle of the scrolls.‘ This phrase referred to the heated public debates that raged over the importance of the scrolls and the identity and dating of their authors. Later on, in the 70s and 80s we again witnessed a battle of the scrolls, this time over the publication of the texts and access to them for scholarly research.‖ Solomon Zeitlin insisted that the manuscripts dated to the medieval period (e.g., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Scholarship [JQRMS 3; Philadelphia: Dropsie, 1956]). Godfrey Rolles Driver (The Judean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution [Oxford: Blackwell, 1965]) and Cecil Roth (The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Oxford: Blackwell, 1958]) identified the authors of the scrolls as Zealots. Most troubling to the establishment were the theories put forth by the maverick insider John Marco Allegro (in popular interviews and articles; he eventually published The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth [Newton Abbot: Westbridge, 1979]) and also by André Dupont-Sommer (The Essene Writings from Qumran [transl. G. Vermes; Oxford; Blackwell: 1961]) who portrayed the Dead Sea Scrolls as anticipating Christianity. Focusing upon elements in the Scrolls that resonated with the New Testament, they each argued that the Community was the source of early Christian beliefs and practices, and they viewed the founder of the Community, the Teacher of Righteousness, as a Jesus figure, even making claims about references to an anticipated resurrection of the Teacher, and to his crucifixion. Allegro further antagonized the other members of the official team by publishing an edition of the Copper Scroll (The Treasure of the Copper Scrolls [London: 48

36

KETER SHEM TOV

For our purposes, the point I would like to emphasize here is that during the early years of Qumran studies, despite controversy about the specific nature of the authors of the scrolls, there was general agreement about the triangular relationship that Albert Baumgarten succinctly describes in this volume as ―Scrolls/ Site/Sect:‖50 that the texts found in the 11 caves near Qumran belonged to a single community, which was associated with the archaeological site of Qumran, and that this Community was to be identified with the Essenes, as described in Josephus and other classical stories. Or, in the formulation of Frank Moore Cross, there was broad agreement about identifying the ―Ancient Essene Library of Qumran.‖51 Of course, one of the problems with this ―triangular‖ relationship between the scrolls, the site, and the sect, is that it is in Routledge, 1960]) before the official editor produced his edition, and by setting off on treasure hunts in pursuit of the enormous riches listed in that scroll. His later books included as well The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970) in which he proposed that the origins of Christianity lay in the use of hallucinogens. See the interview he gave on Dutch television, 1976, to Kees Van Kooten and Wim De Bie (a popular comedy team, though Allegro was apparently unaware of this): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOu9tV6uy2E. Edmund Wilson‘s The Dead Sea Scrolls is a useful and entertaining source for more information about Allegro (see esp. ibid., 154–59) and DupontSommer (esp. 85–103) and the reception of their theories. A recent work that sheds new light upon factionalism among Christian scholars in the first generation of Qumran scholarship is the biography of Allegro published by his daughter, Judith Brown‘s John Marco Allegro: The Maverick Of The Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 50 Albert I. Baumgarten, ―What Did the ‗Teacher‘ Know?: Owls and Roosters in the Qumran Barnyard,‖ 235–57. 51 See above, n. 45. See also Jaqueline S. du Toit and Jason Kalman, ―Albright‘s Legacy? Homogeneity in the Introduction of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Public,‖ Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36/2 (2010), 23–48, at 23. They cite Silberman‘s memorable formulation (Hidden Scrolls, 98): ―Even though there were minor divergences in the details of their stories … [the authors] were all singing from the same hymnal.‖

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

37

fact circular.52 And so at some time during our second phase, the barriers-breaking phase, some scholars began to question the assumptions in this circular reasoning, raising objections to interpretations of each of the sources and to claims of the relationships between each of the sources. 2.2. Phase 2: Antithesis: Non-Essene Hypothesis At the same time that pressure was mounting in the public sphere to ―free the scrolls‖ from the monopoly of the ―international team,‖ counter-proposals to the Essene consensus were being put forth in the academic arena.53 Phase 2 was simply made to order for Alan Crown. As was noted numerous times in the course of this memorial conference, Prof. Crown would always ask ―how do you know that?,‖ urging students and colleagues to question our assumptions, and our reasoning, and to re-evaluate the givens. In this spirit, Alan published a seminal article with Lena Cansdale,54 containing a detailed point-by-point critique of the Essene For a recent defense of the logical argument, see Edna UllmannMargalit, ―Interpretive Circles: the Case of the Dead Sea Scrolls.,‖ in Roitman et al, eds., Contemporary Culture, 649–64; ibid., Out of the Cave: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Dead Sea Scrolls Research (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 2006). 53 Robert Eisenman is a figure associated with both aspects of the second phase, due to his publication of the Facsimile Edition of the Scrolls (above, n. 28) and his unorthodox interpretations of the scrolls as reflecting a messianic Palestinian community that he associates with James the brother of Jesus. See Robert H. Eisenman, Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians, and Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1983); idem, James the Brother of Jesus: the Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (NY: Viking, 1996). In the context of maverick interpretations that associate the Qumran corpus with Christianity, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Australian scholar Barbara Thiering who was also active during the second phase of Qumran studies, beginning with Barbara E. Thiering, Redating the Teacher of Righteousness (Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1979). 54 Alan D. Crown and Lena Cansdale, ―Qumran: Was It an Essene Settlement?‖ BAR 20/5 (1994): 24–35, 73–78. 52

38

KETER SHEM TOV

hypothesis, which was later expanded upon by Cansdale in her fulllength book.55 Crown and Cansdale and other scholars questioned the assumptions about the sect, challenging Josephus‘s credibility, and the extent of the similarity between the community of the scrolls and Josephus‘s Essenes. Most notably, Lawrence Schiffman pointed to similarities between halakhic rulings in 4QMMT and positions attributed to the Sadducees in rabbinic literature, to argue a Sadducean identity for the authors of the sectarian scrolls.56 Second-phase scholars questioned the nature of the scrolls: was this really a sectarian corpus, or was it a diverse collection of ancient Jewish writings of multiple origins? One key text that influenced this debate was the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.57 This text had been known from the Qumran caves, and was identified as a ―sectarian‖ text especially on the basis of its presumption of a 52-week solar calendar. When a copy of the work was discovered at Masada, scholars initially suggested that a Qumran Essene had brought the scroll to Masada, but then began to question its ―sectarian‖ classification.58 They also questioned the Lena Cansdale, Qumran and the Essenes: a Re-evaluation of the Evidence (TSAJ 60; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1997). The preface (ibid., v) includes a beautiful expression of gratitude to Alan Crown. 56 See, inter alia, Lawrence H. Schiffman, ―The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect,‖ BA 53/2 (1990): 64– 73; ―The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls Sect,‖ Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Hershel Shanks; NY: Random House, 1992), 35– 49; ―The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of the Qumran Manuscripts,‖ in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1996), 81– 98; ―Origins and Early History,‖ in idem, Reclaiming, 83–95. 57 For the official edition of the eight copies from Qumran (Caves 4 and 11) and the Masada manuscripts, see Carol Newsom, ―Shirot ‗Olat HaShabbat,‖ in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (ed. Esther Eshel et al.; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 173–401. 58 Carol Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: a Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), but, later, ―‗Sectually‘ Explicit Literature from Qumran,‖ in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. William Henry 55

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

39

site:59 was it a religious center, or might it have been a fortress, 60 a luxury villa,61 an agricultural-industrial complex,62 or a way-station for travellers to Jerusalem?63 One of the most vocal challengers of the Essene Hypothesis was Norman Golb, who argued that the site of Khirbet Qumran was a Hasmonean fortress, with no connection to the scrolls found in the nearby caves. He argued that the scrolls were a collection or collections of texts from Jerusalem, moved to the caves for safe-keeping on the eve of the Judean Revolt against Rome.64 To some extent, Qumran scholars today are still challenging assumptions. So I can appreciate Lena Cansdale‘s suggestion to identify a paradigm shift in the questioning of the Essene theory.65 Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167–87. 59 See the survey of alternative interpretations of the site by Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, ―Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls: the Contention of Twelve Theories,‖ in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches (ed. Douglas R. Edwards; London: Routledge, 2004), 162–69. 60 See especially, Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls: the Search for the Secret of Qumran (NY: Scribner, 1995). In the 2012 edition of this work, Golb added an Afterword in which he presents a rather different portrait of the phases of scholarship and current state of the modern community of Qumran scholars from the one presented here. 61 See, e.g., Robert Donceel and Pauline Donceel-Voute, ―The Archeology of Qumran,‖ in Michael O. Wise et al., eds., Methods of Investigation, 1–38. 62 See Yizhar Hirschfield, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004). 63 See Crown and Cansdale, ―Qumran;‖ Alan D. Crown, ―An Alternative View of Qumran,‖ in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented To Professor Abraham Tal (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Moshe Florentin; Jerusalam: Bialik, 2005): 1*–24*. 64 Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. 65 Cansdale (Qumran and the Essenes, 1) cites Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), on the transformation of a ―rebel‖ thesis to a new standard model when it answers questions better than the originally accepted theory.

40

KETER SHEM TOV

But I think a dialectical model is more relevant. Today‘s scholars are less reactive than those of the second generation who sought to challenge the Essene hypothesis. They are less partisan in their attitudes, and more flexible, taking into account elements from various theories, including the Essene identification, in constructing new models for interpreting the scrolls. During phase two, even ―mainstream‖ scholars who dismissed many of the antiestablishment alternative proposals, were slowly being affected by the critiques put forth to challenge the dominant theory. Initial manifestations of some of this maturation, modulation, and attenuation, are evident in some of the retrospective summaries of scholarship that were published around the turn of the millennium, in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of the scrolls.66 2.3. Phase 3: Synthesis: Essene-Related(?) Communities As scholarship moves beyond the ―non-Essene‖ orientation of Phase 2, I perceive the emergence of a broad synthesis that recognizes pluralism and variation within the corpus. One sphere in which the ―synthesis‖ of the third phase is especially clear is the study of the texts that were once universally called ―biblical scrolls.‖ As discussed elsewhere in this volume, first generation scholars viewed texts like 1QIsaa as variants to the Masoretic versions of biblical scrolls.67 Often, the scrolls were viewed as a

Similarly, Schiffman wrote of ―the Second Generation‖ that ―a new ―nonconsensus‖ was emerging (―Many ‗Battles,‘‖ 199). 66 In addition to the Israel Museum conference and volume discussed above (n. 36), see Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998–1999); Robert A. Kugler and Eileen Schuller, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999); Philip R. Davies, George J. Brooke, and Philip R. Callaway, The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Thames and Hudson, 2002). 67 Ian Young, ―‗Loose‘ Language in 1QIsa a,‖ 89–112.

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

41

tool for pursuing the biblical Urtext.68 The publication of ―The Psalms Scroll‖ (11Q5 Psa) confounded early Qumran scholars.69 They did not know what to make of this nearly complete scroll, containing only 48 psalms, of which only 39 appear in MT Psalms, and even these occur in the Qumran scroll in a different order than in MT. Was this a very variant biblical scroll, or was it something else entirely, a prayerbook perhaps? Today, while there is still no consensus about the nature of the Psalms Scroll, there is universal recognition of the multiplicity of textual traditions and the complexity of transmission history.70 The current stage is also characterized by full awareness of the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for illuminating the shared foundations of rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. On our specific topic of the origins of the scrolls, most scholars tend to retain some conception of a central Yahad Community, usually associated with the site of Qumran, but they also allow for diversity and development. 71 Scholars are also Thus, Schiffman (―Many ‗Battles,‘‖ 198) indicates that biblical specialists of the first generation of Qumran scholars had hoped that the scrolls would lead them to the Urtext of the Hebrew Bible and to the roots of Christianity. 69 James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965). 70 See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012). For surveys of Qumran scholarship and the Hebrew Bible, see the following contributions in Dimant, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: Eugene Ulrich, ―Biblical Scrolls Scholarship in North America,‖ 49–74; Emanuel Tov, ―Israeli Scholarship on the Biblical texts from the Judean Desert,‖ 297–313; Jörg Frey, ―Qumran Research and Biblical Scholarship in Germany,‖ 529–64. 71 The following surveys in Dimant, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective are especially informative on the coalescence of a broad new consensus: Sidnie White Crawford, ―The Qumran Community in American Scholarship,‖ 13‒29; John J. Collins, ―The Scrolls and Christianity in American Scholarship,‖ 197–215; Devorah Dimant, ―Israeli Scholarship on the Qumran Community,‖ 237–80. It is interesting to compare White Crawford‘s description of John Collins‘s scholarship 68

42

KETER SHEM TOV

introducing innovative approaches for thinking about the scrolls, suggesting new questions to ask as well as new ways to go about seeking answers. As observed by Sidnie White Crawford, 72 and championed in particular by Maxine Grossman, 73 scholars continue to employ the traditional ―historical critical‖ method, with increasing sophistication, but also have begun to borrow methodologies from such fields as sociology and anthropology, socio-rhetorical and discourse analysis, and literary criticism. On the site/scrolls/―sect‖ association, the current broad consensus can be summarized as follows:

2.3.1. Complexity, Diversity, and Development The Site: Most scholars today accept the association between the site of Qumran and the scrolls corpus, but the archaeological analysis has become more open in its consideration of data that does not conform to the rigid original Essene hypothesis, such as about the authors of the Scrolls in the sections she designates as ―The Next Generation: 1970s–1990s‖ (22–26) as compared to the section labeled ―The Present‖ (26–29). Apparently, editorial decisions called for the use of the present tense in her account. So that on p. 23, we read that Collins ―states‖ that the evidence makes ―overwhelmingly probable the identification of Qumran… as ‗Essene‘‖ (from John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Literature [NY: Doubleday, 1995], 7), whereas on pp. 26–27, we read that he ―has thoroughly critiqued the Qumran-Essene hypothesis‖ and now supports a construct that involves multiple inter-related communities. Thus, in John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). 72 Sidnie White Crawford, ―The Qumran Community in American Scholarship,‖ 29. She mentions Carol Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52; Leiden, Brill, 2004); Maxine Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study (STDJ 45; Leiden: Brill, 2002); Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 73 Maxine L. Grossman, ed., Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 2010.

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

43

the presence of women in the cemetery, evidence of economic prosperity, or the dating of the different stratigraphic layers. 74 Some scholars trained in the consensus tradition sometimes erroneously describe Qumran as ―inhabited‖ by Essenes, but most understand that this unusual site served religious and economic communal functions, rather than residential purposes.75 This supports the conceptualization of the site as a center for diverse related groups, as described below. The Scrolls: The dominant view today retains the concept of a corpus of scrolls from the caves of Qumran, but recognizes diversity within this collection. Devorah Dimant has worked to redefine the early paradigm of a tri-partite division of the corpus into ―biblical,‖ ―non-biblical,‖ and ―sectarian‖ scrolls, all associated with the Qumran Essenes. She has suggested new criteria for evaluating the texts within a context of multiple religious circles, rather than as a ―homogenous sectarian-apocalyptic‖ library.76 An important contribution to this discussion was Carol Newsom‘s memorably titled, ―‘Sectually‘ Explicit Literature from Qumran.‖77 More

The standard work in the field is Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 75 Roland de Vaux himself, and his colleagues, recognized that Khirbet Qumran was not suited for residential purposes. He generally spoke of periods of ―occupation‖ of the site, not habitation, suggesting only that the ―administrators and guardians of the group‖ might have had lodgings in the buildings at Khirbet Qumran. The ―Essenes‖ of his hypothesis dwelled in caves or tents or similar structures near the site. See de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 56–57, 86. See, however, the proposal of second-story residential accommodations, e.g., in Hartmut Stegemann, The Library of Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 48–51. 76 Devorah Dimant, ―Introduction‖ in ibid., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective, 1–10. The quoted expression is from p. 6. See ibid., ―Israeli Scholarship on the Qumran Community,‖ in the same volume, esp. 258–59. 77 See above, n. 58. 74

44

KETER SHEM TOV

recently, some scholars have sought to identify distinctive attributes for the different collections discovered in the different caves.78 The Sect: It is common today to speak of the ―communities of the scrolls,‖ in the plural, by analogy with Neusner‘s terminology of ―ancient Judaisms.‖79 This is true even among those who associate the scrolls with the Essenes. This new consensus is in keeping with Schiffman‘s assessment that ―the dominant Essene hypothesis, if it is to be maintained at all, requires radical reorientation.‖ 80 Joan Taylor has recently produced a thorough updated formulation of the Essene association of Qumran and the scrolls corpus. 81 Other scholars prefer to use more neutral terms such as Yahad or Community to indicate a central group that produced core ―sectarian‖ texts, and some refrain from using any umbrella term. The most significant texts that fostered awareness of fluidity within and among the groups that authored and transmitted the Scrolls corpus are the Community Rule (Serekh Hayahad) and the Damascus Document.82 The similarities and differences between See Stephen J. Pfann, ―Reassessing the Judean Desert Caves: Libraries, Archives, ‗Genizas‘ and Hiding Places,‖ Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25 (2007): 147–70; Florentino García Martínez, ―Cave 11 in Context,‖ in Hempel ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (199– 210), and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, ―Further Reflections on Caves 1 and 11: A Response to Florentino García Martínez,‖ in Hempel, ibid., 211–24. 79 E.g., Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerich, Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 80 ―Many ‗Battles,‘‖ 202. He stated that in light of the Sadducean halakhic elements he had isolated in the scrolls corpus, proponents of the Essene identification would either have to posit a group with Sadducean origins, which radicalized to become a distinct sect, or to presume the existence of a ―wide variety of similar groups.‖ 81 Joan E. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 82 See Dimant, ―Introduction,‖ 2–4. Among the influential paths of investigating diachronic development, see discussions of the ―Groningen Hypothesis‖ (most recently, Florentino García Martínez, ―The Groningen Hypothesis Re-visited,‖ in Roitman et al., eds., Contemporary Culture, 17– 78

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

45

these foundational texts, as well as the circumstances of their discovery and publication,83 naturally led even early scholars to recognize, and attempt to account for, some degree of synchronic variation. Eyal Regev has written extensively on the distinction between the Yahad of the Community Rule and the community reflected in the Damascus Document.84 John Collins is at the forefront of those arguing for an even more pluralistic model. 85 These same compositions were also important for diachronic analysis, especially in the redaction-critical studies of Sarianna Metso86 and Charlotte Hempel.87 Serious redaction criticism only 29) and the distinctions made between ―older‖ and ―younger‖ caves in the work of Pfann and Stökl Ben Ezra (above, n. 78). 83 1QS, a well-preserved copy of the Community Rule, was among the first seven scrolls discovered in Cave 1. The Qumran copies of the Damascus Document, preserved in fragmentary condition in Cave 4, were anticipated by the discovery of two medieval copies of this work in the Cairo Genizah in 1898. Dimant (―Introduction,‖ 4) echoes the question asked by Moshe Bernstein, and quoted in Stephen Llewelyn, Stephanie Ng, Gareth Wearne and Alexandra Wrathall, ―A Case for Two Vorlagen Behind the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab),‖ 123–50, at 123 in this volume—what would Scrolls scholarship look like if other compositions had been found first instead? 84 E.g., Eyal Regev, ―Between Two Sects: Differentiating the Yahad and the Damascus Covenant,‖ in Hempel, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context, 431–49. 85 Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community. 86 Metso‘s analysis is most fully presented in Sariana Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Until the 1990s, little attention had been given to the earlier work on redaction criticism undertaken by Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, who had briefly served as one of the original members of the editorial team. See Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, ―Fragmente einer älteren Fassung des Buches Milhamā aus Höhle 4 von Qumran,‖ ZAW 69 (1957): 131–51; and the discussion in Jörg Frey, ―Qumran Research and Biblical Scholarship in Germany,‖ in Dimant, ed., Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective, 528–64, at 539, and Annette Steudel, ―Basic Research, Methods and Approaches to the Qumran Scrolls in German-Speaking Countries,‖ in Dimant, ibid. 565–99, at 581, esp. n. 67.

46

KETER SHEM TOV

became feasible with the complete publication of the corpus in the 1990‘s. Isolating variations among the various recensions of the Damascus Document and the Community Rule enabled scholars to discern clues to modifications in organizational structure, and to construct more sophisticated models for tracing the development of the Yahad and associated groups. An important contribution made by Metso was her observation that the physical date of a manuscript did not necessarily indicate the age of the recorded recension; a manuscript that is determined (generally, paleographically) to have been written at a relatively late date may preserve a version of the text that had been composed at an early time, which remained in circulation among copyists and readers. By inverting the previously accepted dating of the Serekh manuscripts, Metso argued that a high-status group known as ―Zadokites,‖ previously understood to be among the founders of the community, were in fact introduced later in the history of the Yahad. The limitation of Metso‘s argument must be noted, however. Her significant observation that an older manuscript need not preserve an older recension, does not justify the conclusion that it cannot be older.88 Evaluation of the evolution of the Serekh Community remains in progress, most recently, with Alison Schofield‘s proposal to consider a ―radial-dialogic‖ model of interactive development rather than isolated linear change.89 Charlotte Hempel has recently taken a broader view of the data demonstrating textual development within the transmission Hempel‘s most comprehensive treatment of the Damascus Document recensions is found in Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), but, as discussed here, her approach has developed significantly. See also, Menahem Kister, ―The Development of the Early Recensions of the Damascus Document,‖ DSD 14/1 (2007): 61–76. 88 See the survey and evaluations of proposals concerning the direction of development attested in the Serekh recensions, in Joseph Angel, Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 86; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 11–14. 89 Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for the Community Rule (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 87

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

47

history of the Serekh traditions and the Damascus Document (the diachronic analysis of manuscript recensions and redactional layers), and organizational and theological variations between and within the two compositions (the synchronic analysis of diverse levels and types of sub-groups within the umbrella community) to form a more synthetic perspective. Thus, for example, in her discussion of the question, ―1QS 6:2c–4a: Satellites or Precursors of the Yahad?‖ Hempel argues that this passage preserves evidence of both diversity and development, employing the term ―sprouting fossil.‖90 Elsewhere, she employs similarly effective and vivid imagery, using the term ―cross-fertilization,‖ and adapting Karel van der Toorn‘s description of the evolution of ancient texts in terms of ―pearls on a string,‖ to describe the multiple strands identified in the Serekh and Damascus texts as reflecting ―shared pearls as well as shared types of string between both corpora.‖91

3. PROPOSAL: INVERSE CORRELATION BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT OF QUMRAN COMMUNITY AND TRAJECTORY OF ACADEMIC COMMUNIS OPINIO In the previous two sections of this essay, I presented interconnected models of development in Qumran studies, attempting to show a trajectory towards open access and cooperation alongside progress towards increasingly sophisticated theories about the nature of the ancient groups associated with the manuscript corpus. In this final section, I observe that this positive move towards increased access and complexity is the opposite of Charlotte Hempel, ―1QS 6:2c–4a: Satellites or Precursors of the Yahad?‖ in Roitman et al., eds., Contemporary Culture, 31–40. 91 Charlotte Hempel, ―Shared Traditions: Points of Contact Between S and D,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. Sariana Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 115–31. The pearls imagery appears on p. 129, adapted from Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007); the reference to cross-fertilization occurs on p. 131. See also, Charlotte Hempel, ―Sources and Redaction in the Dead Sea Scrolls: the Growth of Ancient Texts,‖ in Maxine L. Grossman, ed., Rediscovering, 162–81. 90

48

KETER SHEM TOV

the direction of development that many scholars have discerned with respect to the ancient community(ies) of Qumran, which seem to have moved towards increasing insularity, xenophobia, and rejectionism. For over two decades, many scholars cautiously avoided the use of the term ―sect‖ to describe the Qumran community, since this term implied a departure from a ―normative‖ standard, and such a perspective was inconsistent with the pluralistic model of ancient Judaism accepted by scholarship. 92 There is now a renewed interest in exploring the Community as a ―sect‖ from a sociological perspective, particularly with respect to exclusivist ―boundarysetting.‖ Thus, for example, Eyal Regev has conducted comparative analysis with American separatist communities, characterizing the Scrolls‘ community as ―introversionist.‖93 Albert Baumgarten has demonstrated the tendency of the community to move towards an increasingly sectarian character.94 Alex Jassen has begun a project dedicated to analyzing violence, including violent rhetoric, in the Dead Sea Scrolls.95 Gabrielle Boccaccini‘s hypothesis of ―Enochic Judaism‖ highlights universalist tendencies in early Qumranic literature and its precursors, which contrast with the more narrow See, e.g., Shemaryahu Talmon, ―Qumran studies: Past, Present, and Future,‖ JQR 85 (1994): 1–31; idem, ―The ‗Dead Sea Scrolls‘ or ‗The Community of the Renewed Covenant‘,‖ in The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions. Essays in Honor of Lou H. Silberman (ed. William G. Dever and J. Edward Wright; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 115–45. 93 Eyal Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-cultural Perspective (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007). 94 Albert I. Baumgarten, ―Four Stages in the Life of a Millennial Movement,‖ in War in Heaven/Heaven on Earth: Theories of the Apocalyptic (ed. Stephen D. O‘Leary and Glen S. McGhee; London: Equinox, 2005), 61–75; and, more generally, idem, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (JSJSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997). 95 See Alex P. Jassen, ―The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination,‖ in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. Raanan Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin Roetze; Leiden: Brill, 2010). 92

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

49

perspectives of later compositions in the corpus.96 His analysis supports the suggestion that the Community underwent development towards an increasingly dualistic, fatalistic, and rejectionist worldview. A particularly synthetic presentation of a trajectory towards insularity is put forth in George Brooke‘s ―From Jesus to the Early Christian Communities: Modes of Sectarianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.‖97 Brooke attempts a comparison between the communities of the Qumran scrolls and early Christianity, in which he departs from the more conventional focus on specific theological or sociological parallels and instead constructs a model of similarities with regard to developmental stages. He traces the evolution from (1) an incipient ―pre-sectarian‖ phase (for the Scrolls corpus, Brooke remarks that this preQumran group may perhaps be identified as an Essene group) to (2) nascent sectarianism to (3) full-blown sectariansim and finally (4) rejuvenated sectarianism.98 In a separate study, Brooke traces developmental stages in modern Qumran scholarship, which he correlates with the archaeological periods identified at the site of Khirbet Qumran.99 This model, which is discussed in detail by Brad Bitner in this volume, presents an illuminating parallel to the phases outlined in this study.100

See esp., Gabrielle Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1988. See also Collins‘s evaluation and critique: John J. Collins, ―Enochic Judaism: An Assessment,‖ in Roitman et al., eds., Contemporary Culture, 219–34. 97 George J. Brooke, ―From Jesus to the Early Christian Communities: Modes of Sectarianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls‖ in Roitman et al., eds., Contemporary Culture, 413–34. 98 Brooke notes, however, that these stages are not necessarily linear (ibid., 433). 99 George J. Brooke, ―The Qumran Scrolls and the Study of the New Testament,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. George J. Brooke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 3–18. 100 Bradley J. Bitner, ―Exclusion and Ethics: Contrasting Covenant Communities in 1QS 5:1–7:25 and 1 Cor 5:1–6:11,‖ 259–304. 96

50

KETER SHEM TOV

4. CONCLUSION I have argued that current research supports the hypothesis that the ancient community/ies of the Qumran scrolls became increasingly insular, suspicious, and separatist over time. Nothing is known of these group(s) subsequent to the destruction of Qumran (68 CE), and of the Jerusalem Temple (70 CE) during the Great Judean Revolt against Rome. In contrast, the modern Community of Qumran scrolls scholars is currently flourishing in an era of global synergy. I have aimed in this study to document the transformation of the discipline of Qumran studies from a contentious battleground to a productive cooperative global enterprise. I hope thereby to replace the image of controversy that persists as a dominant popular perception of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship, so as to reflect the current state of the field, and to allow the contemporary situation to serve effectively as a model and inspiration for interfaith cooperation.

APPENDIX: MILLAR BURROWS, AN OUTLIER While I was preparing the oral form of this paper for presentation at the memorial conference in November 2011, I was dismayed to come across some evidence that seemed to undermine my thesis correlating the trajectory from closed circles and simplistic theories to open cooperation and sophisticated academic models. I had been aware that Millar Burrows, a prominent figure in the first generation of scrolls scholarship, was an American Christian scholar who, like many of the scholars on the original editorial team, was a vocal opponent of the then-newly founded state of Israel. I also knew that he was a proponent of the Essene hypothesis, the standard position at the time. So far, this suited the correlation I was claiming—insularity in current socio-political matters and adherence to the consensus identification. However, re-reading Burrows‘ comments about the Essene identification, I was struck by his nuanced sensitivity to diversity and development, as is more typical of current scholarship. He wrote: Since we are dealing not with one text but with many, we cannot of course take it for granted that all the texts come from the same sect or party. All the writings contained in the scrolls and fragments found in the Qumran caves were no doubt accepted and used, but they were not all necessarily

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

51

produced by the sect. Even if they represent branches or successive phases of the same general movement , one such branch or movement may prove identical with a particular group in Jewish history, while those represented by other documents cannot be so identified.101

Of the group that produced the scrolls, he wrote: In many ways it was akin to the Essenes, as we know them from the sources of the Roman period. If this term is used in a broad, comprehensive sense, we may legitimately call the Qumran sectarians Essenes... For the present, however, in order not to prejudge the case, it seems better to reserve that name for the group described by Philo and Josephus, which, if their reports are accurate, was not exactly identical or coextensive with the Qumran community. As a matter of convenience, we may still designate the latter by the term ―covenanters,‖ which implies neither acceptance nor rejection of their identification with the Essenes. At any rate, it is clear that the sect of Qumran was more closely related to the Essenes than to any other group known to us.102

Reading Burrows‘s words, I was impressed by his far-sightedness. But I was also disappointed. For one thing, the anomalous sophistication of this first-generation analysis presented itself as a deviation from the neat model I have proposed in this study.103 Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (NY: Viking, 1955), 273. And again, similarly (ibid., 293), ―The term Essene does not necessarily indicate a single organization with a sharply definable set of beliefs and practices; it may designate rather a number of groups that were similar but not identical. Together with variations between different groups of the same period, we must reckon with changes from one period to another.‖ And even (ibid., 294), ―for the present it seems to me best not to speak of the Qumran sect as Essenes, but rather to say that the Essenes and the covenanters, with other groups of which we know little or nothing, represented the same general type.‖ 102 Ibid., 298. 103 Of course my neat model, like Brooke‘s (above, n. 99), is primarily intended for heuristic purposes. Some other deviations from my 101

52

KETER SHEM TOV

Moreover, I found it troubling that a scholar who was so admirably and exceptionally attuned to pluralism in antiquity would have been so conformist in his insensitivity to ―Others‖ in his own time as to have produced an anti-Zionist tract called Palestine is Our Business.104 In preparing the current study for publication, I steeled schematic presentation are also instructive. On continued unsophisticated use of the Scrolls in popular media, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, ―Inverting Reality: the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Popular Media,‖ DSD 12/1 (2005): 24–37. He describes (ibid., 37) the ―public culture of the Dead Sea Scrolls‖ as being characterized by ―conflict, invective, secrecy, and the inversion of reality,‖ and notes that they thereby ―mirror‖ the drama, hostility, and turmoil of the ancient sectarians‘ worldview. Naïve tendentious use of the corpus can also be found in political rhetoric. Timothy Lim (A Very Short Introduction, 9–10) offers his reminiscence of the opening night of the Israel Museum‘s International Fifty Years‘ Scrolls conference (see above, n. 36). He recalls an awkward moment during that gala event, when a ―disapproving titter ripple[d] through the audience‖ in response to an attempt by then-(and current) Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to make the case that the Scrolls were ―vital for Jerusalem.‖ This remark entirely missed a central feature of the sectarian Scrolls—opposition to the corrupt leadership of Jerusalem. My own memory of that night includes Netanyahu‘s further attempt to describe the archaeological and academic community as ―Sons of Light‖ who were honorably committed not to be deterred in their pursuit of truth by UltraOrthodox groups who posed obstacles to research, for example by attempting to block excavations of ancient burial sites. This entirely missed the point of the great interest, one might even say obsession, with purity on the part of the Sons of Light in the Scrolls corpus, and their general extreme scrupulousness in ritual matters and polemic opposition to those who were more lenient. 104 Millar Burrows, Palestine is Our Business (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949). There is another scholar, of the current era, who is in fact very attuned to nuance, complexity, and diversity in ancient Judaism, and also in most ways in his understanding of modern Scrolls scholarship, and yet has exhibited glaring insensitivity to the Jewish and Israeli Scrolls scholars of the first generation. In a generally perspicacious account, Philip Davies writes the following: ‚No Jews, let alone Israelis, were (regrettably, but understandably) allowed to work on these scrolls [the scrolls in East

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

53

myself to read Burrows‘s political monograph. Anticipating simplistic antisemitic diatribe, I was surprised to find a nuanced and sensitive assessment of the issues, and awareness of the complexity of the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its manifestations. Burrows recognized the significance of antisemitic persecution, and especially the Holocaust, as a key factor in the migration of Zionists to Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel, even as he expressed his concern for Palestinian rights and the plight of Palestinian refugees. His specific criticism about the founding of the State of Israel notwithstanding, Burrows was clearly favorably disposed to Judaism and he was an active proponent of, and participant in, interfaith dialogue.105 In a paper Jerusalem, and those that came to be discovered in the Qumran caves, which were ‚in territory annexed by Jordan‛]... It is broadly true that the Scrolls were studied largely by Christians and thus, inevitably, in terms of Christian agendas. For this no apology is needed...The exclusion of a major Jewish interest was certainly due in large measure to political circumstances. But, ironically, it had been the Jews who pressed for partition of Palestine, and so the blame for the state of affairs that excluded them from the initial research cannot be directed elsewhere (this is usually over-looked in discussion of such matters.)‛ Philip R. Davies, ‚Qumran and the Quest for the Historical Judaism,‛ in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans; JSPSup 26, Roehampton Institute London Papers 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 24–42, at 28–29. It is disappointing, if not troubling, to see this significant contemporary scholar blaming the victim, and I find it disingenuous of him to blame not only ‚the Jews‛ in general, but also specifically the physical partition, rather than the intolerant policies and predilections to exclusion attested in sources from the time. 105 Some similarities may be drawn between Burrows and the Israeli Jewish scholar Shemaryahu Talmon, who was a first generation scholar who remained active in the field well into the 21 st century until shortly before his death in 2010 at the age of 90. As described by Dimant, ―Israeli Scholarship,‖ 248, Talmon accepted the Essene theory at first, but later came to question attempts to force the evidence of the texts to conform to pre-determined models of sectarianism, and was an early advocate for avoiding the term ―sect‖ altogether to describe the authors of the Scrolls.

54

KETER SHEM TOV

from a 1940 conference on religion and democracy, he presented the case for looking to the Bible as a source for respecting human rights, and against discrimination. He emphasized the Bible‘s ―fundamental conception of the nature of man and of his relation to his Maker and to his fellow-man‖ and maintained that ―in the presence of the living God of Israel right always outweighs might. Tyranny can never tolerate the cultivation of the Hebrew-Christian tradition.‖106 I would suggest that Millar Burrows was simply ahead of his time.107 Like Burrows, Talmon preferred the term ―Covenanters.‖ Also like Burrows, Talmon was an active participant in interfaith dialogue, having been among the founders of the ―Jerusalem Rainbow Group‖ and the ―Israel Interfaith Committee.‖ A footnote in one of Talmon‘s works preserves a reaction to the experience of exclusion, or in this case erasure, as an Israeli-Jewish scholar of the first phase of Qumran studies. In writing about his proposal that the ―Qumran Covenanters‖ reckoned days as beginning in the morning, rather than at sunset, as is the case in the rabbinic calendar, he notes, ―It appears that my suggestion became the basis of the ‗Additional Note No. 5‘ in Strugnell‘s translation of Józef T. Milik, Dix ans de découvertes dans le Désert de Juda (Paris: Cerf, 1957): ‗There also seems to be no doubt that they reckoned the day as starting with sunrise, not sunset.‘ John Strugnell, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (London: SCM Press, 1959), 152, for which no documentary evidence is adduced.‖ (Shemaryahu Talmon, ―Calendar Controversy in Ancient Judaism: the Case of the ‗Community of the Renewed Covenant‘,‖ 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), 379–95. 106 Millar Burrows, ―Democracy in the Hebrew-Christian Tradition, Old and New Testaments,‖ in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium (NY: Conference on Religion, Philosophy, and Science in Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, 1941), 412. This is the proceedings of the first of a series of annual conferences, held on 9–11 September, 1940. 107 In the modern legend of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Burrows is most frequently mentioned in the context of poor timing. Director of ASOR at 1948, he happened to have been away in Baghdad when the first Scrolls were brought to the School in 1947 for authentication and examination. The young John C. Trever, who was the

QUMRAN COMMUNITIES—PAST AND PRESENT

55

Working to complete this study in Jerusalem on 29 th November, 2012—on the day that the UN voted to approve Palestine‘s appeal for recognition as a state, 65 years after Sukenik‘s initial deciphering of the first scrolls against the backdrop of the UN partition vote in 1947—I came to reflect that just as Burrows was ahead of his time with respect to recognition of diversity and complexity, so too was he ahead of his time politically. I pray that just as Scrolls scholarship has moved from its initial contentiousness to the state of exemplary collegiality outlined above, so too may we merit to bring peace, co-existence, and co-operation to this sacred and turbulent land.

acting director in Burrows‘s absence, became the first American scholar to see the Dead Sea Scrolls. Trever is best known for his work photographing the Scrolls. See John C. Trever, The Untold Story of Qumran (Westwood, N.J.: F. H. Revell); idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Personal Account (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

PART 2. TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

57

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: THE PROXIMITY OF THE PRE-SAMARITAN QUMRAN SCROLLS * TO THE SP Emanuel Tov The study of the Samaritans and the scrolls converge at several points, definitely with regard to the biblical scrolls, but also regarding several non-biblical scrolls. Recognizing the similarities between the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and several Qumran biblical scrolls, some scholars suggested that these scrolls, found at Qumran, were actually Samaritan. This assumption implies that these scrolls were copied within the Samaritan community, and somehow found their way to Qumran. If correct, this view would have major implications for historical studies, and for the understanding of the Qumran and Samaritan communities. This view could imply that Samaritans lived or visited at Qumran, or that the Qumran community received Samaritan documents, but other scenarios are possible as well. A rather extreme suggestion, proposed by Thord and Maria Thordson, * I devote this paper to the two areas that were in the center of Alan Crown‘s scholarly interests, the Samaritans and the Scrolls, in that sequence. For Alan the Samaritans were more central, while for me the scrolls are in the center of my interest. For both of us, the other area was also significant, and Alan and I met in the middle.

59

60

KETER SHEM TOV

would be that the inhabitants of Qumran were not Jewish, but Samaritan Essenes who fled to Qumran after the destruction of the Samaritan Temple by John Hyrcanus in 128 BCE.1 Although this view is not espoused by many scholars, it needs to be taken seriously. The major proponent of the theory that Samaritan scrolls were found at Qumran was M. Baillet, in a detailed study of the readings of the SP agreeing with the Qumran texts known until 1971.2 Baillet provided no specific arguments for this view other than the assumption of a close relation between the Essenes and the Samaritans suggested by J. Bowman 3 and J. Massingberd Ford (later continued by F. Dexinger), 4 based on theological ideas and institutions considered to be common to both groups. Had this study been written in 1990 or 2011, many additional agreements between SP and the Qumran scrolls could have been listed. However, this approach, not accepted by other scholars, is untenable, as it is based on the assumption that every reading found in SP is characteristic of that version only. Today, most scholars realize that occasional agreements between SP and a 1

Thord and Maria Thordson, Qumran and the Samaritans (Ingaro, Sweden: published privately, 1996), reviewed by Ingrid Hjelm in DSD 6 (1999): 94–99. 2 Maurice Baillet, ―Le texte samaritain de l‘Exode dans les manuscrits de Qumrân,‖ in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer (ed. André Caquot and Marc Philonenko; Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971), 363–81. See also idem, ―Les divers états du Pentateuque Samaritain,‖ RevQ 13 (1988): 531– 45. On p. 539 of that study, Baillet mentioned scribal phenomena in Qumran that he ascribed to the tradition of the Samaritan scribes. 3 John Bowman, ―Contact between Samaritan Sects and Qumrân?‖ VT 7 (1957): 184–89; idem, Samaritanische Probleme: Studien zur Verhältnis von Samaritanertum, Judentum und Urchristentum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1967), 77–96. 4 J. Massingberd Ford, ―Can we Exclude Samaritan Influence from Qumran?‖ RevQ 6 (1967): 109–29; Ferdinand Dexinger, ―Samaritan Origins and the Qumran Texts,‖ in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site (ed. Michael O. Wise et al.; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; NY: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 231–49.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

61

Qumran scroll do not justify the presumption of a close relation between these two witnesses. The assumption of such proximity should have been based on exclusive agreements in significant details. Had Baillet adopted a statistical approach in 1971, he would probably have concluded that only 4QpaleoExodm and 4QRPa (4Q158) are close to the SP in Exodus. We now know several additional sources (see below), but the list of sources containing socalled Samaritan readings is much smaller than the one provided by Baillet. When looking for Samaritans in the non-biblical Qumran texts, we find them in 4Q372 frg. 1, usually regarded as reflecting an anti-Samaritan polemic.5

1. SP AND THE QUMRAN SCROLLS This paper does not deal with the relation between the Samaritans and the Essenes in general, or between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Samaritan literature, but with the relation between SP and the Qumran scrolls. In this analysis, we disregard occasional agreements between a Qumran scroll and the SP, such as were listed by M. Baillet, because such agreements are not indicative of any special connection between these two sources. Instead, we focus on Qumran biblical scrolls that were close to the SP in central issues in which they disagree with the other sources. The proximity between a scroll and SP is suggested by their exclusive agreement in characteristic readings. The major group of such readings is a group that we name editorial readings or changes, that is, readings deriving from a period when Hebrew Scripture was still being edited. Another characteristic group pertains to textual harmonizations, which are common to the SP, 5

4Q371–3 were published by Eileen Schuller and Moshe J. Bernstein as ―4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c,‖ in Douglas M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh; Eileen Schuller et al., in consultation with James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady, Qumran Cave 4.XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2 (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 151– 204. See also Eileen Schuller, ―4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,‖ RevQ 14 (1990): 349–76 and Matthew Thiessen, ―4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph‘s Exile,‖ DSD 15 (2008): 380–95.

62

KETER SHEM TOV

another Hebrew source, and often also the LXX. A third group of common characteristic readings pertains to typological readings, such as facilitating readings. In the analysis of the agreements, statistical information is employed, even though it is often problematic. When counting points of agreement and disagreement, one ought to consider especially characteristic agreements of the types just mentioned, while disregarding agreements in small details. Before embarking on an analysis, we repeat the main facts about the SP. The SP contains the text of the Torah written in a special version of the early Hebrew script, preserved for centuries by the Samaritan community. SP contains a few ideological elements that form a thin layer added to an otherwise non-sectarian early text, very similar to so-called pre-Samaritan texts found at Qumran. Scholars are divided in their opinion on the date of the creation of the Samaritan text. Often the pre-Samaritan texts and SP are together named the SP-group. The very existence of pre-Samaritan scrolls, accepted by most scholars,6 is contested by some scholars, especially by those 6

E.g., Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, ―22. 4QpaleoExodm,‖ in idem, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992; repr. 2003), 53–130; Dexinger, ―Samaritan Origins,‖ 232–34; Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel, ―Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch‘s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,‖ in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215–40; Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 19–38; idem, ―The Pentateuch as Found in the pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,‖ in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (ed. Hanne von Weissenberg et al.; BZAW 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 123–36; Bénédicte Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the So-called ‗Plagues Narrative‘ in Exodus 7:14–11:10 (OTS 56; Leiden: Brill, 2009); Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 135–77. For a summary, see Ursula Schattner-Rieser, ―Prä-, Proto-, und Antisamaritanisches in den

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

63

specializing in the study of the Samaritans.7 However, the exclusive agreements between the members of the SP-group leave little doubt with regard to their close relationship, to be discussed below, sections 1.1–2. Our major assignment is to examine the proximity of SP and the pre-Samaritan texts, also involving an analysis of the differences between them. 1.1. Large Editorial Changes The members of the SP-group exclusively share characteristic elements, which are best described as editorial intervention in the text. This editorial intervention is visible in medium-sized and large changes, mainly additions, sometimes changing the meaning of the text.8 These changes usually involve the duplication of other Torah Qumrantexten,‖ in Qumran aktuell: Texte und Themen der Schriften vom Toten Meer (ed. Stefan Beyerle and Jörg Frey; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2011), 67–109. 7 See especially Ze‘ev Ben-Hayyim, ―Comments on the Use of the Term ‗Proto-Samaritan‘,‖ in Language Studies V–VI (Hebrew; ed. Moshe Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1992), 13–23; A. Tal and M. Florentin compare the readings of SP with MT, while disregarding characteristic agreements with pre-Samaritan scrolls. (Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, The Pentateuch. The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version [Hebrew; Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010]). The editors of this very valuable edition are aware of the preSamaritan scrolls (see p. 23 and the very long note 31 on pp. 23–24; p. 33 and n. 53 on p. 33). 8 See Michael Segal, ―The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ Materia giudaica 12 (2007): 5–20; Emanuel Tov, ―Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,‖ in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 57– 70; Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 259–312; Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 135–77; Eugene Ulrich, ―The Evolutionary Growth of the Pentateuch in the Second Temple Period,‖ in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007 (ed. Akio Moriya and Gohei Hata; JSJSup 158; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 39–56.

64

KETER SHEM TOV

verses (with adaptation of names and verbal forms) and a few rearrangements, but no omissions, following a strong inclination in SP not to alter the content of the divine word. The changes should be considered editorial rather than scribal-harmonizing, such as reflected in harmonizing alterations in small details in SP. The principle and substance of the latter changes is shared with the LXX (see below), while the editorial changes described here are characteristic of the SP-group only. Its scribes were especially attentive to what they considered to be incongruence within and between stories in Scripture. Particular attention was paid to the presentation of the spoken word, especially that of God and Moses, which was duplicated from one context into another when the editor considered it lacking. Ultimately, the changes reflect theological concerns. The duplications reflect systematic editorial reworking of specific stories as well as incidental pericopes.9 These editorial additions, concentrated in two narrative blocks 10 as well in

9

For a description, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed., revised and expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 80–82; Segal, ―Text of the Hebrew Bible;‖ Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 259– 312; Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 135–77. Kartveit names these elements a ―Moses layer‖ in the pre-Samaritan texts, that enhanced the status of Moses as a prophet, especially in the addition of Deut 18:18–22 to the text of Exod 20:21 (17) (ibid., 280–81; see below). However, the editorial principles behind that text are visible also in other stories, unconnected with Moses, such as in the duplication of Jacob‘s dream in Gen 30:36 in 4QRPb (4Q364) frg. 4b–e ii, 21–26. 10 (1) With pedantic precision, the editor compared the details of the speech in Deut 1–3 with the preceding books of the Torah. If a detail was not mentioned explicitly in Exodus or Numbers, or if it did not appear in these books with exactly the same wording, it was repeated in the earlier books foreshadowing Deuteronomy. (2) In the story of the Ten Plagues in Exod 7–11, the SP-group balanced the description of God‘s commands to Moses and Aaron to warn Pharaoh before each plague with the addition of a detailed account of their execution. Systematic additions of the execution of these commands are found in SP Exod 7–11 in contrast to

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

65

additional chapters, are also found in the following five biblical scrolls and one Scripture quotation (in 4QTest). 4QpaleoExodm is a well-preserved scroll containing remnants of many chapters of Exodus (large sections of 44 columns from Exod 6–37; though the Decalogue is not preserved), and like SP, written in the ancient Hebrew script. For a description of the editorial changes of this scroll, in common with SP, see Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson,11 Kartveit,12 and Tov.13 4QpaleoExodm adds editorial elements in Exod 7:18; 8:19; 9:19; 10:2; 18:25; 20:19; 27:19; 30:10–27:1-3;14 32:10.15 For a long list of reconstructed the short text of MT LXX where the execution of the command is mentioned briefly. 11 Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson, DJD 9:67. They conclude that the scroll and SP agree in ―13 typological variants, including 12 major expansions and 1 major synonymous variant‖ (ibid., 68–69); these authors also include similar statistics for reconstructed variants. In addition, they also list the relation between the two texts in small details: 36 agreements and 75 disagreements. The latter number is composed of the following groups: 39 unique readings of the scroll, 19 instances of 4Q = MT ≠ SP, 7 instances of 4Q = LXX ≠ SP, and 10 instances of 4Q = MT LXX ≠ SP. A close relation between the SP and 4QpaleoExodm was recognized by Skehan at an early stage in the study of the scrolls: Patrick W. Skehan, ―Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: The Masoretic Text,‖ JBL 78 (1959): 21–25; idem, ―The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament,‖ BA 28 (1965): 98–100. 12 Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 310–11. The information and analysis provided by Kartveit is the most detailed, as this scholar distinguished between (A) expansions preceded and/or followed by MT, (B) ―cases in which extant text is supposed to belong to an expansion or transposition on the basis of line and column calculation,‖ and (C) reconstructed expansions. In this system, only items marked A in Kartveit‘s table are secure, while instances of B are reasonably certain, and instances of C are not, although some are more secure than others. 13 Tov, Textual Criticism, 91–92. 14 The sequence 30:10–27:1–3, although reconstructed for the scroll, is certain, reflected also in SP. The fragments 30:10 and 27:2–3 need to be placed in one column, col. XXX, because there is no room for 30:1–10 in col. XXXV (29:34–30:18). In this column, for which both a top and a

66

KETER SHEM TOV

instances of added verses and rearranged sequences, see Kartveit.16 Almost all these instances refer to added verses, while the sequence 30:10–27:1-3 reflects a different text arrangement. 17 Likewise, in 4QpaleoExodm col. 34, as in SP, Exod 29:21 follows 29:28.18 4QExod-Levf frg. 1 ii 5-6 (= Exod 39:21) = SP contains the execution of the command of the making of the Urim and the Thummim (Exod 28:30) not found in MT. 4QNumb is a well-preserved scroll (including at least some words from each chapter of Num 14–36 except chapter 14), written in the square script, which is close to the SP, and secondarily also to the LXX. 19 4QNumb adds editorial pluses in Num 20:13b; 21:12a, 13a, 20; 27:23b, also found in SP.20 bottom margin have been preserved, there is no room in the middle for 30:1–10 which would have required 12 lines (see Skehan, Ulrich, and Sanderson, DJD 9:113). 15 This addition is also found in manuscript 58 of the LXX. 16 Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 310–11. 17 In 4QpaleoExodm col. XXX, as in SP, the verses in which the construction of the incense altar is commanded (30:1–10 MT) come between 26:35 and 26:36–37. 18 In the scroll, 29:20 is followed by v. 22, and there is room for this verse in the next lines, after v. 21. ―This sequence of instructions makes good sense by placing the sprinkling of the garments (v. 21) just prior to the further instructions about the garments (vv. 29–30), and furthermore it agrees with the fulfillment of the command as recorded in SP MT LXX of Lev 8:22–30‖ (Skehan, Ulrich, Sanderson, DJD 9:118). 19 This goes to show that the script of the Qumran scrolls is not a precondition for their proximity to SP. 20 Four additional pluses can be reconstructed in Num 12:16b; 21:22b, 23b; 31:20. See Nathan Jastram ―27. 4QNumb‖ in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994 [repr. 1999]), 215. Among the several remarks on textual relations provided by Jastram, the most meaningful is probably that 4QNumb SP LXX share more secondary readings than 4QNumb MT. Among these secondary readings, shared interpolations are the most significant, five extant and four reconstructed (ibid). See also Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 311–12.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

67

The following two texts share major editorial features with the pre-Samaritan texts against MT and the other texts, and are therefore considered pre-Samaritan even though they go their own way in exegetical changes: 4QRPa (4Q158)21 reflects the same editorial phenomena as SP in the following two instances. (1) Frg. 6 follows the sequence of SP: In the story of the assembly at Sinai in Exodus 20 (but not in Deuteronomy 5!), a section is added to v. 17 (= 21 MT) in SP, 4QRPa and 4QTest (4Q175), which is seemingly unrelated to this event, viz., Deut 18:18–22: ―I will raise up a prophet for them from among their own people, like yourself ....‖ This section was added because of the earlier verse 16 MT SP: ―This is just what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb , on the day of the assembly, saying …‖ Since there is no express mention of the ―raising of the prophet,‖ in the story of Sinai in MT and the other sources, the common ancestor of 4QRPa, 4QTest (4Q175), and SP deemed it necessary to add this section. (2) Like SP, 4QRP a frg. 7 interweaves the text of Deut 5:30–31 (‫ )לך אמש להם‬until ‫לששתה‬ in the Sinai story of Exodus 20, after v. 18 (17) as v. 18b (17b). 4QRPb (4Q364) reflects the same editorial phenomena as SP in three instances: (1) Frg. 4b–e ii presents the text of Gen 30:26– 36 + add. The addition, identical with SP, presents the text of 31:11–13. In those verses, Jacob tells his wives of a dream that he had, but which had not been mentioned in the preceding verses. This presumed ―oversight‖ led the text underlying SP and 4QRPb (4Q364) to add the content of the dream at an earlier stage in the story, after 30:36.22 (2) The sequence Num 20:14a, 17–18 + Deut 2:8–14 is found in both SP and 4QRPb (4Q364) 23a-b. In this remarkable instance, against the practice of the SP-group, the

21

4QRPa (4Q158) and 4QRPb (4Q364), discussed next, are now considered biblical scrolls. See my study ―From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?),‖ in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 73–91. 22 See Tov in DJD 13:193–94; A similar addition is found in SP after Gen 42:16, based on Gen 44:22.

68

KETER SHEM TOV

earlier text of Numbers is added in Deuteronomy, 23 while usually the later text of Deuteronomy is added in the earlier books. 24 The harmonizing addition in these two sources adds the conversation with the king of Edom from Num 20 to the story about Moab. (3) Frg. 27 of 4QRPb (4Q364) contains Deut 10:6–(7?), including the text of Num 33:31–37 as in SP. In this text the segment on Aaron‘s death is placed in MT in v. 6, but in v. 7 in SP and probably also in 4Q364.25 In the following case a quotation is involved: In 4QTest (4Q175) the quotation from Exod 20:17 SP (= 20:21 MT) combines two different verses of MT that are combined in SP: Deut 5:28–29 (25-26) and 18:18–19.26 The other biblical quotations in this scroll (Num 24:15–17; Deut 33:8–11) do not

23

In this plus, in two small details 4QRP b agrees with SP against MT in Numbers and Deuteronomy. See p. 231 in Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White Crawford, ―364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e and 4Q365a. 4QTemple?‖ in Qumran Cave 4.VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. Harold W. Attridge et al., in consultation with James C. VanderKam; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351, 459–63. 24 See the tables in Tov, ―Rewritten Bible Compositions;‖ Kartveit Origin of the Samaritans, 310–12. 25 4QRPc (4Q365) is not close to SP even though it exclusively agrees with another pre-Samaritan scroll and with SP in a major detail: the combination of Num 27 and 36 resembles that in 4QNumb as described above. Angela Y. Kim Harkins, ―The Textual Alignment of the Tabernacle Sections of 4Q365 (Fragments 8a-b, 9a-b i, 9bii, 12a i, 12b iii),‖ Textus 21 (2002): 45–69 stresses the link between 4QRPc and MT rather than with SP. Kim limited her study to the Tabernacle sections, which is insufficient for examining the allegiance of the complete scroll. On the basis of the statistics for the complete scroll, I suggest that it is neither close to SP nor to MT. In frg. 32, 1–2 the scroll disagrees with both MT and the SP in a major detail. The scroll also agrees with MT against SP in the placement of Exod 29:21. 26 See the description of 4QRPa above, and Emanuel Tov, ―Textual Criticism of Hebrew Scripture and Scripture-Like Texts,‖ Symposium Budapest 2011, forthcoming; idem, Textual Criticism, 81–82, 91.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

69

reflect the text of SP, but in any event in these segments SP does not reflect editorial deviations. In sum: The most important observation in analyzing these five biblical scrolls is that the preserved fragments of 4QpaleoExod m (10x), 4QExod-Levf (1x), 4QNumb (5x), 4QRPa (2x), and 4QRPb (3x) include all the editorial additions and rearrangements found in SP, in the exact same places. These five scrolls never lack an editorial addition of SP, while conversely in two instances 4QNumb and 4QRPa each contain one editorial intervention which, while of the same type, is not found in SP: (1) 4QNumb and 4QRPc (4Q365) frg. 36, the latter not close to SP,27 combine the text of Numbers 27 and 36, both dealing with the daughters of Zelophehad, into one unit in ch. 36. In the course of his rewriting, the author of 4QRPc combined Num 27:11, probably preceded by earlier parts of the chapter, and 36:1–2, probably followed by additional verses of that chapter. The two texts were also fused, in a different way, in 4QNumb,28 and as a result, the two texts are not identical.29 In the reconstructed text of 4QNumb, the sequence is: 36:1–2, 27:2'–11'; 36:3–4; 36:1'–2'; 36:5– 13. On the other hand, in 4QRPc, the only certain evidence is that 27:11 was followed by 36:1–2. (2) 4QRPa contains a narrative plus after Deut 5:31 that is not shared with the other textual witnesses, including SP, namely the

27

See n. 25. Col. 31 of that scroll ends with Num 36:2, while the preserved part of col. 32—missing some thirteen lines at its top—begins with 36:4. Since lines 15–16 of that column contain unknown material which runs parallel to Num 27:2, the editor of the text, Jastram, presumes that 36:1 was preceded by a large section of chapter 27 (DJD 12:262–4). Even if that assumption cannot be proven, it remains correct that in the middle of the text of chap. 36 in 4QNumb there appears an insertion from chapter 27, and the combination of these two texts runs parallel to 4QRPc. 29 See Jastram, DJD 12:263, n. 12. 28

70

KETER SHEM TOV

implementation of the command in Deut 5:30–31.30 Similar pluses are found elsewhere in the SP-group. The upshot of the analysis so far is that five biblical scrolls and a quotation in 4QTest are closely linked with SP in the latter‘s characteristic readings that go beyond scribal activity in small details. All these sources display editorial intervention that is secondary when compared with the MT-group and the LXX. These sources display a wish to perfect the text of Scripture without adding new elements. Some scholars name this activity harmonization, but I distinguish between the two phenomena. These five scrolls do not represent a large group of scrolls among the 46 scrolls of the Torah that are sufficiently extensive for analysis, but the scrolls that are exclusively close to SP still comprise 11% of the Torah scrolls, which is a sizable number. On the other hand, C. Hiltunen thinks in terms of anywhere between 6% (3 texts) and 25% (13 texts).31 1.2. Harmonizations The improving of the text at a lower, textual, level is visible in socalled harmonizations included in the SP group, but not only in them. Scribes adapted many elements in the text to other details in the same verse, in the immediate or a similar context, in the same book and in parallel sections elsewhere in Scripture. This phenomenon is termed harmonizing (by most scholars) or analogy by Koenig.32 Among the known texts, harmonizations in small 30

Likewise, Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 153–55 sees a similar tendency in 4QRPa to add the execution to a command in other instances, not reflected in SP. 31 See her presentation at the SBL meeting in Rome (2009) based on her M.A. thesis: Chelica L. Hiltunen, ―An Examination of the Supposed Pre-Samaritan Scrolls from Qumran,‖ (M.A. Thesis, Trinity Western University 2009). Scrolls included in this group are 4QGenc, 4QGend,e, 1QpaleoLev, 4QLevc,d,e, the Leviticus section of 4QLev–Numa, 4QDeute,f, 4QpaleoDeutr. 32 Jean Koenig, L‘herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d‘après les témoins textuels d‘Isaïe (VTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982).

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

71

details are especially frequent in the Vorlage of the LXX in the Torah and in the SP-group,33 although scholars usually connect this phenomenon only with SP. The main stumbling block in this analysis is the fragmentary nature of the Qumran scrolls, which complicates statistical analysis. The first stage of the analysis counts the number of harmonizations from the angle of the pre-Samaritan texts. No diacritics are used in the recording of these examples.

1.2.1. 4QpaleoExodm 4Q SP ≠ MT LXX (5x) 8:20 ‫ כבד‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q SP + ‫ מאד‬cf. 9:3, 18, 24 10:5 ‫ ואכל את כל‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q SP + ‫עשב האשצ ואת כל‬ ‫ ץשי‬cf. v. 15 10:24 ‫ למשה‬MT ] 4Q SP LXX + ‫ולאהשון‬ 24:1, 9 ‫ ואביהוא‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q SP + ‫ אלעזש ואיתמש‬cf. 6:23; 28:1 27:19b ‫ נחשת‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q SP + ‫ועשית בגדי תכלת‬ ‫ ואשגמן ותולעת שני לששת בהם ברדש‬cf. 39:1 SP ≠ 4Q MT (2x) 6:27 ‫ ממקשים‬MT 4Q LXX ] SP ‫ מאשצ מקשים‬cf. passim 6:30 ‫ ישמע אלי‬MT 4Q ] SP LXX ‫ ישמעני‬cf. 6:12 LXX ≠ 4Q MT SP (6x) 9:8 ‫ ץשעה‬MT 4Q SP ] LXX + cf. 7:10 ‫ולץני עבדיו‬ 9:9b ‫ לשחין ץשח אבעבעות‬MT 4Q SP ] LXX ἕ σ ι cf. v. 10 ‫שחין אבעבעת ץשח‬ 9:9b ‫ בכל‬MT 4Q SP ] LXX pr. ῖ ῖ σι cf. v. 9a ‫על האדם ועל הבהמה‬ 19:10 ‫ לך אל העם‬MT 4Q SP ] LXX ῷ ῷ cf. v. 21 ‫שד העד בעם‬ 32:7 ‫ לך שד‬MT SP; 4Q ‫ ] שד‬LXX + Deut 9:12 ‫מהש מזה‬

33

See n. 56.

ι ι

ι

cf.

72

KETER SHEM TOV

32:13 ‫ ככוכבי השמים‬MT 4Q SP ] LXX + ῷ 1:10; 10:22; 28:62 ‫לשב‬

ι cf. Deut

MT LXX ≠ 4Q SP (1x) 29:2 ‫ ושרירי מקות‬MT LXX 4Q SP ] MT LXX + ‫משחים‬ ‫ בשמן‬cf. Lev 2:4; 7:12 MT SP LXX ≠ 4Q (1x) 34:1b 4Q ‫ ] הלוחות‬MT SP LXX + ‫ השאשנים‬cf. v. 1a MT 4Q SP ≠ LXX (3x) 25:33 ‫ וץשח‬LXX ] MT 4Q SP + ‫ושלשה גבעים משרדים‬ ‫ ברנה האחד כץתש וץשח‬cf. 37:19 28:11 ‫ יששאל‬LXX ] MT 4Q SP + ‫מסבת משבקות זהב תעשה‬ ‫ אותם‬cf. 39:9 34:2b ‫ ועלית‬LXX ] MT 4Q SP + ‫ בברש‬cf. v. 2a The sum total of the harmonizations in the sections covered by 4QpaleoExodm is: SP 12x, LXX 9x, 4QpaleoExodm 8x, MT 5x.

1.2.2. 4QExod-Levf 4Q alone (2x) Exod 39:21 ‫ האץוד‬20 MT SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ ביתה‬cf. v. 19 and Exod 28:26 Exod 40:18 ‫ ואת רששיו‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q pr ‫ואת רשסיו‬ cf. 35:11 ‫את רשסיו ואת רששיו את בשיחו‬ MT SP ≠ LXX 4Q (1x) Exod 40:22 ‫ )ויתן את השולחן) אל אהל מועד‬in LXX 4Q ] MT SP ‫ באהל מועד‬cf. vv. 24, 26 ‫באהל מועד‬ 4Q SP ≠ MT LXX (2x) 39:21a ‫ האץד‬10 MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q SP + ‫כאשש קוה יהוה‬ ‫ את משה‬cf. v. 21b. Beyond v. 21b, where this phrase is found in all sources, it is found 8 times elsewhere in chapter 39, more than in any other chapter in Scripture. Exodus 40 (7x) and Lev 8 (altogether 6x) come close. Exod 40:27 ‫ סמים‬MT LXX ] 4Q + ‫ ;לץניו‬SP + ‫ לץני יהוה‬cf. v. 25 and 29:25; 30:8

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

73

MT 4Q SP ≠ LXX (2x) Exod 40:11 init LXX ] + ‫ומשחת את הכיוש ואת כנו ורדשת‬ ‫ אותו‬MT 4Q SP cf. Lev 8:11 ‫וימשח את המזבח ואת כל כליו ואת‬ ‫הכיוש ואת כנו לרדשם‬ Exod 40:24 ‫ מועד‬LXX ] MT 4Q SP + ‫ נכח השלחן‬cf. 26:35 4Q SP LXX ≠ MT (2) Exod 40:17 ‫ בשנה השנית‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q SP LXX + ‫ לקאתם ממקשים‬cf. 16:1 ‫לחדש השני לקאתם מאשצ מקשים‬ Lev 2:1 ‫ לבונה‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q SP LXX + ‫ מנחה היא‬cf. 6:15

MT SP LXX ≠ 4Q (1x) Exod 40:20 4Q ‫ ] הכץשת על ההאשן‬MT SP LXX + ‫מלמעלה‬ cf. 25:21 ‫ונתת את הכץשת מלמעלה על האשון‬ The sum total of the harmonizations in the sections covered by 4QExod-Levf is: 4Q 8x, SP 6x, MT 4x, LXX 3x.34

1.2.3. 4QNumb 4Q alone (8x) 20:20 ‫ לא תעבש‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ץן בחשב אקא לרשאתכה‬ cf. v. 18 ‫ לא תעבש בי ץן בחשב אקא לרשאתך‬MT. The words ‫לא‬ ‫ תעבש בי‬in v. 20 triggered the addition from v. 18 in 4Q. 22:16 ‫ בלר בן קץוש‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ מלך מואב‬cf. v. 10

‫בלר בן קץש מלך מואב‬ 22:19 ‫ מה יספ יהוה דבש עמי‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫וישבו ששי‬ ‫ מואב עם בלעם‬cf. v. 8 ‫כאשש ידבש יהוה אלי וישבו ששי מואב עם‬ ‫בלעם‬

34

Apparently harmonization is a much more influential source for changes between the textual witnesses than textual corruption. Thus Cross, p. 136 in his commentary on this scroll: Frank Moore Cross, ―17. Exod-Levf,‖ in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994 [repr. 1999]), 133–44.

74

KETER SHEM TOV 22:32 ‫ לשטן‬MT; ‫ לשטנך‬SP 4Q ‫ ;]לשטן[ לכה‬cf. v. 22 ‫בדשך‬

‫לשטן לו‬

23:3 ‫ )התיקב על עלתך) ואלכה‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q ‫ואנוכי אלך‬ cf. v. 15 ‫התיקב כה על עלתך ואנכי‬ 24:9 ‫ כשע שכב כאשי‬MT SP ] 4Q SP-ms ‫ כשע שבצ כאשיה‬cf. Gen 49:9 ‫כשע שבצ כאשיה‬ 26:10 ‫ חמשים ומאתים איש‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q + [‫מרשיבי‬ ‫ הרטו[שת‬cf. 16:35 ‫חמשים ומאתים איש מרשיבי הרטשת‬ 27:22 ‫ יהושע‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ = בן נון‬cf. 27:18 and passim 4Q LXX ≠ MT SP (5x) 22:11 ‫ הנה העם היקא ממקשים‬MT (SP LXX) ] 4Q LXX pr ‫( לאמוש‬v. 10) cf. v. 5 ‫לאמש הנה עם יקא ממקשים‬ 22:11 ‫ ויכס את עין האשצ‬MT SP (LXX) ] 4Q LXX + ‫והואה‬ ‫ יושב ממולי‬cf. v. 5 ‫הנה כסה את עין האשצ והוא ישב ממלי‬ 22:11 ‫ וגששתיו‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q LXX + ‫ מן האש[צ‬cf. v. 6

‫ואגששנו מן האשצ‬ 22:18 ‫ לעשות רטנה או גדולה‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q LXX + ‫בלבי‬ cf. 24:13 ‫לעשות טובה או שעה מלבי‬ 26:33 ‫ ושם בנות קלץחד‬MT SP ] 4Q LXX ‫ ואלה שמות‬cf. 27:1 ‫ואלה שמות בנתיו‬ 4Q SP LXX ≠ MT (1x) 22:11 ‫ העם היקא‬MT ] 4Q SP LXX ‫ = עם יקא‬v. 5. 4Q MT ≠ SP (1x) 23:30 ‫ אל המזבח‬SP ] 4Q MT ‫ במזבח‬cf. vv. 2, 4, 14 Different harmonizations? (1x) 22:33 ‫ השגתי‬MT 4Q LXX cf. v. 29 ] SP ‫ הכיתי‬cf. vv. 23, 25, 27, 28, 32. The sum total of the harmonizations in the sections covered by 4QNumb is: 4QNumb 15x, LXX 6x, SP 1x, MT 1x. The amount of harmonization in 4QNumb is thus very striking. Our analysis also includes the following pre-Samaritan text that shares much with the other pre-Samaritan texts, yet includes more exegetical details than the first three texts, and hence differs more from SP:

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

75

1.2.4. 4QRPb (4Q364) 4Q alone (10x) Gen 25:19 ‫ יקחר‬MT SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫אשש ילדה לו ששה‬ ‫ אשתו‬cf. v. 12 ‫אשש ילדה הגש המקשית שץחת ששה לאבשהם‬ Gen 30:26 ‫ עבדתיך‬MT [4Q] SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫אשבעה עששה‬ ‫ שנה‬cf. 31:41 ‫עבדתיך אשבע עששה שנה‬ Gen 30:33 ‫ כל‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ שה‬cf. v. 32 ‫כל שה‬ Gen 31:52a ‫ המקבה‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q LXX + ‫ הזואת‬cf. v. 52b Deut 2:34b ‫ לא השאשנו‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q pr ‫ החשמנו‬cf. v. 34a ‫ונחשם‬ Deut 2:36 ‫ יהוה‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ אלהינו לץנינו‬cf. v. 33 ‫ויתנהו יהוה אלהינו לץנינו‬ Deut 3:1a ‫ הבשן‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ למלחמה‬cf. v. 1b. Deut 3:2a ‫ אתו‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ ואת כול עמו‬cf. v. 2b. Deut 11:7 ‫ עשה‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ לעיניכם‬cf. 1:30; LXX + ῖ σ . Deut 11:8 ‫ היום‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] 4Q + ‫ואת בניכמה תקוומ‬ cf. Deut 32:46 ‫היום אשש תקום את בניכם‬ MT SP LXX ≠ 4Q (5x) Gen 25:20 ‫ לבן‬in 4Q ] + ‫ האשמי‬MT SP LXX cf. 28:5; 31:20, 24 Gen 25:20 ‫ לו לאשה‬in 4Q ] MT SP LXX pr ‫ ותהיה‬cf. 20:12; 24:67 and passim Gen 26:7 ‫ המרום‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] MT SP LXX + ‫לאשתו‬ ‫ ויאמש אחתי הוא‬cf. 26:9 ‫ואיך אמשת אחתי הוא‬ Deut 2:32 ‫ למלחמה‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] MT SP LXX + ‫יהקה‬ cf. Num 21:23 ‫ויבא יהקה וילחם ביששאל‬ Deut 3:1 ‫ ונעלה‬MT 4Q SP LXX ] MT SP (‫ )ונץנה‬LXX + ‫ונץן‬ cf. Num 21:33; Deut 1:24 LXX ≠ MT 4Q SP (2x) Gen 25:21 ‫ אשתו‬MT 4Q SP ] LXX pr ‫ שברה‬cf. 26:8 ‫שברה‬

‫אשתו‬ Gen 35:28 ‫ יקחר‬MT 4Q LXX ] LXX + ‫ אשש חי‬cf. 25:7 ‫ואלה‬ ‫ימי שני חיי אבשהם אשש חי‬ The sum total of the harmonizations in the sections covered by 4QRPb is: 4QRPb 10x; LXX 7x; MT 5x; SP 5x.

76

KETER SHEM TOV

1.2.5. Summary: Harmonizations in the Pre-Samaritan Texts Compared With Other Texts Scroll

SP

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

8

12

9

5

4QExod-Levf

8

6

3

4

4QNumb

15

1

6

1

4QRPa (4Q158)

0

0

0

0

4QRPb (4Q364)

10

5

7

5

Several studies (see n. 56) suggest independently that the largest amount of harmonization in the known textual sources of Hebrew Scripture is found in the LXX, followed by the SP (in this calculation, the editorial changes discussed in section 1.1 above are disregarded). These studies did not include the pre-Samaritan scrolls that are for the first time incorporated in the present study. From our new analysis it now appears that three scrolls (4QExodLevf, 4QNumb, 4QRPb) contain the greatest amount of harmonization, while for the material covered by 4QpaleoExodm, SP contains the largest amount. In any event, these scrolls, SP, and the LXX remain major sources for harmonization, as opposed to MT, where this feature occurs much less frequently. This issue is further pursued below with regard to the LXX. Coincidence plays a part in the analysis of the fragmentary scrolls since harmonizations do not occur in the same frequency in all chapters. For example, in the fragments of 4QRPa no cases of harmonization are spotted. At the same time, this analysis has shown that the pre-Samaritan scrolls resemble SP and the LXX in the frequency of harmonization and hence could belong to the same group or tradition. On the other hand, with respect to orthography (see paragraph 1.3), insufficient information is available for making a firm connection between SP and the pre-Samaritan texts.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

77

1.3. Orthography Usually the orthography of the medieval representatives of SP is fuller than that of MT, although not greatly so. On the other hand, most pre-Samaritan texts are fuller than both SP and MT. 35 The two subgroups of the SP-group thus behaved differently in orthography. Although the pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran are more than one thousand years older than the medieval manuscripts of SP, the somewhat more defective spelling of the medieval copies reflects a typologically earlier stage in the development of the Samaritan text. Apparently, the medieval copies of SP derive from a copy or tradition that is older or less doctored than the copies found at Qumran.

2. THE SP AND THE PRE-SAMARITAN SCROLLS: SYNTHESIS SP and the pre-Samaritan scrolls resemble each other in three central issues: i. They exclusively share the same editorial interventions at the exact same places. In this feature they are almost identical, but not completely, since two pre-Samaritan scrolls display one instance each of such an editorial intervention that is not shared with the SP (4QRPa contains a narrative plus after Deut 5:31 not shared with the other texts and 4QNumb combines two Scripture texts unlike the other texts). ii. They share a tendency to harmonize small details, but not exclusively, since the LXX harmonizes as well, sometimes more so. iii. The members of the SP-group share some characteristic readings, such as easier readings, but these agreements are not significant. The members of the SP-group also differ among each other: 35

4QpaleoExodm and 4QExod-Levf are somewhat fuller than the medieval text of SP and MT, while 4QNumb, reflecting the spelling of the Qumran scribal practice, is much fuller. For details, see the mentioned text editions in the DJD series. The full spelling of the pre-Samaritan texts does not follow any specific pattern.

78

KETER SHEM TOV

i. The pre-Samaritan texts do not share the ideological Samaritan readings.36 ii. The various texts differ often in small details, to be illustrated below. iii. Most pre-Samaritan texts display a fuller orthography than both SP and MT. iv. 4QRPa and 4QRPb deviate from the other pre-Samaritan texts in their exegetical changes. We now turn to the overall statistical pattern of the relations between the pre-Samaritan texts and SP, focusing on small differences, including the harmonizations and disregarding the large differences. The general conclusion of this investigation is that the members of the SP-group, while sharing important features, often differ from each other in small details. Orthographical differences and reconstructions are disregarded. 2.1. 4QpaleoExodm 4Q = SP (= MT and/or LXX) 60 4Q = SP (≠ MT and LXX) 7 4Q ≠ SP (4Q agrees with MT and/or LXX) 47 4Q unique readings 1637 4Q thus agrees with SP 67 x, of which 7 times in exclusive agreements. 4Q disagrees with SP 63 times, including 16 unique readings in the former. In small details 4Q thus agrees as much with SP as it disagrees, but the major agreements are in the large editorial differences mentioned in section 1.1 above.38

36

For the latter, see Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 87–88. Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 8; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), 158–60 gives a higher figure for the unique readings of 4QpaleoExodm (27x). 38 Within these large expansions, the two also differ in 8 details (Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 214–20). 37

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

79

2.2. 4QExod-Levf 4Q = SP (≠ MT and/or LXX) 7 4Q ≠ SP (4Q agrees with MT and/or LXX) 5 4Q unique readings 13 Since the unique readings of 4QExod-Levf include differences between the scroll and the SP, the two differ more than they agree in small matters, while in the large differences, they agree in one central detail. 2.3. 4QNumb 4Q = SP (≠ MT and/or LXX) 59 4Q ≠ SP (4Q agrees with MT and/or LXX) 63 4Q unique readings 52 Since the unique readings of 4QNumb also indicate disagreement with SP, the number of such disagreements (63 + 52 = 115) is much larger than that of their agreements (59). The amount of agreement of the scroll with SP is larger in the calculation of Jastram, but we do not know how he reached these figures.39 2.4. 4QRPa (4Q158) 4QRPa = SP (≠ MT and/or LXX) 8 4QRPa ≠ SP 9 39

―For the preserved variants, according to one method of counting the correlations between the witnesses, 4QNumb agrees with SP in c.42%, with MT in c.37%, with LXX in c.35%, and with no other witness in c.28%‖ (Jastram, DJD 12:213–15). Jastram probably included all the variants in the large editorial changes, otherwise he would not have reached such a high number of agreement with SP. In our calculation these cases are disregarded, although obviously they weigh very heavily in calculating the relation between the sources. Jastram adds: ―If the variants are weighed, however, rather than merely counted, it becomes clearer that 4QNumb SP LXX share more significant secondary readings than 4QNumb MT, and thus are more closely related. Of the secondary readings in 4QNumb, the most significant are the major interpolations shared with SP‖ (DJD 12:215).

80

KETER SHEM TOV

4QRPa unique readings 9 4QRPa agrees with SP in major details, but in the small details it often disagrees with SP, as well as with MT and LXX. 4QRPa differs from the other texts of 4QRP in that it contains more exegetical elements, making it likely that some of these mentioned disagreements with SP, MT and LXX have to be ascribed to the same exegetical tendencies. There are no instances of harmonizations in small details. 2.5. 4QRPb (4Q364) 4QRPb = SP (≠ MT and/or LXX) 25, of which 7 exclusive connections with SP 4QRPb ≠ SP 37 4QRPb unique 22 4QRPb disagrees more with SP (59) than it agrees with that text (25). Some of the unique readings must be ascribed to rewriting of 4QRPb, prominent in the other manuscripts of 4QRP as well.40 2.6. Summary: Relations in Small Details Between the Sources 1. Scroll = SP

2. Scroll ≠ SP

3. Scroll unique

2+3 combined

4QpaleoExodm

67

47

16

63

4QExod-Levf

7

5

13

18

4QNumb

59

63

52

115

4QRPa (4Q158)

8

9

9

18

4QRPb (4Q364)

25

37

22

59

40

4QDeutn is excluded from the analysis. At an earlier stage of research, this scroll was believed to be pre-Samaritan, but this assumption was refuted by Elizabeth Owen, ―4QDeutn: A Pre-Samaritan Text?‖ DSD 4 (1997): 162–78.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

81

The upshot of the analysis is that in addition to the major agreements between the scrolls in editorial readings, they often differ in small details. 2.7. Conclusions Before the discoveries found at Qumran, scholars conceived of the medieval manuscripts of SP as reflections of an ancient text, whose nature could not be easily determined. This situation has changed since the discovery at Qumran of texts that are very close to SP in significant details. These texts probably preceded the creation of SP, and they are now called pre-Samaritan on the assumption that one of them was adapted to suit the views of the Samaritans and subsequently served as their Scripture. The use of the term preSamaritan is thus based on the assumption that while the connections between SP and the pre-Samaritan texts are exclusive, they reflect different realities. The pre-Samaritan texts are not Samaritan documents, as they lack the specifically Samaritan readings, while sharing with SP its major features. In this context it is relevant to mention a recently discovered fragment of Deut 27:4b–6 (Qumran cave 4?) that contains the most central Samaritan reading, viz., Deut 27:4 ‫והיה בעבשכם את‬

‫הישדן תרימו את האבנים האלה אשש אנכי מקוה אתכם היום‬ ‫― ושדת אותם בשיד בהשגשיזים‬Upon crossing the Jordan, you shall

set up these stones, about which I charge you this day, on MountGarizim, and coat them with plaster.‖ 41 This reading is often taken as tendentious, but since it is also found in the Vetus Latina, it should be considered as a possibly original and initially nonsectarian reading.42 In that case, this is neither a Samaritan nor a 41

For the text see James H. Charlesworth, ―What is a Variant? Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Deuteronomy,‖ Maarav 16 (2009): 201–12; Ursula Schattner-Rieser, ―Garizim versus Ebal: Ein neues Qumranfragment Samaritanischer Tradition?‖ Early Christianity 2 (2010): 277–81. 42 Thus Kartveit, Origin of the Samaritans, 300–05 (with literature). See also Reinhard Pummer, ―ARGARIZIN: A Criterion for Samaritan Provenance?‖ JSJ 18 (1987): 18–25. This reading, written as one word, occurs also in a Masada fragment written in the early Hebrew script

82

KETER SHEM TOV

pre-Samaritan text, and therefore irrelevant to the present discussion. Little can be said with certainty about the internal relation between the pre-Samaritan texts. Their agreement in idiosyncratic features would indicate a single common text that was subsequently developed in the various manuscripts.43 Since each text behaves differently in small details, the input of individual scribes must have been substantial.44 For example, while 4QpaleoExodm reflects the (papMas 1o). See Shemaryahu Talmon in Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports, Hebrew Fragments from Masada (ed. Shemaryahu Talmon and Yigael Yadin; Jerusalem: IES, 1999), 138–47. However, the Samaritan nature of that fragment is contested by Hanan Eshel, ―The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ARGARIZIN,‖ Zion 56 (1991): 125–36 (Hebrew with English summary). In choosing between the possibility that this Qumran fragment represents a copy of SP (note the writing of ‫ בהשגשיזים‬as one word) or reflects the original text of this passage, Charlesworth, ―What is a Variant?‖ opts for the latter possibility. 43 Alternatively, scribes independently produced copies of the biblical text reflecting the same editorial-scribal tendencies. However, the high degree of agreement between the pre-Samaritan texts does not support such an assumption. 44 See Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 136–37: ―In examining the SP text tradition as a potential source of analogues to the type of reworking that we have seen in the 4QRP MSS, we must take seriously the extensive evidence for its gradual development over time; that is, the likelihood that all its unique features did not come about at the same time. As I will indicate below, most of the largest changes in SP and the pre-SP MSS appear to accomplish a very specific goal, and may therefore be the product of a single redactor. On the other hand, some modifications of different types are absent from /p. 137/ the pre-SP MSS; others occur in a pre-SP MS but not in SP; and others are also found in G (probably indicating that they originated prior to the insertion of the major, characteristic changes in the SP text tradition). Thus I do not treat SP and its forebears as witnesses to the compositional techniques of a single scribe, but rather as witnesses to the compositional techniques that were used by a variety of Second Temple scribes in the course of the Pentateuch‘s transmission over a period of many years.‖

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

83

same amount of editorial interventions as SP, 4QNumb has slightly more. However, in spite of these differences, the editorial and most of the harmonizing small changes common to the abovementioned texts are exclusive and hence they form a distinct group. To call these texts ―harmonistic‖45 and not pre-Samaritan does not do justice to their major features. These texts are characterized by freedom towards their underlying text, which comes to light in major editorial changes, as well as in small harmonizing changes (mainly pluses). Harmonizing pluses characterize not only SP, but even more so LXX-Torah, making it impossible to name only the SP-group harmonistic. More realistic is a term used by White Crawford, ―harmonistic/expansive.‖46 In my view the SP-group formed a popular group of texts in ancient Israel.47 Some scholars name these texts ―Palestinian‖48 since they are not evidenced outside Palestine, but this term implies that no other groups of texts were extant in Palestine. White Crawford argues that this scribal group was part of a priestly/Levitical exegetical tradition.49 She identifies Jerusalem and the sanctuary at Mount Gerizim as the centers where these texts were produced.50 I am not sure we can be as specific as this, and would rather think that beyond MT, this text was the major 45

Thus Esther Eshel, ―4QDeutn—A Text that has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,‖ HUCA 62 (1991): 121. This is a very significant paper in which the author develops her view that there were many texts that were ―harmonistic:‖ biblical scrolls, ―biblical scrolls with apocryphal additions,‖ and tefillin and mezuzot. Among these biblical texts, Eshel included not only the pre-Samaritan texts, but also 4QDeutn. 46 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 23–35; idem, ―The Pentateuch as Found,‖ 125: ―I would argue that the harmonistic/expansive text-type is not an accident in the Qumran collection, but part of the Qumran community‘s repertoire of Pentateuch texts used for scripture study (e.g., 4QDeutn), prayer (e.g., the phylacteries), and exegesis (e.g., 4QTestimonia).‖ 47 See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 91. 48 Cross, DJD 12:136. 49 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 146–49. 50 Ibid, 125–28.

84

KETER SHEM TOV

popular text used in Palestine, with close ties to the ancestor of the LXX, although the one-sided information from Qumran does not show the extent of its popularity. Beyond the copies of this text quoted above, this popularity comes to light in the quotations from this text in 4QTest, 4QComm Gen A (4Q252), and the author of Jubilees.51 Furthermore, the fact that two of the exegetical texts previously named 4QRP, namely 4QRPa (4Q158) and 4QRPb (4Q364) reflect this text, is also significant. If indeed the pre-Samaritan texts were popular, it is not surprising that the Samaritan community chose a so-called preSamaritan text as the basis for its Scripture in all five Torah books.52 Neither the proto-Masoretic text, often associated with the Temple circles, nor the text underlying the LXX was chosen for this purpose.

3. THE SP-GROUP AND THE LXX The description of the pre-Samaritan texts and the SP becomes more complicated when the LXX is included in this analysis. The major complication is created by the fact that the small harmonizations are evidenced more frequently in LXX-Torah than in SP, often two or three times as much. This fact alone would warrant the assumption of a special connection between the SP-group and the LXX. The closeness between these two entities has been recognized long ago in scholarship, creating a variety of strange theories. Thus it was suggested in the seventeenth and eighteenth century that the LXX was translated from SP,53 or that 51

According to James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 137, Jubilees especially reflects readings of SP and the LXX, texts that were ―at home in Palestine.‖ 52 According to White Crawford ―The Pentateuch as Found,‖ 131, it is ―plausible…that the northerners did not simply accept a version of the Pentateuch from the southerners but used a text-type with which they were familiar, and may have had some role in developing.‖ 53 Thus Louis de Dieu, John Selden(us), Johan H. Hottinger(us), and Johann Hassencamp(ius); for a detailed description of their views and bibliographical references, see Wilhelm Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

85

SP was revised according to the LXX, or, conversely, that the LXX was revised according to SP.54 These and other theories show the limitations of an approach that was bound by the assumption of a tripartite or bipartite division of the textual witnesses of the Bible. The truth of the matter is that possibly in the pedigree of the biblical text, these two texts were closer to each other than to MT, in the Torah. We need not speak about other books, since there was no Samaritan version of these books.55 Continuing with the facts themselves, the number of the harmonizations of the LXX is very high, higher than in SP. In the following calculation, the pre-Samaritan scrolls are disregarded because of their fragmentary status, focusing instead on MT-SPLXX. In this triad, MT has few harmonizations, the LXX has many, and the SP has less, but still many. Previous research on the harmonizations in the LXX focused on great parts of the Torah.56 Most of these harmonizations appear origine indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica (Halle: Bibliotheca Rengeriana, 1815), 11. 54 Thus Hugo Grotius and James Usserius. See Gesenius De Pentateuchi Samaritani, 13. 55 I do not know whether the number of the disagreements between SP and the LXX is significant. More important is the nature of their agreements. Against the traditional number of 1,900 agreements between the two, Kyung-Re Kim counts merely 964 (of which 493 are meaningful, and of these 493, 328 are common harmonizations. See Kyung-Re Kim, Studies in the Relationship between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1994). 56 For the data, see Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (NY: Oxford University Press, 1998) (Genesis 1–11); Emanuel Tov, ―The Harmonizing Character of the Septuagint of Genesis 1–11,‖ forthcoming (WUNT 2014); idem., ―Textual Harmonizations in the Stories of the Patriarchs,‖ in Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz; BZAW 439; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 19–50 (Genesis 12–50); idem, ―Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy,‖ in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran, 271–82; Kim, Studies in the Relationship, 311 (the complete

86

KETER SHEM TOV

in the narrative sections, while some pertain to the phraseology of the laws. In very few cases, the content of a law is harmonized with a parallel one, as in LXX-Deut 16:7 adapted to Exod 12:8. The harmonizations for Genesis 1–11 are listed by Hendel:57 SP LXX ≠ MT 13 SP MT ≠ LXX 6 SP ≠ MT LXX 13 LXX ≠ MT SP 66. Summary of the harmonizations in the three sources: LXX 79 SP 32 MT 6. The data for Genesis 12–50 are listed by Tov:58 LXX ≠ MT SP (145) SP LXX ≠ MT (53) SP ≠ MT LXX (31) MT SP ≠LXX (36). One notes a large number of harmonizations in the LXX alone, and a reasonably large number of shared harmonizations of LXX and SP. The sum total of the harmonizations in the three sources is: Torah). See further Martin Rösel, ―Die Septuaginta und der Kult: Interpretationen und Aktualisierungen im Buche Numeri,‖ in La double transmission du texte biblique: Hommage à A. Schenker (ed. Yohanan Goldman and Christoph Uehlinger; OBO 179; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001) 29–39; and Gilles Dorival, La Bible d‘Alexandrie, 4: Les Nombres (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 42–3; idem, ―Les phénomènes d‘intertextualité dans le livre grec des Nombres,‖ in Κατὰ τοὺς Ο', Selon les Septante: Trente études sur la Bible grecque des Septante en hommage à Marguerite Harl (ed. Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 261–85. Both scholars discuss several examples of harmonization in LXX-Numbers, without statistics, and with the clear implication that this was an inner-Septuagintal phenomenon. 57 Hendel, The Text of Genesis, 81–92. 58 Tov, ―Textual Harmonizations in the Stories of the Patriarchs.‖

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

87

LXX 198 SP 120 MT 36. The data for Deuteronomy are listed by Tov:59 MT SP ≠ LXX 44 LXX ≠ MT SP 99 SP LXX ≠ MT 27 SP ≠ MT LXX 22 MT ≠ SP LXX 2 MT LXX ≠ SP 8. The combined figures for the individual witnesses of Deuteronomy are: LXX 134 SP 93 MT 54. Although the analysis is subjective, the figures point in the same direction: a small number of harmonization in MT, a large number in SP, and twice as much in the LXX. Because of their fragmentary status, the situation of the scrolls is unclear, but they are probably close to that of SP.60 Tov, ―Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy.‖ 60 Our figures cannot be compared easily with those of Kim, Studies in the Relationship, since he included only common harmonizations of SP = LXX and individual harmonizations of SP. In the following table, culled from the summaries of the various chapters in Kim‘s work, I mention separately cases that he considers less certain (71 + 23). In those segments in which comparisons can be made (Genesis, Deuteronomy), Kim includes a smaller number of harmonizations than we did, and besides, Kim did not include harmonizations that are characteristic of LXX only. SP = LXX ≠ MT SP ≠ LXX = MT SP ≠ LXX ≠ MT Gen 71 + 23 = 94 40 + 2 = 42 0 Exod 83 + 25 = 107 83 + 1 = 84 12 Lev 65 + 15 = 80 34 + 3 = 38 0 Num 51 + 22 = 73 78 + 4 = 82 0 59

88

KETER SHEM TOV

For a few examples in Genesis, see: 17:14 MT SP LXX ‫ ;לא ימול את בשש עשלתו‬SP LXX + ‫ביום‬ ‫ ( השמיני‬ῇ έ ᾳ ῇ ὀγ όῃ). Based on Lev 12:3 MT SP LXX 12:20 MT SP LXX ‫ ;ואת אשתו וכל אשש לו‬SP LXX + ‫ולוט‬ ‫ ( עמו‬Λὼ ᾿ ). Based on 13:1 MT SP LXX ‫הוא ואשתו‬

‫וכל אשש לו ולוט עמו‬ 20:14 MT SP LXX ‫ קאן וברש ועבדים ושץחת‬+ ‫וירח אבימלך‬ SP LXX + ‫ ( אלפ כספ‬ί ι ί ), inserted at the ―+‖ sign. Based on v. 16 MT SP LXX.

4. CONCLUSIONS A certain amount of proximity is visible between SP, the preSamaritan texts, and the LXX, but it is not easy to make precise statements on this relation since not all aspects of these relations have been researched yet. Nevertheless, some details can now be clarified, even though we should remember that only some of the texts circulating in early centuries have been preserved. Parts of the puzzle can be resolved, and indications for a stemma may be gathered: 1. MT stands apart from SP, the pre-Samaritan texts, and the LXX. 2. SP and the pre-Samaritan texts form a firm sub-group probably going back to a single hyparchetype, changed in each individual source. 3. The LXX is clearly related to the SP-group, but not by way of revision of the SP to the LXX, as was once thought (see n. 54). Rather, in the harmonizations they reflect the same secondary/ inferior text, while it is hard to determine whether the LXX or the SP-group reflects a better version of the earlier text. In my view, the LXX in the Torah does not reflect the same quality text as in most other books of the LXX, but this issue needs to be studied further.

Deut 58 + 20 = 78 Sum 328 + 105 = 443

54 + 4 = 58 289 + 14 = 303

6 18

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa* Ian Young 1. THE UNIQUENESS OF 1QISAa 1QIsaa, one of the first scrolls known from Qumran, also turns out, after the discovery of many other manuscripts, to be unique. This uniqueness is most obvious at a physical level. There are over 200 manuscripts of ―biblical‖ books, meaning books now found in the Hebrew Bible. Although the use of terms such as ―Bible‖ or ―biblical‖ in regard to the Qumran scrolls has been rightly identified as anachronistic by a number of scholars,1 I do not believe that it is totally anachronistic. I have argued that the typical view on Scripture in the late Second Temple period is * I am pleased to dedicate this article to Alan Crown to whom I owe a debt that can never be repaid. Among the many things that Alan was to me, one of the most important was a model of a scholar not content to accept any conclusion without careful investigation of the evidence for it. I hope I can inspire my students in the same way that Alan inspired me. Thanks are due as always to Martin Ehrensvärd and Robert Rezetko who provided important feedback on earlier drafts of this article, particularly in regard to the samples of Hebrew texts analysed below. 1 Molly M. Zahn, ―Talking About Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,‖ in Changes in Scripture Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila; BZAW 419; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 93–119, with extensive references.

89

90

KETER SHEM TOV

that stated in 4 Ezra 14:44–47 which presents the idea of a common Jewish twenty-four book scripture collection as a recognizable component of a much larger, but not exactly defined (the other books are designated by the round number ―seventy‖) corpus of sacred literature.2 Therefore the current Hebrew Bible represented a recognizable core of Scripture books (around which others clustered) in the last centuries BCE, the period from which the Qumran manuscripts originated.3 Thus, for brevity, we will continue to use the term ―biblical‖ to designate those books found in the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. The fragmentary nature of the Qumran scrolls is exemplified by the statistic that while there are over 200 biblical manuscripts, only 108 of them preserve 50 or more (fully or partially attested) Ian Young, ―The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?‖ DSD 9 (2002): 388–90; cf. idem, ―Review of Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate,‖ RBL [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2005). 3 For a first century BCE date for the deposit of the Qumran scrolls see my article in this volume ―The Contrast Between the Qumran and Masada Biblical Scrolls in the Light of New Data A Note in Light of the Alan Crown Festschrift,‖ as well as Young, ―Stabilization‖ and idem, ―The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text: A Statistical Approach,‖ in Feasts and Fasts. A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown (ed. Marianne Dacy, Jennifer Dowling and Suzanne Faigan; Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 11; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, University of Sydney, 2005), 81–139, picking up the work of Gregory L. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition (JSPSup 35; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 683–754; idem, ―Redating the Deposits at Qumran: the Legacy of an Error in Archaeological Interpretation,‖ [http://www. bibleinterp.com/articles/Doudna_Scroll_Deposits_1.htm] (2004); idem, ―The Legacy of an Error in Archaeological Interpretation: The Dating of the Qumran Cave Scroll Deposits,‖ 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 (ed. Katharina Galor, Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Jürgen Zangenberg; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 147–57; and Ian Hutchesson, ―63 BCE: A Revised Dating for the Depositation of the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ QC 8:3 (1999): 177–94. 2

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

91

Hebrew words (graphic units).4 Of these 108, furthermore, only six have over a thousand words fully or partially preserved: 4QpaleoExodm, 4QNumb, 4QSama, 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 11QPsa.5 Yet even in this group 1QIsaa stands out for its unique state of preservation. According to my count 4QpaleoExodm preserves 1925 words6 compared to the 16,712 of MT Exodus,7 or 11.5% of the book. 4QNumb has 14738 out of 16,413, or 9.0%, 4QSama has ―just under fifteen percent of the text of Samuel,‖9 1QIsab has 3284 words10 out of 16,930, or 19.4%, and 11QPs a 257311 out of 19,531 or 13.2%. We can see, therefore, that a nearly complete manuscript of a large biblical scroll is something quite unique among the Qumran scrolls, and indeed is quite unusual among the total scroll corpus, where fragmentary texts are the overwhelming majority. Given the unique preservation of 1QIsa a, textual critics might reflect wistfully on what might have been. The fact of the matter is that in 1QIsaa, despite its literally thousands of variants, at a rate of less than ten words for every variant,12 each of which is undoubtedly interesting in its own way,13 the text of Isaiah Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 104. Ibid., 111. 6 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 86. 7 Figures for the MT books are from Frederick E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew A Study of the Phenomenon and Its Treatment Since Antiquity with Special Reference to Verbal Forms (SBLDS 74; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), 199. Of course these figures will only be approximate for the full non-MT forms of the books attested at Qumran, but I presume they are good enough to give a general impression. 8 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 89. 9 Frank Moore Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4 XII: 1–2 Samuel (DJD 17; Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 3. 10 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 94. 11 Young, ―Stabilization,‖ 378; Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 99. 12 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 94, 110, 112, 130. 13 Cf., e.g., Chaim Cohen, ―A Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants of the MT in Isa 1–5,‖ in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: 4 5

92

KETER SHEM TOV

presented is not different on the scale of a different edition to the other forms of Isaiah attested, such as the Masoretic Text (MT). The fact that no alternative literary edition for the book of Isaiah is attested in our manuscript evidence, different to most other books of the Hebrew Bible,14 is unlikely to mean that no such variant editions of Isaiah ever existed, however. Our physical evidence for biblical books in the BCE period is extremely limited, despite the many manuscripts of Isaiah from Qumran. The generally accepted scholarly reconstruction is that Isaiah had a complex composition history, most obviously the classic contrast between a ―First‖ Isaiah in chapters 1–39, and a ―Second‖ (and ―Third‖) Isaiah in chapters 40–66.15 However, the point at issue is that 1QIsa a does not attest such a variant edition. Hence it might have been more interesting (if there were a text-critical wish fairy) if our most complete manuscript were a potentially more interesting manuscript textcritically speaking, like 4QJerb which is argued to preserve a small fragment of a Hebrew variant literary edition of Jeremiah akin to the Vorlage of the Septuagint Jeremiah.16 Despite disappointing the wishes of good little text critics, 1QIsaa has become quite well known for certain characteristics. This is quite apart from its pop stardom, where it has often been pictured in non-scholarly works (sometimes upside down!), and been sometimes confused with 1QIsab. The characteristics that Brill, 2000), 40–55; Eugene Ulrich, ―The Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah: Light From 1QIsaa on Additions in the MT,‖ DSD 8 (2001): 288–305; Peter W. Flint, ―The Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in The Bible as Book The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 229–51. 14 See, e.g., the review of (still only some!) of the data in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 283–326. 15 See, e.g., John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 307–08; Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament. A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 330–31. 16 Tov, Textual Criticism, 287.

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

93

have become well-known about 1QIsaa are linguistic features, specifically the large number of linguistic variants from the MT Isaiah. Although it is hardly alone in its linguistic variants, 17 it became the best-known exemplar of linguistic variation among the biblical texts from Qumran due especially to the erudite work of E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) published originally in Hebrew in 1959, and in English translation in 1974.18 This is simply a treasury of interesting linguistic comments, reflecting Kutscher‘s encyclopedic knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and other Semitic languages. Despite 1QIsaa being among the original scrolls discovered, it was only very recently that Eugene Ulrich and Peter Flint published 1QIsaa and 1QIsab officially in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series.19 Ulrich and Flint are to be heartily congratulated for their skill and just plain hard work in publishing these texts and especially noting the thousands of variants in 1QIsa a. Having done this myself for sections of the scroll previously,20 I can appreciate the Herculean nature of their task. With these new resources to

Tov connects it to a wider scribal approach which he dubs ―Qumran practice:‖ Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), esp. 247–59, 263–73; Tov, Textual Criticism, 100–07. As another example, see my study of the highly variant 4QCantb: Ian Young, ―Notes on the Language of 4QCantb,‖ JJS 52 (2001): 122–31. 18 E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974). A useful summary and updating is found in Martin G. Abegg Jr., ―Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,‖ in Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint with a contribution by Martin G. Abegg Jr., Qumran Cave 1 II: The Isaiah Scrolls Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants (DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon, 2010), 25– 41. 19 Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint with a contribution by Martin G. Abegg Jr., Qumran Cave 1 II: The Isaiah Scrolls Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions; Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants (2 vols.; DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon, 2010). 20 See Young, ―Biblical Scrolls.‖ 17

94

KETER SHEM TOV

hand, it is therefore high time that we return to 1QIsa a with fresh eyes.

2. WHAT I THOUGHT Whether due to Kutscher‘s explicit statements, or due to the way his words were taken by later scholars, or by myself, early in my career I had certain beliefs about 1QIsaa, MT Isaiah, and their language. These included:  MT First Isaiah, being pre-exilic, exhibited no features of ―Late Biblical Hebrew‖ (LBH).  MT Second (and Third) Isaiah, while notably classical in its linguistic form, displayed some telltale characteristics that indicated its setting in the sixth century transition from ―Standard‖ or ―Early Biblical Hebrew‖ (EBH) to LBH.  1QIsaa throughout reflects systematic linguistic variants that change its linguistic profile from EBH to LBH, comparable to the core LBH books of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. As it turns out, my subsequent research indicates that each one of these former beliefs of mine was completely wrong!

3. LBH FEATURES IN FIRST ISAIAH The main conclusion of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts,21 which I wrote with Robert Rezetko and Martin Ehrensvärd, a critical review of earlier scholarship, now being developed further in a new work with Robert Rezetko, 22 was that while historical development in ancient Hebrew is beyond doubt, the nature of the texts, and the distribution of the data, indicate that this historical development is not reflected in a straightforward way in the current forms of the Ian Young, Robert Rezetko and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols.; Bible World; London: Equinox, 2008), henceforth LDBT. 22 Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach (SBLANEM; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, forthcoming). 21

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

95

biblical writings. Thus, the complex textual development of the biblical writings, with linguistic variation a prominent aspect of this (see 1QIsaa!), makes the claim that the current (MT) form of the biblical books reflects in detail the linguistic forms used by an original author at a particular point in time unlikely. When one examines the data, we find first of all that there is almost no wellattested so-called LBH linguistic feature that is not also found in EBH texts.23 In fact, a striking discovery of our books was that no EBH text we studied is without LBH linguistic features.24 Perhaps even more striking is the fact that the corpus of pre-exilic inscriptions from Arad (c.600 BCE) displayed more supposedly post-exilic LBH linguistic features than a sample of comparable length not only from most biblical books, usually dated to the preexilic or post-exilic periods, but even than a number of postbiblical works such as Ben Sira and Pesher Habakkuk from the second and first centuries BCE.25 So we have the situation that all LDBT, 1:83–87, 111–19. Ibid., 1:136. 25 For the methodology and results see ibid., 1:129–39. It is very important to use a strict methodology in order to compare ―apples with apples,‖ a point not observed by some criticisms of our work. For example, Gary A. Rendsburg, ―Late Biblical Hebrew in the Book of Haggai,‖ in Language and Nature Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (ed. Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‗ama Pat-El; SAOC 67; Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012), 340 n.44 admits that his ―aforecited figures derive from a comparison of apples and oranges,‖ since he follows a completely different definition of LBH features and a different methodology for identifying them to ours. Indeed, he never defines what a ―LBH‖ feature is. He does not put forth any justification for presenting his results as comparable to our work, and indeed there is none. Even more unjustifiable is the fact that he is arguing against our supposed suggestion that Haggai (totally) lacks LBH features. This straw man claim is contrary to one of the basic and often-cited conclusions of our work: ―None of the sample passages are free from LBH features‖ (LDBT, 1:136); ―every sample we have done so far includes LBH features‖ (LDBT, 2:86; italics in original), etc. Admittedly we did not include a sample for Haggai, but 23 24

96

KETER SHEM TOV

biblical texts, whether classified as EBH or LBH, use the same linguistic forms. The difference is that the core LBH books (Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) have a stylistic preference for certain linguistic forms and thus these books have a distinctive style.26 In our previous work we still used the terms Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew, but this is confusing since it sounds like the classification is still chronological. In fact, the LBH books are isolated in their linguistic style. No other books, whether usually dated to the pre-exilic period (e.g. Samuel) or the post-exilic period (e.g. Zechariah, Joel), or the postbiblical period (e.g. Ben Sira, Pesher Habakkuk, the Community Rule, the War Scroll) share the stylistic preference for these linguistic forms to the same degree. Thus we suggest that a better terminology is Standard Classical Hebrew (SCH) for the majority of literary works, whether early or late, and Peripheral Classical Hebrew (PCH) to reflect the atypical nature of the linguistic profile of what were formerly called the core ―LBH‖ works. As mentioned, a major discovery reported in LDBT was that all biblical texts, regardless of age, exhibit features characteristic of the ―LBH‖ or rather PCH books, usually labelled ―LBH‖ features. As we have indicated, the definition of PCH features cannot be ―not found in SCH works;‖ but rather must be more flexibly stated: ―particularly characteristic of PCH works.‖ As expected, a standard-sized sample (500 words) from a non-prose section of

given the repeated emphasis that all biblical texts have LBH features, it is disingenuous at best to take our citation of an earlier work by Ehrensvärd, which talks generally of the lack of characteristic LBH features, as a basis for attributing to us a current view that Haggai (as opposed to every other biblical text) lacks all LBH features (see Rendsburg, ―Haggai,‖ 330, 340 n. 44, citing LDBT, 1:56)! If we followed Rendsburg‘s very loose and very different methodology, the volume of ―LBH‖ forms would expand greatly in all of our samples, ―early‖ or ―late.‖ 26 The potential significance of differences in frequency from a sociolinguistic variationist perspective, and potential problems with it, will be discussed in Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics.

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

97

First Isaiah (Isa 3:24–5:30) displays PCH features, albeit only two.27 SCH books normally range up to about 10 PCH linguistic features in the samples (cf. nine in the pre-exilic Arad inscriptions). Six is a very common number.28 Two is a rather low number, the second lowest sample we have investigated, after a sample from ―P‖ material in the Pentateuch with one PCH feature. The low accumulation in this section of Isaiah may reflect a tendency for prophetic books to have fewer PCH features than narrative books, cf. Zechariah with three and Habakkuk with five.29 In the case of this passage, I suspect that another factor is the high proportion of rare vocabulary in the non-prose sections of the first chapters of Isaiah. Rare forms cannot be analysed by criteria such as ―distribution‖ in other texts, which is essential to the methodology 1. Preference for the preposition ‫ על‬in the collocation ‫ קוה‬plus ‫ על‬in Isa 5:6 in the sense ―to command X.‖ Usually ‫ קוה‬is found with the direct object marker ‫את‬. About 20 exceptions are found with ‫ אל‬and ‫ל‬. Disregarding the sense ―command concerning,‖ we are left with eleven examples of ‫ קוה‬plus ‫על‬. Of these, a majority are found in core PCH books: Esth 2:10, 20; 4:8, 17; and 1 Chron 16:40; 2 Chron 19:9. This fits in with the more general phenomenon of preference for the preposition ‫ על‬in PCH which is widely discussed in the literature, e.g., Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel A New Approach to an Old Problem (CahRB 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982), 22; Mark F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTSup 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 127–31. 2. Preference for verb suffixes over ‫ את‬plus suffix: 6–0 (5:2, 2, 2, 6, 11, 25). Due to the poetic nature of the text, it is not advisable to lay stress on features of verbal use that would be worthy of comment in a prose text, such as the three weyiqtol verbs used with future reference in 5:29. In addition there is the use of the root ‫( דוח‬Hiphil) for ―cleaning the sacrifices‖ in Isa 4:4, which is claimed to be PCH by Avi Hurvitz, ―The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology,‖ RB 81 (1974): 35–36; idem, Linguistic Study, 63–65; Rooker, Ezekiel, 164–66. However, it has no distribution in core PCH sources, only occurring there once in Chronicles. 28 LDBT, 1:132–36. 29 Ibid., 1:135–36. 27

98

KETER SHEM TOV

for identifying PCH features.30 If one shifts the sample to make it cover the beginning of the following section, with its much more common prose elements (Isa 5:1–6:8), we soon end up with four PCH features.31 An extreme example of the rarity of the vocabulary in the early chapters of Isaiah is the passage just before the sample in Isaiah 3 on the women of Jerusalem with its striking concentration of hapax legomena, dislegomena, and other rare forms.32 A more nuanced discussion of the language of the first part of Isaiah might clarify its relationship to other SCH texts. However, the point being emphasized here is the degree of the linguistic relationship of the first part of Isaiah with characteristic features of the language of the PCH books. The answer is that although the relationship is slight, nevertheless, contrary to my expectations early in my career, First Isaiah does exhibit PCH (―LBH‖) linguistic features. This will also be evident when we look at a sample of prose from Isaiah 1–39 below, section 5.3.

4. IS SECOND ISAIAH IN TRANSITIONAL HEBREW? According to a very common model for the historical development of Hebrew, the Babylonian exile in the sixth century was the point of transition between a pre-exilic SCH (―EBH‖) and a post-exilic PCH (―LBH‖).33 It makes sense, therefore, that even though the classical nature of the Hebrew of Second Isaiah (Isa 40–55) is widely acknowledged, that there would be some signs of the transitional position of this part of the book in relation to the historical development of Hebrew.34 This position has been

Ibid., 1:21, 130–31. Adding: 1. Temporal clause without ‫ ויהי‬in Isa 6:1. 2. Waw consecutive with long III–He in 6:1. 32 For comments on the high proportion of rare vocabulary in the early chapters of Isaiah, see, e.g., Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena, 38, 44, and 199 where we observe that the Book of Isaiah has the highest number of hapax legomena in the Hebrew Bible, concentrations of them being particularly characteristic of the first part of the book (p.44). 33 Hurvitz, Linguistic Study; Rooker, Ezekiel. 34 See the survey of scholarship in LDBT, 2:33–35. 30 31

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

99

recently affirmed by Shalom Paul.35 Paul is able to compile an impressive-looking list of ―LBH‖ (PCH) linguistic forms in Second Isaiah, and thus the transitional nature of its Hebrew seems to be confirmed.36 However, Isa 40–55 is 16 chapters worth of material. Given that all biblical texts seem to contain PCH linguistic features, the question then becomes whether Second Isaiah has a higher concentration than other, pre-exilic dated texts. To test this, I took a standard 500 word sample from Isa 44:24–46:7 (a passage mentioning Cyrus of Persia and hence closely linked with a late exilic setting). What I discovered was that this passage does not have a significantly higher accumulation of PCH linguistic features than samples from pre-exilic prophetic works. The five features in Isa 44–4637 are in the same magnitude as the two to four from First Shalom M. Paul, ―Signs of Late Biblical Hebrew in Isaiah 40–66,‖ in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 293–99; see the list of forms in Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66 Translation and Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 43–44. 36 Of course, a number of items on Paul‘s list do not satisfy the methodology referred to above in note 25, and used in this article. For example, the first item that falls within my sample passage in Isa 44–46 on the list in his commentary is the verb ‫ כני‬which he translates as ―to give an enduring and honourable name‖ (Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 43). This occurs in the MT Bible only in Isa 44:5; 45:4; and in Job 32:21, 22. In other words, it is not attested even once in core ―Late Biblical Hebrew,‖ that is, texts that are indisputably late in Biblical Hebrew, and so it is difficult to see how it can be labeled ―LBH.‖ This criticism applies to most of the examples in Paul's list. 37 1. ‫― מעשב‬west, setting of sun‖ in Isa 45:6. 2. Preference for the preposition ‫ על‬with the verb ‫ עבש‬in the sense ―come over to you‖ (NRSV) in 45:14. This sense is normally communicated with the preposition ‫אל‬. 3. Plural form ‫― עולמים‬eternity‖ twice in 45:17. 4. Order ―gold and silver‖ in 46:6. There is a difficulty that the two words are separated in the verse, and hence are not listed for example by Rooker, Ezekiel, 174 n.163, but I judge that this is a similar enough case to count as a PCH form. 5. Preference for verb suffixes over ‫ את‬plus suffix: 20–0 (45:4, 4, 5, 5, 8, 11, 11, 13, 18, 18, 18, 19, 21; 46:5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7; not counting suffixes on nominal participles, whose interpretation varies in 35

100

KETER SHEM TOV

Isaiah and the five from Habakkuk (as well as the post-exilic examples: three from Zechariah and six from Joel). Thus the linguistic profile of Second Isaiah, based on this criterion, does not seem to be any different than most other prophetic books, whether pre-exilic or post-exilic. Mark Rooker was therefore perfectly correct to argue that if we agreed with the logic of the linguistic dating methodology of Hurvitz (which he did), the second part of Isaiah must be pre-exilic.38 The idea that the sixth century was a transitional period in the history of Hebrew is strongly influenced by the work of Hurvitz and Rooker on the book of Ezekiel.39 Both were able to create an impressive list of PCH features in Ezekiel. However, this was drawn from the 48 chapters of the whole book. The question is whether Ezekiel has a significantly higher accumulation of PCH features than other biblical books. A sample we took from Ezekiel contained seven PCH forms,40 which indicates that Hurvitz and Rooker seem to be correct that Ezekiel has a somewhat higher accumulation (especially for a prophetic book), but that there is not really any evidence for a transition toward the accumulations in samples from PCH books (17–25 forms per sample).41

the literature, so this is not necessarily a definitive figure, but definitely indicates a preference for verb suffixes!). 38 Mark F. Rooker, ―Dating Isaiah 40–66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?‖ WTJ 58 (1996): 303–12. 39 Hurvitz, Linguistic Study; Rooker, Ezekiel. 40 LDBT, 1:134. 41 Ibid., 1:132–33. A rather strange element of the discussion is the insistence that Ezekiel should exhibit exilic Hebrew, when the book itself places almost all its material chronologically around the last days of the pre-exilic period.

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

101

5. IS 1QISAa IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW?42 It was probably statements by Kutscher that led scholars to think that 1QIsaa‘s linguistic profile represented a form of LBH. For example: ―the linguistic anomalies of I Isa a reflect the Hebrew and Aramaic currently spoken in Palestine toward the end of the Second Commonwealth,‖43 or: ―linguistically the Scroll is generally considered to be a popular version of Isaiah, reflecting the linguistic situation prevailing in Palestine during the last centuries before the Common Era.‖44 However, was my inference that this means that 1QIsaa is a form of Isaiah in ―LBH‖ correct? What is the degree of accumulation of so-called LBH features in 1QIsaa compared to parallel passages in MT Isaiah? I conducted three case studies. The first two were to investigate the same passages I already studied in their MT form above (Isa 3–5/ 5–6, and Isa 44– 46). Thirdly, I looked at a sample from the prose narrative in Isa 36–37 since it allowed me the possibility of not only comparing 1QIsaa with the MT Isaiah, but also to look at the parallel passage in MT Kings. 5.1. Isaiah 3–5/ 5–6 in 1QIsaa The samples from the various parts of 1QIsaa took me by surprise in how greatly they differed from each other. 1QIsa a of Isa 3–5 can be argued to add another four PCH forms to the ones found in the MT.45 However, I noticed that if I shifted my sample to take in For general treatments of 1QIsaa see Emanuel Tov, ―The Text of Isaiah at Qumran,‖ in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah Studies of an Interpretative Tradition (ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans; VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 491–511; Eugene Ulrich, ―Isaiah,‖ in EDSS 1:384–88; Paulson Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa (JSPSup 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Ulrich, ―Developmental Composition;‖ Flint, ―Isaiah;‖ Ulrich and Flint, Isaiah Scrolls, 59–95. 43 Kutscher, Isaiah, 3. 44 Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), 93. 45 1. Weyiqtol for future (MT: weqatal) in Isa 3:24; 4:3, 5; 5:5, 5 (but note the cautions about analysing verb forms in poetry above in note 27). 42

102

KETER SHEM TOV

some of the prose material at the beginning of chapter 6 (sample: Isa 5:1–6:8) what I found in one way almost fulfilled my long ago expectations about 1QIsaa. I found a further three PCH forms in Isa 6:1–846 to make a total of seven extra PCH forms in the parallel text in 1QIsaa. Given that the distance between the highest accumulation in a core SCH sample we found (eight in 1 Kings 22)47 is nine PCH forms away from the lowest PCH sample (17 in Esth 5–6),48 the addition of seven PCH forms in 1QIsaa 5–6 is almost enough to shift a text from the SCH end of the scale to the PCH end. However, since the Isaiah passage starts off so low, and one of the new forms is paralleled in the MT sample already and hence is not a new form, 49 we still only end up with an accumulation of ten PCH forms in this passage. This would place 1QIsaa at the high end of the SCH samples, and certainly very far from the accumulation in any PCH sample. The best analogy with 1QIsaa then, on the basis of its increased accumulation of PCH forms, would not be the PCH 2. Absence of ‫ נא‬in 5:1. Admittedly, this is only clearly visible in comparison with the MT, so perhaps should not count. However, comparison with parallel passages has typically been a key element in the identification of PCH features, see classic works such as Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen (BZAW 16; Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1909). 3. Wayyiqtol with long III–He in 5:2, 2, 4, 25. 4. Absence of cohortative in 5:5, 19 (and possibly again in 19 with the unusual third person cohortative ‫)יחישה‬. Again, since this would not be clearly visible without comparison with the MT maybe it should not count. The impression of a large number of PCH forms in this passage is created by repetitions of the same forms and by comparison with the MT in cases where 1QIsaa is probably still written in good SCH. 46 1. Name formed with –yah not –yahu in Isa 6:1. 2. Absence of weqatal for repetitive (1QIsaa has a participle) in 6:3. 3. Wa‘eqtlah (wayyiqtol with pseudo-cohortative) in 6:8. 47 LDBT, 1:134. 48 Ibid., 1:133. 49 The MT in Isa 6:1 has wayyiqtol with long III–He. Also note the absence of the unusual third person cohortative in 5:19 MT compared with 1QIsaa ‫ותרשבה‬.

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

103

books themselves with their much higher accumulations of these forms, but would possibly be MT Ezekiel in that both are prophetic books with slightly higher (but still SCH) accumulations of PCH forms. This analogy, however, opens up a major issue with how we interpret this data from 1QIsaa. Kutscher‘s detailed linguistic study was not really a work of textual criticism. In fact, it is clear that his working hypothesis was that MT Isaiah represented the original text of the book of Isaiah, and that therefore any variations in 1QIsaa were a change from the original text: ―two types of texts—an original, and one whose language has been modified.‖50 Kutscher, indeed, gives no clear indication that by ―original‖ he does not mean the text that substantially left the pen of Isaiah himself.51 The MT is ―the canonical text‖ (e.g., p.77), ―the standard text‖ (p.78), ―model texts‖ (p.82). In contrast, all other texts are ―vernacular‖ texts. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint (he generalizes from LXX Isaiah to all the LXX texts, p.74) are characterized by ―their uninhibited approach to the canonized text...scribal errors abound in all of them, [and] they all underwent conscious editing‖ (p.77). The MT is, in contrast, ―unanimously agreed at least to be of a more archaic type‖ (p.77). Even when he appears to accept that occasionally 1QIsaa might represent a superior reading to the MT, he provides several cautionary tales of how an apparently superior reading could be a later scribal smoothing of a rare, original form (pp. 32–38). The MT is ―the Bible,‖ which may be contrasted with Qumran and other biblical texts (p.50). The language of ―the Bible‖ (MT) is in detail the language of the time of Kutscher, Isaiah, 84. Note for example the comments of Hoegenhaven: ―However, Kutscher‘s presumptions are based, partly on a prejudiced confidence in MT, which he dates back so far that MT and proto-MT become practically identical, and partly on the presupposition that the scribe of 1QIsa was a more or less incompetent person with a pertinacious tendency to let his colloquial language influence his work on the Biblical text.‖ See Jesper Hoegenhaven, ―The First Isaiah Scroll From Qumran (1QIsa) and the Massoretic Text. Some Reflections With Special Regard to Isaiah 1–12,‖ JSOT 28 (1984): 25. 50 51

104

KETER SHEM TOV

the authors. Hence, for example, Kutscher can tell when the same linguistic form is being used as an archaism or as a late Aramaism because he knows that some compositions like Genesis, Deuteronomy or Samuel are the oldest biblical texts, while other compositions like Daniel are later, and in detail the language of the MT reflects the language of the original forms of these biblical compositions (see e.g. pp. 25, 26, 28, 43). Kutscher‘s approach, treating the MT as ―the Bible‖ and all other texts as deviations from it52 is at odds with the current consensus on the textual history of the biblical books, 53 however. Long ago, text critical scholars such as Emanuel Tov and Eugene Ulrich pointed out that the MT can no longer be taken as simply the original text, but is just a text like any other, with its own history of development behind it.54 Seen in this light, an important observation becomes evident to us that was obscured by Kutscher‘s manner of analysing the data. This is the very basic observation that 1QIsaa evidences that the language of the biblical texts was subject to sometimes massive change during their scribal transmission. Discussion of the language of particular biblical ―authors‖ has, following Kutscher, commonly proceeded on the assumption that the linguistic forms of the current texts (meaning almost always the MT) are, even in detail (such as a few PCH forms), identical with the linguistic forms that left the pen of those ―Since care was not taken to preserve these popular texts from all the various forms of corruption, they naturally came to differ from the Masoretic Text in many details‖ (p.79). 53 Tov, Textual Criticism. 54 ―However, one thing is clear, it should not be postulated that [the MT] better or more frequently reflects the original text of the biblical books than any other text‖ (Tov, Textual Criticism, 11–12). ―The MT of each book was more or less accurately copied from some text that existed in the Second Temple period, but the specific text form for many books was only one of the equally valued forms in which the text of that book existed in antiquity‖ (Eugene Ulrich, ―Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism,‖ in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods [ed. Maxine L. Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 155). 52

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

105

original authors.55 It can be seen how, in the light of the consensus that the text of biblical books was highly fluid in the BCE period, such an assumption seems extremely unlikely. The current texts most likely do not witness to the linguistic peculiarities of any original author and therefore the attempt to use these texts for purposes such as dating the composition of a particular work, or commenting on the stage of development of a particular linguistic form, are misguided. Thus, imagine the situation that 1QIsaa was the form of Isaiah that happened to be canonised in the Hebrew Scriptures. What would we say then about the language of the prophet Isaiah? Seen in this light the slightly unusual linguistic profile of MT Ezekiel need have nothing to do with the sixth century prophet Ezekiel, but may simply be a symptom of the textual history of MT Ezekiel, as has recently been argued by Johan Lust, an experienced text-critical specialist.56 5.2. Isaiah 44–46 in 1QIsaa The 1QIsaa parallel to the sample from Isa 44:24–46:7 took me by surprise. What I discovered was that in contrast to the quite notable addition of PCH forms in the sample from Isa 5–6, or even the original sample from Isa 3–5, I found only a single additional

To choose but one example, note Rooker‘s discussion of the spelling of ―David‖ in his article on Isaiah: ―In the book of Ezekiel, while the name ‫ ָדוִ ד‬occurs only four times, it is significant that one of these spellings is plene, identical to the pattern in the post-exilic works (34:23). Ezek 34:23 provides an early attestation to this trend, and we conclude that this tendency to write the name of ‫ ָדוִ יד‬as plene was beginning to increase in frequency in the exilic period‖ (Rooker, ―Isaiah,‖ 306). In other words, the MT of Ezekiel, even down to details such as the plene and defective spelling of individual words, reflects the exact wording that left the pen of Ezekiel himself. 56 Johan Lust, ―The Ezekiel Text,‖ in Sôfer Mahîr Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie van der Kooij and Richard D. Weis; VTSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 161–65. 55

106

KETER SHEM TOV

PCH feature in 1QIsaa of this passage!57 Thus the degree of linguistic variation is found to vary quite considerably between different sections of the text of 1QIsaa. This requires further study. Certainly it reveals that the seven extra PCH forms in my manipulated sample in Isa 5–6 are not typical of 1QIsaa as a whole. As a general observation, it has long been noted that linguistic variation in scribal transmission often has an unpredictable character to it.58 However, this is only part of the story. Whereas Kutscher‘s study in its several general statements might have given the impression that the linguistic movement was all one way, toward the addition of PCH forms, this is not the case. In this passage there are several linguistic variations, where the diachronic direction would indicate that it is the MT that has the ―later‖ linguistic form. For example, in classical scholarship on PCH it is suggested that late Hebrew has a tendency to construe collective nouns as plural more often than early Hebrew.59 In Isa 46:3 the MT uses a plural imperative in ―Listen to me, O house of Jacob,‖ whereas 1QIsaa has the singular verb with this collective. In late Hebrew the first person independent pronoun ‫ אני‬for ―I‖ is considered to predominate almost to the exclusion of the alternate Preference for ‫ על‬with the verb ‫ זער‬as a symptom of the general trend toward ‫ על‬in PCH in Isa 46:7 (see note 27). Note in addition in 46:7 that there is an interchange between the two forms for ―cry out‖ ‫ זער‬and ‫קער‬. 1QIsaa has the form with zayin, which is claimed to be preferred in late texts, although the evidence for this is extremely dubious (LDBT 2:104, 189; Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics), and ―preference for‖ categories need to be evident in more than isolated examples to count as PCH features (LDBT, 1:131). 58 Ian Young, ―The ‗Archaic‘ Poetry of the Pentateuch in the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch and 4QExodc,‖ Abr-Nahrain 35 (1998): 79–80; Emanuel Tov, ―The Coincidental Textual Nature of the Collections of Ancient Scriptures,‖ in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 164. 59 E.g., Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 40–42; cf. Ian Young, ―‗Am Construed as Singular and Plural in Hebrew Biblical Texts: Diachronic and Textual Perspectives,‖ ZAH 12 (1999): 48–82. 57

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

107

form ‫אנכי‬. In this passage, the MT uses ‫ אני‬commonly, but also has some cases of ‫ אנכי‬and therefore does not fit the late Hebrew profile. It is notable, however that in Isa 46:4 1QIsa a has the ―early‖ ‫ אנכי‬where the MT has the ―later‖ ‫אני‬. Finally, it is suggested that the long first person ―cohortative‖ verbal forms were not understood in late Hebrew, and thus were either dropped or used in the wrong context, such as with wayyiqtol forms.60 However, note that in Isa 46:4 1QIsa a has a correct use of the cohortative where MT Isaiah does not use this form. These three forms show that even in 1QIsaa the direction of linguistic movement is not uniformly in the direction of what are considered late Hebrew forms.61 I say ―even in 1QIsaa,‖ however, because it is my current judgement that 1QIsaa is somewhat unusual in the weight of its preference for PCH forms. But all this requires a much larger study than is possible here. The main point I would like to emphasize in the meantime, is the variable degree of linguistic variation in scribal transmission, and that variation is somewhat unpredictable in direction of movement between socalled early and late Classical Hebrew. 5.3. Isaiah 36–37 in 1QIsaa The prose narrative material in Isa 36:1−37:8 allows us to look at the linguistic profile of this passage in triple focus. This is because we not only have the MT and 1QIsaa texts of this passage, but also a parallel Hebrew text within the MT in the form of 2 Kgs 18:13−19:8.62 The comparison of these three texts reveals a See the references in LDBT, 2:168 (point 32 should read ―Increase‖ not ―Decrease‖). 61 That 1QIsaa evidences a number of linguistic forms that are typologically earlier than their MT equivalents is widely accepted, e.g., ―There can hardly be any doubt that in this respect 1QIsa represents a tradition older than that of the MT‖ (Hoegenhaven, ―Isaiah,‖ 21; see pp. 20–21 for comments on nouns, pronouns and verbal forms). 62 For the complicated relationship between the witnesses, including Greek Kings and Greek Isaiah, see Raymond F. Person Jr., The Kings— Isaiah and Kings—Jeremiah Recensions (BZAW 252; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997); idem, ―II Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39: A Text Critical Case 60

108

KETER SHEM TOV

complex pattern of distribution of PCH features. First, the sample from 2 Kgs 18−19 is found to have eight PCH linguistic features.63 This is roughly in line with other samples from narratives in the Former Prophets. Six PCH forms are found in samples from 1 Sam 13:1−14:9; 2 Sam 6:1–20a; 7:1–12; and 1 Kgs 2:1–29.64 In addition, however, we have the somewhat higher 1 Kgs 22:6–35 with eight PCH forms, just like 2 Kgs 18−19. Although not very different, we note by contrast the lower accumulations in the Pentateuchal narrative samples Gen 24:1–36 (J: three forms) and Exod. 6:2–12; 7:1–13; 9:8–12; 12:1–7b (P: just one form). 65 This raises the possibility that variations in the linguistic profile of narratives might Study in the Redaction History of the Book of Isaiah,‖ ZAW 111 (1999): 373–79. Unfortunately there is very little overlap with Chronicles in this section. 63 1. Temporal clause without ‫ ויהי‬in 2 Kgs 18:13. 2. Name formed with –yah not –yahu in 18:13. 3. Masculine plural for feminine plural suffix in ‫ ויתץשם‬in 18:13 (quite a verse!). 4. ‫― מן‬from‖ separate before a noun without definite article in 18:17. 5. Interchange of ‫אל‬/‫ על‬with verb ‫ בטח‬in 18:20, 21, 21, 22, 24, 30; and preference for ‫ על‬with ‫ שלח‬in 18:27. 6. Niphal for Qal passive of root ‫ נתן‬in 18:30. 7. Weqatal for past in ‫ והחשישו‬in 18:36. 8. ‫― נמקאה‬be present‖ in 19:4. On the borderline of inclusion was the high proportion of verbal suffixes compared to nonforced uses of ‫ את‬plus suffix (the second person plural suffix is generally considered to force the use of ‫אתכם‬, see 18:29, 30, 32, 32). If the word order has forced the use of ‫ את‬plus suffix in 19:6, then we would have a proportion of 10–1 in favour of verb suffixes, enough to count as an extra feature (LDBT, 1:131). However, I have judged the word order not to force the use of ‫ את‬plus suffix in this verse. Note also the absence of ‫ץן‬ ―lest‖ in 18:32 in comparison with the parallel with Isaiah, a very rare form in PCH books. Verses 14–16 were not included due to the lack of parallel with Isaiah, even though they include extra examples of PCH features. 64 For all these statistics see LDBT, 1:134–36. 65 The lowest sample. NB the lowest samples except J and the one from First Isaiah above are all in origin post-exilic, either certainly (Ben Sira [4] and Zechariah [3]), or according to widespread scholarly opinion (P; for the late dating of P see the survey of scholarly opinions in LDBT, 2:11–17; and Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics).

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

109

be related to the canonical history of the section in which they are found. This possibility is made even more likely when we move to the MT Isaiah parallel to the narrative in 2 Kgs 18−19. Whereas 2 Kings had a relatively high Former Prophets narrative accumulation of eight PCH forms, MT Isa 36−37 has a low accumulation of four PCH features.66 This number is in line with the somewhat lower accumulations attested in various prophetic books as discussed above in section 4 (cf. 2–4 PCH forms in Isa 3– 6; 5 PCH forms in Isa 44–46). However, while suggestive, the numbers are too small to make much of such variations. Note the way that the First Isaiah sample could vary by several forms by just manipulating the sample passage. It is better to remain focused on the significant distance between SCH passages (up to ten) and PCH passages (17−25). Finally, 1QIsaa behaves more according to expectations in this passage by adding a number of PCH linguistic features, albeit only three. 67 This means that 1QIsaa‘s total, seven PCH features, is less than the eight in synoptic MT Kings. In this passage, therefore, 1QIsaa has less ―late‖ linguistic features than ―early‖ Kings. What I would like to emphasize from this case study is how unstable are the linguistic features in the witnesses to this text. Both the 1QIsaa text and MT Kings share the PCH linguistic forms

1. Masculine plural referring to feminine plural (cities) in ‫ ויתץשם‬in Isa 36:13. 2. Interchange of ‫אל‬/‫ על‬with ‫( בטח‬36:5, 6, 6, 7, 9, 15); with ‫ עלה‬both prepositions in the same verse in verse 10; and with ‫ שלח‬both prepositions in the same verse in verse 12. 3. Niphal for Qal passive of root ‫ נתן‬in 36:15. 4. ‫― נמקאה‬be present‖ in 37:4. Note the comment about verb suffixes in 2 Kings above note 63 for another potential PCH form (all are parallel). In addition, comparison with the parallel in Kings brings out another form which occasionally is mentioned as a feature of PCH in 36:18, where Isaiah does not have the paranomastic infinitive absolute of 2 Kgs 18:33. 67 1. Yah names (Isa 36:1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 22; 37:1, 2, 3). 2. Weqatal for past in ‫( והחשישו‬36:21). 3. Word order: Hezekiah the king, rather than ―the king Hezekiah‖ (37:1). 66

110

KETER SHEM TOV

of MT Isaiah,68 but both add a number of extra forms to this. However, these PCH forms only partially overlap with each other. Two forms are shared in common, while 1QIsa a has one form not shared with Kings, and Kings a further two not shared with 1QIsaa.69 Thus of the nine different categories of PCH forms in these three texts, only four (44%) are shared between all texts.70 Other cases of parallel texts indicate, however, that this is in fact a relatively high degree of overlap between parallel texts in these linguistic features. For example the ―early‖ 1 Kgs 22:6–35 is parallel to ―late‖ 2 Chron 18:5–34. Quite contrary to expectations ―LBH‖ Chronicles has fewer ―LBH‖ features than ―EBH‖ Kings (7 vs 8). Furthermore, only three PCH features are shared in common, each text more than doubling its accumulation of PCH features, but in different ways.71 In this passage, therefore, leaving aside the common use of verb suffixes (the third shared PCH feature), of the other 15 linguistic forms involved in these PCH features of both texts (counting multiple attestations of the same phenomenon), only two (13%) are shared between both texts. Another example is 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18, both ―Early‖ poetic passages. Both have six PCH linguistic features, but none precisely overlap between the two texts. 72 Each text has two categories of

Although Isaiah exhibits some examples of ‫אל‬/‫ על‬confusion not paralleled in Kings. 69 Shared: 1. Name formed with –yah not –yahu in 2 Kgs 18:13, and in 1QIsaa 36:1. 2. Weqatal for past in 2 Kgs 18:36, and 1QIsaa 36:21. Unique to 1QIsaa: 1. Word order: Hezekiah the king, rather than ―the king Hezekiah‖ (37:1). Unique to MT Kings: 1. Temporal clause without ‫ ויהי‬in 2 Kgs 18:13. 2. ‫― מן‬from‖ separate before a noun without definite article in 18:17. 70 If one counted individual linguistic variants in this case, the ubiquitous use of –yah names in 1QIsaa would lead the proportion to be in the order of four shared features out of 21 forms or just 19%. 71 LDBT, 1:134, 137, 353–58 72 See the data in LDBT, 1:135 68

―LOOSE‖ LANGUAGE IN 1QISAa*

111

PCH forms not shared by the other text. 73 Furthermore, the other features are only partially shared. Thus, the non-assimilation of ‫מן‬ ―from‖ before a noun without the definite article is found in verse 14 of 2 Sam 22, but in verses 4 and 49 of Ps 18. The phenomenon of pluralisation of words normally singular is shared by both texts in verses 22 and 48, but 2 Samuel has an additional example in verse 49. 2 Sam 22 is absent a cohortative in verse 50, while Ps 18 is absent one in verse 38. Finally, both texts have a strong preference for verb suffixes, but 2 Sam 22 has two examples of ‫את‬ plus suffix (verses 1 and 20), whereas Ps 18 has only one (verse 1). In this text, therefore, leaving aside the common use of verbal suffixes, of the other 14 linguistic forms involved in these PCH features of both texts (counting multiple attestations of the same phenomena), only three (21%) are shared by both texts,74 and one of them, the use of the object marker ‫ את‬plus suffix, is hardly an uncommon feature of biblical texts. Of the non-standard PCH features, therefore, we have only 2/13 = 15% shared by both texts. The evidence within the MT itself from parallel passages indicates the high instability of the linguistic features of the biblical texts. The picture derived from the MT is abundantly confirmed from non-MT biblical texts such as 1QIsaa and other Qumran texts.75 Given this evident instability it is extremely unlikely that we are able to make the precise statements that have often been made by scholars in the past on the basis of the MT about the language of the authors of the texts (and hence for many scholars, precise statements about the date of their composition).

6. CONCLUSION: I WAS WRONG! At the end of this study of the evidence of the texts, I end up by concluding that what I used to think about MT Isaiah and 1QIsa a was completely wrong. Unique categories to 2 Samuel 22: 1. Wayyiqtol with long III–He (22:24); 2. Wa‘eqtlah (wayyiqtol with pseudo-cohortative) (22:24). Unique categories to Psalm 18: 1. Preference for ‫( על‬18:42); 2. ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ – (18:46). 74 I.e., two examples of pluralisation, and one case of ‫ את‬plus suffix. 75 Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics. 73

112

KETER SHEM TOV

There are of course ―LBH‖ (PCH) linguistic features in First Isaiah: every text so far investigated has them (hence we should stop calling them ―late‖). There is no indication in the second part of Isaiah of any obvious transition towards a ―LBH.‖ In fact, as I suggested earlier, no such transition occurred if it is meant that the language of a book like Ezra was the normal (or only) sort of Hebrew in the post-exilic period. SCH, which mostly stuck to a core of linguistic forms and mostly avoided the linguistic features so characteristic of the PCH books, continued as the standard literary Hebrew right down to Qumran Hebrew. Finally, 1QIsa a is not in ―Late Biblical Hebrew.‖ It certainly does have the tendency to have more forms in common with the PCH books, but this ranges from nearly significant to almost none at all. No sample passage from 1QIsaa exhibited a linguistic profile anything like the PCH books of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. It is true that there is some drift in the direction of PCH forms, but this is not uniform, with cases of drift toward SCH also found. 1QIsaa is unique in its state of preservation. It may also be unique in its degree of drift towards PCH. However, the degree of this drift, on the basis of the case studies presented here, seems to have been greatly overestimated, and the significance of the high instability of the linguistic features of all ancient biblical manuscripts—evidenced by 1QIsaa—has not been correctly appreciated.

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE QUMRAN AND MASADA BIBLICAL SCROLLS IN THE LIGHT OF NEW DATA. A NOTE IN LIGHT OF THE ALAN CROWN FESTSCHRIFT* Ian Young A Festschrift for Alan Crown was published in 2005 under the title: Feasts and Fasts A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown. My contribution to that Festschrift was the article ―The Biblical Scrolls From Qumran and the Masoretic Text: A Statistical Approach.‖ 1 In that article I published a complete statistical survey of all the Second Temple period biblical manuscripts from the Judean Desert in comparison with the Masoretic Text (MT) of the Leningrad Codex (L). Among the conclusions reached in that study was that *

Thanks are due to Greg Doudna and Ian Hutchesson for commenting on, and improving, earlier drafts of this article. Thanks are also due to Yair Hoffman for asking the questions that led to its writing in the first place. The views expressed, and any errors, are of course my own responsibility. 1 Ian Young, ―The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text: A Statistical Approach,‖ in Feasts and Fasts A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David Crown (ed. Marianne Dacy, Jennifer Dowling and Suzanne Faigan; Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 11; Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2005), 81–139. The article is available for download on http://usyd.academia.edu/IanYoung.

113

114

KETER SHEM TOV

the contrast between the fluidity of biblical manuscripts from the BCE period (Qumran, cf. the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint) and the stability of manuscripts from the CE era (the MT, related texts from the Judean Desert, and translations such as the Targumim, Aquila, etc.) not only involves the end of different literary editions of biblical passages, and of significant individual variants, but also can be seen in the drastic reduction of the volume of minor variants.2 The article in the Alan Crown Festschrift developed the statistical approach to analyzing manuscript variation already used in an earlier article. The earlier article argued that ―[t]he Masada corpus of biblical texts is sharply different from the Qumran biblical texts.‖3 To support that contention I provided statistics relating to those books of the Hebrew Bible found at Masada— Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel and Psalms. The Alan Crown Festschrift article provides a great deal more relevant data for this discussion, and corrects some of the earlier data. However, despite noting that the ―argument of that paper is strengthened by the full statistics presented here,‖4 I did not spend any time summarizing the main points where the new data was relevant. The purpose of this short article is therefore to summarize the relevance of the full presentation of the data in the Alan Crown Festschrift for the argument that the assemblage of biblical texts at Qumran and Masada are in sharp contrast. There are five biblical manuscripts from Masada which preserve a significant amount of text. By a ―significant‖ amount of See also Ian Young, ―Textual Stability in Gilgamesh and the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in Gilgamesh and the World of Assyria Proceedings of the Conference Held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21–23 July 2004 (ed. Joseph Azize and Noel Weeks; ANESSup 21; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 173–84. 3 Ian Young, ―The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge For Conventional Qumran Chronology?‖ DSD 9 (2002): 364–90; quote from p. 379. Cited approvingly, and in detail, in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 29 with note 10. 4 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 118. 2

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE QUMRAN AND MASADA 115 text I mean at least 50 fully or partially preserved words. Examination of better preserved Qumran manuscripts demonstrates that a sample of such a size is likely to give an accurate indication of the nature of the manuscript as a whole. 5 The so-called Masada manuscript of Genesis is thereby excluded since it contains only 11 partially or completely preserved words. It is not possible on this basis to decide whether it is a copy of Genesis or of a Genesis apocryphon (it was previously considered a copy of Jubilees6 and exhibits three minor variants against Genesis in codex L). If a copy of Genesis, we cannot confidently extrapolate from this small sample to the nature of the manuscript as a whole. Even some medieval manuscripts, long after the stabilization of the biblical text, exhibit clusterings of a few minor variants against codex L in a short sample of text, but this clustering is atypical of the manuscript as a whole.7 Thus, for example, Kennicott‘s manuscript 30 registers three variants against codex L in 16 words in 1 Sam 1:9–11, and two within four words in 1 Sam 2:23, yet these proportions of words to variants are quite foreign to the manuscript as a whole.8 Also excluded is the second Psalms manuscript from Masada, MasPsb which has only 29 words. Of the five significantly preserved Masada manuscripts, it is striking that three of them have no variants against the MT of codex L at all. MasLeva has 61 words, MasLevb 456 words, and MasDeut has 69 words. Likewise, there are three biblical manuscripts from Qumran with 50 or more preserved words, and no variants. However, in stark contrast to the Masada evidence, these three are drawn from a total of 108 Qumran manuscripts with 50 or more words. In other words, at Masada three-fifths of

Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 82, 108–12. Shemaryahu Talmon, ―Fragments of Scrolls from Masada‖ (Hebrew), ErIsr 20 (Sefer Yigael Yadin) (1989): 281–83. 7 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 119–22; cf. Young, ―Stabilization,‖ 371. 8 Benjamin Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionibus (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1776–1780); cf. Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 119–20. 5 6

116

KETER SHEM TOV

the biblical manuscripts with 50 or more words have no variants, or 60%, whereas at Qumran only 2.8% have no variants. 9 All the manuscripts containing no variants are Torah manuscripts. If one only considers manuscripts of the Pentateuch, the contrast between Masada and Qumran is still stark. Three out of three or 100% of the Masada Torah manuscripts with 50 or more words have no variants, whereas only three out of the 46 Qumran Torah manuscripts with 50 or more words have no variants, or a bare 6.5%.10 The absence of variants in the Masada Leviticus and Deuteronomy manuscripts links them to the Torah manuscripts from all the other Judean desert sites outside Qumran, which are usually considered to have been deposited in the context of the Bar Kochba revolt c.135 CE, i.e., Wadi Murabba‗at, Nahal Hever, Nahal Se‘elim and Wadi Sdeir. The three Qumran manuscripts with 50 or more words and no variants consist of two copies of Genesis—4QGenb (357 words) and 4QGend (72 words)—and one of Deuteronomy— 4QDeutg (133 words). In contrast to the two Masada manuscripts of Leviticus, none of the eight Qumran Leviticus manuscripts with 50 or more words has no variants.11 In regard to the longest Qumran manuscript with no variants, 4QGenb, the editor has raised the possibility that it in fact does not originate from Qumran at all, but from another Judean desert site.12 This may raise concerns about other Qumran manuscripts as well.13 Even setting these concerns aside, it may be significant that two of the three Qumran manuscripts without variants are copies of Genesis. In Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 104. Ibid., 112–13. 11 Ibid., 87–88. 12 James R. Davila, ―4QGenb,‖ in Eugene Ulrich et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. VII. Genesis to Numbers (DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 31. In addition to the unusual closeness to the MT, Davila points out that the leather is coarse and poorly prepared, unusual for Qumran; the script is typologically late; and that no fragment of 4QGenb has been identified among photographs of fragments recovered in controlled excavations from Qumran Cave 4. 13 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 84–85. 9

10

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE QUMRAN AND MASADA 117 regard to Genesis at Qumran I concluded that ―the Genesis manuscripts from Qumran display a notable degree of stability, by and large, compared with the rest of the Qumran corpus‖14 and ―[t]he text of Genesis overall at Qumran is atypically similar to the MT.‖15 MT-like copies of Genesis are therefore less impressive than the MT-like Leviticus manuscripts from Masada. The lack of variants in the Masada Deuteronomy is also more significant than the Qumran evidence from the same book given that the majority of the preserved text of Masada Deuteronomy is material from the textually volatile poem in Deuteronomy chapter 33.16 Contrast, for example, 4QDeuth, with 16 variants in 111 words of Deut 33, or one every 6.9 words. The Qumran Deuteronomy text with no variants, 4QDeutg, contains material from the middle sections of the book.17 Non-Torah manuscripts of the Bar Kochba era from outside Qumran do exhibit variants against the MT of Codex L. However, these occur much less commonly than in the same books from Qumran.18 The other two significantly preserved biblical manuscripts from Masada are copies of Ezekiel and Psalms. In my study in the Alan Crown Festschrift I resurveyed all the material covered in my earlier study. This brought about a refinement of my criteria, which in turn led to a revision of the number of variants accepted for both MasEzek and MasPsa.19 In both cases the contrast of Masada and Qumran copies of these books becomes even clearer with the new statistics. Both MasEzek and MasPsa have a lower concentration of variants than any Qumran manuscript of those books. In other Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 84. Ibid., 85. 16 Young, ―Stabilization,‖ 376. 17 Deut 9:12–14; 23:18–20; 24:16–22; 25:1–5, 14–19; 26:1–5; 28:21–25, 27–29. 18 For statistics relating to MurXII and 5/6HevPs see Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 97–99. 19 Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 82, 134 nn. 36, 40. The criteria and my methodology are set forth in detail on pp. 81–82, 128–29, and hence it is possible, for anyone who wishes, to check my data. 14 15

118

KETER SHEM TOV

words they exhibit a higher proportion of words to variants. The Masada Ezekiel manuscript has 489 preserved words, and five variants, an average of 97.8 words for each variant. Of the three Ezekiel manuscripts from Qumran with 50 or more words, two have proportions in the 20‘s: 4QEzek a (28.4) and 4QEzekb (22.0). Even 11QEzek (58.0) which has the highest proportion of words to variants of any of the 21 Qumran Latter Prophets manuscripts with 50 or more words, has a proportion significantly lower than MasEzek.20 In fact, not only is MasEzek different to every Qumran Ezekiel manuscript, and to every Qumran Latter Prophets manuscript, it has a higher ratio of words to variants than any Qumran non-Torah manuscript. The vast majority of Qumran Psalms manuscripts have very low proportions of words to variants. In other words, they display significant clusterings of variants. Of the 13 Qumran Psalms manuscripts with 50 or more words preserved, eight have fewer than 20 words per variant and, of these eight, six have an average of less than ten words per variant. In this context, the fact that MasPsb has 29 words and no variants, even though it is not counted as a significantly preserved manuscript, already marks it out as, at the very least, unusual in comparison with the Qumran Psalms manuscripts. MasPsa has four variants in its 284 words or a proportion of 71.0 words per variant. As with MasEzek this is higher than any Qumran Psalms manuscript. Further, this proportion may be due to special circumstances, since all but one of the variants occur in Ps 83:7–14. The rest of the manuscript contains over 200 words with only one variant.21 Even 71 words per variant, the lowest Masada proportion, is higher than all but one of the 62 Qumran non-Torah manuscripts with 50 or more words.22 In conclusion, at every point of comparison, the Masada biblical texts strongly contrast with the Qumran biblical texts. This phenomenon demands explanation, given that according to Young, ―Biblical Scrolls,‖ 97. Ibid., 98–100. 22 2QRutha has a slightly higher proportion of 75.0 words per variant (two variants in 150 words). 20 21

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE QUMRAN AND MASADA 119 scholarly consensus the Qumran (68 CE) and Masada (73 CE) texts were deposited at virtually the same time. The Masada biblical texts differ fundamentally in their character from the Qumran biblical texts. Instead, the Masada texts bear a much closer similarity to the texts deposited in the Bar Kochba era in that they display Torah texts without variants against the MT of Codex L, and non-Torah texts with proportionately less variants than any Qumran texts of the same books. The explanation of the contrast between Qumran and Masada, I have argued, is found in the theories of G. L. Doudna and I. Hutchesson that the Qumran scrolls were deposited in the caves in the first century BCE, not 68 CE.23 A first century BCE dating would seem to be the easiest explanation for the lack of explicit references in the Qumran scrolls to historical events and people later than that date. Likewise, chronological distance would provide a convincing explanation for the difference between the Masada and Qumran biblical texts outlined here. I thus end this paper with the challenge with which I ended my 2002 paper: ―If the Qumran and Masada scrolls represent two deposits of the Biblical texts in circulation during the second half of the first century CE, why are they of such utterly different natures?‛24

Young, ―Stabilization,‖ and the article in this volume, ―‗Loose Language‘ in 1QIsaa,‖ 89–112, at 90, n.3. It should be noted that Alan Crown was one of the first to see the strength of this new approach to the Qumran scrolls, and approvingly discussed it on pages 4–5 of his own iconoclastic work on the Scrolls: Alan David Crown, ―An Alternative View of Qumran,‖ in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Moshe Florentin; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005), 1*–24*. 24 Young, ―Stabilization,‖ 387. 23

PART 3. RECEPTION OF SCRIPTURE IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

121

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN BEHIND THE HABAKKUK COMMENTARY (1QPHAB) Stephen Llewelyn, Stephanie Ng, Gareth Wearne and Alexandra Wrathall 1. INTRODUCTION Moshe Bernstein1 asks the provocative question whether our understanding of the Qumran documents would be different if they had been discovered in a different order. As he observes: Too much weight is placed on 1QpHab as a model, on the existence of two kinds of pesharim (i.e., ―continuous‖ and ―thematic‖), and on the need for pesharim to behave rather monolithically.2

The problem in sequencing of evidence is not one of which the historian is unaware; for the order in which evidence is adduced defines the questions we ask of the next piece of evidence; a hypothesis constructed on available evidence requires testing in light of emerging evidence. Bernstein, of course, directs his question to the use of introductory formulae in the pesharim and Moshe J. Bernstein, ―The Introductory Formulas for Citations and Re-citations of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique,‖ DSD 1 (1994): 30–33. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of ancient texts are our own. 2 Bernstein, ‚The Introductory Formulas,‛ 63. 1

123

124

KETER SHEM TOV

regrets the skewing of analysis by the earlier publication of 1QpHab. The present analysis will avoid the criticism by consciously focusing only on the scribe of 1QpHab without postulating a more general scribal practice behind the pesharim as a whole.

2. DESCRIPTION The Commentary on Habakkuk possesses unique textual and physical features. Spanning 13 columns, the text is written on ruled parchment and suffers deterioration along the base of the entire scroll and across the first two columns. Written in distinct Herodian script, the text is legible, interspaced with vacats, 11 crosses (we discount the mark at 1QpHab 9:16 as too uncertain) and a single ‘aleph located in col. 2. The same scribe has written the first twelve columns of 1QpHab and 11QTb (11Q20).3 A change in scribal hand occurs in 1QpHab 12:13. It is at this point that textual features such as vacats and crosses cease. Comprised of two separate pieces of parchment, the two halves of the scroll are linked at the borders of cols. 7 and 8. The pieces of parchment have right and left margins and lines are ruled. In the second parchment the lines are ruled to the top of the page indicating that it was cut to be joined to the first piece. The left margin appears to operate only as a guide, as sentences occasionally continue a letter or two into the margin. The end of the scroll is indicated at col. 13, which finishes half way down the column, leaving a ruled space at the base. Furthermore, there is surviving parchment attached to the end of the scroll indicating a blank col. 14. Upon initial observation, it is not immediately clear whether both parchment pieces consisted of 17 written lines. Extensive deterioration across the base of the manuscript makes identifying So Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: (11Q2–18, 11Q20–31) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 364, and Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 23. 3

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

125

the exact number of ruled lines difficult. As well, a comparison between columns 7 and 8 shows that the lines do not exactly match up due to the difference in width of the first lines in each parchment. Yet calculation of the space required for the lemma at the base of col. 7 (col. 8 begins with ‫ )ץששו‬indicates that both pieces of parchment were written on 17 lines. Bilhah Nitzan4 makes a similar calculation based on the space needed at the end of col. 12 to contain two verses of Habakkuk. Additionally, a distinct lack of cramping in the handwriting as the scribe moves from col. 1 through 7 further suggests that the scribe was not concerned to try to fit the work onto the first piece of parchment.

3. PAST INTERPRETATIONS Before starting there are a number of considerations that will bear on our discussion. First, it is important to distinguish between the scribal practices of the author, the copying scribe(s) and the reader(s). Vacats and the use of paleo-Hebrew script for the tetragrammaton are clearly scribal, though it is not always clear whether these derive from the author or his copyist(s). On the other hand, the use of the cross and the paragraphing siglum may derive from the scribe or the reader. 5 Second, 1QpHab is only extant in one copy, but it does not follow from this that it is an autograph. Indeed, other pesharim are extant in multiple copies or versions (i.e., five of Isaiah and perhaps two of Hosea, with 4QpIsaa and 4QpIsac also overlapping in passages from chapter 10) so it is not out of the question that multiple versions of the Habakkuk pesher were in circulation. Indications that 1QpHab is a copy are: (a) the changed hand at 1QpHab 12:13; (b) the alleged mistaken copying of a scribal sign, e.g., ‘aleph for cross (1QpHab 2:5);6 and (c) the instance of haplography (1QpHab 7:1).7 Third, Bilhah Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk A Scroll From the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab) (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986), 1–2. 5 Tov, Scribal Practices, 179, argues that most of the scribal marks are probably inserted not by the writer (original scribe) but either by subsequent scribes or readers. 6 Tov, Scribal Practices, 28, 209–10 and 258. The difficulty with this hypothesis with regard to the ‘aleph is that (a) the scribe did not recognize 4

126

KETER SHEM TOV

scribal practices may not be used consistently, either by intent or mistake, and even if used consistently, the scribal policy may not appear obvious or logical to us. That said, it is reasonable to assume the greatest degree of scribal consistency in texts copied by the same individual. In other words, one expects some consistency in scribal choices between 1QpHab and 11QTb (11Q20) as both have the same scribe. 3.1. The Crosses Eleven or twelve crosses appear in the text of 1QpHab—the number depends on how one reads the fragmentary end of 1QpHab 9:16; eight or nine are in pesher sections and three in lines with a scriptural citation or lemma (1QpHab 3:14; 6:12; 9:13). Their interpretation is problematic.8 Emanuel Tov observes of the the mark in his Vorlage, though elsewhere he correctly uses the practice; and (b) it assumes that at this point the Vorlage had the same line division, a feature that is problematic given that column dimensions varied and were not standardised. See Tov, Scribal Practices, 29. 7 H. Gregory Snyder, ―Naughts and Crosses: Pesher Manuscripts and their Significance for Reading Practices at Qumran,‖ DSD 7 (2000): 40, and Gregory L. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition (JSPSup 35; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 43–44, adduce a number of factors to suggest that the scribes were copying and not composing and with this we would agree. 8 It is interesting to note the similarity between the ―crosses‖ of 1QpHab and the shape of the paleo-Hebrew tav. In the Hebrew Scriptures the paleo-Hebrew tav is used in several contexts as an identifying mark (Job 31:35; Ezek 9:4, 6, note also the occurrence of the verb ‫ תוה‬in the piel in 1 Sam 21:14). This raises the interesting possibility that the crosses have some special semiotic significance relating to the archaic tav. However, as this significance is necessarily derived either from the cross‘ relationship to something within the text or external to it, there is no a priori way to determine its meaning. That being said, one intriguing possibility does present itself in relation to the singular use of the ‘aleph in 2:5. That is, it may be that the scribe initially intended to mark his text with an ‘aleph, but later changed his method in favor of the paleo-Hebrew tav in order to alleviate any potential confusion, i.e., with the marker being

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

127

marginal scribal marks: ―These signs probably direct attention to certain details in the text or to certain pericopes, but they may also refer to the reading by the Qumran covenanters of certain passages, especially in the case of 1QIsa a.‖9 In other words, the marks might draw the attention of the reader to issues and/or to passages of sectarian interest. The cross is one such sign that can ―draw attention to certain words, lines, sections, or issues to the left of the sign.‖10 But Tov does not extend this interpretation to the crosses in 1QpHab11 which he views as line fillers indicating that ―the space at the end of the line was not to be taken as a section marker.‖12 He gives the same explanation for the two crosses on the left hand margin of 11QTb (11Q20) and perhaps 4Q252 I 4.13 The reason for differentiating the crosses in 1QpHab accidentally read as part of the text. Nonetheless, until such time as further information comes to light this suggestion must remain speculative. See further Charlotte Hempel, ―Sources and Redaction in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Growth of Ancient Texts,‖ in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls. An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. Maxine L. Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 167–168, for the use of paleo-Hebrew letters in the margins of 1QS 5:1 (waw), 8:1 (zayin and unknown character) and 9:3 (zayin and samekh). Here also their significance remains something of a mystery, though it is suggested by Hempel that they may indicate the juncture of texts (5:1) or perhaps an important passage (8:1 and 9:3). In anticipation of our own hypothesis adduced below we merely note the occurrences of these scribal signs at the top or near the top of three columns 9 Tov, Scribal Practices, 206, 265–66. Besides 1QIsaa Tov argues that the cross designates matters of special interest in documents following the Qumran scribal practice in 4QCatena A (4Q177), and 4QInstrc (4Q417) as well. 10 Tov, Scribal Practices, 208. 11 1QpHab shares the use of the cross as a line filler with two other mss, 4QCommGen A (4Q252) and 11QTb (11Q20). The latter ms is said to be by the hand of the same scribe, cf. fn 3. 12 Tov, Scribal Practices, 209. 13 So García Martínez et al., DJD 23:364: ―The X may indicate that the sentence continues, and that the blank space at the end of the line is not a vacat.‖ Tov, Scribal Practices, 265, expresses some doubt over the reading of

128

KETER SHEM TOV

and 11QTb from other such scribal marks is that the crosses in these two MSS appear not to the right but to the left of the text. If so, it is not the sign itself that is determinative of its function but its position in relation to the text.14 It is interesting to observe a slight definitional difference between Tov and Snyder, the latter insisting that the crosses are not those of ―true line fillers‖ but rather a visual cue to the ―textual performance.‖ Continuing his theory that the text possesses indicators of performance, Snyder instead considers the crosses to function as ―line joiners,‖ a symbol of continued reading. The crosses supposedly function as an indicator to the reader that there should be no break in his reading.15 Whether one chooses to view the cross from the perspective of writing (Tov) or reading (Snyder), the interpretation remains problematic on a number of fronts:

the cross in 4Q252. In 11QTb (11Q20) the two crosses strangely occur in adjacent columns and at the same line number (4:9 and 5:9) which would make them presumably at the same distance down the page. See below for an interpretation of this feature. 14 There is only one sign in 1QpHab that functions like the cross in other mss and that is the stroke to the right of 4:12. See Tov, Scribal Practices, 209. In 1QpHab indications of paragraphs are usually associated with an open or closed section break (ibid., 264). 15 Snyder, ―Naughts and Crosses,‖ 42–43. Snyder comments on the harsh penalties given to the misreading of the Torah in the Qumran community, and insists that the signs are textual indicators to prevent misreading. Cf. ―Perhaps the reader, or at least some readers, were similarly unable to take in more than one or two words at a time‖ (ibid., 43) and ―Perhaps the language in question was familiar enough that it would not have caused a reader to stumble‖ (ibid., 44). Furthermore, Snyder suggests that the crosses may also function as a ―reader beware‖ symbol, indicating a complicated sentence, and to distinguish one sentence from another (ibid., 44). Yet there are few examples that support this theory, with many of the sentences surrounding the crosses appearing no more challenging or complicated that sentences that do not end with a cross. Additionally, if the presence of the crosses was to support the reading of the text, why is the practice not more extensively attested?

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN i.

ii. iii.

iv.

129

Tov‘s interpretation of the crosses as line fillers is based on a scribal practice in later-dated legal documents from Nahal Hever which do not conform to Qumran scribal practice.16 Further, when Tov states: ―Writing of symbols and letters as line-fillers, especially in the papyri of Nahal Hever, in order to create a straight left edge to the column,‖17 he seems to confuse their effect (justified left margin) with their function (to eliminate later tampering with the agreement). However, the comparison with the legal texts is informative, if only in a negative way; for it alerts us to the regularity of the use of the cross as a line filler where there is a blank at the end of a line. This is not the case with 1QpHab. The irregular usage in the pesher argues against its interpretation as a line filler. As observed by the editors, the use of the crosses is not consistently applied even within the same column, nor 11QTb (11Q20). The use of the cross at 1QpHab 3:14 where the blank properly stands before the ‫( ץששו‬assuming the reading is correct) argues against the interpretation. Doudna18 argues that this is a scribal mistake but his whole argument for the occurrence of crosses is premised on the assumption that they are used as line fillers, a premise which we find difficult to accept. The cross can stand in the text where the scribe or reader should not expect a sense break or pause. Its presence is redundant. The best examples are found at 1QpHab 10:3 and 12:2, where ‫ את‬is followed by a cross separating it from the direct object that it marks. But cf. also 1QpHab 4:11 and 8:1. Snyder19 observes the problem in his theory

Tov, Scribal Practices, 209. Snyder refers to the crosses found in the legal documents pap 5/6Hev 44 and 45 as true line fillers. Here, the function of the crosses is to ensure that later edits and comments are not made to legal documents. 17 Tov, Scribal Practices, 108. 18 Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 238–40. 19 Snyder, ―Naughts and Crosses,‖ 45. 16

130

KETER SHEM TOV with 1QpHab 10:3 and 12:2, but appeals to the incompetence of the ancient reader to explain it.

3.2. The Vacats The employment of paragraphing in modern texts functions as the visual cue of a larger sense unit by grouping one or more sentences under a governing idea or concept. The sentence may be the minimal unit of meaning but such units of meaning are themselves organized by the paragraph. Thought is thereby organised and structured. In the Qumran texts vacats appear to carry the same function, as Tov observes: ―in Qumran texts of all types, this system of sense division was the rule rather than the exception.‖20 This might all be well and good for the division of many Qumran texts into larger sense units, but it is not the case for 1QpHab. Here there is something odd in the way divisions are made. The text is a continuous commentary that divides the text of Hab 1–2 into smaller sections or lemmata, each of variable length, and then offers an interpretation on each. The structure is thus: lemma, interpretation, lemma, interpretation, lemma, interpretation, etc. The sense units are clear enough and one would reasonably expect paragraphing to occur in either of two ways, namely, (a) after each lemma and each interpretation, or (b) after each lemma and its interpretation.21 However, what we find is each lemma divided, either by a vacat or by the end of a line, from its interpretation but itself directly appended to the interpretation of the previous lemma up until 1QpHab 12:7 when all paragraphing ceases. In other Tov, Scribal Practices, 143. The second type of paragraphing is irregularly followed by the scribe of 4QpPsa. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 240–43, suggests a mechanical use of vacats for every second pesher-lemma transition but finds 5 exceptions which he terms ―mistakes.‖ Snyder, ―Naughts and Crosses,‖ 36, adds 4QpIsaa to the pesharim that mark the pesher-lemma transition, in this case by an open line. The first type of paragraphing is occasionally found in 4QpNah where according to Doudna‘s analysis every lemma-pesher transition gets a short vacat and every third pesherlemma transition gets a long vacat (ibid. 243–50). But again there are exceptions. 20 21

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

131

words, the interpretation of the previous lemma and the following lemma form one unit of division. This is not a sense division at all! How does one explain this? Snyder‘s theory regarding the vacats focuses heavily on the ―performance‖ and ―score‖ of the text where the scribe purportedly establishes gaps to render the text ―more suitable for performance purposes.‖22 As he observes: ―What is the function of this space? Obviously, in nearly all cases, it marks a semantic division in the text. Beyond this, however, it also prompts a corresponding ‗mark‘ of some kind in the oral text produced by the reader.‖ 23 Unfortunately, there are no prior or additional indicators to suggest that oral delivery required visual cues. One also asks why the pesher-lemma transitions were not marked. Bernstein notes that with continuous pesharim there is perhaps no need for an introductory formula for a citation from the prophetic base text.24 Can this observation be extended in some way to explain the lack of a division before each lemma? Unfortunately to do so would be to confuse ―sense division‖ with ―introductory formula.‖ The fact that no introductory formula is needed bears little on the question of why the conspicuous pesherlemma semantic division has been omitted. Tov observes: ―It is probably safer to assume that the scribes often directed their attention to the type of relation between the unit they had just copied and that they were about to copy, without forming an opinion on the adjacent units.‖25 He further speaks of the ―context relevance of the spacing‖ in the pesharim.26 This may Snyder, ―Naughts and Crosses,‖ 40. Snyder, ‚Naughts and Crosses,‛ 38. 24 Bernstein, ―The Introductory Formulas,‖ 34, 66–68. The same may not be the case when a quotation from another biblical book is cited or when the pesher is not continuous or thematic. Unfortunately little regularity is found across the pesharim. 25 Tov, Scribal Practices, 144. For a description of significance of type of section breaks see especially 145–49. 26 Tov, Scribal Practices, 149, 152. Previously Tov had spoken of the divisions being ―impressionistic‖ and ―ad hoc‖ as the scribes were not ―actively involved in content analysis‖ (ibid., 144) but it is unclear whether this applies to the divisions in the pesharim. 22 23

132

KETER SHEM TOV

well explain why a break may occur between the lemma and its interpretation, but it does little to explain why the same sort of sense division fails to occur when the interpretation ends and the next lemma is cited. Surely the scribe would have felt this transition as significant as the transition from lemma to interpretation. Moreover, it is somewhat odd to have transitions between the lemma and its interpretation doubly marked, first by an open or closed section and, second, by a heading indicated by ‫ץשש‬, whereas the more important transition between the interpretation of the previous lemma and the new lemma is not marked at all.

4. TOWARDS AN EXPLANATION There is an important methodological consideration that needs to be stated at the outset. We seek here to account for features in the visual display of the text. It is assumed that the crosses and vacats have a semiotic or symbolic function, a visual cue to which we wish to assign significance and meaning. It is therefore not enough just to list all occurrences of the sign and then seek to offer a classification principle that makes sense of the usage. We must also look at counter-examples, instances where one might have expected the sign to be employed, but it is not. The organising principle must be rigorous enough to explain both occurrence and non-occurrence of the sign. That said, one must also take account of the possibility of human error, and, as any student of these scribal habits knows, this is an assumption often resorted to in order to explain anomalies. It follows that the most robust principle is the one that produces the least number of anomalies. In the case of 1QpHab it is assumed that the scribe is making a copy of the text. Further, there is good reason to assume that in the process he is inserting vacats that were lacking in his Vorlage. The assumption is justified by what appears to be a reversion to the format of the original from 1QpHab 12:7 and continued by the second scribe. It is further supported by the vacat at 1QpHab 3:7. Tov notes the correction of ‫ ץשש‬to ‫ ץשו‬at 1QpHab 3:7 by the ―superimposing of a very wide waw on the resh.‖27 It appears that 27

Tov, Scribal Practices, 229.

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

133

the scribe has misread his Vorlage and inserted the vacat before what he assumed was an occurrence of ‫ץשש‬. The vacat would not have stood in the original, which after all is in the midst of a citation from Habakkuk. As an aside, it makes more sense if this correction was made at a later reading of the text, as one would assume that if the correction was made at the time of copying, the scribe would realise that the space before the correction was no longer meaningful and fill it with the correction. We are left with the impression that the scribe is somewhat incompetent. 28 The correction may have been made by a later scribe/reader, perhaps even the scribe who inserted the tetragrammaton. Cf. also 11QTb (11Q20) where the corrections are made by a different hand.29 The question arises as to whether the dilemma of the crosses might be solved by the hypothesis of two Vorlagen. Hartmut Stegemann had suggested that the crosses marked the end of a column in an earlier Vorlage.30 The evidence of 11QTb (11Q20) On the imprecision of 1QpHab see Tov, Scribal Practices, 267: ―A telling example of such imprecision is visible in pesharim such as 1QpHab in which the biblical text is not well represented (imprecision, mistakes, contextual adaptations), but it is still made the base for sectarian exegesis. Among other things, some of the interpretations in 1QpHab are based on readings different from the biblical text in the lemma.‖ It is unclear whether all imprecision is to be put down to the copyist, his Vorlage or both. 29 García Martínez et al., DJD 23:364. 30 The idea is acknowledged as a personal communication by Hanan Eshel, ‚The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk,‛ in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 108–09. Stegemann’s hypothesis assumes that the extant copy of 1QpHab is third-hand; the first copyist marked the column ends of the autograph in his copy with crosses and the second copyist at first misunderstood the cross as an ’aleph (col. 2) but later realized his error reverting to crosses. But he also at times realized that the crosses were just scribal marks and so just omitted them. The hypothesis is problematic on a number of fronts: (a) it fails to explain the occasions when crosses stand close together in the same column; (b) it assumes a rather perfunctory scribal habit, sometimes retaining and sometimes 28

134

KETER SHEM TOV

might suggest as much, as the two crosses occur at the same line number in adjacent columns, i.e., at 11QTb (11Q20) 4:9 and 5:9, the underlying assumption being that the Vorlage and its copy consisted of the same number of lines in their columns. The problem with 1QpHab is that in cols. 3, 4, 6 and 9 there are two crosses in each. While this may not present a problem as the two crosses separate in the later columns (e.g., the crosses in col. 9 are separated by eleven intervening lines), it is most certainly a problem in cols. 3 and 4 where the crosses are only separated by one and two lines respectively. But it is here that the hypothesis of two Vorlagen proves useful, if it is assumed that the first cross in each of these columns marked the column end (or equally column beginning) in one Vorlage and the second the column end in the second. Presumably the mark facilitated in some fashion the comparison of the copy with its Vorlage either for subsequent scribal checking of the copy or because the Vorlage was a master/authoritative copy and continued to be consulted.

5. A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN A number of indications for the use of more than one source in 1QpHab have been cited. They include: 5.1. The Double Use of Pesher (Column 2) There is a double use of pesher at 1QpHab 2:1 and 5 under the one lemma. Snyder in commenting on the vacat before the second ‫ץשש‬ at 1QpHab 2:5 observes: ―On this occasion, it might indicate that a scribe is copying from more than one manuscript, or perhaps, copying from a manuscript with a marginal addition that needed to be inserted into the text.‖ 31 It should also be noted that the second pesher is introduced by ‫ וכן‬which alerts the hearer to a second

omitting crosses; and (c) it assumes that the end of lines in first and second copies fall at the same point in the text. Eshel uses the theory to argue two redactions with additions being made in cols. 2:10–4:13, and cols. 5:12–6:12 after 63 BCE. 31 Snyder, ―Naughts and Crosses,‖ 39–40.

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

135

interpretation and that ‫ א‬occurs, like the crosses, in the margin of 1QpHab 2:5 against the second pesher. There are certain differences between the two pesharim: i. The first pesher looks back to the community‘s past. It recounts the failure of the traitors to trust the teacher of righteousness and to trust the covenant of God. The form of the verbs is perfect. The second pesher refers to a future time, the last of days. It talks about what is going to occur and uses the imperfect. ii. The teacher appears to figure in both pesharim, though in the first he is the bearer of the words from God‘s mouth, whereas in the second he is the interpreter of the words of the prophets. More importantly in the first pesher the figure is called ―the teacher of righteousness,‖ whereas in the second he is just known as ―the priest.‖ A good case can be made that the double pesher has used two distinct interpretations that did not arise concurrently. Instead of merging his sources, the scribe gives the two interpretations in full, perhaps because the length and complexity of the passages made conflation unwieldy. 5.2. Requotation Formulae and Irregular Vacats The requotation formulae ‫( כיא הוא אשש אמש‬1QpHab 3:2, 13–14; 5:6) or ‫( ואשש אמש‬1QpHab 6:2; 7:3; 9:2–3; 10:1–2; 12:6) are used 8 times in 1QpHab and may reflect the supplementing of one source with another.32 There are also two occasions where a The requotation formula changes from ‫ כיא הוא אשש אמש‬to ‫ואשש‬ ‫ אמש‬from col. 6. The former indicates by its use of the logical conjunction ‫ כיא‬that the citation is offered as justification for what has preceded; in other words, the biblical text is cited as a ―proof-text,‖ as it were. The latter formula, on the other hand, as Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 8–9, notes, facilitates the placing of the interpretation after the citation. Bernstein, ―The Introductory Formulas,‖ 52, 61, 67, further observes that it can be resumptive, picking up the flow of the interpretation after an interruption of some sort and thus refocusing the interpretation back onto the original text. The variation in formulae thus functions as a sequencing device. But 32

136

KETER SHEM TOV

requotation is not accompanied with the formula, i.e., 1QpHab 4:13, 6:5. Of particular interest among requotations with or without formulae are those instances where the requotation is followed by its own interpretation, i.e., 1QpHab 4:13–14; 6:2–3, 5–6; 7:3–4; 9:3–4; 10:2–3; 12:6–7.33 Clearly, requotations entail a second interpretation for the passage differing only from the double pesher discussed above by the repetition of the lemma or part thereof. To these examples may be added the use of irregular vacats at 1QpHab 5:11; 8:3; 9:7 and 12:5–6, two of which coincide with the requotation formula. Snyder34 sees these as perhaps ―comments added to the original interpretation‖ and considers them ―parenthetical remarks.‖ Indeed they are that in terms of their content, but this does little to explain the use of the vacat before them. Other features need also to be observed: i. The text after the vacats is introduced by a form of ‫( אשש‬3x) or ‫( כי‬1x). Of the former at 1QpHab 5:11 it is used as the relative pronoun (―who‖), at 7:3 the relative pronoun is prefixed with the vav to form a citation formula (‫― – ואשש אמש‬and that which he said‖), and at 1QpHab 12:6 it is prefixed by kaf to form a comparative conjunction, i.e., ―just as.‖ The one instance of ‫( כי‬1QpHab 9:7) functions as a logical conjunction offering an explanation, i.e., ―for.‖ All four instances thus allow further information to be added; the question still stands: why change the placement of the interpretation and thus the requotation formula? George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985), 136–37, believes that requotation is placed in a subordinate position to the main textual citation. This might seem a logical inference, but is it the case in 1QpHab where the requotation can be given the same divisional indicator, namely, the citation is followed by a blank and ‫ ?ץשש‬The scribe treats it no differently from the treatment he gives the larger citation. 33 A number of requotations (1QpHab 3:2, 13–14; 9:7–9) move directly into the next lemma and will not be considered here. 34 Snyder, ―Naughts and Crosses,‖ 41.

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

137

ii.

In one instance (1QpHab 7:3) the blank precedes a requotation formula and in another (1QpHab 12:3) in close proximity with it. It is our contention that the irregular vacats was one way in which the scribe marked the insertion of material from a second version of the pesher. In other words, the scribe of 1QpHab may have had two Vorlagen before him and, as occasion required, moved from one to the other and marked the transfer with a vacat. 5.3. Different Versions of the Prophet The quotations of Hab 1:17 (1QpHab 1:8–9) and 2:16 (1QpHab 11:8–11), it is argued, indicate that the scribe was familiar with another version of the text than that of the MT. Due to the agreement with Greek versions Lim35 postulates that the scribe had open in front of him two versions of the prophet, one in Hebrew and the other in Greek. This seems an unnecessary assumption given that the assumed error arises in the reading or hearing of the Hebrew text itself (‫ חשבו‬for ‫ חשמו‬in the MT at Hab 1:17 and ‫השעל‬ for ‫ העשל‬in the MT at Hab 2:16). An alternate solution is that the scribe was working either from two Hebrew versions either of the prophet and/or his pesharim. To the above consideration we would add observations on two further pesharim and their use of ‫ אשש‬in 1QpHab 5:5 and 12:5 and 9. Both Karl Elliger and Bilhah Nitzan discuss them under either a discussion of the nota relationis or a section treating how expansions in interpretation are structured.36

Timothy H. Lim, ―The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism, and Biblical Interpretation,‖ in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 70–71. 36 Karl Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Totem Meer (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1953), 87–88, and Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 85–89. 35

138

KETER SHEM TOV

5.4. Awkward Anaphora and a Different Interpretation in the Requotation (Column 5) It is noteworthy that the scribe reads ‫( מוכיחו‬hiphil participle with added pronominal suffix) instead of hiphil infinitive without suffix as in the MT. Whereas the MT of Habakkuk speaks of God‘s making ―him‖ for judgement and for reproof, i.e., ―he‖ was to be the object of judgement and reproof, the pesherist has understood that God has appointed ―him‖ for judge and as reprover of another. The object of that reproof is now the third person singular pronominal suffix on ‫מוכיח‬. It will also be noted that the use of the pronominal suffix with ‫( מוכיח‬v.1) and of the noun in construct with ‫( תוכחה‬v.10) indicates an objective genitive, and it will be argued that this is also the case at v.4.37 The pesher of v.3–5 makes clear who the two persons indicated by the third person pronouns are. It is God‘s chosen one (the first ―him‖) through whom God will judge his people (the second ―him‖). We translate: ―the interpretation of the matter: God will not destroy his people by the hand of the nations, but by the hand of his chosen one 38 God will give judgement of all the nations and in the reproof of them (the nations) all the evil of his people will be declared guilty.‖

Note also the grammatically suspect reading of the MT at Hab 2:1 (1QpHab 6:14) is consistent with this stated use of the objective genitive. 38 The term ‫( בחישו‬his chosen one) has been viewed as written defectively for ‫( בחישיו‬his chosen ones) with reference made to a similar defective spelling in the next line (‫ מקוותו‬5:5) and the use of the plural noun at 10:13 and perhaps again at 9:12 (spelt defectively, as here, but ‫ בחישו‬can be construed as a singular referring to the teacher). The result is that the pronominal suffix in ‫( תוכחתם‬5:4) and the relative pronoun ‫אשש‬ (5:5) are seen to find their antecedent in these chosen ones. But the construction is problematic: (a) the more immediate and natural antecedents are ―all the nations‖ and ―the evil among his people,‖ respectively; (b) one must construe the pronominal suffix in ‫ תוכחתם‬as a subjective genitive which it is not otherwise; and (c) the point of reference in the text of Habakkuk refers to a singular ‫מוכיח‬. See also William H. Brownlee, ―The Jerusalem Habakkuk Scroll,‖ BASOR 112 (1948): 1–18, cf. p.17 n.34. 37

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

139

The above understanding of the passage makes good sense to this point and unlike most translations does not require any complicated anaphora. But the reason for the complication is the problem presented by the use of ‫ אשש‬and its clause in 1QpHab 5:5. According to the understanding of the preceding lines the clause does not make sense. We translate: ―who kept his commands in their hardship for that is what it says ‗more pure of eyes than to behold evil‘ (vacat). Its interpretation: they did not fornicate after their eyes in the time of evil.‖ The problem is the antecedent of ―who kept‖ (‫ אשש שמשו‬1QpHab 5:5); as argued above and in the footnote, it more naturally refers to ―all the evil of his people.‖39 To make sense of the clause one would need to insert the negative, i.e., ―who did not keep his commands...‖ But to insert the negative makes the recitation and its interpretation inconsistent, for the recitation refers back to those who keep his commands and identifies them as those ―who do not fornicate after their eyes.‖ We thus find that two sections make sense by themselves but when joined a problem arises. It appears that two pesharim have been joined and that ‫ אשש‬in 1QpHab 5:5 formed the point of juncture. For Nitzan40 the problematic ‫ אשר‬is used to join two different and contradictory pesharim, one interpreting Hab 1:12b (‫)למוכיחו יסדתו‬, and the other Hab 1:13a (‫)טהוש עינים משאות בשע‬

Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 165, concedes the awkwardness to the clause, observing that the expression does not refer to the ―evil of his people‖ though its position within the pesher would suggest otherwise. The tension is not resolved but the problematic clause is interpreted retrospectively in the light of the following requotation, namely, ‫טהוש‬ ‫עינים משאות בשע‬. Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of the Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 32, also concedes the awkwardness of the text and offers two possible solutions, one relying on the plural reading of ‫ בחישיו‬in 5:4 and the other on a scribal error that relocated the ‫ אשש‬clause from following immediately after ‫ עמו‬in 5:3. 40 Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 88. 39

140

KETER SHEM TOV

without any topical nexus between them.41 In other words, ‫אשש‬ functions as a conjunction (‫ )מלת הזירה‬and the lack of clarity arising from this is explained by the loss of a requotation preceding the second pesher. The scribe has thus rephrased a text that read:

‫ואשש אמש טהוש עינים משאות בשע‬ ‫והבט אל עמל לוא תוכל‬ ‫ץששו על בחישו‬ ‫אשש שמשו מקוותו בקש למו‬ ‫ולוא זנו אחש עיניהם ברצ הששעה‬ The reason for the rephrasing is conjectured by Nitzan in terms of a desire to maintain a certain ‚structural tempo.‛ An equally plausible explanation can be found in the hypothesis that 1QpHab 5:5–8 has been added from a second Vorlage which offered an interpretation of ‚purer of eyes than to behold evil‛ that referred to the obedient community who did not fornicate after their eyes. In other words, the ‫ אשש‬is the relic of ‫ ץששו אשש‬in the second Vorlage. The scribe, however, as he proceeded to copy the second interpretation, realized the problem caused by ‫ אשש‬and so was forced to add the requotation after citing the pesher. 5.5. A Different Requotation (Column 12) The citations of Hab 2:17 at 1QpHab 11:17–12:1—―[For the violation of Lebanon will cover you, and destruction of animals] will appal you, owing to blood of man and violence (against) land, city and all the inhabitants in it‖—and its requotation at 1QpHab 12:6-7—―owing to blood of city and the violence (against) land‖—

It will also be noted that the first pesher has a future focus (imperfect verbs) on the judgment of wicked whereas the second looks to the past actions (perfect verbs) of the obedience at a time of difficulty for them. Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar, 88, 181, avoids the problem at 5:5 by translating ‫ אשש‬and its dependent clause by insofern sie seine Gebote gehalten haben, als sie in der Bedrängnis waren. 41

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

141

with both afforded a pesher each.42 The first pesher finds a reference to the Wicked Priest by the identification of Lebanon as ―the Council of the Community‖ and the animals as ―the simple of Judah.‖ In the second pesher ―man‖ is dropped and ―city‖ inserted in its place. In so doing, the word order between ―land‖ and ―city‖ also changes which in turn requires the omission of the expression ―and all the inhabitants in it (i.e., presumably the city).‖43 With those changes in hand the requotation is interpreted by extending the list of identifications. The ―city‖ is Jerusalem ―in which the Wicked Priest commits his deeds of abomination‖ and ―land‖ is ―the cities of Judah which he plundered.‖ The question arises as to whether the requotation introduces a variant textual tradition and its interpretation, or whether the pesherist himself has abbreviated and rearranged the text for the purpose of interpretation. Though there can be no sure decision in the matter, the fact that the words are introduced by a citation formula weighs in favour of textual variation which in turn then alleviates the need to assume that a fairly cavalier attitude to the transmission of the prophetic word was adopted by the sectarians. In other words, a case can be made that the scribe is following another version of Habakkuk and perhaps therefore a different commentary as well. A number of other points of interest should be noted with regard to the lemma, its requotation and their interpretations at 1QpHab 11:17–12:10. i. The introduction to the pesher in 1QpHab 12:2 breaks with the scribe‘s custom in that the usual formulaic ‫< אשש‬TOPIC> ‫ ץששו על‬or ‫ ץשש הדבש אשש‬omits ‫אשש‬. The pesher that follows the formula is then Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 67–68, argues against Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 69–109, contending instead that the scribe is not deliberately introducing exegetical variants but rearranging or abbreviating the words. But such an argument ignores the introduction of the passage by a citation formula and assumes a fairly cavalier attitude to the transmission of a prophetic text. 43 Cf. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum, 67–68, and Lim, Holy Scripture, 69– 109. 42

142

KETER SHEM TOV

ii.

iii.

iv.

connected with its TOPIC no longer with the relative pronoun (‫ )אשש‬but with an infinitive which breaks with the usual scribal habit. The formulaic introduction to the pesher in 1QpHab 12:7 also breaks with the scribe’s custom in that ‫ץששו‬ is neither preceded by a vacat nor followed by ‫ על‬or ‫אשש‬. It is also at this point in the commentary that the scribe appears to drop his customary insertion of the vacat before ‫ץשש‬, cf. 1QpHab 12:12. The requotation formula at 1QpHab 13:6 is preceded by an irregular vacat (end of 1QpHab 12:5) followed by the parenthetical remark ‚just as he had devised to destroy the poor‛ (beginning of 1QpHab 12:6). The clause (‫‚—אשש ישוץטנו אל לכלה‬whom God will sentence to destruction‛) immediately preceding the irregular vacat (end of 1QpHab 12:5) is awkward in its use of anaphora; the pronominal suffix in ‫ ישוץטנו‬and its relative pronoun ‫ אשש‬must reach back across the more immediate antecedents and beyond the logical conjunction ‫ כיא‬to find their referent in the Wicked Priest of 1QpHab 12:2. As Elliger observes: ‚das ‫אשש‬ sich über zwei Zwischensätze hinweg so weit zurückbezieht auf die in der Einleitungsformel xii.2 genannte Person, daß es den Anschluß fast verloren hat.‛44 This awkwardness combined with the

Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar, 88, 220. ‫ אשש‬is translated by insofern at both 1QpHab 12:5 and 12:9. Cf. also William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 205. Horgan, Pesharim, 51–52, recognizes the problem caused by the distant antecedent and accordingly interprets the ‫ אשש‬clause in terms of levels or stages of interpretation. The original pesher had read ―The interpretation of the passage concerns the Wicked Priest … whom God will sentence to complete destruction because he plotted to destroy completely the poor ones,‖ but this interpretation has now been interrupted by later explanatory comment. There does not appear to be any attempt to relate the problematic ‫ אשש‬clause here in col. 12 to the parallel phenomenon observed in col. 5. 44

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

v.

143

irregularity in the formulaic introduction noted already in point 1) begs the question as to whether our clause was at some time more closely associated with the pesher formula in 1QpHab 12:2, for example, to read—‚the interpretation of the word concerns the Wicked Priest whom God will sentence to destruction.‛45 The identity of the cattle (plural) in 1QpHab 12:4 with the ‚the simple one(s?) of Judah doing torah‛ requires a little interpretational manoeuvring to make the singular participle agree with the preceding nouns.46 Given that there is no allegorical identification of ‫ אדם‬in the pesher, it might be suggested that ‚the one doing torah‛ once qualified the now lost identification. In other words, the naming of the next topic (i.e., ‫)אדם‬

Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 88–89 and 194–95, notes that the scribe departs from his usual custom by the insertion of parenthetical material in lines 3–5. The subject matter of the pesher is introduced (i.e., the wicked priest, 1QpHab 12:2) to which is then added the insight concerning his punishment (1QpHab 12:2–3). In speaking of the punishment the scribe has introduced ―the poor‖ and now felt the need to explain how he was able to identify them from the prophet‘s words (1QpHab 12:3–5). After offering his explanation the scribe again returns to the subject matter of the pesher, i.e., the wicked priest, and uses ‫אשש‬, his usual linking expression, to resume his interpretation (‫)אשש ישוץטנו אל לכלה‬. In other words, the identification of the poor is a parenthetical insertion which is framed by the pesher at large. Nitzan‘s argument (see also p.38 on its use to add an issue not addressed in the interpreted text of the prophet) explains the order in which the interpretations appear but does not explain the use of ‫ אשש‬itself as a conjunction (‫ )מלת הזירה‬used to join a ‫משץט טץל‬. 46 Brownlee, ―Further Correction of the Translation of the Habakkuk Scroll,‖ BASOR 116 (1949): 14–16, cf. p.16, notes the awkwardness of the singular ‫ עושה‬and suggests it be amended to a construct plural ‫עושי‬. It will be noted that this construct plural of the participle is found at 1QpHab 7:11 and 8:1. A similarly awkward but reversed (singular noun identified with plural noun) identification is found at 1QpHab 12:9. 45

144

KETER SHEM TOV

vi.

vii.

and its allegorical identification may have been omitted with the result that the topic of cattle and its allegorical interpretation in the plural (i.e., the simple ones of Judah) are now associated with what remains of the description of the allegorical identity of ‫אדם‬, i.e., the one doing torah. If accepted, significance attaches to the participial expression which now underlines the different natures and rewards of the Wicked Priest (the TOPIC of the interpretation) whom God will sentence to destruction and the man who does torah. There may also be an allusion in the use of ‫ אדם‬to the Adam who rejected torah and the adam who does torah, an association on which Paul also appears to draw (Rom 5:14–15 and 1 Cor 15:45). Both the relative clause in 1QpHab 12:5 with its dependent ‫ כאשש‬clause and the requotation formula with its reworded lemma break the listing of the allegorical identities. No requotation formula would have been needed had the listing just proceeded as follows: ‚for Lebanon is the council of the community, the cattle are the simple of Judah, the town is Jerusalem and the violence of the land the cities of Judah.‛ A case can be made that the interposing of new material from a separate source caused the omissions referred to under v (i.e., the interpretation of the cattle and the reference to ‫ )אדם‬and raised the need to refocus the interpretation of the original lemma by the requotation of part of the lemma. Not only do the citations differ but the interpretation of their referents also changes focus from the community (a metaphorical interpretation) to the nation (a more literal interpretation). The same phrase that is being interpreted here occurs twice in Habakkuk, namely, at Hab 2:8 and 2:17. The earlier lemma and its pesher (1QpHab 9:7–12) are introduced by an irregular vacat (1QpHab 9:7) which appears to redirect the TOPIC away from the last priests of Jerusalem with its future focus to the Kittim and presumably to the punishment they will exact. However, as the citation of the lemma continues the focus changes to the past, and

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

viii.

145

the Wicked Priest and his crimes against the teacher. Again like the interpretation of Lebanon and cattle at 1QpHab 12:3–6, the concern is the community and the wrongs done to it and its leader. But unlike the later interpretation the judgement is not considered as future. There is no attempt in 1QpHab 9:9–12 to allegorize each of the nouns in the lemma as occurs in 12, but it is significant that the expressions ‫מדמי אדם‬ and ‫ יושבי בה‬appear to prompt this earlier interpretation. In other words, the interpretation in column 9 takes its prompt from ‫אדם‬, a term that is altogether missing from the later interpretation of the phrase in column 12. There is rhetorical repetition with noted repetition in theme and word that is largely subsumed in the structure of the interpretation as it now stands.

‫לשלם לו את גמלו אשש גמל על אביונים‬ ‫ישוץטנו אל לכלה כאשש זמם לכלות אביונים‬ ‫אשש גזל הון אביונים‬ It is the third instance that breaks the structure somewhat by the omission of the judgement theme. In turn this causes the relative clause to be positioned awkwardly without an immediate antecedent and grammatically unconnected with the interpretational identification which precedes it.47

See Shemaryahu Talmon, ―Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll,‖ VT 1 (1951): 37, who accounts for the awkwardness of the relative pronoun (12:9) by the omission of a pronominal suffix to ‫ הון‬in the relative clause which referred back to ―cities of Judah.‖ The explanation does not resolve the difficulty of the clause in that it leaves ‫ אביונים‬hanging. Eduard Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran (Munich: Kösel, 1986), 243 reads the relative as ―where,‖ thus assuming an ellipsis of ‫ משם‬from the relative clause. Brownlee, ―Further Light on Habakkuk,‖ BASOR 114 (1949): 9–10, at p.10, translates the relative as the causal conjunction ―because.‖ 47

146

KETER SHEM TOV

An explanation for the above difficulties is not hard to find, if one hypothesises that the scribe has sought at this point to combine two different pesharim on the same verse, one pesher listing the allegorical identities of Lebanon, cattle, man, city and land and the other speaking of the Wicked Priest and his judgement.48 As in the discussion of col. 5 above, ‫ אשש‬in 1QpHab 12:5 is a relic of a ‫אשש‬...‫ ץשש‬construction that remains after the combination of diverse pesharim. In fine, it is argued that whereas in col. 2 the scribe used two pesharim, each preceded by a vacat, in cols. 5 and 12 the practice was changed as he sought to interweave the two pesharim into one continuous interpretation with the relative pronoun/particle forming the point of connection as a relic of the ‫אשש‬...‫ץשש‬ construction. Irregular vacats are also to be associated with the presence of two Vorlagen and indicate that one source has been supplemented with the text from the other. However, as the scribe has consciously decided to employ vacats to indicate the move from lemma to interpretation and not otherwise except for his error at 1QpHab 3:7 and the four irregular vacats, our explanation for the latter, as it now stands, is inadequate. A possible answer is to be found in the double pesher at 1QpHab 2:1 and 5. In the second of the pesharim the scribe has moved from one Vorlage to the other and his use of the vacat before the move has suggested itself to him as an adequate marker for future use. In what follows it is argued that the irregular vacats mark not only a change of Vorlage but also a change in the Vorlage whose text was to be preferred. In other words, the scribe copied from one Vorlage at a time supplementing it from the other but on occasion swapped the Vorlagen around.

Further confirmation of ellipsis in the use of ‫ אשש‬is found in 12:9. In this instance we have a short requotation (―violent of land‖) followed by its identification with the cities of Judah. Then ‫ אשש‬joins a further interpretative comment which is not coordinated or related to what has preceded it, i.e., ‫גזל הון אביונים‬. 48

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

147

6. CONCLUSION Does the hypothesis that the scribe has used two Vorlagen offer a better explanation for the distribution of crosses in 1QpHab? The question is difficult to answer for we cannot assume either (a) scribal consistency in the deployment of crosses; (b) the use of only one source at a time; (c) a consistent marking of changes between sources; or (d) a distinct thematic content for each source. But the distribution of crosses does appear significant. Leaving aside the ambiguous use of ‘aleph in col. 2 and the uncertain reading at 9:16, there are 11 crosses distributed in a manner that is statistically significant, for they are located either in lines 1–4 or lines 11–14. In other words, the central band (lines 5–10) consisting of 6 lines displays no cross. Unfortunately, as the last lines in each column are lost, we are uncertain what was there and must confine conjecture to the evidence at hand. The aim of what follows is not to prove the hypothesis but to show that a reasonable explanation for the scribal features can be offered under the assumption of two Vorlagen. On the assumption that the crosses marked column ends in the two Vorlagen, we mark the crosses in the table below as belonging to either Vorlage A (Xa) or B (Xb). Also for the purpose of the argument, it is assumed that the irregular vacats mark a change between which of the Vorlagen the scribe is preferring from time to time and which he chooses to use to supplement it.49 The change between Vorlagen is marked by clear (Vorlage B to be designed B) and lighter grey (Vorlage A to be designated A) shading in the table. The darker grey shading There are two other assumptions that need to be noted. They are that: (a) 1QpHab followed the written dimensions of its Vorlagen (i.e., column width and number of lines per column were similar). It seems reasonable to assume that a scribe in selecting and ruling a parchment consciously followed the dimensions of the texts to be copied. After all it allowed him to know the size of the document to prepare; and (b) as the scribe moved from one Vorlage to the next he copied the text of that with occasional supplements from the other Vorlage until the next change as marked by the irregular vacat. In other words the scribe is only copying one Vorlage at a time but noting the ends of the columns of each in his copy. This is the easiest way of merging two approximately similar texts. 49

148

KETER SHEM TOV

indicates the lost bottom of the manuscript. So constructed, an interesting result emerges from the table. The ends of the columns in A in cols. 3–6 are approximately equidistant from each other. Col. 5 does not contain a cross but the end of the column in A may have fallen at a point where a change between Vorlagen occurred and been omitted. In this respect we note the occurrence of the irregular vacat at 1QpHab 5:11. It is also observed that the ends of the columns in B in cols. 3 and 4 are equidistant, but that no cross appears equidistant in col. 5; it is perhaps pushed forward to col. 6:4, a full seven lines after it was to be expected. Alternatively, a cross may have stood in the lost lines at the end of col. 5 in B. If an explanation were to be sought for this shifting forward of the cross, either to the lost lines at the end of col. 5 or to col. 6:4, it might be explained by the insertion of additional material from one source (A) into the other (B) between 4:14 to 5:10. One can find this material in the requotations and commentary at 4:13–16 and 5:6–8. Assuming the longer shift forward to 1QpHab 6:4, and a possible change of Vorlagen at the irregular vacat in col. 7 (i.e., 1QpHab 7:3) with an effective loss of a column end, we find that the column ends in B are roughly equidistant across cols. 6–10 and 12. Indeed, and this is significant, the column ends are exactly equidistant when B is itself being followed without any additions from A (1QpHab 3:14 and 4:14 then 8:1 and 9:1). Even so, col. 11 lacks a cross for the end of the column in B, but under our hypothesis it might be suggested that this was an accidental omission as the scribe was preferring A at this time.50 Other explanations might also be offered; for example, that the scribe omitted it having finished the quotation of his lemma (Hab 2:15) up against the left margin, or that the cross might have stood in the lost portion at the end of col. 10. One also notes under this hypothesis that at 1QpHab 9:13 the end of the column in A is again indicated on the occasion when the scribe again returns to follow and preference that Vorlage. Interestingly, though the column ends in B shift forward, this is not the case with the column end of A as indicated by the cross at 1QpHab 9:13. From This may also explain the loss of the cross for the end of Vorlage B at the top of col. 7. 50

A CASE FOR TWO VORLAGEN

149

this it would follow that apart from 1QpHab cols. 4:15 to 5:10 the length of lemma and pesher may not have differed much between the two Vorlagen. Distribution of Crosses and Irregular Vacats Clear shading = B; lighter grey shading = A; Xa = cross in A; Xb = cross in B; vac = irregular vacat; m.2 = change of scribe Column Number 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

8

9

10 11 12

Xb Xb

2

Xb

3

vac

4

Line Number

5

13

Xb

Xb ‫א‬

6

vac

7

vac

8 9 10 11 12

Xa Xa

13 14

vac Xa Xa

m.2

Xb Xb

15 16 17

The advantage of the hypothesis of two Vorlagen and changes between the copying of them is that it (a) explains the two crosses in cols. 3, 4 and 9; (b) gives a felicitous explanation for the regularity of crosses between adjacent columns, especially with regard to Xb both in cols. 3 and 4 and in cols. 8 and 9 under the hypothesis that Vorlage B is being preferred at this point; and (c)

150

KETER SHEM TOV

accounts for the distribution of crosses in the bands of lines 11–14 (cols. 3–6 and 9) and of lines 1–4 (cols. 6–10 and 12). Under any hypothesis some explanation needs to be given for this phenomenon. The weaknesses of the hypothesis are that: (a) in cols. 1 and 2, as far as we can tell, the scribe does not mark the column endings of his Vorlagen; and (b) from col. 7 on, though with the exception of col. 9, the scribe appears to omit the marking of column endings for A. Can we assume scribal inconsistency, e.g., that the scribe after col. 6 decided not to mark the end of A when following the other Vorlage and that even when following A he decided to continue to mark the end of B? There seems no reason why not, as under any hypothesis it appears a necessity.

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖ IN DANIEL AND 1QM Anne Gardner 1. INTRODUCTION ―Holy ones‖ or ―saints‖ (‫רדוׁשים‬/‫ )רדיׁשין‬appear a number of times in Daniel and the War Scroll (1QM). Whether the referents on each occasion are earthly or heavenly has been much debated. Scholarly claims on this matter will be addressed briefly then followed by a re-examination of the terms as they appear within each of the two texts. A literary and inter-textual approach is adopted and Daniel and the War Scroll are considered first in their own right, then in terms of the light each sheds upon the other and the identity/ies of the ―holy ones.‖ It is clear that 1QM bases itself to some extent upon Dan 11–12, as recognised by previous scholars.1 Accordingly Daniel will be assessed first. However, what Jean Carmignac, ―Les citations de l‘Ancien Testament dans la ,‖ RB 63 (1965): 234–60; Johannes P. M. Van Der Ploeg, Le Rouleau de la Guerre (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 23, 59, 61; Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B. & C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) draws attention to links with Daniel 11–12 in his commentary on individual lines of 1QM (see his index of passages, 362–63); Alfred Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte des Texte vom Toten Meer (SBM 12; Stuttgart: Echter, 1971), 79–83; Philip R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (Biblia et Orientalia 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 14; Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in 1

151

152

KETER SHEM TOV

is not so clear is whether there was any connection between the ―holy ones‖ and Maskilim of Daniel and the community behind the War Scroll.2 The present paper concludes that it is likely that there was. In Daniel, ―holy one(s)‖ as a substantive (‫ )רדיׁשין‬occurs in the Aramaic chapters in 4:13[10], 17[14], 23[20]; 7:18, 22, 25, 27 and as ‫ רדוׁשים‬in the Hebrew chapters in 8:13, 24.3 There is a Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of John (NY: University Press of America, 1984), 42–66; Jean Duhaime, The War Texts. 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 64–73. Duhaime (ibid.) discusses the relationship between the two works, particularly in connection with the dating of 1QM. Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 90–102, considers the historical implications for column 1 in the light of its relationship with Dan 11:40–12. Schultz acknowledges that his work follows on from an earlier article by David Flusser, ―‫היסודות האץורליץטיים ׁשל מגילת המלחמה‬,‛ in ‫בימי בית ׁשני׃ סץש זכשון‬ ‫( לאבשהם ׁשליט ץשרים בתולדות ישוׁשלים‬ed. Aharon Oppenheimer, Uriel Rappaport, Menahem Stern; Jerusalem: Yad ben Zvi, 1980), 434–52. This has now been translated into English: David Flusser, ―Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll,‖ in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Volume 1 Qumran and Apocalypticism (trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 140–58. 2 Philip R. Davies, ―The Scribal Schools of Daniel,‖ in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; 2 vols.; VTSup 83; Boston: Brill, 2002), 1:246–65, esp. 258–64, provides some discussion of this issue. The present author in an earlier paper, Anne E. Gardner, ―Sêkêl in the Hebrew Bible: Key to the Identity and Function of the Maskilim in Daniel,‖ RB 118 (2011): 496–514, identifies the Maskilim in Daniel as Levites and priests and suggests the need to reinvestigate the link with the Dead Sea Scrolls. The construct plural of ‫ מסכיל‬appears in 1QM 10:9–10 and is discussed in the present paper. 3 In the Aramaic chapters, ‫ רדיׁש‬appears as an adjective in the assertion to Daniel from foreign rulers that in him is the ―spirit of the holy gods (‫( ‖)אלהין‬4:5[8], 6[9], 15[18]; 5:11). The Aramaic ‫ אלהין‬equates to the Hebrew ‫אלהים‬. While both are plural, the latter is usually understood as singular. The use of the Aramaic ‫ אלהין‬by foreigners would have conveyed to the listener/reader, the notion that while such people

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

153

consensus that in the Aramaic chapters prior to Dan 7, ‫רדיׁש‬ describes a heavenly being or beings of some kind4 but its referent in Dan 7 is contested. Accordingly, within the present paper, the focus will be on the appearances of ‫ רדיׁשין‬in Dan 7, then on ‫רדוׁשים‬/‫ רדוׁש‬in the Hebrew section of the work. Dan 7:18 purports to interpret the essence of two verses of Daniel‘s vision, i.e., Dan 7:13–14, where one like a son of man is given dominion, glory and a kingdom that will not end, one in which all nations and peoples will serve him. It reads,

-‫כּותא ַףד‬ ָ ְ‫יׁשי ֶףלְ יֹונִ ין וְ יַ ְח ְסנּון ַמל‬ ֵ ‫כּותא ַר ִד‬ ָ ְ‫וִ ַיר ְבלּון ַמל‬ ‫ָףלְ ָמא וְ ַףד ָףלַ ם ָףלְ ַמיָ א‬ But the holy ones of high ones will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.5

The phrase ‫רדיׁשי עליונין‬, which occurs also in 7:22, 25, 27, has engendered a lot of scholarly discussion centering around two apparently separate issues: first whether ―holy ones‖ (‫)רדיׁשי‬ applies to earthly or heavenly beings; secondly whether ‫עליונין‬ should be understood as a substantive, meaning ―Most High (God),‖ or taken in an adjectival sense; in other words describing ―holy ones‖ as ―high.‖ These issues will be dealt with in turn, although it will be seen that, in reality, they are not separate, with both words deriving from the same streams of tradition.

may have thought there was more than one god, the listener/reader knew better. In the Hebrew chapters ‫ רדוׁש‬appears as an adjective describing an object or person. In 8:13, 14; 9:26 it relates to the sanctuary; in 9:16, 20; 11:45 to the mountain (Zion); in 9:24 to the city cf. 9:16; in 11:28, 30(x2) to the covenant and in 12:7 to people. 4 ―A holy one‖ is paired with ―a watcher‖ in 4:13[10], 23[20] and ―holy ones‖ with ―watchers‖ in 4:17[14]. As if to underline the heavenly nature of the watchers and holy ones, 4:14[17] stresses that there is a reason behind the condemnation for it says that it was decreed ―in order that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men.‖ 5 Unless otherwise stated, all translations into English are my own.

154

KETER SHEM TOV

2. SCHOLARLY ARGUMENTS AND COUNTER ARGUMENTS ABOUT ‫ רדיׁשי‬IN DAN 7:18, 21 22, 25 A number of scholars believe that the ‚holy ones‛ (‫ )רדיׁשי‬of 7:18, 21 22, 25, 27 should be identified with heavenly beings, probably angels,6 on the basis of five main points: 1. the meaning of the term in the earlier Aramaic chapters of Daniel; 2. its appearance elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible where it indicates heavenly beings more frequently than earthly ones; 3. its appearance in the Intertestamental writings, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, where there is a similar statistical frequency of a meaning pertaining to heavenly beings as in the Hebrew Bible; 4. that the word ‫ עם‬which prefaces the expression ‫רדיׁשי‬ ‫ עליונין‬in Dan 7:27 does not always indicate ―people;‖ rather, in accordance with the evidence of 1QH 3:21–22, it can mean ―host;‖ 5. that Dan 7:21–22, where ‫ רדיׁשין‬is most readily interpreted as having an earthly referent, is the product of a later editor. These points have been refuted strenuously by Brekelmans,7 Poythress8 and Hasel9 who have indicated:

Otto Procksch, ―Der Menschensohn als Gottessohn,‖ Christentum und Wissenschaft 3 (1927): 425–43; 473–81 esp. 429, appears to have been the first scholar to suggest that the ―holy ones‖ were angels. The idea was popularized by Martin Noth, The Laws in the Pentatueuch and Other Essays (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 215–28, and has gained a number of followers such as Jean Coppens, ―Les Saints du Tres-Haut sont-ils à identifier avec les milices celestes?‖ ETL 39 (1963): 94–100: idem, ―La vision danielique du Fils d‘Homme,‖ VT 19 (1969): 178–82; Luc Dequeker, ―The ‗Saints of the Most High‘ in Qumran and Daniel,‖ OTS 18 (1973): 108–87; John J. Collins, ―The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel,‖ JBL 93 (1974): 50–66. 6

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

155

1. that it is not necessary to harmonise all the occurrences of ―holy one/ones‖ in Daniel; 2. that statistical frequency is a meaningless statement in terms of exegesis10 and, as Hasel points out, the number of times that Israel is described as a holy people in the Hebrew Bible far outweighs the instances where ―holy one/ones‖ indicates heavenly beings;11 3. that the root ‫ רדׁש‬is attested in the Ancient Near East from long before the time of the Hebrew Bible and in each society it applied in some instances to heavenly beings and in others to earthly beings,12 as indeed it does in literature that post-dates the Hebrew Bible;13 4. that the citation of ‫ עם‬in the DSS, adduced to mean ―host,‖ means ―with;‖14 5. that, in the case of Dan 7:21–22, the need to posit an earlier version where ―holy ones‖ meant heavenly creatures is not at all convincing, for 7:22 in its present form corresponds to Dan 7:25 which is not disputed.15 While the points made by Brekelmans, Poythress, and Hasel have been accepted by some scholars,16 many others have persisted in, or still lean towards, the view that the ‚holy ones‛ in Dan 7 are

Christianus H. W. Brekelmans, ―The Saints of the Most High and Their Kingdom,‖ OTS 14 (1965): 305–29. 8 Vern S. Poythress, ―The Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel VII,‖ VT 26 (1976): 208–13. 9 Gerhard F. Hasel, ―The Identity of ‗The Saints of the Most High‘ in Daniel 7,‖ Biblica 56 (1975): 173–92. 10 Poythress, ―The Holy Ones,‖ 211–12 particularly stresses this point. 11 Hasel, ―The Identity,‖ 179–80. 12 Hasel, ―The Identity,‖ 176–85. 13 Brekelmans, ―The Saints,‖ 310–18, in particular, demonstrated this. 14 Hasel, ―The Identity,‖ 187–88. 15 Hasel, ―The Identity,‖ 189. 16 E.g., Philip R. Davies, Daniel (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 104; Rainer Albertz, ―Social Setting of Daniel,‖ in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. Collins and Flint), 1:184–85. 7

156

KETER SHEM TOV

heavenly figures or include heavenly figures.17 Such scholars also claim that ‫רדוׁש‬/‫ רדיׁש‬as a substantive has a different sphere of reference to when it is used as an adjective and so should be considered separately.18 In an attempt to overcome the impasse, those biblical passages that identify people as holy will be the focus of the following section and some consideration will be given to the grammatical function of ‫ רדוׁש‬in them.

3. PEOPLE AS “HOLY ONES” OR A “HOLY ONE” IN THE HEBREW BIBLE It is well recognised by scholars that an object, place, or person in the Hebrew Bible is ―holy‖ because of its relationship with God. 19 A number of individuals and groups are identified as a ―holy one‖ or ―holy ones:‖ Elisha in 2 Kgs 4:9; Aaron in Ps 106:16 and Num 16:5, 7; priests in Lev 21:6 (pl.), 7 (sing.), 8 (sing.) and Levites in 2 Chron 35:3. In addition, the people (Israel) are addressed by Moses in Leviticus (11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7, 26) and exhorted to be ―holy ones )‫ )רדׁשים‬because I (God) am holy (‫)רדוׁש‬.‖ In other words, with the exception of Elisha, a prophet, all the examples concern either priests or Israel.20

E.g. John E. Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas, TX: Word Books), 176–78; John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 313–18; Choon-Leong Seow, Daniel (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 110–11; Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 20; Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 191–92; Amy C. Merrill Willis, Dissonance and the Drama of Divine Sovereignty in the Book of Daniel (NY: T&T Clark, 2010), 81–82, n. 75. 18 E.g., Collins, Daniel, 313 says, ―It is an undeniable fact…that the substantival use of the word is distinctive and reserved for heavenly beings.‖ 19 See, for example, Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; NY: Doubleday, 1991), 729–736. 20 This is not coincidental. Legislation which applied earlier to the Sanctuary was extended to all Israel. For a discussion of this extension cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 718–36. 17

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

157

In some of the texts mentioned so far, ‫רדוׁש‬, labelled as an adjective by Brown, Driver and Briggs,21 actually functions as a substantive for it does not describe a noun in either an attributive or predicative way. For example Ps 106:16, ―And they were jealous of Moses in the camp and of Aaron, the holy one of the Lord (‫)רדוׁש יהוה‬,‖ has ‫ רדוׁש‬in apposition to Aaron and appositional phrases are nominal. There is an indisputable example of ‫ רדוׁש‬as a substantive in Num 16:5 for it is preceded by the definite article. Moses spoke to Korah and his cohorts as follows: ―In the morning, the Lord will show who belongs to him and who is the holy one (‫)ואת־הרדוׁש‬.‖22 In Lev 21:6 it is said, ―Holy ones (‫ )רדׁשים‬they shall be to their God.‖ Those so indicated are ―the priests, the sons of Aaron‖ (Lev 21:1) but five verses separate the identification; five verses in which regulations governing aspects of a priestly lifestyle are set down. This suggests that ‫ רדׁשים‬should be understood as a substantive rather than an adjective. The separation of ‫ רדׁשים‬and the noun is even more marked in Lev 11:44 where Israel is told, ―Because I am the Lord your God, you shall sanctify yourselves and you be holy ones (‫ )רדׁשים‬for I am a holy one,‖ but ―Israel‖ was cited forty three verses earlier than ‫רדׁשים‬.23 An undisputed reference in the Hebrew Bible to human ―holy ones‖ in the form of a substantive appears in Ps 34:10[9]. This passage which, as will be seen later, lies behind two scenes in Daniel, equates the ‫רדוׁשים‬ with those who are righteous or trust in the Lord. In other words, there are a number of examples of ‫רדוׁש‬ functioning as a substantive. Conversely, in Isa 62:12 the nominal form ‫ ר ֶֹדש‬rather than the so-called adjectival form of ‫רדוׁש‬, is used to delineate ‫עם‬. There the people of holiness (‫ ) ַףם־ר ֶֹדש‬are the ―redeemed of the Lord (‫)גאולי יהוה‬.‖ Nevertheless, the import of ―the people of holiness‖ is very similar to ―the holy people‖ where ―holy‖ functions as an adjective. Similarly Isa 63:18— ―people of your (God‘s) holiness (‫—‖)רדׁשך‬uses ‫ר ֶֹדש‬, rather than ‫רדוׁש‬, to describe ‫עם‬, again with little difference in meaning to Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), 872. 22 ‫ רדוש‬is preceded by the definite article in Lev 16:7 also. 23 Lev 11:45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; Num 15:40 repeat parts of Lev 11:44. 21

158

KETER SHEM TOV

what is indicated by ―holy people (‫)עם רדוׁש‬,‖ examples of which are given later. It was mentioned above that the people of Israel could aspire to the status of ―holy ones.‖ The way to holiness in each of the apposite passages in Leviticus (11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7, 26) is through obedience to what God has commanded. Numbers 15:40, where ‫ רדׁשים‬also appears, is similar, for Moses tells the people of Israel that if they remember and do all the commandments (Num 15:39) they will be ―holy ones to your God )‫)רדׁשים לאלהיכם‬.‖ Israel is linked with ‫ רדוׁש‬in other texts also. For example, ‫ רדוׁש‬in the singular functions as an adjective in Exod 19:6 to describe what Israel will become—―a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (‫—‖)גוי רדוׁש‬as long as they obey God‘s voice and his covenant (cf. Exod 19:5). The similarity of the sentiment expressed in Exod 19:6 with the passages in Leviticus and Numbers, cited above, indicates that there is no real difference in implication between the adjectival use of ‫ רדוׁש‬and the substantive use of the same word. Accordingly, further passages where ‫ רדוׁש‬occurs as an adjective are worthy of mention. In Deuteronomy, ‫ רדוׁש‬in the singular describes ‫( עם‬7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9) while in Isa 4:3 the remnant are called ―holy (‫)רדוׁש‬.‖ A more detailed examination of some of the passages mentioned in this section will be undertaken below after a brief examination of the term ‫ עליונין‬which appears in Dan 7 in conjunction ‫רדיׁשין‬.

4. ‫ עליונין‬IN DANIEL 7 ‫עליונין‬, rather than being an Aramaic word, is a Hebraism which is taken by the majority of scholars to be a substantive referring to God. However, when it denotes God in the Hebrew Bible it is always singular, not plural as here. Scholars who understand it to refer to God in Daniel say, therefore, that it must be the plural of majesty.24 As ‫ עליונין‬appears only in Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27, always after ‫רדיׁשי‬, there is no separate guide to its meaning. Nevertheless,

E.g., Marco Settembrini, Sapienza e storia in Dn 7–12 (AnBib 169; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2007), 128. 24

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

159

Daniel does give a clue for elsewhere in the Aramaic chapters where there is an unmistakable reference to God as ‚the Most High‛ the word used is ‫( עליא‬Dan 3:26, 3:32[4:2]; 4:14[17], 21[24], 22[25], 29[32], 31[34]; 5:18, 21; 7:25). The appearance of ‫ עליא‬in 7:25 is of crucial importance for it is in a verse containing the phrase ‫רדיׁשי עליונין‬, thus indicating that ‫ עליונין‬must be understood in a different way. It is a substantive, rather than an adjective, for ‫ רדיׁשי‬is in the construct. Literally, then, the phrase means ‚holy ones of high ones/things,‛ but the question arises as to whether ‫ עליונין‬should be taken in an adjectival sense describing ‚holy ones‛ (‫)רדיׁשי‬, thus giving the translation ‚high holy ones,‛ or whether it should be retained as a substantive with the implication that only some of the ‚high ones‛ are ‚holy ones‛ or that the ‚holy ones‛ belong to the ‚high ones,‛ whoever or whatever the latter may be. If the adjectival sense was the intended one, then it is a puzzle why the author used the construct and a substantive. Jean Margain, in his philological commentary on the Aramaic text of Daniel, notes that the construction occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew.25 However, he says that ‫ עליונין‬is plural only because ‫ רדיׁשי‬is plural. In keeping with the consensus opinion, he understands ‫ עליונין‬to mean ‚the Most High‛ and he translates the phrase ‫ רדיׁשי עליונין‬as ‚holy ones of the Most High.‛ The difficulty is, as has been pointed out already, that ‫ עליונין‬is unlikely to refer to God because He is denoted by ‫ עליא‬in the Aramaic chapters of Daniel, including in a verse where ‫ עליונין‬also appears.

5. DAN 7:27: ‫ עם‬IN CONJUNCTION WITH ‫רדיׁשי עליונין‬ As mentioned above in connection with Dan 7:18, the phrase ‫ רדיׁשי עליונין‬also occurs in Dan 7:22, 25, 27 but only in the last of these verses does another word appear as part of the expression. Accordingly that verse will now be discussed as it may provide further information. Dan 7:27 reads:

Jean Margain, Le Livre de Daniel: Commentaire Philologique du Texte Araméen (Les Classiques Bibliques. Sessions de Langues Bibliques SLB; Paris: Beauchesne, 1994), 73. 25

160

KETER SHEM TOV

;‫יׁשי ֶף ְליֹונִ ין‬ ֵ ‫ ִדי לְ ַףם ַר ִד‬,‫בּותא‬ ָ ‫כּותה וְ ָׁשלְ ָטנָ א ְּוש‬ ָ ְ‫ּומל‬ ַ ‫יבת‬ ַ ‫ יְ ִה‬,‫ל־ׁש ַמיָ א‬ ְ ‫ַמלְ ְכוָ ת ְתחֹות ָכ‬ ‫יִץ ְלחּון וְ יִ ְׁש ַת ְמעּון‬ ְ ‫ לֵ ּה‬,‫ וְ כֹל ָׁש ְל ָטנַ יָ א‬,‫כּותּה ַמלְ כּות ָףלַ ם‬ ֵ ְ‫ַמל‬ And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of holy ones of high ones. His/its kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey him/it.

In this verse, ‫ רדיׁשי עליונין‬follows ‫ עם‬so the literal translation of the whole phrase is ―a people of holy ones of high ones.‖26 While ‫ עם‬is likely to indicate a people in an earthly sense, it does not necessarily mean, as some scholars have noted, that the ‫רדיׁשי‬ ‫ עליונין‬are also earthly for the ‫ עם‬could belong to, or be linked with, heavenly ―holy ones of high ones.‖27 An impasse has therefore been reached. Neither philology nor context can provide certainty about the import of ‫ רדיׁשי עליונין‬in Dan 7.28 In an attempt to overcome this difficulty, it is proposed to consider biblical passages where these two words, as well as ‫עם‬, are used in close proximity, even if they are not in the same grammatical construction as they appear in Dan 7:27.

‫עם־רדׁשים‬, i.e., the Hebrew equivalent, appears also in 8:24. E.g. Collins, Daniel, 314–15. Collins appeals to passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls for support but the meaning of such passages is not as certain as he claims it is. One of the identifications he makes is overturned in the present paper (1QM 10:11–12). 28 Brekelmans, ―The Saints,‖ 326–28, attempted to break that impasse by investigating the way that kingdom/dominion was used in the literature of a similar time period. He concluded that ―the idea of the eschatological kingdom of the righteous was a very common one. If Dan vii deals with the dominion of the angels over all the nations, one must say that this chapter stands alone in all the literature of this period‖ (p.328). However, by assuming that ‫ עם‬means people and ―holy ones‖ (‫ )רדוׁשים‬are heavenly, Brekelman‘s argument has been side-stepped. 26 27

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

161

6. A RESOLUTION OF THE DILEMMA: INTERTEXTUAL LINKS The use of ‫ עם‬calls to mind those passages in the Hebrew Bible where ‫ עם רדוׁש‬indicates Israel: Deut 7:6;14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9.29 These passages link the notion of ―holy people‖ to the keeping of God‘s commandments in some way. In the first three (Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21), orders are given to do or not do certain things ―because you are a holy people.‖ Deut 26:19 is worth quoting, along with part of the previous verse, because it also connects the notion of being a holy people, with ‫( עליון‬high), as does Dan 7:27: and that you should keep all his commandments and (He will) make you high (‫ )עליון‬above all nations which he has made. ...that you may be a holy people (‫ )עם רדוׁש‬to the Lord your God....

The conditional nature of being a holy people is brought out clearly in Deut 28:9: The Lord will establish you as a holy people (‫ )עם רדוׁש‬for himself, as he has sworn to you, if you will keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in his ways.

In a similar way, Deut 28:1 shows that being set on high is conditional: if you listen diligently to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe and do all his commandments which I command you this day, the Lord God will set you on high (‫ )עליון‬above all the nations of the earth.

It is likely then that Deuteronomy is part of the background to the expression ‫ עם רדיׁשי עליונין‬in Dan 7:27.30 Nevertheless there are differences in the Danielic ‫עם‬. Deuteronomy refers to the whole nation as holy and the different phrasing in Daniel suggests that it Isa 62:12 has ‫ ;עם־הרדש‬Isa 63:18 has ‫עם־רדשך‬. The link between the ―holy ones‖ of Daniel 7 and ―holy people‖ of Deut 26:19; 28:9 has been mooted previously, but the connection with ‫ עליון‬that appears in Deut 26:18; 28:1, to my knowledge, has not. 29 30

162

KETER SHEM TOV

is referring to a group, a company of holy ones, those from the nation who keep the commandments. The following section looks at whether there are any precedents for this in the Hebrew Bible.

7. BIBLICAL PASSAGES THAT INDICATE “HOLY ONES” ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL A number of biblical passages provide parameters for who in the nation was considered ―holy‖ and/or would survive the coming judgement. These are Ps 34:10[9]; 16:3, and Isa 4:3, all of which have other links with Daniel, as will be noted in what follows. 31 The first passage to be considered is Ps 34:10[9] which forms part of the background to Dan 3 and 6.32 In these chapters respectively, Daniel‘s companions are saved from burning in the fire and Daniel from being killed in the lions‘ den. Refusal to worship anything or obey anyone other than God led to the miraculous deliverance of these men. In Dan 3:25, 28 the appearance of God‘s angel who delivered the friends from the fire is a haggadah on Ps 34:8[7] which states, The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him and delivers them.

In Ps 34:10[9] the notion of the ―fear of the Lord‖ is linked with being ―holy,‖

Hasel, ―The Identity of the Saints,‖ 177–78 thinks that Prov 9:10; Prov 30:3; Hos 12:1 {11:12} probably also refer to earthly creatures. He may be correct, but, even if he is not, it may be that the author of Daniel interpreted the ‫ רדׁשים‬who appear in those passages as earthly. Prov 9:10 which reads, ―Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬and the knowledge (‫ )דעת‬of holy ones (‫ )רדׁשים‬is understanding (‫)בינה‬,‖ uses the same words to describe the ‫ רדׁשים‬as Dan 1:4 uses to describe the youths who are skilled (‫ )מׂשכלים‬in all these aspects. As will be argued later in the present paper, the ‫ מׂשכלים‬are ‫רדׁשים‬. 32 The link with Ps 34:10[9] was mentioned briefly in Anne E. Gardner, ―The Way to Eternal Life in Dan 12:1e–2 or How to Reverse the Death Curse of Genesis 3,‖ ABR 40 (1992): 1–19, esp. 18. 31

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

163

Fear the Lord, his holy ones (‫)רדׁשיו‬ For there is no lack for those who fear him.

Further, both these verses, along with the following one, Ps 34:11[10] (―The young lions lack and suffer hunger, but they that seek the Lord will not want any good thing‖) lie behind Daniel‘s delivery from the lions‘ den. In Dan 6:22 Daniel says, My God has sent his angel and has shut the lions‘ mouths and they have not hurt me, because before him innocence was found in me and also before you, O King, have I done no hurt.

Psalm 34 also provides the background to the punishment of those who were responsible for Daniel being cast into the lions‘ den for verses 21–22[20–21] contrast the differing fate of the righteous and the wicked. The righteous person … keeps all his bones, not one of them is broken

but Evil slays the wicked, and they that hate the righteous shall be condemned.

Compare these verses with Dan 6:24 where we are told about those responsible for Daniel being thrown into the lions‘ den, ―the lions had the mastery of them and broke all their bones in pieces.‖ ―Fear of the Lord‖ and being ―holy,‖ then, saved Daniel and friends from the earthly fate decreed for them by their enemies. Daniel and his friends are among the ‫רדוׁשים‬: they feared the Lord, they trusted in him, and they were delivered. The second passage to be considered is Ps 16:3 which also contains ‫רדוׁשים‬. It seems evident that the reference is to humans for it specifies ―the holy ones (‫ )רדוׁשים‬who are on the earth,‖ although not all scholars would agree.33 For the sake of making clear the argument that follows, Ps 16:2–4 is quoted here: Mitchell Dahood, Psalms (AB 16–17a; 3 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965–1970), 1:87–88, takes them as ―heavenly‖ following Luc Dequeker, ―Les Qedošim du Ps LXXXIX à la lumière des croyances 33

164

KETER SHEM TOV (2)You said34 to the Lord (‫)יהוה‬, you are my Lord (‫)אדני‬ I have no good beyond you35 (3) To the holy ones (‫ )רדוׁשים‬who are on the earth, And I will cause to dwell (‫)אדישי‬36 among them all my delight (‫)חץקי‬ (4) They multiply their sorrows (those) who endow (‫)מהשו‬37 another (god).

sémitiques,‖ ETL 39 (1963): 469–84. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco: Word, 1983), 156, also sees them as pagan deities. 34 MT: ―You said.‖ This is retained by Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 154–55 on the basis that it highlights the contrast with the person with whom the psalmist is in dialogue. However, most translations and commentators prefer ―I said,‖ on the basis of what they see as the context. There is some limited support for the first person singular in some Hebrew mss. cf. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 154 but the notion that the Psalmist is addressing God is logical, given that he clearly does so in verses 10 and 11. 35 This line has caused difficulties for translators, particularly as ‫בל‬ usually has a negative connotation. 36 ‫ אדישי‬is usually understood as the adjective ‫ אדיש‬which has been wrongly pointed. However, a verb would be more appropriate at this juncture. Unfortunately, the verse does not appear among the DSS but the LXX has ―To the holy ones, those in his earth, he has magnified ( σ σ ) all his pleasure in them‖ which presumes the verb ‫הדש‬. This, however, does not give a meaning which is coherent in the context. It also necessitated changing ―my delight‖ to ―his delight.‖ Perhaps the 1st person singular hiphil of ‫ דוש‬meaning ―dwell‖ was intended originally, although the hiphil of this verb does not occur elsewhere, but then neither does the hiphil of ‫הדר‬. The final yodh would need to be removed, but this would not be a problem if it was added at a later date when ‫ אדיש‬was taken to mean ―mighty one.‖ 37 Many commentators have reservations about this word. It is usually translated as ―hasten after,‖ although Dahood, Psalms, 1:88, thinks that the Ugaritic root ‫השש‬, meaning ―lust,‖ is more appropriate. Craigie, Psalms 1– 50, 155, while accepting the Ugaritic connection, thinks that ―burned‖ or ―scorched‖ would be more suitable. The translation ―endowed‖ is deemed most appropriate by the present scholar. The verb appears with such a meaning in Exod 22:15[16] x 2 and there it appears in the context of marriage where a man must endow a girl he has enticed. This links well

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

165

These verses are riddled with textual and/or translation difficulties. However, it seems that in verse 2 the Psalmist is speaking about his own convictions. His attitude in verse 2 contrasts with the attitudes of those highlighted in verse 4. Verses 3 and 4, which are probably God’s response to the Psalmist’s words in verse 2, are also a contrasting pair, with the holy ones being the opposite of those who choose another god. It is likely, because of the contrast between verses 2 and 4, that the Psalmist is considered to be one of the holy ones (‫ )רדוׁשים‬of verse 3. If this is the case, then Psalm 16, like Isa 4:3 and Ps 34:10[9], suggests a division within Israel between those whom the Psalmist thought were ‚holy‛ and those he thought were not. Further, if the Psalmist belongs to the ‚holy ones,‛ then Psalm 16 provides evidence of ‫ רדוׁש‬being considered parallel in meaning to ‫חסיד‬, for this is how the Psalmist describes himself in verse 10, in a passage which calls to mind Dan 12:2: For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol You will not give your pious ones (‫ )חסידך‬to see corruption (‫)ׁשחת‬.

The parallelism of ‫ רדוׁש‬and ‫ חסיד‬would nullify the arguments of those scholars who supplement their claim that ‫ רדוׁש‬in Dan 7:18 etc refers to heavenly beings by positing that if earthly ones had been intended, then ‫ חסיד‬would have been used.38 The third passage, Isa 4:3, is quoted here with part of the previous verse: with ―multiply their sorrows‖ which alludes to the well known passage in Gen 3:16 where Eve‘s punishment for disobedience to God is linked to the sex act and its consequences. Alexander F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms with Introduction and Notes: Book I Psalms I–XLI (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 75 points out that the RV has ―give gifts for,‖ i.e., ―endow,‖ in its margin. Kirkpatrick rejects such a translation because he says that although the relationship between God and Israel is often spoken of in terms of a marriage, God is always the husband and Israel the wife. Such an objection is not perhaps as strong as Kirkpatrick suggests for it is poetic allusion which is at play in Psalm 16. 38 Goldingay, Daniel, 177.

166

KETER SHEM TOV (2) In that day the branch (‫ )קמח‬of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious... (3) And it will come to pass that he who is left in Zion and he who remains in Jerusalem will be called holy (‫)רדוׁש‬, everyone who is written for life in Jerusalem.

This passage makes it clear that it is only a part of the nation that will be considered holy and that will survive the coming purging. Its link with Dan 12:1, ―your people will be delivered, everyone that will be found written in the book,‖ indicates its relevance for the identity of the ―holy ones.‖39 An examination of the passages in the Hebrew Bible which indicate the parameters for people being, or becoming ―holy (‫ ‖)רדוׁש‬is now complete. It indicates those who obeyed God and trusted in him. One of the passages (Isa 4:2) refers to the ―branch‖ of the Lord and ―branch‖ was a word associated with one of David‘s line (Jer 23:5; 33:15). There is a possibility, therefore, that the ―holy ones‖ had a leader of this genre. The use of ‫ עליונין‬with ―holy ones‖ in Dan 7 strengthens this possibility as will be seen in the following delineation of who is ―on high‖ elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. ‫ עליון‬occurs five times in a description of people or places other than God or his domain. These are in Deut 26:19, 28:1; 1 Kgs 9:8 (which parallels 2 Chron 7:21); Ps 89:28[27]. The first two, those in Deuteronomy, refer to Israel and have been cited already. The passage in 1 Kgs 9:8 with its parallel in 2 Chron 7:21 refers to the Temple being ―high.‖ Psalm 89:28[27] links ‫ עליון‬to David. It reads, Moreover I will make him the firstborn, the Highest (‫ )עליון‬of the kings of the earth.

The likelihood is increased that this reference is an integral part of the background to Dan 7:18 (where there is the first mention of the ‫ )רדיׁשי עליונין‬when it is realised that Ps 89:28[27] links with the Isa 62:12 links with Isa 4:2–4 in that an announcement is made to the daughter of Zion (62:11) that they shall be called the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord. 39

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

167

previous verse of Daniel (7:17) which refers to the kings who would arise out of the earth. That verse reads, These great beasts which are four are four kings who will arise out of the earth

This supports the possibility, mentioned above, that ―David‖ is an essential part of the ―high ones.‖ The ―holy ones‖ are the righteous of the people of Israel who, because they obey God, are also part of the ―high ones,‖ as promised in Deut 26:18; 28:1. In other words, it seems that ‫ עליונין‬should be retained as plural in meaning and not reduced to the singular. Essentially it functions as an adjective, describing ―holy ones;‖ nevertheless the use of the construct plus a substantive was probably to indicate that ‫ עליון‬was derived from two streams of tradition.40 It is said in Dan 7:18 that the ‫ רדיׁשי עליונין‬will ―receive the kingdom.‖ The latter phrase appears also in Dan 6:1[5:31] where it is said that ―Darius the Mede received the kingdom.‖ In that instance there is no doubt that the kingdom is an earthly one so perhaps, by analogy, the kingdom of Dan 7:18 should also be understood as earthly.41 In the vision in Daniel 7 the kingdom was

It is quite possible to understand the ‫ רדיׁשי עליונין‬in CD 20:8 in the same way as in Daniel. The context demands that the ―holy ones‖ are members of the community who curse one of their own who does not fulfil the requirements of holiness. Nevertheless, the column begins by looking forward to the ―messiah of Israel and Aaron‖ and there is an intimation at the end of the column that the upright (the holy) members of the community will have an elevated status in the future. They ―…will prevail over all the sons of the world. And God will atone for them and they shall see his salvation for they have taken refuge in his holy name‖ (CD 20:33–34). That they ―will prevail over all the sons of the world‖ is an indication that the ―upright‖ will partake in a future Messianic rule. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel, 54–55, thinks that ―holy ones‖ in CD 20:8 are earthly (priests). Brekelmans, ―The Saints,‖ 323–24 also thinks they are earthly. 41 As has been pointed out by some scholars, following Brekelmans, ―The Saints,‖ 323–24 nowhere in the Hebrew Bible do angels receive the 40

168

KETER SHEM TOV

given to what appeared to be a single recipient, ―one like a son of man.‖ The identity of ―one like a son of man‖ has been highly debated as to whether an individual, earthly or heavenly, or a group is indicated,42 but no consensus has been reached. In Dan 7:18 the recipients are plural but the likelihood is that they were envisaged as having a leader, given the references to ―David‖ in Psalm 89. Like God‘s kingdom in Dan 3:33[4:3], 4:31[4:34], the kingdom of the high holy ones is everlasting. It seems then that recognition of the inner-biblical links of ‫ רדיׁשי עליונין‬and ‫ עם רדיׁשי עליונין‬in Dan 7 has demonstrated that those so described were earthly human beings. Nevertheless, they were human beings who were closely aligned with God through trust in and obedience to him. As far as Daniel is concerned, it remains to consider the two occurrences of ―holy one‖ and ―holy ones‖ that appear in Hebrew in Chapter 8. In Dan 8:13–14 Daniel overhears a conversation between two holy ones (‫רדוׁש‬...‫ )רדוׁש‬who are discussing how long the present situation will last. How long (does) the vision of the Tamid And the transgression of desolation (last) Giving (lit. to give) both the sanctuary and host to be trampled on?

The majority of commentators accept that the ―holy ones‖ in this instance are heavenly beings, although there has been some discussion as to what kind.43 A holy one speaking to another holy

kingdom. See, e.g., Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (Studies in Biblical Literature 123; NY: Peter Lang, 2009), 92. 42 Collins, Daniel, 304–10 has an excursus on the variety of scholarly understandings of the phrase ―one like a son of man.‖ For a synopsis of views about the origin of the Son of Man tradition as well as that of the Ancient of Days, see Jürg Eggler, Influences and Traditions Underlying the Vision of Daniel 7:2–14: The Research History from the End of the 19 th Century to the Present (OBO 177; Freiburg: Freiburg University Press, 2000), 55–110. 43 André Lacoque, Le Livre de Daniel (CAT 15b; Neuchatel : Delachaux et Niestlé, 1976), 122, says, ―Il ne va nullement de soi qu‘il s‘agisse d‘un

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

169

one is reminiscent of Isaiah‘s call (Isa 6:3). Interestingly, that took place in the Temple and events at the Temple are the subject of discussion in the present passage.44 By analogy with Isaiah, the holy ones are to be identified as heavenly creatures.45 Later in the same chapter of Daniel, it is said that ―he (i.e., ‗a king of fierce countenance‘ [8:23]—usually understood to be Antiochus Epiphanes) will corrupt mighty ones (‫ )עקומים‬and a people of holy ones (‫( ‖)עם־רדׁשים‬Dan 8:24). Collins says that ―Either the angelic holy ones or the human ‗people of the holy ones‘ are appropriate as the object of the king‘s plotting.‖46 However, the majority of commentators understand ‫ עם־רדׁשים‬here to refer to the whole of Israel by analogy with Isa 62:12, 63:18. In the Isaianic passages, though, ―holy‖ is singular and ‫ ר ֶֹדש‬is used, rather than ‫ ָרדֹוׁש‬. Furthermore, both 1 and 2 Maccabees assert that the people as a whole were not corrupted. The former work states that, although many in Israel accepted Antiochus‘ policy (1 Macc 1:43), many stood firm (1 Macc 1:62). Indeed they were quite prepared to fight Lysimachus and his troops when there was an attempt to rob the Temple (2 Macc 4:41–42). This being the case, the question of the identity of ―a people of holy ones‖ (‫ )עם־רדׁשים‬remains. It is possible that in this instance it indicates the priests, for ‫ עם‬can signify a group and ‫ רדׁשים‬means ―priests‖ in Lev 21:6; 2 Chron 23:6, Ezra 8:28 etc. Such an interpretation is in keeping with what is known of the crisis from 2 Maccabees, for 4:14–15 tells how Jason‘s policy of

ange, comme la plupart des commentateurs le croient. Il s‘agit d‘un Saint si l‘on peut dire.‖ 44 George G. Nicol, ―Isaiah‘s Vision and the Visions of Daniel,” VT 29 (1979), 501–04, draws attention to the links between Isaiah 6 and Daniel‘s visions. 45 Scholars have also noted a similarity with Zech 1 where angels converse with one another. Further, they have observed that in Zech 1:12 an angel poses the same question as one of the holy ones poses in Dan 8:13, ―How long?‖ Nevertheless it should be observed that ‫ מלאך‬not ‫ רדוׁש‬is used to denote the angelic figure. 46 Collins, Daniel, 341.

170

KETER SHEM TOV

Hellenization led to the priests neglecting their sacrificial duties in favour of participation in the Greek games. The two occurrences of ―holy one/holy ones‖ in Hebrew, i.e., the two in Dan 8 that have just been considered, evidence a similar pattern to their Aramaic counterparts, viz., according to the individual passage and its intertextual links within the Hebrew Bible, ‫רדוׁשים‬/‫ רדיׁשין‬denotes either heavenly creatures or earthly ones. It was that kind of human being who would ―wake to everlasting life‖ (Dan 12:2) or be translated ―to the stars‖ (Dan 12:3) and thus become a heavenly holy figure, joining with other heavenly holy ones. In other words, there may have been a continuum between being ―holy‖ on earth and ―holy‖ in heaven. If that was the case, then the appearances of ―a holy one‖ in Dan 4:10[13], 20[23] and ―holy ones‖ in Dan 4:14[17], paired in each instance with ―a watcher‖ or ―watchers,‖ and who are indisputably heavenly, can be accounted for in a way that does not require a radical division between earthly ―holy ones‖ and the heavenly variety. If the ―holy ones‖ of Dan 4 are understood in such a light, it would indicate that continued life in the heavenly sphere was possible for humans who were holy, even prior to the final judgement.47 It is appropriate to turn now to the War Scroll and consider the appearances of ‫ רדוׁשים‬there.

8. THE WAR SCROLL There are various scholarly theories as to the time(s) of the composition of 1QM, ranging from the unitary to the multiple, although in general the terminus a quo is thought to be 164 BCE because of the use of Dan 11–12 in column 1, and the terminus ad quem is thought to be the middle of the first century BCE, on the basis of the palaeography of the manuscript and/or the Roman

Brekelmans, ―The Saints,‖ 318, sees a three-fold division of human ―holy ones‖ in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: those who are justified at the Last Judgement; the souls of the righteous who are dead, and the living who are righteous. 47

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

171

invasion by Pompey in 63BCE.48 ―Holy ones‖ (‫ )רדוׁשים‬as a substantive appear in both the narrative sections (cols. 1–9 and cols. 15–19), as well as in the poetic section (cols. 10–14) of the work,49 although they are more prevalent in the latter. In the following discussion of the occurrences of ―holy ones,‖ a synchronic approach will be taken and, as was the case with Daniel, a literary and intertextual approach is adopted. At the end of the paper, the links between the holy ones in Daniel and 1QM are adduced but particular attention is paid to the connection of 1QM 10:9–11 with several verses in Daniel. As the connection involves the social function and status of those referred to, it strongly suggests that both texts emerged from the same circle. There is no complete agreement as to who is intended by the ―holy ones‖ in the War Scroll. Dequeker, for instance, taking his lead from Noth,50 argues that all the references to ―holy ones‖ indicate heavenly creatures.51 Other scholars, as the accompanying chart shows, allow that some occurrences in 1QM have a heavenly referent but assert that others have an earthly one and sometimes both a heavenly and an earthly referent together. Occasionally a Duhaime, The War Texts, 64–102, provides an overview and critique of scholarly arguments about the dating of 1QM and the related fragments. Writing later than Duhaime, Schultz, Conquering the World, 384– 90 thinks that cols. 1–9 were composed in the second half of the second century BCE but that 15–19 were written after the Roman invasion of 63BCE. 49 In addition, there are other verses where the root is used in an adjectival sense to specify that some things or some people are holy: your holy name (1QM 11:3); holy dwelling (1QM 12:1); holy people (1QM 12:1; 14:12); his holy plan (1QM 13:2). 50 Noth, ―The Holy Ones,‖ 215–28. 51 In Luc Dequeker, ―Daniel 7 and the Saints of the Most High,‖ ETL 36 (1960): 353–92, esp. 382–83, he allowed that 1QM 9:7–8; 10:9–11 referred to earthly beings on the grounds that there had been an evolution of the term from the heavenly to the non-heavenly by the second century BCE, but in idem., ―The ‗Saints of the Most High‘ in Qumran and Daniel,‖ (1973), esp. p.154, he indicated that that was not a necessary conclusion and that they could be heavenly. 48

172

KETER SHEM TOV

scholar finds it impossible to decide whether a heavenly or an earthly creature is intended.

E

E, H

U (E in 1960)

E

1QM 6:6=16:1

E

E

E

H

E

1QM 9:7–8

E

E

U (E in 1960)

1QM 10:9–10

E

E

E

H

1QM 10:11–12

H

H

H

H

1QM 12:1

H

H

H

H (says 12:1–9 is unit)

U, but inclined to H

H

1QM 12:4, 8–9

E

U

H (4 & 7) E (8)53

H

H

H

Naudé (1999)

Lamberigts (1970)

E

Davies (1977)

Brekelmans (1965)

1QM 3:4–5

Dequeker (1973)

Yadin (1962)

Table 1: Table of Some Scholarly Interpretations52

The works of the cited authors are Yadin, The Scroll of the War; Brekelmans, ―The Saints,‖ 305–29; Sylvester Lamberigts, Le Sens de QDWŠYM dans les Textes de Qumrân (Leiden: Brill, 1970); Dequeker, ―The ‗Saints of the Most High,‘‖ (1973), 108–87; idem, ―Daniel 7 and the Saints,‖ (1960), 353–92; Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran; Poythress, ―The Holy Ones,‖ 208–13; Jacobus A. Naudé, ―Holiness in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 171–99. Not all scholars comment on every passage. 53 Lamberigts, Le Sens de QDWŠYM, 31–32. It is noteworthy that Lamberigts sees lines 4 and 7 as linked which most scholars do not. 52

Lamberigts (1970)

Dequeker (1973)

E (has it as line 6)

H

H

H

1QM 15:14–15

–

H

H

H

1QM 18:2

H

U

E, H

H

173

Naudé (1999)

Brekelmans (1965)

1QM 12:7

Davies (1977)

Yadin (1962)

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

H

H =Heavenly U = Undecided E = Earthly Each of the passages in 1QM where ‫ רדוׁשים‬occurs is discussed below. 8.1. 1QM 3:4–5 The first occurrence of ‫ רדוׁשים‬in 1QM is in 3:4–5 where it appears among the instructions for battle. In a directive about trumpets to be used at different stages of the battle proceedings, the trumpets blown to muster men into their battle formations— those belonging to the ―camps‖—are to have inscribed on them, ―Peace of God in the camps (‫ )מחני‬of his holy ones (‫)רדוׁשיו‬.‖ The majority of scholars think that in this instance, the ―holy ones‖ are earthly, although Lamberigts is of the opinion that they might denote both heavenly as well as earthly beings54 and Dequeker is undecided about the referent. 55 It has been acknowledged previously by scholars that Num 10:1–10 lies behind the use of trumpets.56 There, in verse 1, Moses tells the Israelites to make trumpets to call the congregation (‫ )עדה‬and for the journeying of the camps (‫)מחנות‬. It had been pointed in the previous pericope

Lamberigts, ―Le Sens de QDWŠYM,‖ 29. Dequeker, ―The ‗Saints of the Most High,‘‖ 154. 56 Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 87. 54 55

174

KETER SHEM TOV

(Num 9:15–23) that the people of Israel were obedient to God and this was emphasised in the last verse where it is said, At the commandment of the Lord they encamped And at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed: they kept the charge of the Lord, at the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses (Num 9:23).

In other words, these were people who were aligned with God and his wishes. They were the ones who were summoned by the trumpets in Num 10:1. It is most improbable then that 1QM 3:5, given its links with Numbers 10:1, is indicating by its use of ―holy ones‖ anyone other than the earthly members of the camps.57 8.2. 1QM 6:6 For Kingship belongs to the God of Israel and with the holy ones of his people (‫ )ברדוׁשי עמו‬he will do valiantly (‫)יעׂשה חיל‬.

This particular verse appears after a description of warfare by battalions who inscribe their weapons with messages proclaiming God‘s agency in the ability of the weapons to kill. It seems logical that in accordance with the context, the two parties to be thanked for bringing about the death of the enemy or, as the text says, who ―pay the reward of their evil‖ are divine and human, i.e., God and ―the holy ones of his people.‖ Such a conclusion is strengthened with the recognition that the phrase ‫ עׂשה חיל‬appears in the Hebrew Bible only in Ps 118:15, 16. There it is God who will ―do valiantly‖ but this is in aid of the Psalmist who trusts in him (Ps 118:8, 9). The following verses (Ps 118:10–12) provide a crucial link to the inscribing of weapons with messages proclaiming God‘s ability to kill in 1QM col. 6, for the Psalmist says,

It will be seen later that the other body for whom the trumpets are made in Numbers 10—the congregation (‫—)עדה‬are also described as ‫ רדוׁשים‬in 1QM 12:7, thus lending support in a contiguous way to the identification of the ―holy ones‖ in 1QM 3:5 as earthly. 57

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

175

All nations surrounded me; with/in the name of the Lord I cut them off58 They surrounded me, yea they surrounded me; with/in the name of the Lord I cut them off They surrounded me like bees, they blazed59 like the fire of thorns; with/in the name of the Lord I cut them off

so giving an assurance that the ―holy ones‖ of 1QM 6:6 are earthly creatures. 8.3. 1QM 9:7–8 Although as noted in the table of scholarly views, Dequeker expresses some uncertainty, 60 there can be little doubt that earthly creatures are indicated in 1QM 9:7–8, for it says, ―the priests …they are holy ones (‫)רדוׁשים‬.‖ The comment is made in explanation of why the priests were not allowed to enter the battlefield where the slain lay for they might be defiled by blood. The passages that have been considered so far had already gained almost a consensus of scholarly opinions that their referents are earthly, although the case for this has been strengthened by recognising the biblical allusions they make. However, as can be seen from the chart of scholarly opinions about the next two occurrences of ―holy ones,‖ while the majority agree that ‫רדוׁשים‬ in 1QM 10:9–10 should be identified as earthly creatures, the opposite is true for the following verses, 1QM 10:11–12, where they are held to be heavenly beings. Dequeker draws attention to this discrepancy and insists that the two instances of ―holy ones,‖ so close together, must both refer to the same type of being.61 The hiphil of ‫ מול‬occurs only in Ps 118:10, 11, 12. The root means ―circumcise‖ and Dahood, Psalms 3:157, argues that it should be translated here as ―I cut off their foreskins.‖ However, other commentators prefer a more general meaning such as ―destroy‖ or ―cut off.‖ 59 The verb, ‫דעך‬, is pointed as a pual and so means ―was extinguished.‖ However, the Targum and the LXX indicate the meaning ―blaze‖ or ―burn.‖ This is more appropriate in the context. 60 See footnote 51. 61 Dequeker, ―The ‗Saints of the Most High,‘‖ 156–57. 58

176

KETER SHEM TOV

Accordingly, he assigns them to the heavenly category. While, agreeing with Dequeker that the referents of ‫ רדוׁשים‬in each of the two sets of verses are unlikely to be different, it is much more probable that they are both earthly. Accordingly the two passages will be considered together. 8.4. 1QM 10:9–10 9…And who is like your people Israel Whom you chose from among all the peoples of the earth 10 A people of holy ones of the covenant (‫)עם רדוׁשי בשית‬ Learned in the law, wise in knowledge (‫)ומלומדי חור מׂשכילי בינ[ה‬ Alert to the voice of glory Seers of 11 the messengers/angels of holiness62 (‫)שואי מלאכי רודׁש‬ With open ears hearing profound things.

Apart from Dequeker in the table of scholarly opinions, there is agreement amongst the others that the referents of the ―holy ones‖ in line 10 are earthly. The view of a particular scholar, however, needs to be discussed here. Collins notes that although the ―people of holy ones of the covenant‖ are clearly identified with ―your people Israel,‖ he is reluctant to accept that the ―holy ones‖ are anything other than heavenly beings because he thinks that that is It should be noted that the nominal form of ‫ רדׁש‬appears here and so, strictly speaking, does not describe the ‫ מלאכים‬although it has been rendered in that way by Van Der Ploeg, Le Rouleau de la Guerre, 45; Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 306; Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, DSSSE 1:129, amongst others. Naudé, ―Holiness,‖ 179, comments concerning the use of the root ‫ רדׁש‬in the Hebrew Bible, ―The noun and adjective are not used in the same contexts (i.e., the one is not just the adjectival form of the other), but instead have linguistic ranges that do not overlap significantly.‖ He indicates that the noun indicates a state of belonging to the divine realm while the adjective propels a person or an object towards the divine. 62

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

177

how ‫ רדוׁשים‬should be understood in the following two lines, 1QM 10:11–12.63 He recognises that the expression ―people of holy ones of the covenant (‫ ‖)עם רדוׁשי בשית‬in 1QM 10: 9 is very similar to ―people of holy ones of high ones‖ in Dan 7:27 and this leads him to conclude that in Daniel also ―the people‖ belong to the ―holy ones‖ who are heavenly. As seen above, that is not a likely identification for an intertextual study of the words used in Daniel‘s expression indicates that the referents are earthly. 8.5. 1QM 10:11–12 […You created] the dome of the sky The army of luminaries The support of the spirits The rule of the holy ones (‫)ממׁשלת רדוׁשים‬ The treasures of glo[ry, in the darkness] of the clouds Creator of the earth and of the laws of its divisions.

As is clear, the setting is heavenly and so it is not surprising that scholars have understood ‫ רדוׁשים‬to have a heavenly referent. Nevertheless, ―luminaries (‫ ‖)מאושות‬as well as ‫ממׁשלת‬, the word for ―rule,‖ recall Genesis 1. There the ‫ מאשות‬are created (Gen 1:14): ―the greater light to rule (‫ )לממׁשלת‬the day and the lesser light to rule (‫ )לממׁשלת‬the night… and to divide the light (‫)האוש‬ from the darkness‖ (Gen 1:16–18). According to 1QM 13:10, ―from of old God appointed the Prince of Light ( ‫ )מאוש‬to assist us…and all the spirits of truth are under his dominion.‖ It is probable, therefore, that ―the rule of the holy ones‖ in 1QM 10:11 indicates that the ‫( מאושות‬luminaries), especially ―the greater light,‖ were for the rule ‫ ממׁשלת‬of God‘s earthly holy ones (‫)רדוׁשים‬. 8.6. 1QM 12:1 Dequeker insists that 12:1–9 are a unit, with the corollary that each instance of ―holy ones‖ within it must be identical in application and so refer to heavenly beings. The majority of scholars agree that 63

Collins, Daniel, 315.

178

KETER SHEM TOV

―holy ones‖ in 12:1–9 are heavenly, although they are not so certain that the lines should be viewed as a unit. However, as apparent in the table of scholarly views there have been some dissenting voices about who was intended by the ―holy ones‖ and so the lines where they occur need to be reviewed. They read as follows: For there [is] a multitude of holy ones (‫ )רדוׁשים‬in heaven *And a host of angels (‫ )מלאכים‬in your holy dwelling to […] your […] And the chosen ones of* the holy people 2. you have established for yourself in […] (1QM 12:1 [paralleled from * to * by 4Q491 fragments 5–6]). To organise the arm[ies] of your chosen ones In its thousands and in its myriads, Together with/a community of people of your holy ones (‫ )יחד עם רדׁשיכה‬and […] your angels (‫( )מלאכיכה‬1QM 12:4). You God… and the congregation of your holy ones (‫ )עדת רדוׁשיכה‬is among us for everlasting assistance (1QM 12:7). People of holy ones (‫[ )עם רדׁשים‬our] warr[iors A]nd a host of angels is enlisted with us (1QM 12:8).

At first sight, it would appear that the consensus opinion is correct for 12:1 states that the ―holy ones‖ (‫ )רדׁשים‬are in heaven. Nevertheless, not every occurrence of ‫ רדׁשים‬in col 12 is as straightforward as that of line 1. In line 7 they are said to be a ―congregation of your holy ones (‫)עדת רדוׁשיכה‬.‖ In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ עדה‬is often used of Israel and appears most frequently in Numbers which, of course, deals with a war situation, thus linking with the context of col. 12. Further, in the War Scroll itself, ‫ עדה‬is used for the community (1QM 4:9).64 This suggests then that the ―holy ones‖ in line 7 are earthly. It is possible that ―your holy ones Schultz, Conquering the World, 353–65 provides a survey of the use of ‫ עדה‬in the DSS. It may be that Schultz‘s conclusions could be nuanced by a recognition of additional intertextual links between passages in the DSS and passages in the Hebrew Bible. 64

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

179

(‫ ‖)רדׁשיכה‬in 12:4 also refers to human holy ones but that depends upon how the preceding ‫ יחד עם‬is understood. It could mean ―together with‖ or ―a community of people.‖ Most commentators prefer the former as they say that as ‫ מלאכים‬follows ‫ רדׁשים‬and there is a gap of three letters prior to ‫מלאכים‬, it suggests that ‫ועם‬ should be inserted. The corollary, they say, is that because ‫ עם‬in the sense of ―people‖ does not precede ‫ מלאכים‬elsewhere, ―people‖ is not a legitimate translation and ―with‖ is to be preferred. However, too much weight has been placed on this argument for it is a lacuna, not ‫עם‬, that precedes ‫מלאכים‬. More to the point, 12:8, four lines after the one in question, has the expression ‫עם רדוׁשים‬. Although ‫ עם‬there has been translated as ―with,‖ as is the case with 12:4, it is preceded by ‫אתנו‬, meaning ―with us,‖ making it much more probable that ‫ עם‬indicates ―people.‖ Further, in 12:8 the people of holy ones are (probably) warriors (the first three letters ‫ גבו‬are present). In the following line (line 9) it is said ―the ‫ גבוש‬is in our congregation.‖ That he is in the congregation (‫ )עדה‬indicates that he is human and earthly and thus implies the same about the ―holy ones‖ in the previous verse. Here it is noteworthy that both 12:8 and 12:9 refer to, on the one hand, an earthly creature/s and on the other, heavenly ones viz., People of holy ones (‫[ )עם רדיׁשים‬our] warr[iors A]nd a host of angels is enlisted with us (1QM 12:8) And a warrior of wa[r] in our congregation And a host of his spirits is with our step (1QM 12:9)

thus further supporting the notion that the ―holy ones‖ in 12:8 are earthly. It is possible then to adduce every single occurrence of ‫ רדׁשים‬to indicate earthly creatures, with the exception of 12:1. Perhaps it should be questioned, though, what kind of heavenly beings are referred to there. 65 It was suggested in the case of Daniel Most scholars identify them with ―angels.‖ Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 231 notes that ‫ רדיׁשים‬is synonymous with ‫ מלאכים‬but in his commentary on individual lines of the text appears to indicate that most instances of ‫ רדוׁשים‬refer to earthly beings. It should be noted that ‫מלאכים‬, like ‫רדׁשים‬, can refer to either heavenly or earthly beings in the 65

180

KETER SHEM TOV

that earthly holy ones became heavenly holy ones after death and perhaps the ―holy ones‖ of 1QM 12:1 should be regarded in that light. ‫ רדוׁשים‬can also be read as a reference to human holy ones in two further passages dealing with warfare that appear in the later narrative section. 8.7. 1QM 15:14–15 1QM 15:14–15 reads, ….warriors of gods/angelic beings (‫ )גבושי אלים‬girding themselves for battle And the formations of the holy ones (‫)ר[ד]וׁשים‬ [Mus]tered (‫]רדים‬...[) for the day of…

Earlier in the column there is a warning to Israel that it will be a time of suffering but that those ready for war should go and camp opposite the king of Kittim and the army of Belial. They are then exhorted to bravery by the priest appointed for the time of vengeance for God is raising his hand against the wicked spirits. It is at this point that the warriors of gods/angelic beings gird themselves and the formations of holy ones are mustered. As a human person—a priest—was the one who carried out the exhortation, it is appropriate that those he was addressing were also human. As the warriors, in this case, clearly are not human beings, it must be assumed that the ―holy ones‖ are. 8.8. 1QM 16:1 …the God of Israel has summoned the sword against all the nations (‫)גואים‬ And with the holy ones of his people (‫ )וברדוׁשי עמו‬he will perform a mighty deed (‫)גבושה‬

This line stands alone as the following line is blank. It follows on though from the passage just discussed, which makes it probable Hebrew Bible and so a simple equation of the latter with heavenly manifestations of the former is not as straightforward as some scholars have assumed.

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

181

that the ―holy ones of his people‖ (‫ )וברדוׁשי עמו‬refers back to the formations of holy ones mustered for the day (1QM 15:14–15). 8.9. 1QM 18:2 The last passage that contains ‫ רדוׁשים‬is 1QM 18:2, written here with line 1: 1.[…] When the mighty hand of God is raised against Belial And against all the army of his dominion for an everlasting blow 2. […] And shouts (‫ )תשועות‬of the holy ones (‫ )רדוׁשים‬when they pursue Assyria; the sons of Japhet will fall without rising; the Kittim will be crushed…

As in the passages concerning battles above, the ‫ רדוׁשים‬here appear to be earthly beings who pursue an earthly enemy. They do this in concert with the divine initiative in line 1. That the ―holy ones‖ are earthly can be supported from the use of ‫תשועות‬ (shouts). It appears in the Hebrew Bible in connection with the people of Israel giving a great shout to bring down the walls of Jericho (Josh 6:5, 20) and shouting is linked to battle (Job 39:25; Ezek 21:27[22]; Amos 1:14; 2:2; Zeph 1:16).66 The passage in Zephaniah correlates closely to 1QM for the context is the Day of the Lord and ―shouting‖ is linked with the ―trumpet.‖ In the rest of col. 18, it is clear that God and people are working together, for the priests blow trumpets and battle lines take up position against the Kittim (lines 3–4). In the evening, the High Priest, priests, Levites and ch[…] of the array (‫ )סשך‬bless God for his wondrous works (lines 5–8). This is reminiscent of thanks offered to God after a successful outcome in battle. It appears then that most instances of ‫ רדוׁשים‬in 1QM refer to earthly human beings who are aligned with God. The one clear exception is 12:1 where it is specified that they are ―holy ones‖ in ―heaven.‖ It also occurs in connection with the arrival of the ark (1 Sam 4:5; 2 Sam 6:15; 1 Chron 15:28); joy at the foundations of the Temple being laid (Ezra 3:11, 12); praise of God (Ps 47:6[5]) etc. 66

182

KETER SHEM TOV

9. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN “HOLY ONES” IN DANIEL AND IN 1QM In both the apocalyptic chapters of Daniel and 1QM the majority of references to ―holy ones‖ are to human beings who are on the earth. 1QM 10:9–10 gives a particularly detailed exposé of them. As in Daniel, the implication is that Israel is no longer the whole nation as it was in Deuteronomy, but is confined to the ―holy ones‖— those who keep the covenant and align themselves with God.67 The ―holy ones‖ in 1QM 10:9–10 are said to be ―learned in the law, wise in knowledge (]‫)ומלומדי חור מׂשכילי בינ[ה‬,‖ which is very similar to what is said about the kind of Jewish exiles to be brought into Nebuchadnezzar‘s court in Dan 1:4 and about those who instruct many in Dan 11:33. In a paper published recently in Revue Biblique, it was demonstrated that the ‫ מׂשכילים‬in Daniel were Priests/Levites, concerned to interpret the Torah and other writings, thus linking with 1QM 10:10 and the statement in 1QM 9:7–8 that the priests are ―holy ones (‫)רדוׁשים‬.‖68 It is striking, too, that in 1QM 10:10–11 the ―people of holy ones of the covenant‖ are described as ―seers of messengers/angels of the Holy One‖ (‫)שואי מלאכי רודׁש‬, thus linking with Daniel as a see-er of angels in the apocalyptic chapters of that work. As 1QM 10:10–11 does not simply quote from Daniel, it is unlikely to be a later imitation of the biblical book and so probably emerged from the same circle, making it likely that Davies is correct in his view that Col. 10 dates from the Maccabean period. 69 Further, even if Col. 10 is Naudé, ―Holiness,‖ 197, notes that ―the view of the Qumran community as being apocalyptic by nature provides a new framework for the study of the concept of holiness.‖ 68 Gardner, ―Sêkêl,‖ 496–514. The final footnote wrongly stated that the plural of ‫ מׂשכיל‬does not appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 69 Davies 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 123, thinks cols. 10–12 were a collection of hymns from the Maccabean period and cols. 13–14 were independent fragments. By contrast, Schultz, Conquering the World, 384–85, is of the opinion that 1QM 1–9 date from a time shortly after the Maccabean Revolt but that cols. 10–14, as well as cols. 15–19, post-date Roman intervention in Israel. Jean Duhaime, ―La Règle de la Guerre (1QM),‖ in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 67

―HOLY ONES‖ AND ―(HOLY) PEOPLE‖

183

contemporaneous with only part of 1QM, its understanding of the nature of the ‫ רדוׁשים‬who are to be identified with the members of the community, was clearly accepted by those who added later columns, for they did not contradict it.

Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popović; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 131–45, esp. 134, suggests that 1QM functioned to consolidate the identity of the community although he does recognize that not all parts of 1QM are likely to have been written by them (p. 145).

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN? Martin A. Shields 1. INTRODUCTION The book of Qohelet doesn‘t sit comfortably with the other wisdom texts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is hardly surprising—after all it doesn‘t seem to fit all that comfortably among biblical or other post-biblical wisdom literature either. The Wisdom of Solomon, for example, presents perhaps the clearest illustration of this point, ascribing many of Qohelet‘s ideas to ―the ungodly‖ who ―reason unsoundly‖ in its second chapter. Furthermore, if recent studies of the non-biblical wisdom material among the Scrolls are any guide, it would appear that Qohelet had either little impact on the authors of those texts or else they were as perplexed as many other readers both before and since have been by these strange words. For example, John Kampen‘s recent volume on Wisdom Literature in the Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls only cites passages from Qohelet four times, twice in reference to Sirach and twice in fairly bland lexical parallels.1 By way of contrast, Job is cited 34 times and Proverbs is cited almost 250 times. Daniel Harrington bears this out with his assessment that ―[a]t Qumran there is nothing like the

John Kampen, Wisdom Literature (ECDSS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). 1

185

186

KETER SHEM TOV

individual (as well as provocative and entertaining) voice that we hear in Ecclesiastes.‖2 This rather superficial overview of scholarly treatments of the Qumran wisdom materials would thus seem to answer the question ―what has Qohelet to do with Qumran?‖ with a rather terse ―very little.‖ Yet among those fragmentary texts of cave 4 were found copies of Qohelet. To be sure, there is not much left of it—small fragments of what were probably two original manuscripts. While the fragments themselves give no good basis for proposing any significant revision of our understanding of the text or meaning of the book, their presence, together with some shared distinctive orthographic features, suggests a familiarity with the work by the authors of the scrolls and provides some basis for asking how—if at all—it was received and understood by the community of the scrolls.3

2. (4Q) INSTRUCTION AND THE BOOK OF MYSTERIES Fundamental to Qohelet‘s thought are his identification of two insurmountable problems which hindered his use of wisdom to discover the value of life (or what profit there is in all the toil under the sun; cf. Qoh 1:3). The first was a lack of information—some wisdom, he concluded, had been concealed from human beings by God. This wisdom was not merely difficult to discover, it was impossible to find unless it was revealed by God, and Qohelet shows no sign that he felt such revelation was possible. The second problem was death. In Qohelet‘s view, death undermined any achievements made in one‘s life. These problems combined to Daniel J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts From Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996), 13. 3 These shared distinctive orthographic features have been highlighted by Emanuel Tov and described as the ―Qumran Practice.‖ See Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004); see also Emanuel Tov, ―The Significance of the Texts from the Judean Desert for the History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible: A New Synthesis,‖ in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 277–309. 2

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

187

sabotage Qohelet‘s quest for answers and effectively invalidated his wisdom—a conclusion he himself affirms (Qoh 2:15; 8:16–17). At Qumran, however, resolutions to these two problems were found. The lack of information was overcome by divine revelation in conjunction with human contemplation (in Instruction and in Mysteries this is expressed in part through the ―mystery of being,‖4 ‫שז נהיה‬, rāz nihyāh). Harrington explains the significance of the expression: There is a special wisdom to be found in studying the ―mystery that is to be/come‖—a topic prominent in Sapiential Work A and the Book of Mysteries. The ―mystery‖ appears to be a body of teaching that involves creation, ethical activity, and eschatology. Though creation is an element, translations such as the ―mystery of being‖ or the ―mystery of existence‖ seem too metaphysical and static. From its parallel phrases this mystery appears to be associated with the knowledge of righteousness and iniquity (―all the ways of truth...all the roots of iniquity,‖ 4Q416 2 iii 14), and also with eschatology (―the birth-time of salvation, and who is to inherit glory and iniquity,‖ 4Q417 1 i 10–11). It is difficult to identify precisely what the ‚mystery that is to be/come‛ is. It may be something like the teaching about the Two Spirits in 1QS iii–iv. At any rate, in some Qumran wisdom writings it seems to have the status of a special revelation, a privileged communication about God’s working in the world and the appropriate response of wise and righteous persons to it.5

Qohelet, lacking a revelation of or insight into this mystery, could only conclude that it is impossible to make sense of the world—all is ‫הבל‬. Translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. Scrolls references are from Martin G. Abegg, Jr., ―Qumran Non-Biblical Manuscripts for Accordance Bible Software,‖ Oak Tree Software, Inc, copyright 1999–2009. 5 Harrington, Wisdom Texts, 83. See also Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 191. 4

188

KETER SHEM TOV

In some respects Qohelet goes beyond mere agnosticism regarding possible resolutions to the problems he raises—he undermines hope for any eschatological resolution. In Qoh 3:17 he presents an apparent affirmation of judgment with apparent eschatological overtones but then proceeds to call it into question by expressing doubt over the basis for hope in eschatological judgment.6 The second problem for Qohelet, death, was resolved at Qumran by a firm belief in an afterlife in which the injustices of this life—the events which ran contrary to the retributive justice implicit in the sages’ worldview—were rectified. Consequently wisdom in the scrolls features a firm connection to the Torah together with an apocalyptic worldview, features absent from Qohelet’s words—although not necessarily absent from the book of Ecclesiastes as a whole.7 It is at this point that Armin Lange has identified a connection between the thought of the book of Ecclesiastes and the wisdom texts from Qumran. The epilogue to Qohelet asserts that fearing God and keeping his commands is a universal obligation. Furthermore, the epilogue could be understood to anticipate some form of eschatological judgment (―for God will bring every deed into judgment…;‖ Qoh 12:14; cf. 11:9). Lange has argued that these correlate with the apocalyptic expectations and devotion to the Torah that feature in some of the wisdom texts from Qumran.8

6

It is possible that this is one of those places where Qohelet quotes conventional wisdom and then undermines it (which may be an expression of his ―correcting‖ described in the epilogue). 7 I distinguish between Qohelet‘s words and the book as a whole— Qohelet‘s words together with the frame narrative. To facilitate this, I use ―Ecclesiastes‖ to refer to the entire book and ―Qohelet‖ to refer to the words attributed directly to the character Qohelet in Qoh 1:12–12:7. 8 In particular he notes that the collocation of the command to obey God and the anticipation of judgment is virtually unknown in the late Second Temple period.

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

189

Lange highlights the way laws from the Torah are integrated into Instruction9—although it is noteworthy that this integration of Torah and wisdom is not a feature of Ecclesiastes where the connection is only made in the epilogue to the book. Lange also argues for a similar integration in the Book of Mysteries (an assessment somewhat hampered by the fragmentary nature of that text). However, Lange does move beyond Qohelet’s epilogue and claims that the words ‫( יותש ל‬yôṯēr lĕ ‚[for what] advantage is there for [the sage…]‛) which appear in the Hebrew Bible only in Qoh 6:8, 11 are quoted (or at least alluded to) in Mysteries (1Q27 1 ii 3):

‫נו מה הוא היותש ל‬°] -- [°‫מנכ‬°] -- [10 From this Lange concludes: Because Sapiential Work A as well as the Book of Mysteries not only attest to such a pattern of thought [i.e., the association of wisdom with Torah and the eschatological expectation of judgment] but the latter also quotes the book of Qohelet, the second redactor of Qohelet should be seen as belonging to the sapiential circle behind these books.11

However, Lange claims more than a fair reading of the evidence will allow. For one, the case for multiple redactions of the book of Ecclesiastes is both difficult to support and unnecessary. Michael V. Fox has championed reading the entire text—including the epilogue—as a unified work, an understanding which has much in its favour. Furthermore, the view that the epilogue to Qohelet 9

Sometimes known as 4QInstruction although a portion of the text was found in cave 1, so the ―4‖ is inappropriate, and also known as Sapiential Work A. Cf. Armin Lange, ―Eschatological Wisdom in the Book of Qohelet and the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman et al.; Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book: Israel Museum, 2000), 822; Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 38–40. 10 ―…what is the advantage for…‖ The ° symbol indicates an uncertain reading. 11 Lange, ―Eschatological Wisdom,‖ 824, my italics.

190

KETER SHEM TOV

presents multiple incompatible perspectives, although widely held, is not as unequivocal a reading of the epilogue as many scholars claim.12 On the basis of the raw evidence alone it is hard to be as confident about the connection as Lange appears to be. It is rather too easy to draw conclusions based on transcriptions of manuscripts—particularly digitised or electronic versions—without pausing to consider the accuracy of those transcriptions. The widely available electronic text of Mysteries, quoted above, includes markers indicating that some letters are uncertain, and of particular note is the mark next to the final ‫ ל‬of the line. At this point only an examination of the manuscript itself (or, where that is not possible, of high resolution photographs of the manuscript) can reveal the degree of uncertainty associated with the reading. Fortunately high resolution visible light and infra-red photographs of this portion of the manuscript are available and show that this letter is very difficult to read clearly.13 Without the ‫ ל‬the case for identifying the phrase as an allusion to Qohelet‘s words is considerably weakened. Even if we conclude that it is likely that the ‫ ל‬is present in this line of the manuscript, Matthew Goff is probably correct to conclude that ―[t]he terminology of the Book of Mysteries that for Lange reflects a ‗Kohelet-Rezeption‘ is too common to posit direct engagement with Qohelet.‖14 It is also far from certain that the subject matter in Mysteries at this point bears any close relationship to Qohelet‘s discussion of advantage or profit. Kampen‘s translation highlights the difficulties:

12

See Martin A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 47–54. 13 Images are available from Inscriptifact, including infra-red, monochrome visible light, and colour photos (see http://www. inscriptifact.com/). 14 See Matthew J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 11 n.42; cf. Lange, ―Eschatological Wisdom,‖ 817–24.

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

191

01[…

to him plans are like…] 02[… what is better …] 03[… except the one who does good and the one who does evil, if …] 1[…] he will not be good [for anything, thus all the good of his riches …] 2[…] he shall be exiled without we[alth and be sold without a price for …] 3[… be eq]ual to it. What[… except every …] 4[…] 5[… value and it will not be worth an(y pr)ice …] 6[… for all the nations …] 7[… the Lord knows all …]15

While the references to ―wealth‖ (‫ )ממון‬and ―riches‖ (‫ )מחיש‬are reminiscent of Qohelet‘s discussion in Qoh 6:7–9 (although Qohelet nowhere uses these terms) where he ponders the endless yearning after more associated with human labour, the broader context and the specific terminology count against identifying close thematic links between the works. If the two are not addressing the same subject it is unclear why the quotation or allusion would be made.16 More fundamentally, however, Goff has noted an underlying difference between the Qumran materials and the wisdom of Qohelet: 4QInstruction, Mysteries, and the Treatise do not directly engage the skepticism of Qoheleth or the complaints of Job. This suggests that they are not responding to a ―crisis of wisdom.‖ 4QInstruction can nevertheless be seen, as Lange suggests, as eschatologizing biblical wisdom since it combines practical wisdom with an apocalyptic worldview.17

One consequence of Lange‘s reading worth emphasising, however, is that if Qohelet‘s ―second redactor‖ is read as offering an 15

Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 200. Underlined text translates 1Q27 1 ii, the remainder is from 4Q299 frag. 2. 16 An important caveat here is to note that Mysteries is quite fragmented at this point and so it is difficult to be entirely certain about the line of argument in the text. Kampen offers a translation (Wisdom Literature, 200), but the column is too fragmentary to draw any firm conclusions about its subject. 17 Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 12.

192

KETER SHEM TOV

―orthodox reinterpretation and correction of the book,‖18 then it is likely that any quotation of Qohelet‘s words by the Qumran sages would have been made so that Qohelet could be refuted rather than affirmed. Unfortunately while Mysteries remains too mysterious at this point thanks to its poor state of preservation, there just might be something in the idea that the primary interaction with Qohelet‘s thought at Qumran is to be found in a reaction against it. Daniel Harrington, for example, says: Though the Qumran wisdom texts may share a few points of form and content with the book of Qohelet or Ecclesiastes (found at Qumran), what is far more important are their differences. Adopting the persona of the teacher/king (Solomon?), the author whom we call ―Qohelet‖ (the ―preacher‖) puts forth a very personal and idiosyncratic form of wisdom instruction. At Qumran there is nothing like the individual (as well as provocative and entertaining) voice that we hear in Ecclesiastes.19

It is worth noting that, although they present somewhat different perspectives, both Lange and Harrington are partially correct. Harrington is correct to note that there is nothing like Qohelet‘s wisdom at Qumran (except, of course, for the fragments of Qohelet‘s words!), but he is wrong to imply that the content (if by that he means the meaning) of the book as a whole is without parallel at Qumran. On that front, Lange is correct—the epilogue‘s appeal to find true wisdom in the Torah and the prospect of judgment are endemic to the sectarian wisdom literature of Qumran. Furthermore, the frame narrator leverages Qohelet‘s words to arrive at this conclusion. We don‘t fully understand the purpose of Ecclesiastes until we hear from both Qohelet and the epilogist (or the final words of the frame narrator), and when we do hear that complete message it becomes apparent that the ultimate message of the book is far more compatible with what we read in the Scrolls than Harrington admits—a point that shall become clearer below. 18 19

Lange, ―Eschatological Wisdom,‖ 817–18. Harrington, Wisdom Texts, 13, emphasis added.

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

193

3. COMMUNITY RULE (1QS) Interactions with wisdom appear throughout all genres of literature in the Hebrew Bible, they are not confined to the Wisdom Literature alone. The prophets rail against the wisdom of the wise, the Law extols wisdom as demonstrated in obedience to God. Consequently, if there are reactions to Qohelet‘s thought among the Scrolls it would be inappropriate to confine our examination only to those texts classified as wisdom literature.20 The Community Rule is not usually included in studies of wisdom literature at Qumran, but nonetheless bears some consideration in discussions of wisdom at Qumran because it defines the role of the sage/instructor ( ‫משכיל‬, maśkîl) as, in the words of Carol Newsom, ―the crucial figure who provides the basic instruction about the nature of the community, its origins and theology, and then also is in charge of admitting prospective 20

As a starting point it is possible to identify distinctive ideas and language characteristic of Qohelet among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most obvious example of such terminology is ‫הבל‬. This can be found about 23 times in the non-biblical scrolls, although in some instances the poorly preserved texts contain little more than this term alone—and then the presence of this term is not entirely certain. References are 1QS 5:19; 1QM 4:12; 6:6; 9:9; 11:9; 14:12; 1QH a 15:35; 4Q184 frg. 1:1; 4Q206 frg. 1 xxii:8; 4Q256 9:12; 4Q258 1:10; 4Q267 frg. 4:11; 4Q299 frg. 64:3; 4Q432 frg. 12:3; 4Q491 frgs. 8–10 i:10; 4Q496 frg. 15:5; 4Q511 frg. 15:5; 11Q10 26:8; 11Q12 frg. 1:4, 6. Another interesting approach is to look for words peculiar to Ecclesiastes within the Hebrew Bible and locate them among the Scrolls. This produces fewer than 20 results, the most striking is perhaps ‫ץשש‬, which appears numerous times in the Scrolls and nowhere in biblical Hebrew outside Ecclesiastes (Qoh 8:1, although it appears a number of times in biblical Aramaic). However, it is difficult to justify building any real case for dependence from this term. As it turns out, this is true of most of the terms unique to Ecclesiastes. While not examined herein, the Damascus Document (CD) also bears a number of interesting parallels with Qohelet. For example, CD 2:9–10 refers to proper times, eternity, and repeated events, topics also addressed by Qohelet.

194

KETER SHEM TOV

candidates for membership in the sect and ranking its hierarchy.‖21 The text itself describes the role in 1QS 3:13–15:

‫למשכיל להבין וללמד את כול בני אוש‬...13 ‫לכול מיני שוחותם‬41 ‫בתולדות כול בני איש‬ ‫באותותם למעשיהם בדושותם ולץרודת נגיעיהם‬ ‫רקי שלומם מאל הדעות כול הווה ונהייה‬41 ‫עם‬ 13[…]

for the Instructor to enlighten and teach all the Sons of Light about the generations of humankind: 14all their spiritual varieties with their signs, all their deeds in their generations, and their visitation for afflictions together with 15eras of peace. From the God of knowledge comes all that is and will be.

Qohelet‘s frame narrator also presents some expectations about the role of the sage:

‫ויתש שהיה רהלת חכם עוד למד דעת את העם‬ ‫ואזן וחרש תרן משלים השבה‬ Furthermore, because Qohelet was a sage he constantly taught knowledge to the people. He listened to, researched, and corrected many wisdom sayings. (Qoh 12:9)

They share the role of teacher, but there the similarity ends, for the sage at Qumran—according to the Community Rule—is clearly expected to teach that which Qohelet felt was hidden. The Qumran sage expounds knowledge derived from God himself whereas Qohelet admits that such information is inaccessible and, 21

Carol A. Newsom, ―The Sage in the Literature of Qumran: The Functions of the Maśkîl,‖ in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. John Gammie and Leo G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 373–82. Note Harrington demurs, saying ―though surely not a wisdom book in itself, [it] does include so many sapiential elements that one can at least talk about wisdom influences or elements in it‖ (Wisdom Texts, 76). Kampen does not include it in his commentary suggesting he also does not identify it as a piece of Wisdom Literature.

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

195

moreover, implies that those who claim such knowledge are misguided: 16When

I set my mind to know wisdom and to see the task that is done on the earth (for even by day and by night there was no sleep in my eyes, 17and I saw every work of God) [I saw] that people are not able to discover the work that is done under the sun. Insomuch as people seek earnestly, they will not find [it]. Even if the sage intends to know [it], he will not find [it]. (Qoh 8:16–17)

The Community Rule thus marks a significant departure from Qohelet‘s wisdom, a form of wisdom which spurned revelation for observation. It is thus clear that Qohelet could not have functioned as a teacher or sage within the Qumran community. Moreover, however, the Community Rule includes two of the few instances of the term ‫ הבל‬found among the scrolls (1QS 5:18– 19).22 Indeed, much of the material in column 5 is reminiscent of aspects of Qohelet‘s thought. 23 For example, 1QS 5:4–5 appears to agree with Num 15:39 and is thus at odds with Qohelet‘s advice about following the desire of your eyes while you are young:

‫לוא ילך איש בששישות לבו לתעות אחש לבבו ועיניהו‬ ‫ומחשבת יקשו‬ No-one will live with a stubborn heart so they err after their heart and their eyes and the intentions of their desires.

22

4Q258 1 i 10 is another fragment of the Community Rule which preserves the same text as 1QS 5:19 in poorer condition with slightly different orthography: ‫ ולא ישענו על [כל מע]שי ההבל כי הבל‬.‫[מהונם] ו[לא ירח מידם מאומ]ה‬ ‫כל אשש[ לא ידעו‬ Harrington notes that this section (1QS 5:1–20), which is about ―the men of the Torah who have dedicated themselves to turn from all evil and to hold fast to all that he has commanded,‖ is prefaced in 4Q256 9:1 and 4Q258 1:1 (both variant recensions of 1QS 5:1–20) by the phrase ―Instruction (midrash) for the máskil concerning…‖ (76–77). 23

196

KETER SHEM TOV

Of course Qohelet‘s advice was somewhat different (Qoh 11:9):

‫והלך בדשכי לבך ובמשאי עיניך‬ Live by the desires of your heart and by what your eyes see…

Moreover, in the latter part of column 5, those who are not part of the community and who do not belong to the covenant are futile (‫ )הבל‬and their works are futile (‫)הבל‬.

‫כול אשש לוא נחשבו בבשיתו להבדיל אותם‬41 ‫כיא‬ ‫ ולוא ישען איש הרודש על כול‬.‫ואת כול אשש להם‬ .‫הבל כיא הבל כול אשש לוא ידעו את בשיתו‬41 ‫מעשי‬ For 18all who are not counted in his covenant are to be separated—together with all their possessions. A man who is holy must not depend upon any works of 19futility, for futile are all those who do not know his covenant.

In light of the centrality of this theme in Qohelet‘s thought it is difficult not to be reminded that Qohelet found everything to be —‫ הבל‬particularly his own labours (and even his own wisdom). So where Qohelet found his own toil to be ‫ הבל‬and expected it soon to be forgotten, the Community Rule goes on to say that the deeds of those who reject God‘s word will be wiped from the face of the earth. The Community Rule also distinguishes between those from among the community who were obedient to the law and those described as ‫אנשי העול‬, ʾanšê hāʿāwel ―sinful men.‖ Qohelet also describes ―sinners‖ (‫חוטא‬, ḥôṭēʼ), but probably without the moral baggage the terminology carries elsewhere within the Hebrew Bible and in later literature. Evidence to support this contention can be found in the observation that, according to Qohelet‘s own description in chapter 2, he is one of the ―sinners:‖ 18And

I hated all my toil at which I had laboured under the sun, because I will have to leave it to the man who will come after me—19and who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? … 26… But to the ―sinner‖ he gives the task of collecting and gathering to provide for the one God perceives

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

197

as good. This, too, is senseless and [like trying to] direct the wind.

Qohelet gathered, but failed to see the benefit to himself and lamented leaving it all to another, precisely what he proceeds to say was the task God gave to ―sinners‖!24 From the perspective of the author of the Community Rule, then, Qohelet does not belong to the covenant and should be spurned! There is a tendency among scholars to react against negative assessments of Qohelet‘s thought, arguing that wisdom in Israel admitted a broad array of views without necessarily condemning any. The difficulty with this approach, however, lies in the fact that it fails to listen to Qohelet in his own self-assessment, which hardly commends his own wisdom as something to be aspired to. Qohelet, after all, wondered what value there had been in his own great wisdom since it led only to disappointment and despair: 15And

I said to myself that the fate of the fool will also happen to me, so why have I been so wise? So I told myself, ―This too is senseless.‖ 16For the wise person—as with the fool—will not be remembered in the future. The days are soon coming when both will be forgotten. How can the wise person die in the same way as the fool? 17So I hated life, because the work which is done under the sun seemed evil to me, for everything is senseless and [like trying to] direct the wind.

4. THE STATUS OF QOHELET AT QUMRAN It is difficult to say much about the Qohelet and the Dead Sea Scrolls in a brief paper without making some sweeping generalisations and assumptions that cannot be fully justified. The most obvious problem with an attempt to identify any relationship between Qohelet and the Qumran community is the requisite presumption that the texts share a common origin—if the texts found in the caves lack a common provenance then it undermines

24

See Shields, The End of Wisdom, 137.

198

KETER SHEM TOV

any case for suggesting some interaction between those texts. 25 Fortunately, however, there are some features of the sectarian manuscripts that are shared with the larger Qohelet fragment suggesting common provenance. Principal among these are a set of orthographic and morphological features as well as scribal practices that tie Qohelet with the sectarian manuscripts, what Emanuel Tov has labelled the ―Qumran Practice.‖26 Given, then, that the Qohelet scroll preserved in 4Q109 is associated with the sectarian texts, it is worthwhile asking if we can 25

Various aspects of this question are discussed in Alan Crown and Lena Cansdale, ―Qumran: Was it an Essene Settlement?‖ BAR 20 (1994): 24–35, 73–74, 76–78; Alan Crown, ―An Alternative View of Qumran,‖ in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies: Presented to Professor Abraham Tal (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Moshe Florentin; Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2005), 1*–24*. The connection between Qumran and the Essenes has also been called into question by Lena Cansdale in Qumran and the Essenes: A ReEvaluation of the Evidence (TSAJ 60; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997). Joseph Fitzmyer, while disagreeing vehemently with Cansdale at many points, nonetheless makes the useful observation that ―[n]o one to my knowledge has ever tried to maintain that all ‗the scrolls‘ found in the caves were written, composed, or even copied in the Qumran scriptorium; many of the biblical and intertestamental texts were composed or copied elsewhere and brought to Qumran for use by community members‖ (see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Jr., review of Lena Cansdale, Qumran and the Essenes: A ReEvaluation of the Evidence, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www. bookreviews.org] [1999]). 26 Tov refers explicitly to ―scribal signs such as paragraph indicators, cancellation dots, as well as paleo-Hebrew and Cryptic A letters, occur almost exclusively in texts written in the Qumran scribal practice. This pertains also to the occurrence of guide dots.‖ According to Tov, the biblical manuscripts which exhibit these features are: 1QDeuta, 1QIsaa, 2QExoda,b, 2QJer, 3QLam, 4QNumb, 4QDeuth,j,k,m, 4QSamc, 4QIsac, 4QXIIc,e, 4QLam, 4QQoha, 11QLevb, 4QPhyl A, B, G–I, J–Q. In addition, all the sectarian compositions and some biblical paraphrases are to be included. See Tov, ―The Significance of the Texts from the Judean Desert,‖ 294–95. A more comprehensive analysis of features of the Qumran Scribal Practice is found in Appendix 1 of Tov‘s Scribal Practices.

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

199

say anything about the status accorded Ecclesiastes by the scribes who produced the scroll. There are some facts that lend credence to the view that Ecclesiastes wasn‘t accorded ―canonical‖ authority (as much as we can speak of such at that time).27 First, there are only two copies preserved—far fewer than exist for texts which appear to have been accorded significant authority in the community. Second, in contrast to some of the other biblical texts, there are no commentaries on Ecclesiastes. It is unlikely that commentaries would have been produced for texts considered to be of lesser importance and conversely true that important texts would have prompted learned exposition.28 Third, no allusion or possible 27

Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne note that ―scholars greatly agree about the criteria to recognize this authoritativeness,‖ and specifically cite James C. VanderKam, ―Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ DSD 5 (1998): 382–402 and Armin Lange, ―The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical Process,‖ in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 21–30; and most recently, Florentino García Martínez, ―I testi qumranici testimoni di scritture autorevoli,‖ in Ricerche Storico Bibliche: Scritti qumranici e scritture autorevoli: la gestazione del testo biblico a Qumran (ed. Gian Luigi Prato; Bologna: Dehoniane, 2011), 17–32. See Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne, ―Ancient Interpretations of Jewish Scriptures in Light of Dead Sea Scrolls‖ in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutensis (ed. Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo Torijano Morales; JSJSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 88 n. 12. 28 See VanderKam, ―Authoritative Literature,‖ 386. VanderKam also quotes Barton, ―The more ‗strained‘ the interpretation, it may be said, the more ‗canonical‘ the text being interpreted must have been—why should people trouble to extract improbable meanings from a text, unless that text is somehow a given for them?‖ (John Barton, ―The Significance of a Fixed Canon of the Hebrew Bible,‖ in Hebrew Bible/OldTestament: The History of Its Interpretation I/1 [ed. Magne Saebo; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1996], 76). The significance of cave 4 may also be a factor, although this is again speculative. The fact that cave 4 contained mostly fragmentary manuscripts could suggest that the texts there were of little importance

200

KETER SHEM TOV

reference to Qohelet‘s words is introduced using one of the introductory phrases which attribute to the words a high degree of authority.29 These three points are, of course, essentially arguments from silence. Yet there are other considerations that might strengthen the case here. Fourth, as noted above, wisdom at Qumran was of a form quite different to Qohelet. A fifth observation builds upon this point: while there are no simple parallels to Qohelet‘s thought among the wisdom literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we do find a few places which are apparently critical of the type of thinking recorded by Qohelet. Finally, as a number of scholars have noted: Almost all of the Dead Sea Scrolls that are not themselves copies of biblical books are still connected in some way with the Scriptures of Israel. The poetic compositions, however creative, are still suffused with biblical phrases; the legal texts are based openly or implicitly on scriptural precedents; and the narratives of the past or predictions of the future are retellings or refashionings of sacred stories or prophecies.30

This manner in which the non-biblical texts are infused with quotations and allusions to biblical material sets the absence of (contrast cave 1 in which were preserved scrolls in far better condition), or, as some have suggested, be the result of Roman destruction at the time of the destruction of Qumran. Mladen Popović has concluded, however, that ―there is no evidence to conclude that Roman soldiers damaged Qumran scrolls in Cave 4 or any of the other Qumran caves‖ (―Roman Book Destruction in Qumran Cave 4 and the Roman Destruction of Khirbet Qumran Revisited,‖ in Qumran und die Archäologie [ed. Jörg Frey, Carsten Claußen, and Nadine Kessler; WUNT 278; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 50). 29 VanderKam cites a number of examples of phrases introducing quotations which ascribe to them a degree of authority, frequently framing the quoted words as direct speech from God. See VanderKam, ―Authoritative Literature,‖ 391–94. 30 Edward Cook in Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (rev. ed.; San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 79; cf. VanderKam, ―Authoritative Literature,‖ 383.

WHAT HAS QOHELET TO DO WITH QUMRAN?

201

clear allusions to or quotations from Qohelet in stark contrast, suggesting that Qohelet‘s words were not accorded the same authority as the other biblical materials at Qumran. The implication of these observations is that, although copies of Qohelet existed at Qumran, the book was not accorded the same authority as were other biblical texts. Beyond this it is difficult to make any definitive conclusion about the status and significance of Qohelet at Qumran.

5. CONCLUSION There is no strong evidence to support the contention that the Scrolls directly quote Qohelet. However, the Scrolls do present some evidence of the evolution of wisdom in Israel, an evolution stimulated by Qohelet‘s thought. The existence of Ecclesiastes makes best sense if it isn‘t an isolated example of the type of speculative wisdom Qohelet engaged in and presumably also taught—a type of wisdom that Qohelet demonstrated to bear no fruit. It could not make sense of the world. The author of Ecclesiastes used Qohelet‘s learning, experiences, and conclusions to demonstrate this and point his readers back to the Torah with the warning of divine judgment. The Scrolls, together with other later literature, concurred with Qohelet‘s own denouncing of this type of wisdom, and continued to point people back to the Torah in light of impending divine judgment, as Qohelet‘s epilogist also did.

4QTESTIMONIA (4Q175)  AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE John A. Davies What is the purpose of the Qumran Testimonia scroll? By its nature this brief text has proved somewhat elusive and hence any reconstruction of its purpose can only be tentative. I propose to outline its content and then to compare it with the New Testament Epistle of Jude in an attempt to discern its illocutionary function— in other words, what was the text supposed to do? Particularly as it consists of a string of quotations, mostly biblical, why these texts and why bring them together in this manner in such a short document with little to suggest a context? The Epistle of Jude is also a short document (one of the shortest in the NT) and also consists in part of a catena of biblical references, similar in character, but in this case with a clearly stated purpose. It might be, then, that Jude can shed light on the purpose of the Testimonia text. At the outset, I suggest that the name Allegro gave to 4Q175, Testimonia, could be somewhat misleading.1 It immediately invites * I offer this paper in grateful memory of my teacher Alan Crown. 1 John M. Allegro, ―Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,‖ JBL 75 (1956): 182; John M. Allegro and Arnold A. Anderson, Qumran Cave 4: 1 (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 57–60. For a more accessible transcription of the text, see DSSSE, 1:354– 57. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ―‗4QTestimonia‘ and the New Testament,‖ TS 18 (1957): 513–37; George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4Q Florilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press,

203

204

KETER SHEM TOV

comparison with a genre of later Christian literature specifically dealing with prooftexts relating to the Messiah, and this may have tended to skew the reading of the Qumran text as though its sole or primary purpose were to offer support for a particular understanding of messianic expectations. 4Q175 consists of a single sheet of fine leather, 23 x 14 cm, largely intact apart from a missing section in the bottom right corner. There are no holes of the type that would suggest binding to other sections, so these formal characteristics, together with its content, suggest that in this one sheet we have substantially the whole document. It is dated on paleographic grounds to the early first century BCE and is written in the same hand as 1QS and a number of other documents found in Cave 4.2 A translation of the complete text is as follows:3 1 • {SP Exod 20:17 = MT Deut 5:28–29 + 18:18–19} And ••••4 spoke to Moses saying: ―You (or possibly: I) have heard the sound of the words of 2 this people, what they said to you: all they have said is right. 3 If only they were committed to fearing me and keeping all 4 my precepts in perpetuity, so that it might go well with them and their children for ever! I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brothers, like you, and put my words 6 in his mouth, and he will tell them all that I command him. Whoever 7 does not listen to my words, which the prophet will speak on my authority, I 8 will hold accountable.‖ 9 • {Num 24:15–17} He recited his poem and said: ―Oracle of Balaam, ben-Beor, oracle of the man 10 of clear insight, oracle of the one who listens to the words of El and has knowledge of Elyon, of one who 11 sees the vision of Shaddai, who falls down with eyes wide open. I see him, but not 1985), 309–19. For Geza Vermes, 4Q175 is ―similar in literary style to the Christian Testimonia or collections of messianic proof-texts‖ (CDSSE, 495). 2 Allegro, ―Further Messianic References,‖ 182; Vermes, CDSSE, 495. 3 Adapted from DSSSE, 1:357. 4 Four dots represent the Divine Tetragrammaton here and at line 19.

4QTESTIMONIA (4Q175) AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

205

straightaway, 12 I catch sight of him, but not close up. A star proceeds from Jacob, a sceptre arises from Israel. He crushes 13 the foreheads of Moab, cuts to pieces all the Shethites.‖ 14 • {Deut 33:8–11} Concerning Levi he says: ―Give to Levi your Thummim and Urim, to your devotee, whom 15 you tested at Massah, and with whom you contended at the waters of Meribah, who said to his father, ‗Not 16 … and to his mother ‗I do not know you,‘ and he did not acknowledge his brothers, and his son(/s) he did not 17 know. For he observed your word and kept your covenant. They have made your judgments clear for Jacob, 18 your instruction for Israel. They set incense before you and a burnt offering upon your altar. 19 Bless, ••••, his valour and accept with pleasure the work of his hand! Crush the genitals of his opponents and enemies, 20 may they not rise!‖ 21 • At the time when Joshua finished praising and giving thanks with his praises, 22 he said {Josh 6:26} ‚Cursed be the man who rebuilds this city! At the cost of his firstborn 23 will he found it, and at the cost of his youngest he will erect its gates!‛ Well then, there is a cursed man, a real heretic, 24 who has arisen to be a fowl[er’s sn]are for his people, a ruin for all his countrymen. 25 […] will arise, as the two agents of violence. And they will rebuild 26 [this city and ere]ct for it a wall and towers, to turn it into a haven of wickedness 27 [in the country and a great evil] in Israel, a scandal in Ephraim and Judah. 28 [… They wi]ll bring defilement on the land and a great blasphemy among the sons of 29 [Jacob. They will shed blo]od like water upon the rampart of daughter Zion and in the precincts of 30 Jerusalem.

Most of the citations in 4Q175 are from the Hebrew Bible, passages we know as Deut 5:28–29; 18:18–19; Num 24:15–17; Deut 33:8–11 and Josh 6:26. However the first two citations from Deuteronomy (from chs. 5 and 18) occur together in the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) at Exod 20:21, and in view of the fact that there is no break between these texts, whereas there is between the others, we assume that the author of 4Q175 is simply copying from a preSamaritan harmonistic text form of Exodus. Until we reach the Joshua text, the final one of the catena, these biblical texts are given without introductory rubrics and without interpretation (and so are

206

KETER SHEM TOV

unlike the Qumran pesher texts in this regard). The Joshua text does have a short midrash appended which is in fact very similar in wording to another Qumran text, 4Q379, the so-called Psalms of Joshua or Apocryphon of Joshuab.5 It seems likely that this Joshua midrash was accepted by the writer and his target audience as at least a reliable guide to the understanding of Scripture, giving an interpretation of Joshua‘s curse.6 We now take a closer look at the citations in turn. Note that they are in canonical order if we count the first one as coming from the pre-Samaritan text form of Exodus. The Exodus text (lines 1–8) brings together the people of Israel‘s willing acquiescence in the covenant and their plea for the continued mediatorial role of Moses against the backdrop of the awesome prospect of their coming into more direct contact with God. It is that request that is commended by YHWH in the citation as being appropriate and which then prompts YHWH to utter a desire (―if only …,‖ lit. ―who will grant …?‖) that the people might have a different heart from the one they have realistically acknowledged they do possess—a heart that would issue in continued faithfulness and would obviate the need for Moses‘ mediation. The citation includes the words ―for ever,‖ thus introducing a future / eschatological element. The blessing that will flow from obedience would be for future generations; the judgment that would ensue as a consequence of disobedience also has eschatological force. By bringing together the passages that MT has as Deut 5:28–29 and 18:18–19 and incorporating them between vv. 21 and 22 of Exod 20, the text adopted in Testimonia makes explicit the link between the eschatological outcome of obedience or disobedience in Israel and the agency of the prophetic successor to Moses. In the See Carol Newsom, ―The ‗Psalms of Joshua‘ from Qumran Cave 4,‖ JJS 39 (1988): 68–72; idem, ―4QApocryphon of Joshuab,‖ in Qumran Cave 4 XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (George J. Brooke et al. in consultation with James VanderKam; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 263–88. 6 Alternatively, we must at least note the possibility that this text might have been considered Scripture by the author of 4QTestimonia. There is not space here to do more than acknowledge the complexity of the issue of Scripture in Second Temple Judaism. 5

4QTESTIMONIA (4Q175) AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

207

first place an institutional succession seems to be intended, a succession of individuals, beginning with Joshua. God will not leave himself without agents to implement his purposes, including the meting out of rewards and punishments to the Israelite faithful and disobedient. Later Jewish and Christian tradition will focus this role on an individual, and it is quite probable that our Qumran text has an individual eschatological prophet in mind, though of course all we have to this point is the biblical text.7 Testimonia then goes on to cite a text from Num 24, part of the Balaam cycle (lines 9–13). The original poem or mashal, cryptic saying, is indeed obscure at points. We are not sure, for example, if the reference is to skulls of individuals being crushed, or to the border territory of the enemy peoples being devastated, or (with LXX and Targ.) to ―leaders,‖ nor who the Shethites are, though the overall effect is clear enough.8 The passage is cited several times in the Qumran texts in eschatological contexts. In the Damascus Document (CD) the Shethites from Numbers are identified with ―all members of the covenant who do not hold firm to these laws‖ (CD 7:18–8:2; cf. 1QM 11:6, 7). The point is that from the mouth of another prophet, a non-Israelite one, there issues a prophecy that (as likely understood by the writer of Testimonia) may involve judgment on some within Israel. Words like ―star‖ and ―sceptre‖ have messianic associations.9 One of the points of discussion on the appropriation of this image here concerns how many messianic figures are in view. Is the parallelism of the citation understood, as doubtless intended in its original context, to refer to a single figure under the image of star and sceptre? Or are we perhaps, with other Qumran and Second Temple texts, to see two figures here with the star being a priestly figure or interpreter of the law?10 We probably Cf. Acts 3:22–23; 7:37; John 1:21, 45; 6:14; 7:40. See George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903), 371; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; NY: Doubleday, 2000), 201–02. 9 Matt 2:2; 2 Pet 1:19; Rev 22:16. 10 CD 2:18–19; 1QS 2:11; T. Levi 18:3; T. Judah 24:1–6. See Jacob Liver, ―The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the 7 8

208

KETER SHEM TOV

cannot be definitive. The main point is simply that, again, God has his agent/s of judgment. The Testimonia compiler may have understood the words ―not near‖ as implying an eschatological fulfilment of this prophecy. The next text is from Deut 33:8–11 (lines 14–20). The context in Deuteronomy is the series of final blessings Moses imparts on the tribes in the manner of a dying patriarch blessing his children. They are therefore substantially cast in the singular, each tribe being addressed in the guise of its eponymous ancestor. In the case of Levi this is varied with some plural forms, due to the fact that there is a narrative allusion to an incident in which the Levites collectively displayed their avenging zeal even against their own kin (Exod 32:25–29). The Testimonia appropriation of this text increases the number of singulars (―he observed‖ and ―he kept‖ in place of MT‘s plurals), which, if intentional, is consistent with a tendency to read this passage, along with other such passages, in an individualised way as a reference to an ideal eschatological priestly agent. Such a divine agent would exhibit the tribal character as one unafraid to strike down his own countrymen out of zeal for YHWH when they oppose the true priestly enterprise. In his present company in the Testimonia, then, it is likely that the role this Levite has as God‘s agent is one of bringing eschatological judgment to bear on some within Israel itself. This passage is also expounded in the Qumran Florilegium text (4Q174).11 This scroll is too fragmented to determine exactly how the passage was understood, though the general tenor of the document suggests it

Time of the Second Commonwealth,‖ HTR 52 (1959): 149–85; Vermes, CDSSE, 495; Brooke, Exegesis, 204. If two figures are intended, a royal and a priestly, then the priestly figure is mentioned twice in view of the Deuteronomy reference to follow, but perhaps this was of no concern to the writer, since his main point, as argued here, does not seem to be to ―prooftext‖ the various messianic figures; cf. John Lübbe, ―A Reinterpretation of 4QTestimonia,‖ RevQ 12 (1986): 188–89. 11 Allegro and Anderson, DJD 5:56. See Brooke, Exegesis; Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b) (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994).

4QTESTIMONIA (4Q175) AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

209

again is understood in the context of eschatological judgment and vindication. All of the biblical quotations thus far, then, have a judgment theme, most likely not against foreigners, but against fellowIsraelites, and at least an implicit vindication theme for those true Israelites who are on the right side of the eschatological agenda. God has his agents, prophetic, royal and priestly, who will execute this judgment. Next comes the citation from Josh 6. This one does have an introductory rubric (line 21). Then comes the verse from Josh 6:26 (lines 22–23a), followed by a midrash (lines 23b–30) which may suggest that this section constitutes the climax to which the other references have been building up. The outcome of this curse is taken up at a later point in the Deuteronomistic history at 1 Kgs 16:34 which describes the fate that befell Hiel of Bethel when he rebuilt Jericho in defiance of the curse. The commentary in Testimonia is similar to a pesher in that it seems to relate the biblical text to contemporary or near-contemporary events. Note the reference to a ―real heretic‖ (lit. ―a son of Belial‖). In the War Scroll the army of Belial, the sons of Darkness, are the enemies of the Sons of Light, particularly the Levites. While the War Scroll, for example, identifies the army of Belial with the foreign nations (1QM 1:1), other Qumran texts identify those in league with Belial as ―pretenders,‖ ―a fraudulent assembly,‖ ―seekers of [God] with a double heart‖ who ―exchange [God‘s] law … for flattering words‖ or otherwise imply that they are rebellious Israelites (1QH a 10:24; 11:29; 12:11–15; 4Q430 f1:1). Some see in the Testimonia here a condemnation of two individuals, others a total of three, who are identified as agents of violence, responsible for a great outrage in the land. We have very little basis on which to reconstruct a Sitz im Leben and specific targets for the condemnation expressed in the document. There have been attempts, but the range suggests just how speculative this enterprise is.12 While we should not rule out See, e.g., the discussion in Józef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (London: SCM, 1959), 61–64; Brooke, Exegesis, 310–11; Marco Treves, ‚On the Meaning of the Qumran Testimonia,‛ RevQ 2 (1959–60): 569–71; Hanan Eshel, ‚The Historical Background to the 12

210

KETER SHEM TOV

the possibility that literal Jericho is in view (the subject of the original Joshua prophecy), it is noteworthy that (as in the LXX of Josh 6:26) ―this city‖ is not named in the words uttered by Joshua. The real punchline appears to come right at the end, where it seems we are told, pesher-style, that Jericho is code for ZionJerusalem.13 The real curse, it seems, is upon those currently in power in Jerusalem, engaged in a (re)construction program (literal? metaphorical?) with behaviour that does not measure up to the cultic and moral standards of this writer. Through their actions, the heretics have turned Jerusalem into a haven of wickedness, so defiling the land. The Jerusalem heretics have lost their legitimacy in the eyes of the individual responsible for this scroll. This section of Testimonia is difficult to account for if the focus is seen as being on the messianic figures of prophet, king and priest since no such figure is in view in the Joshua section.14 The flow of the catena is then roughly as follows: YHWH has mapped out the events that are to take place and has revealed them to his prophets. God‘s faithful people will listen to the words of his prophet. Others from among the covenant people will act in defiance, like the present regime in Jerusalem and, by following the logic of the community within which this text arose, the doom of these impostors and pretenders is assured because God is sending his agents, as he consistently promised, to execute judgment.

Pesher Interpreting Joshua’s Curse on the Rebuilder of Jericho,‛ RevQ 15 (1991–92): 409–20; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 63–89. 13 Milik, Ten Years, 61–64. 14 The deduction of David Mitchell that there must be a fourth messianic figure, an eschatological Joshua, has little to commend it: ―The Fourth Deliverer: A Josephite Messiah in 4QTestimonia,‛ Biblical Studies on the Web 86 (2005): 545–53, online: http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/ bibl86/Bib86Ani11.pdf (accessed 5-10-2011). Nor is Eshel’s argument convincing that the cohesion of the catena is maintained by seeing in the ―man of Belial‖ a false prophet in contrast with the positive agents of the earlier citations, Hasmonean State, 80.

4QTESTIMONIA (4Q175) AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

211

If, as appears, 4Q175 is self-contained and lacks any features of a letter for example, what is the purpose of simply stringing together such a catena of eschatological judgment texts without further comment? Who is the implied reader? The people who stand condemned? Hardly! At this point, there might be value in reflecting on the New Testament Epistle of Jude. This stems from a different subgroup within (slightly later) Second Temple Judaism, or that is how the Christian community would have been initially perceived, a group who were feeling at risk from those who did not share their distinctive beliefs and who needed to draw the boundary lines clearly. Jude, like Testimonia, inhabits a world in which apocalyptic expectations play a prominent role. The Epistle of Jude is largely a stringing of biblical or extrabiblical allusions and quotations to demonstrate that a certain group—the impostors—stand condemned. Verse 5 refers to the destiny of those who came out of Egypt but were destroyed by the Lord because of unbelief. Then v. 6 refers to the fate of renegade angels, awaiting the final judgment day, while v. 7 refers to the destruction of the cities of the plain. Verse 8 then makes a comparison with Jude‘s opponents who are accused of blasphemy. Verse 9 gives a counter example, using an a fortiori argument, from the Assumption of Moses or similar legend of the importance of avoiding slander. Verse 11 then rushes through a little catalogue of anti-heroes of the Hebrew Bible: Cain, Balaam and Korah. Verses 12–13 then pile up metaphors to illustrate how insubstantial are these opponents: they are waterless clouds, fruitless trees, foaming waves, wandering stars. A judgment of deepest darkness has been reserved for such as these. The only substantial quotation, at vv. 14–15, comes from 1 Enoch. Enoch specifically prophesied the doom of Jude‘s opponents because the way Enoch characterises those destined for this final judgment fits with Jude‘s characterisation of the impostors: ―grumblers and malcontents; they indulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage.‖ We may thus detect some similarities between those condemned in Jude and in Testimonia, particularly when this is taken together with the expanded Qumran depictions of those allied with Belial. Both writers deal with a group of impostors who, in the eyes of the

212

KETER SHEM TOV

writer, are condemned in Scripture or other texts regarded as reliable. In contrast to Testimonia, Jude does have a recognisable literary form, the letter, with epistolary opening (vv. 1–2) and concluding doxology (vv. 24–25), and Jude identifies his audience as ―those who are called, who are beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ,‖ i.e., a particular community of Christians. The content of the bulk of the letter has been likened to a rather compressed homily, perhaps the summary of an address in which the points made from the citations would have been considerably expanded. The use of the formula ―these are …‖ (vv. 12, 16, 19) further suggests affinities with the Qumran pesharim generally.15 The letter matrix is appropriate because Jude needs to communicate across some distance. Jude also gives an explicit statement of his purpose in writing: Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the holy ones. For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 3, 4).

That is, Jude originally had a more positive purpose in mind, but felt the need to engage in polemics in view of the danger posed by some whose heretical views and immoral actions were disturbing the community. The logic is that the citations will prove to the readers that the imposters are condemned by the ancient judgments, either because there is an implicit pesher exegesis underlying their inclusion, or at least the notion that there is some similarity and continuity between the ancient targets of condemnation in the citations, and the impostor group. The positive blessings for those who resist the point of view and practice of the impostors is more explicit in Jude, and the messianic figure associated with such divine reward and Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1990), 49–51. 15

4QTESTIMONIA (4Q175) AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

213

punishment is of course identified as being messiah Jesus. Robert Webb discusses the rhetorical and social functions of Jude‘s eschatology.16 Jude writes to reinforce community solidarity in his in-group as over against another group who are regarded as troubling this community with their false teaching and decadent behaviour. The troublers are causing divisions which are harming the faithful community. There is a need to set the boundaries and reinforce the distinction between an in-group and an out-group and to have the members of the in-group join in the condemnation of the out-group. There is a struggle to be maintained, yet those who are wavering in their allegiance need to be treated gently and coaxed back into full identification with the in-group. The letter concludes with a benediction that has found its way into Christian liturgy, ―Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen‖ (vv. 24, 25). This gives expression to Jude‘s confidence that, with divine aid, his readers can be kept from succumbing to the pressures to conform with the impostors, and be preserved for the final vindication. In the light of this, let us return to consider the character of the Testimonia scroll. Some of the explicit information about the purpose of Jude would make sense, at least, if applied to Testimonia. There is a similar theme in the biblical and other citations or allusions. The connections may be a bit cryptic in Testimonia, but with some shared background knowledge, or, better, some exposition along the lines of that suggested by a comparison with Jude, they would form a coherent catena. However, we do not have those connections or exposition in Testimonia. Which brings us to the question of the genre of Testimonia. What sort of a document is it? A number of features point to it being a set of notes for a talk. The handwriting is rough, with some Robert L. Webb, ―The Eschatology of the Epistle of Jude and Its Rhetorical and Social Functions,‖ BBR 6 (1996): 139–51. For a general survey of scholarship on The Epistle of Jude, see Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 134–78. 16

214

KETER SHEM TOV

corrections in the same hand, consistent with it being an original rather than a copied document and intended only for the writer’s eyes.17 The form of the divine name, represented by a series of four dots, while found in several other Qumran texts, would at least be consistent with the notion that the writer wrote hastily, not intending the document for wider circulation or for posterity. To have written the divine name would presumably have required greater care and perhaps a greater level of ritual purity which the writer did not wish to take the time to effect. Very telling also is the paragraphing arrangement. Each new citation begins on a new line, with a loop protruding into the right margin to catch the speaker’s eye as he moved on to the next point. We could almost claim this as the world’s first Powerpoint presentation with its dot points! The single sheet (apparently alone among the Scrolls)18 was folded in antiquity (perhaps to tuck it into a garment to be brought out and glanced at in giving the speech). The citations, naturally those with which the writer and his community were familiar and may have used for a variety of purposes, would be sufficient to call to the speaker’s mind a broader context and a midrashic exposition to reinforce his points. Like Jude, the texts of Testimonia, when expounded, may have filled a sociological need—bolstering a community’s self-identity and morale as over against a group of illegitimate pretenders to the truth. The doom of the heretical group is certain, whereas the in-group is in line for vindication and blessing. So any waverers should take heed and be warned not to be taken in by the seductive position of the impostors. Brooke Allegro and Anderson, DJD 5:59–60; cf. George J. Brooke, ―Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features of Some Cave 4 ‗Continuous‘ Pesharim,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 133–50; Shani Tzoref, ―4Q252: Listenwissenschaft and Covenantal Patriarchal Blessings,‖ in ‗Go Out and Study the Land‘ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness and Lawrence H. Schiffman; JSJSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 338; Eshel, Hasmonean State, 85. 18 I ascertained this in conversation with George Brooke. 17

4QTESTIMONIA (4Q175) AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

215

argues against the focus being on judgment on the grounds that only one passage would be needed to effect that.19 This objection would seem to be undermined by the evidence of the Epistle of Jude with its aggregation of biblical references to judgment. We can only guess at Testimonia‘s subsequent history prior to its discovery in 1952. The fact that it ended up among the scrolls and scraps in Cave 4 hardly qualifies it for being regarded as a document in a library in any modern sense of the term, though it may well be that the writer, and others after him, decided to hold onto the document as having some continuing useful function, if for no other reason than that it was only written on one side and the other side might still come in handy for scribbling another set of texts to form another sermon outline!

19

Brooke, Exegesis, 314.

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS OF NOAH AND ABRAM IN THE GENESIS APOCRYPHON Marianne Dacy 1. INTRODUCTION In the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) Column 13 lines 13–18 Noah dreams of the destruction of an olive tree by fierce winds and has a dream (col. 14) about a cedar tree. His dreams are unattested in the biblical Genesis text. It may have, as its source, a Book of Noah whose existence has been proposed by such scholars as Michael Stone and others. 1 Abram also has a dream in which he is a cedar and Sarai a palm tree (1QapGen 19:13–17). In both the vision dreams of Noah and Abram in the Genesis Apocryphon, the cedar is identified with these Patriarchs, and it has been understood that Abram’s dream is based on older traditions of Abraham and Sarai.2

See Noah and His Book(s) (ed. Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel; EJL 28; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). 2 Fitzmyer points out that the elements of the dream are drawn from Ps 92:13 and are related by later rabbinic literature to the story of Abram and Sarai (Gen 12:17): Gen. Rab. 41:1; Midrash Tanh., Lekh 4; Zohar on Gen 12. See Joseph Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20) A Commentary (3d ed.; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2004), 185. Translations used of the Genesis Apocryphon are from this version. 1

217

218

KETER SHEM TOV

The poor condition of the Genesis Apocryphon explains the fact that initially it did not receive as much prominence as other studies of the first seven scrolls of Cave 1, with much of the more poorly preserved parts of the scroll remaining unpublished until the mid 1990s.3 The scroll measures 31.5 by about 600 cm and consists of four pieces of parchment sewn together, but the beginning and end are missing which causes some problems of interpretation. There appear to be 28 columns, but only parts of columns 2 and 19–22 were initially decipherable. Although first published in 1956,4 the scroll has further deteriorated and darkened with time and heavy reliance has to be made on the initial photographs. Thanks to newer imaging techniques in the 1990s, parts of columns 2 to 17 that previously were unreadable have been deciphered.5 The Aramaic scroll tells the stories of the biblical patriarchs Enoch, Lamech, Noah and Abram, mostly in the first person and the narrative in the Genesis Apocryphon is related to Gen 6–15. However, there are a number of instances where the author of the scroll has rearranged, anticipated and harmonised aspects of the biblical account.6 Again, the characters of Noah and Abram have been ‚polished,‛ and made more perfect than they are portrayed in the Genesis narration. Thus, for example, the drunkenness of For a basic introduction to the text see Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (STDJ 79; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 1–20. 4 Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll From the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1956). 5 See Ursula Schattner-Rieser, Textes Araméens de la Mer Morte Édition bilingue, vocalisée et commentée. (Bruxelles: Éditions Safran, 2008), 55. 6 Moshe Bernstein identifies instances of anticipation, rearrangement and harmonization in his article ―Re-Arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon,‖ DSD 3 (1996): 37–57. See especially pp. 40–41 that includes a reference to 1QapGen 12:10 as a ―modification of Gen 9:20;‖ pp. 45–46 regarding 1QapGen 21:21–22 as an anticipation of Gen 14:13 and Gen 14:24; and p. 49 which gives an example of harmonization where Pharoah‘s inability to approach Sarai is not mentioned explicitly in Gen 12 but is described in Gen 20:17. 3

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS

219

Noah, the man of the soil, in the biblical narrative is passed over (Gen 9:21–27) and the fact that Abram, in order to save himself, passes off his wife Sarai as his sister, and she was taken to bed by the Pharaoh (Gen 12:11–20) is changed in the Genesis Apocryphon version and Abram is cleared of guilt (1QapGen 20:8–29). While the text tells about the dreams of Noah and Abram, and gives these figures a new significance, it is evident that the ―author‖ is writing for his own troubled times, and presents idealised biblical characters in order to enhance their function as role models for his age. Unfortunately, only one copy of the Genesis Apocryphon exists, with all the known fragments belonging to a single manuscript. It was not preserved in a clay jar. Stephen J. Pfann has noted that although 164 clay jars were found in the Qumran caves, it was only in Cave 1, from which came the Genesis Apocryphon, that it can be said with any certainty that some scrolls were preserved in clay jars, such as some of the more complete scrolls including the Isaiah Scroll and Community Rule from Cave 1.7

2. NATURE AND GENRE Moshe Bernstein‘s analysis of the Genesis Apocryphon speaks of an author, and of Parts I (cols. 0–17, the Lamech-Noah portion) and II (cols. 19–22, the story of Abram) as belonging to different literary forms that derive from divergent source material. 8 He sees the text as representing many sources melded together. Bernstein confirms the work of earlier scholars such as Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin that, though the work may be a literary unit in terms of style and structure, the Genesis Apocryphon is composed from Stephen J. Pfann, ―‗Kelei Dema‘: Tithe Jars, Scroll Jars and Cookie Jars,‖ in Copper Scroll Studies (ed. George J. Brooke and Philip R. Davies; JSPSup 40; London: T&T Clark, 2002), 164. 8 See Moshe Bernstein, ―The Genre(s) of the Genesis Apocryphon,‖ in Aramaic Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July 2008 (ed. Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 340–41. 7

220

KETER SHEM TOV

different sources such as the Book of Lamech, the Book of Noah and the Book of Abram.9 Esther Eshel notes that the Genesis Apocryphon is considered to be non sectarian, and relates to stories from the early chapters of Genesis (5–15) with addition, omissions and expansions.10 Deborah Dimant confirms this opinion stating that the Aramaic texts from Qumran which include the Genesis Apocryphon contain nothing of the specifically sectarian terminology or ideology, and therefore do not belong to sectarian literature.11 However, Dorothy Peters has pointed out that Noah atones for the land and is the only character in Dead Sea Scroll literature to do so. She suggests this links the character of Noah more closely to the Yahad sectarians for whom atoning for the land described their role in a particular way, as for example in the socalled Community Rule. 1 In the Council of the Yahad there shall be twelve laymen and three priests who are without blemish in everything that is revealed from the entire 2 Torah in order to practice truth, righteousness and justice/judgment…5 Then shall the Council of the Yahad be established as an ―eternal planting‖ (‫)מטעת עולם‬, as a holy house for Israel, and as an assembly of 6 utter holiness for Aaron; witnesses of truth for judgement, and chosen ones of God‘s favor in order to atone for the land

See Moshe Bernstein, ―Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon,‖ JBL 128 (2009): 291–94. 10 See Esther Eshel, ―The Dream Visions in the Noah Story of the Genesis Apocryphon and Related Texts,‖ in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006 (ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al.; STDJ 80; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 43. 11 See Devorah Dimant, ―The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community,‖ in Flores Florentino Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 198– 99. 9

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS

221

and to recompense 7 the wicked their retribution. (1QS 8:1–2, 5–7)12

The text of the Genesis Apocryphon that has survived can be divided into three cycles, separated by blank lines between each cycle: the Enoch cycle, the Noah cycle, and the Abram cycle. The text probably included additional cycles, which have been lost, as the beginning and end of the scroll have not been preserved. From the extant text, we can see a well-written story, that has welldeveloped dream visions with smoothly connected individual components, which use shared themes and terminology.13

3. THE DATE OF THE COMPOSITION AND THE SCROLL The Genesis Apocryphon is generally attributed to the second or first century BCE, but Eshel argues that if it was used by Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, then this might suggest an earlier date. 14 In regard to the date of the attested manuscript, Daniel Machiela mentions that there is a remarkable convergence between two different means of dating: the comparative study of script in which it was written and in the radio-carbon analysis of the animal skin on which it was written.15 Fitzmyer and Avigad, who used palaeographical methods, identified the formal Herodian script and dated See Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity (SBLEJL 26; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 179. This is Peters‘ own translation of the Community Rule extract. 13 See Esther Eshel, ―The Genesis Apocryphon: A Chain of Traditions,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008) (ed. Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref; STDJ 93, Leiden: Brill, 2011), 186. 14 See Eshel, ―The Dream Visions in the Noah Story,‖ 43. 15 See Daniel Machiela, ―Genesis Revealed: the Apocalyptic Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1,‖ in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana (ed. Daniel K. Falk et al.; STDJ 91; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 205. 12

222

KETER SHEM TOV

it to the latter half of the first century BCE or the first half of the first century CE, where it was copied at Qumran. Radiocarbon analysis carried out in Zurich in 1990 and 1997 pointed to the same time frame.16

4. PLANT SYMBOLISM IN THE NOAH CYCLE Plant symbolism that relates to Noah begins in Column 2, line 1, where the use of the word ‚seed‛ occurs, being linked more definitely to plant symbolism by the associated terms of ‫ נקיבת‬and ‫ ץשיא‬that occur in line 15. 1. 2.

So then I thought to myself that the conception was from Watchers or that the seed (‫ )זשעא‬was from Holy Ones, or [belonged] to Nephil[im]; And my mind wavered because of this child. (1QapGen 2:1)

In this text and that of 1QapGen 2:15, this ―seed‖ (‫ )זשעא‬is linked to Lamech‘s fear that Bitenosh, his wife and Noah‘s mother, has been impregnated by one of the Watchers, Holy Ones or Nephilim (1QapGen 2:1), who are written about in Enochic literature and also in Jubilees.17 While Lamech expresses the fear that Noah is one of their offspring, Bitenosh declares unequivocally that Lamech is the father of Noah. 14. I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the king of H[eaven] 15. that this seed (‫ )זשעא‬is from you; from you is this conception, and from you the planting (‫ )נקבת‬of this fruit (‫( ‖)ץשיא‬1QapGen 2:15). The use of ‫ נקיבת‬in line 15 suggests the image of Noah as a plant which is strengthened by use of the associated terms of ‚seed‛ and ‚fruit.‛ If the term (‫ )נקיבת‬had not been used, in line 15, the use of

See Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (CQS 8; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 28. 17 See Gen 6:1–4; 1 En. 6–7; Jub. 4:15; 5:1–8. 16

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS

223

‫ זשעא‬in line 1 would not have necessarily associated Noah at this

point in the text with plant symbolism. In 1QapGen 12:13 where the root (‫ )נקב‬occurs again, Noah plants (‫ )ונקבת‬a large vineyard. A fourth occurrence is in 1QapGen 14:13: ―...will come forth as an upright planting )‫ )לנקבת‬for every...‖ Further on in the text in 1QapGen 14:9 Noah is addressed as the great cedar: 9. [And now] list[en]and hear! You are the great cedar [and] the [cedar] standing before you in a dream on the top of mountains Thus the text implies that before conception Noah was righteous like a giant cedar. The cedar grows to enormous heights and endures for centuries, has strong roots, is highly valued as wood (in biblical texts the Temple was constructed from it) and is hard and upright. Later in the text cedar symbolism is applied also to Abram (col. 19). Not all has survived in the intervening columns following col. 6, especially of col. 8, and the next mention of plants is in col. 11. The Flood has destroyed humankind as related in the Genesis story and Noah comes to the door of the ark to witness the springtime of the earth and its greening after the destruction wrought by the flood waters, the savage, negative destructive quality of the water element returning the earth to chaos as opposed to its positive nurturing of life and the creative aspect. After the Flood, when the waters had dried up the earth, the vegetation is depicted as flourishing, very fertile and green. The missing text preceding col. 11 is likely to have followed the Genesis story and spoken of the dove bringing back the olive branch (Gen 7:6–12). The symbolism of the olive branch may have been developed further as well. However, the fertility of plants is emphasized in the newly cleansed earth after its destruction by the Flood and the Nephilim. Noah makes his survey of this land full of luxuriant growth.

224

KETER SHEM TOV 9. [ ] …the mountains and the deserts and the thickets (‫ )לעוביא‬and… 11. [Then] I Noah went out and walked on the land through its length and its breadth [ ].. l…………n18 12. [ ]…upon it. (There was) luxuriance in their leaves and in their fruits. All the land was full of grass, herbs and grain. 17. am [g]iving all of it to you and your children, to eat of the greenery and herbs of the land, But you are not to eat any blood.

Line 17 which says specifically that vegetation is to be used as nourishment, and not the blood of animals, raises the question as to whether vegetarianism is being advocated. Loren Stuckenbruck suggests that vegetarianism is one possible interpretation of 1QapGen 11:16–17.19 Falk also discusses that vegetarianism is advocated in the reworking of the Genesis text by the Genesis Apocryphon, but the text itself is ambiguous and it is difficult to interpret it with surety.20 4.1. Vine In col. 12, which details Noah‘s planting of a vineyard, his drunkenness, as related in the Genesis story, is not mentioned. Instead, Noah becomes the very paradigm of virtue and takes on priestly characteristics as he and his sons offer a sacrifice and bless the Lord, making a covenant. Children are born of Noah‘s sons, who begin to cultivate the earth, and celebrate a feast from the wine of Noah‘s vineyard, that is to re-occur every year (1QapGen The traces indicate a ‫ ל‬and a ‫ן‬, but the rest of the letters are indecipherable. Fitzmyer supplies transliterations of decipherable letters throughout his English translation. 19 See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 A Commentary (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 367. 20 See Daniel Falk, ―Divergences from Genesis in the Genesis Apocryphon,‖ in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana (ed. Daniel K. Falk et al.; STDJ 91; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 200–01. 18

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS

225

12:1–27). Mount Lubar is identified as the place where the vineyard is planted (1QapGen 12:13) and Fitzmyer comments that this identification of the specific mountain of Ararat is found also in Jub. 7:1. ―And in the seventh week, in the first year thereof, in this jubilee, Noah planted vines on the mountain on which the ark had rested, named Lubar, one of the mountains of Ararat, and they produced fruit in the fourth year.‖21 From the context, the fragmentary line 27: ―[ ] ……I … every year‖ (1QapGen 12:27) indicates the celebration of a yearly Festival of Wine which also occurs in the Temple Scroll (11Q20 4:1–3). Unlike the Genesis Apocryphon, Jub. 7:7 relates the incident of Noah‘s drunkenness and thus is closer to the biblical text (Gen 9:2–27) than the Genesis Apocryphon which omits it and any trace of blame for Noah or his sons. The fact that the Genesis Apocryphon does not mention Noah‘s drunkenness nor apportion him any blame is in keeping with the text‘s dream symbolism that Noah is righteous like the cedar. Drunken behaviour which would mar Noah‘s image is changed into a legitimate rejoicing in the festival of the fruits of the vine. 4.2. Noah’s Dreams

4.2.1. Column 13 The text begins with images of destruction with the breaking of stones and ceramic pots followed by the destruction of the great olive tree, but the text is rather damaged, making interpretation difficult. Eshel comments that the destruction of trees or plants in predictions of an adverse fate is found in Isa 5:1–7 (song of the vineyard); Jer 2:21 (alien vine); Ezek 19:10–14 (vine) and Dan 4:7–19 (great tree vision).22 10. There was a tree at the centre of the earth, and its height was great…13. I continued looking, in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and there was holy watcher, coming down from heaven. 14. He cried aloud and said: ―Cut down the tree and 21 22

See Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 161. See Eshel, ―The Dream Visions in the Noah Story,‖ 42.

226

KETER SHEM TOV chop off its branches, strip off its foliage and scatter its fruit‖ (Dan 4:10, 13, 14 NRSV).

However Eshel was unable to provide a full explanation of the tree imagery of this vision.23 Those who broke up the stones could refer to the giants, the descendants of the angels who married women and devastated the earth (Gen 6:1–4) chopping down the trees (1QapGen 13:10), and helping themselves to its products, clearing the land, and caused the water to stop. This is the background to the introduction of the olive tree dream (1QapGen 13:8–12) this destruction foreshadowing the catastrophe that rips the flourishing olive tree apart. As the dream interpretation of the vision has been lost, it is very probable that the badly preserved part in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 13 line 18 to col. 14) contained the interpretation of the olive tree dream. Noah‘s dream about the olive tree (13:13–18) is as follows: 13. I turned around to look at the olive tree; for behold the olive tree (was) growing in height and (for) many hours with the glory of many leaves 14. [and] fru[its] in abundance…r and it w(as) seen among them. I (was) contemplating the olive tree, for behold the abundance of its leaves……. 15. [ ]w…………..y‘n 24 (they were) tying (?) on it. And I was marveling very much at this olive tree and its leaves. I was quite amazed……. The rapid growth of the olive tree may symbolize Israel in times of blessing. Fitzmyer comments on the emphatic form of ‫ זיתא‬which he finds puzzling since olive trees had not been mentioned to this point and the peal form of ‫( גבש‬growing strong) is used in 4QGiantsc (4Q531) 22:3 similarly.25 Going back to biblical sources Jer 11:1–17 speaks of God‘s olive tree and makes it abundantly

See Eshel, ―The Dream Visions in the Noah Story,‖ 45. According to Fitzmyer, the waw is clear but not the yod, aleph and final nun. 25 Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 165. 23 24

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS

227

clear by stating five times that the olive tree is synonymous with God‘s covenant people. 16. The Lord once called you, ―A green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit;‖ but with the roar of great tempest he will set fire to it, and its branches will be consumed (NRSV). In rabbinic texts Israel is called a beautiful olive tree, but one whose branches will be damaged. Menaḥ 53b comments on Jer 11:15–16 in referring to the Jewish people: ‚R. Johanan said: Why is Israel likened to an olive-tree? To tell you that just as the olive produces its oil only after pounding, so Israel returns to the right way only after suffering.‛26 In the Genesis Apocryphon text describing the battering of the olive tree, and its adverse fortune, we notice a change from the first to second person, which could indicate another source or quotation and indicate it is part of an interpretation. 16. [the four] winds of the heavens27 (were) blowing with vehemence, and they damaged this olive tree, debranching it and breaking it to pieces. First [came] 17. [the wind from] the west, and it struck and stripped it of its leaves and its fruit, and scattered it to the winds. And after it … 18. [ ]and from ‗n..‘ …[ ]……28 Who is the olive tree? From the context it is possible that the assailed olive tree refers to the wicked generation of Noah, and its destruction by the winds is a reference to the Flood, a catastrophe for mankind and a punishment for sin. However, I think one should look for a double or multi-layered meaning, where the author harks back to earlier traditions to explain events happening at the time of writing, generally attributed to the second or first Soncino translation of The Babylonian Talmud at http://halakhah. com/pdf/kodoshim/Menachoth.pdfhttp://halakhah.com/pdf/Kodoshi m/Menachoth.pdf (accessed 20/9/2012). 27 The identical Aramaic phrase occurs in Dan 7:2. 28 Again only a few letters are decipherable. 26

228

KETER SHEM TOV

century BCE. Does the author believe that Israel deserves to be punished, like the generation of the Flood? As the interpretation of the olive symbolism is missing from the text, this view can only be speculative. The olive tree is battered and diminished, but not killed, for the roots of an olive, as is known are very hard to kill. The wind could represent different violent events affecting the people of Israel. To date scholars, who include Eshel and Machiela, have not been able to provide a satisfactory explanation for the olive tree dream. Eshel notes that the reference to the four winds of heaven is related to Daniel‘s dream of the four beasts in Dan 7 and that the dream visions of the olive tree rely on various biblical prophecies. Machiela states that the vision deals with historical events, symbolized by the succession of trees. He admits that the early part of the dream which appears to include a historical review of the Flood is difficult to decipher with certainty.29

4.2.2. Column 14 Cedar symbolism is woven throughout what remains of col. 14. Noah is addressed as the great cedar, a symbol of righteousness (1QapGen 14:8–9) with three branches symbolizing his three sons. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

[And now] list[en] and hear! You are the great cedar, [and] the [cedar] standing before you in a dream on the top of mountains [and h]igh grew a scion that comes forth from it and rises to its height (as) three s[on]s .....l..ky‘ k.... [and as] you saw the first scion clinging to the stump of the cedar .l. .......... and the wood from it ..[ ] [ ]..........k will not part from you all his days, and among his descendants (seed; ‫ )ובזשעה‬your n[am]e will be called š.k .l... l....m... [ ] ... [ ]...‘ will come forth as an upright planting for every ....l[ ] l[ ] ..... [ ]

See Eshel, ―The Dream Visions in the Noah Story,‖ 45–46, and Machiela, ―Genesis Revealed,‖ 215. 29

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS

229

14. [ ] ... qwm standing forever. And as you saw the scion clinging to the st[um]p of [ ] …[ ] 15. [ ] ………… and as you saw l..‘ the other scion … ... [ ] 16. [ ] (vacat) ‗l some of their boughs entering into the midst of the boughs of the first one; two b[ny] n …………… 17. [ ] …. From the [ea]rth … to the left …And as you saw some of their boughs entering into the midst of the boughs of the first one 18. ………… Putting on the earth [ ] and not…. [ ] 19. You made known to [him] the mystery that ….. [ 22. [ ] first he sent... … …[ 27. [ ] the cedar [ Eshel has commented in detail on this text, showing that the cedar dream combines both the element of symbolic use of the cedar for persons and prediction of future events. Noah is the cedar and the three scions are his sons, Shem, the ancestor of the Jews being the first who grows to a great height (14:10), echoing the image in Ezek 17:22–24 where Israel is symbolized by a tall cedar.30 The metaphor of righteous planting (‫ )לנקבת רושט‬is introduced in 1QapGen 14:13. 1QapGen 14:12 relates to Shem who will be faithful to Noah and he ‚will not part from you all his days, and among his descendants (see: ‫ )ובזשעה‬your n[am]e will be called.‛ Thus Shem and his descendants are ‚a plant of truth‛ (1QapGen 14:13).31 Eshel comments that this image, known to designate the Messiah in biblical sources, is found earlier in the Book of Watchers in 1 Enoch and is applied to Noah‘s descendants in 1 En. 10:3 when the angel Sariel goes to Noah: ―Teach the righteous one what he should do, the son of Lamech how he may preserve himself alive and escape forever, from him a plant will be planted,

30 31

Eshel, ―The Dream Visions in the Noah Story,‖ 46. Ibid., 46–47.

230

KETER SHEM TOV

and his seed will endure for all the generations of eternity.‖ 32 Later in the same chapter Michael is told: ―Destroy all perversity from the face of the earth, and let every wicked deed be gone, and let the plant of righteousness (and truth) appear, and it will become a blessing... planted forever with joy‖ (10:16). The plant of truth theme is also in Jubilees when Noah instructs his children: ―Do what is just and right so that you may be rightly planted on the surface of the entire earth (Jub. 7:34).33 This echoing of plant themes in Enoch and Jubilees suggests an affinity of the Genesis Apocryphon with Enochic literature and messianic themes. Eshel also points out that in the cedar dream vision in 1QapGen 14:17 the Genesis Apocryphon foresees aggressive acts that will be perpetuated by the descendants of Ham and Japheth against Shem: 34 ―[ ].... from the [ea]rth ...to the left...And as you saw some of their boughs (‫ )נוץהן‬entering into the midst of the boughs of the first one.‖ The dream ends at col. 15 line 21 when Noah awakes. 4.3. Abram’s dream In Column 19, plant symbolism is revealed in Abram‘s dream where he again is designated as a cedar and his wife Sarai as a palm tree, two very common images in the literature of the Second Temple Period and of the Middle East, the palm tree also being a symbol of female fertility. The cedar (‫ )אשז‬is a masculine noun and the palm tree (‫ )תמש‬is feminine.35 Fitzmyer points out that the elements of this dream are drawn from Ps 92:13[12]: ―The righteous will flourish like the palm tree; one will grow high like a cedar of Lebanon.‖ Later rabbinic literature often related this verse to the story of Abram and Sarai (Gen 12:17).36 Eshel, ―The Dream Visions in the Noah Story,‖ 47. Citations of 1 Enoch and Jubilees in this section follow those found in Eshel. 33 Ibid., 47. 34 Ibid., 47. 35 See Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 185. 36 See ibid., 185, and Gen. Rab. 41:1; Midrash Tanh., Lekh 4; Zohar on Gen 12. He also mentions Song 5:5 where the youth is compared to a cedar and in 7:7–8, the girl to a palm. The translation of Ps 92:13[12] is by Fitzmyer. 32

PLANT SYMBOLISM AND THE DREAMS

231

4.3.1. Cedar and palm tree (Abram and Sarai) In the dream the Joseph story has been melded into that of Abram. 14. And I Abram, had a dream in the night of my entering in to the land of Egypt, And I saw in my dream [that there wa]s a cedar tree and a date-palm (which was) 15. [very beauti]ful. Some men came, seeking to cut own and uproot the cedar and leave the date-palm by itself 16. Now the date-palm cried out and said, ―Do not cut down the cedar, for we are both sprung from one stock.‖ So the cedar was spared by the protection of the date-palm, 17. and it not cut [down]. (vacat) That night I awoke from my sleep and said to Sarai, my wife, ―I had a dream; 18. [and] I [am] frightened [by] this dream.‖ She said to me, ―Tell me your dream that I may know (it).‖ So I began to tell her this dream. (1QapGen 19:14–18) The text shows clearly that Abram‘s life is saved by his wife Sarai, where the palm, in claiming to be of the one stock, meaning she claims they are sister and brother, saves his life. This clears Abram of blame in not admitting to Pharoah that Sarai is his wife. In col. 20 the palm tree is endowed with erotic tendencies, describing Sarai‘s beauty in language that would parallel that of Shir haShirim. At the same time she is said to have the virtue of wisdom, a wisdom displayed in saying she was Abram‘s sister that saved his life. 2. 3. 4. 5.

[―. . . . ] how splen[did] and beautiful the form of her face, and how [plea]sant [and] soft the hair of her head; how lovely are her eyes, and how graceful is her nose; all the radiance of her face [ ]; how lovely is her breast, and how beautiful is all her whiteness! Her arms, how beautiful! And her hands, how perfect! And (how) attractive all the appearance of her hands! How lovely (are) her palms, and how long and dainty all the fingers of her hands. Her feet,

232

KETER SHEM TOV 6. 7. 8.

how beautiful! How perfect are her legs! There are no virgins or brides who enter a bridal chamber more beautiful than she. Indeed, she greatly surpasses in beauty all women; and in her beauty she ranks high above all of them. Yet with all this beauty there is much wisdom in her; and whatever she has is lovely.‖ (1QapGen 20:2–8)

5. CONCLUSIONS It is clear that plant symbolism permeates the whole of the attested sections of the Genesis Apocryphon. Allowing for the broken state of the text, there is more material on plant symbolism in the dreams of Noah than of Abram where there is the one plant dream of the palm and cedar. In common is the cedar theme that characterises both patriarchs, where they are both proclaimed as righteous. In the Noah cycle the cedar image extends to the scions of Noah as well. The author has presented a very positive picture of both Noah and Abraham through the symbolism of a magnificent cedar that inspires confidence. Again, by presenting Sarai as a palm tree, that is fruitful, beautiful and wise, a positive image is portrayed that speaks of the fertility and continuance of the Jewish nation. It is an encouraging picture that balances the image of the destruction of the olive tree, suggesting the image of adverse fortune striking the Jewish nation in the second or first centuries before the Common Era.

PART 4. COMMUNITY AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

233

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?: OWLS AND ROOSTERS IN THE QUMRAN BARNYARD* Albert I. Baumgarten There are times I almost think Nobody sure of what he absolutely know. Ev‘rybody find confusion In conclusion he concluded long ago. And it puzzle me to learn That though a man may be in doubt of what he know, Very quickly will he fight, He‘ll fight to prove that what he does not know is so! Oscar Hammerstein II, ―A Puzzlement,‖ The King and I, 19511

* The conference volume in which this paper appears is dedicated to the late Professor Emeritus Alan Crown (1932–2010). It recognizes his long-standing interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls and contributions to their understanding. Unless otherwise noted, the translations of Qumran pesher texts throughout this article are taken from Maurya O. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979). 1 I should hasten to add that these words of warning and wisdom apply to me no more and no less than to any of my colleagues.

235

236

KETER SHEM TOV

1. FRANK MOORE CROSS AND THE MAKING OF A CONSENSUS One of the crucial moments in the structure of a scientific discipline is the establishing of a consensus, of a widely agreed research program, which can then serve as a basis for further research. For Qumran studies, this role was filled by an essay by Frank Moore Cross Jr. (1921–2012), on the faculty of Harvard University since 1957. Soon after arriving at Harvard, Cross was appointed the Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages. Cross has made numerous important contributions to the study of the Hebrew Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context. He has also been a key figure in Qumran studies over many decades, deciphering and publishing Qumran texts himself, while also supervising numerous doctoral dissertations in which his students followed in his footsteps. In all his work on Qumran he has stressed a special interest in tracing the history of the development of Hebrew scripts. This article will focus on a key paper Cross published, ―The Early History of the Qumran Community.‖ It first appeared in the McCormick Quarterly in 1968, and was then reprinted, making it more widely accessible, in the collection New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, edited by David Noel Freedman and Jonas C. Greenfield (1971).2 This essay celebrated the fact that after more than twenty years of discovery and publication the study of the manuscripts from the Judean Desert had entered a second and more mature phase. The early controversies had not wholly dissipated, nor had the battle of the scrolls in the popular press ended. Nevertheless, ―certain coherent patterns of fact and meaning have emerged,‖ and it was these coherent patterns that Cross intended to set forth in his paper. Cross put forward his arguments with a rhetorical force that was almost irresistible. He argued with learning, passion, and conviction, based on his own research and that of many others. He brought together evidence Frank M. Cross Jr., ―The Early History of the Qumran Community,‖ in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (ed. David Noel Freedman and Jonas C. Greenfield; Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 70–89. 2

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

237

from several different perspectives—archaeological, paleographic, and literary—all coming together to establish his conclusions. Accordingly, this essay became one of the major statements of what would become the scholarly consensus concerning the Qumran finds. In one form or other, modified, elaborated, and expanded over the years, it has resisted alternative explanations of the most diverse sort. The foundation of Cross‘ position was that ―sect,‖ ―site,‖ and ―scrolls‖ were all connected with each other. That is, the scrolls found in the caves near Qumran were collected and/or written by a Jewish sect of the Second Temple Era, whose center was uncovered by the archaeological remains found there. This group had its origins sometime in the second century BCE and its site was destroyed as part of the Roman suppression of the Great Revolt in 68 CE. Finally, according to Cross, the scrolls prescribed the way of life followed by the members of this sect, a way of life that was connected in some important way with that of the Essenes, as described by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny the Elder. The men of Qumran and the Essenes, according to Cross, held ―similar bizarre views‖ and performed ―similar or rather identical lustrations, ritual meals and ceremonies.‖ Therefore, Cross refused to be cautious, but preferred to be ―reckless,‖3 and identified the Qumran covenanters as Essenes; he then drew freely upon both the classical authors who wrote on the Essenes and Qumran texts in the remainder of his essay. Each group of sources was given a privileged status in the understanding of the other.

2. DOUBTS ABOUT THE QUMRAN-ESSENE CONNECTION No research program ever explains its subject completely. There are always anomalies around the margins, which serve as the starting point for further investigation. It is therefore entirely ―normal‖ that within the circle of those scholars who adhere to the consensus, questions have been raised about some aspect of the basic conclusions concerning the inherent connection between site, sect, and scrolls, and the nature of the Qumran covenantal 3

Cross, ―Early History,‖ 77.

238

KETER SHEM TOV

community.4 I have raised doubts about the Qumran-Essene connection, arguing that the differences between Qumran and the Essenes deserve serious attention and bear a high degree of significance. In a highly charged sectarian context, where the smallest differences may have the greatest importance and the most divisive impact, these differences should not be minimized. At the same time, I have suggested that each set of sources should not have a privileged status in interpreting the other. I have argued that our information about Qumran and the Essenes shed light on each other, not because they are two sets of documents that go back to the same movement, but as two parallel movements from the same time, place, and cultural/religious milieu, that inevitably resemble each other and can be used to explain each other, but have no privileged status in that endeavor. Differences should not be minimized, certainly not ignored, but should serve as windows into the practices, beliefs, and social structures that divided between the movements reflected in the varying sets of sources.

3. QUMRAN APOCALYPTICISM However, having argued my position in a number of papers over the years,5 I have little enthusiasm for re-stating my reasons for departing from the consensus on the identification of Qumran with I pass over the numerous challenges to the basic consensus, almost all of which are problematic. Their common characteristic is that they are the hypotheses of one scholar, which in almost all cases have not succeeded in convincing a single other scholar. See Magen Broshi and Hanan Eshel, ―Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Contention of Twelve Theories,‖ in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches (ed. Douglas R. Edwards; London: Routledge, 2004), 162– 69. For a vigorous defense of the consensus see Edna Ullmann-Margalit, ―Interpretive Circles: The Case of the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008) (ed. Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref; STJD 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 649–66. 5 See Albert I. Baumgarten, ―Who Cares and Why Does it Matter? Qumran and the Essenes Once Again,‖ DSD 11 (2004): 174–90. 4

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

239

the Essenes. A re-capitulation will hardly succeed in convincing those who were not persuaded by previous publications. 6 They continue to disregard the evidence and adhere to positions taken in the past.7 I therefore prefer to devote this article to another aspect of the consensus as presented by Cross—the Qumran covenanters as fervent believers in the imminent ultimate redemption of the world, which Cross denoted as apocalypticism. They believed that ―they lived in the last days of the Old Age…when the Old Age was passing away (and) the Kingdom of God was Dawning…The final war was at hand, in which the Spirit of Truth and his heavenly

See, for example, Magen Broshi, ―Essenes at Qumran: A Rejoinder to Albert Baumgarten,‖ DSD 14 (2007): 25–33 and Kenneth Atkinson and Jodi Magness, ―Josephus‘ Essenes and the Qumran Community,‖ JBL 129 (2010): 317–42, esp. 335. 7 Both Broshi and Atkinson and Magness (see the previous note) resolve the contradiction between the latrine found at Qumran and Essene defecation practices as described by Josephus by inventing distinctions to be found nowhere in the sources. Broshi imagines that the latrine found at Qumran was used only by aged and handicapped members, while other Qumran covenanters defecated in the way attributed by Josephus. Atkinson and Magness invent a distinction between field conditions (Josephus) and permanent camps (Qumran). Josephus, however, was explicit: the small shovel received by the initiate upon entry to the group was to be used for defecation in the manner Josephus described. It was a sign of a new identity and of accepting the obligation to behave a certain way for the rest of one‘s life, from which there were no apparent exceptions. Josephus, our only source on the topic, made no distinction between older, handicapped members and younger ones, nor between field conditions and those in a permanent camp. On the Qumran-Essene connection, in general, see Steve Mason, ―The Historical Problem of the Essenes,‖ in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 201–51. As Mason concluded, 248: ―For this historian, the structural problem with the Qumran Essene hypothesis is its upside-down shape: its commitment to a hypothetical conclusion without evident concern about how one reaches it.‖ 6

240

KETER SHEM TOV

armies would put an end to the rule of the powers of darkness.‖8 For the Covenanters, the key to these future mysteries was at hand. One had only to read the Old Testament prophecies with the understanding given the inspired interpreter, that is, by pneumatic exegesis. For all the secrets of events to come in the last days were told by God through the mouth of his holy prophets. So the Essenes searched the Scriptures. They developed a body of traditional exegesis, no doubt inspired by principles laid down by their founder, which is reflected in most of their works, above all in Biblical commentaries, pesharim, in which their common tradition was fixed in writing.9

Cross‘ Qumran community was a hotbed of super-heated imminent eschatological expectation (millennial hope, as I would use the term).10 Their pneumatic exegesis of prophecy was not intended for some indefinite future, but for the short term, to be realized most immediately. Their ultimate vindication would come soon, and this belief strengthened the conviction and willingness to sacrifice of members of a minute group, persecuted, and on the fringes of society, that had to cope with the fact that its claim to exclusive truth won few followers or believers. Not surprisingly, following the path laid down by Cross, this view of Qumran has a significant place in the scholarly consensus and it is on this aspect of the consensus that I would like to focus. An analysis of one key text indicates that things were not as simple as the consensus view formulated by Cross might seem. Cross, ―Early History,‖ 78. On the conception of the ―end of days‖ in Qumran sources see John J. Collins, ―Teacher and Messiah? The One Who Will Teach Righteousness at the End of Days,‖ in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam; Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1993), 195–99. 9 Cross, ―Early History,‖ 79. 10 See Albert I. Baumgarten, ―Four Stages in the Life of a Millennial Movement,‖ in War in Heaven/Heaven on Earth: Theories of the Apocalyptic (ed. Stephen D. O‘Leary and Glen S. McGhee; London: Equinox, 2005), 61–75. 8

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

241

4. PESHER HABAKKUK Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) was among the first group of sources to be discovered and published. Two crucial but inter-related difficulties persist in analyzing a text of this sort: (1) its obscurity and (2) its being subject to on-going re-interpretation in response to changing times. As one example, the late Hanan Eshel argued that in some places in 1QpHab kittim referred to the Seleucids, while in other places they were the Romans.11 Accordingly, while those who disbelieved in some aspect of the eschatological vision promoted by the author(s) of 1QpHab were discussed at least twice in 1QpHab, in passages to be analyzed in detail below,12 it is not certain whether the authority figure rejected by these ―heretics‖ was the same in both passages; whether the deviant beliefs or practices that made them into heretics were the same in both cases; or, at the simplest level, whether the identity of the ―heretics‖ in the two passages was necessarily the same. Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, it seems clear that the events alluded to in the passages from 1QpHab to be discussed below took place in the past, sometime before the pesher Hanan Eshel, ―The Two Historical Layers of Pesher Habakkuk,‖ in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006 (ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 107–17. Cf. however, Moshe J. Bernstein, ―Pesher Habakkuk,‖ in EDSS 2:649a, who has convinced others, such as James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 109–12, that kittim in 1QpHab always refers to Romans. As Charlesworth argued, the Romans were a factor in the life of the Near East during the Seleucid era, well before Pompey. 12 Since the focus is on eschatological visions, I will not discuss in detail the ―House of Absalom,‖ denounced in 1QpHab 1:13. They did not stand up for the ―Teacher‖ when he was attacked by the ―Man of Lies,‖ but the text does not indicate whether the source of the disagreement was eschatological. See further John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Literature (NY: Doubleday, 1995), 103–04. The denunciation of the ―House of Absalom‖ does indicate that certain challenges to the authority of the ―Teacher‖ were not tolerated, because, as 1QpHab 2:2–3 states, the words of the ―Teacher‖ were from the ―mouth of God.‖ 11

242

KETER SHEM TOV

was composed, at the time of the ―Teacher of Righteousness.‖ This was an ―old story,‖ but one that mattered enough to be worth remembering. Whether or not it still had significant practical consequences at the time when it was re-told in 1QpHab, it was an account of a moment when difference made a difference, when some members of the old group were designated as dissidents, as ―heretics.‖13 This is a moment that is usually of high significance in the experience of a religious movement, especially a tightly bound sectarian group such as Qumran. I begin with 1QpHab 2:5–10, where the ―traitors‖ at the end of days, further identified as ―the ruthless [ones of the coven]ant (‫ ‖(עשיק[י הבש]ית‬were denounced for not believing what they heard from the ―priest,‖ whose heart was endowed by God to interpret the secret meaning of all the words of His servants the prophets, to whom God told all that would befall His people and city.‖ The authority figure here is ―the priest,‖ and the disbelief concerns all that would befall God‘s people and city, likely, an eschatological vision, since the ―traitors‖ at the beginning of the passage were at the ―end of days.‖ Despite some uncertainty, one point seems clear. The ―ruthless ones of the covenant‖ also appeared in a parallel text, 4QpPsa 1–10 ii 14–16. There, the As George Duby insisted concerning the Middle Ages, but his point is equally valid for Qumran: All heretics became heretics because of decisions by orthodox authorities. They were first and foremost—and often they always remained—heretics in the eyes of others, or to be more precise, in the eyes of the Church, in the eyes of one Church. This is an important consideration, because it shows that the terms ―orthodoxy‖ and ―heresy‖ are historically indissoluble. Even so, one should not consider them like two provinces on opposite sides of a river, divided by a definite border. Instead, it is more a question of two poles, between which margins extend, enormous areas of indifference perhaps, sometimes of neutrality, at any rate undefined and changing fringes. George Duby, ―Heresies and Societies in Preindustrial Europe between the Eleventh and the Eighteenth Centuries,‖ Love and Marriage in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 187. 13

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

243

ruthless ones of the covenant who are in the house of Judah… plot to destroy completely those who observe the Law, who are in the council of the community. But God will not abandon them (those who observe the law in the council of the community) into their power (of the ruthless ones of the covenant).

In fact, as is made explicit in 4QpPsa 1–10 iii 12–13, those same ―ruthless ones of the covenant, the wicked ones of Israel, will be cut off and will be exterminated forever.‖ At least in 4QpPsa the identity of these ―ruthless ones of the covenant, who are in the house of Judah‖ seems clear. Immediately following the first passage from 4QpPsa, cited above, in 4QpPsa 1–10 ii 18–20, the pesher denounced the wicked ones of Ephraim and Manasseh, who will seek to lay their hands on the priest and his partisans in the time of testing that is coming upon them. But God will ransom them from their hands, and afterwards they (the wicked ones of Ephraim and Manasseh) will be given into the hand of the ruthless ones of the gentiles for judgment (‫ביד עשיקי גואים‬ ‫)למשץט‬.

There was thus more than one group of ‚ruthless ones:‛ some were of Judah, others of the gentiles. Those of Judah were apparently contrasted with Ephraim and Manasseh, usual code names in Qumran texts for the Pharisees and Sadducees. If so, ‚Judah‛ was not a designation for ancient Jews as a whole (as it sometimes can be in Qumran sources), but was intended as the self-designation of the Qumran covenanters, as in 4QpNah, esp. 4QpNah 3–4 iii 4–5, where the glorious vindication of ‚Judah‛ will be revealed.14 Therefore, the ‚ruthless ones of the covenant, who are in the house of Judah‛ in 4QpPsa 1–10 ii 14–16 and 4QpPsa 1– 10 iii 12–13 were some sort of internal dissidents, originally, at least, part of the covenantal Qumran community. It is therefore At that time, ―the simple ones of Ephraim will flee from the midst of their (Ephraim‘s) assembly. They (the simple ones) will abandon those who led them astray and will join…I]srael.‖ 14

244

KETER SHEM TOV

very likely, but not certain, that the ‚ruthless ones of the covenant,‛ the ‚traitors at the end of days,‛ who did not believe what they heard from the priest concerning all that would befall God’s people and city in 1QpHab 2:5–10 were also internal dissidents, perhaps, but not necessarily the same ones as those in 4QpPsa. Sectarian movements like Qumran can be very fractious, and splinter groups of all sorts are prevalent, even to be expected. The second passage from 1QpHab denouncing heretics is 7:1–8:3.15 Col. VII top margin

‫ וידבש אל אל חברור לכתוב את הבאות על‬1 ‫ {על} הדוש האחשון ואת גמש הרצ לוא הודעו‬2 ‫ ואשש אמש למען ישוצ הרושא בו‬vacat 3 ‫ ץששו על מושה הקדר אשש הודיעו אל את‬4 ‫ כול שזי דבשי עבדיו הנבאים כיא עוד חזון‬5 vacat ‫ למועד יץיח לרצ ולוא יכזב‬6

‫ ץששו אשש יאשוך הרצ האחשון ויתש על כול‬7 ‫אשש דבשו הנביאים כיא שזי אל להץל{א}ה‬ ‫ אם יתמהמה חכה לו כיא בוא יבוא ולוא‬9 ‫ ץששו על אנשי האמת‬vacat ‫ יאחש‬10 ‫ עושי התושה אשש לוא ישץו ידיהם מעבודת‬11 ‫ האמת בהמשך עליהם הרצ האחשון כיא‬12 ‫ כול ריקי אל יבואו לתכונם כאשש חרר‬13 ‫ להם בשזי עשמתו הנה עוץלה לוא יוששה‬14 ‫ ץששו אשש יכץלו עליהם‬vacat ]‫ [נץשו בו‬15 Text and translation below from the Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library. 15

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW? ]

[‫]ל‬

245

[ ‫ [חטאתיהם ו]ל[וא ]ישקו במשץטם‬16 ]‫וקדיר באמונתו יחיה‬

[

17

Col. VIII top margin

‫ ץששו על כול עושי התושה בבית יהודה אשש‬1 ‫ יקילם אל מבית המשץט בעבוש עמלם ואמנתם‬2 ‫ במושה הקדר‬3 Col. VII 1. Then God told Habakkuk to write down what is going to happen to 2. {to} the generation to come; but when that period would be complete He did not make known to him. 3. vacat When it says, ―so that with ease someone can read it,‖ 4. this refers to the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known 5. all the mysterious revelations of his servants the prophets. ―For a prophecy testifies 6. of a specific period; it speaks of that time and does not deceive.‖ (2:3a) vacat 7. This means that the Last Days will be long, much longer than 8. the prophets had said; for God‘s revelations are truly mysterious. 9.―If it tarries, be patient, it will surely come true and not 10. be delayed.‖ (2:3b) vacat This refers to those loyal ones, 11. obedient to the Law, whose hands will not cease from 12. loyal service even when the Last Days seems long to them, for 13. all the times fixed by God will come about in due course as He ordained 14. that they should by his inscrutable insight. ―See how bloated, not smooth, 15. [his soul is!‖] (2:4a) vacat This means that their sins will be doubled against them

246

KETER SHEM TOV 16. [and they will ]n[ot] find favour when they come to judgement [ ] 17. [ ‚But the righteous man is rewarded with life for his fidelity‛] (2:4b)

Col. VIII 1. This refers to all those who obey the Law in the House of Judah whom 2. God will rescue from among those doomed to judgement, because of their suffering and their loyalty 3. to the Teacher of Righteousness. ‎The authority figure here was the ―Teacher,‖ who was also a priest,

so he may be the same figure as in 1QpHab 2:5–10, and the issue was explicitly eschatological. Perhaps the heretics here were also the same as in 1QpHab 2:5–10, but certainty is difficult. Notwithstanding these issues, the understanding of 1QpHab 7:1– 8:3 depends on the argument that God‘s revelation to the prophets was incomplete. As we learn from 1QpHab 7:1–5, Habakkuk was told to write down what would happen in ―the last generation,‖ but was not told all: Habakkuk did not know the ―fulfillment of the end (‫)גמש הרצ‬,‖ perhaps especially just when the redemption would take place. The text continued and asserted that the ―Teacher of Righteousness,‖ perhaps by implied contrast, was vouchsafed by God knowledge of all the secrets (‫)שזי‬16 of His These secrets are closely connected with the ―hidden things (‫)נסתשות‬,‖ as in Dan 2:19–20. As argued by Shani Tzoref, ―The ‗Hidden‘ and the ‗Revealed‘: Esotericism, Election, and Culpability in Qumran and Related Literature,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 300, accepting a suggestion first made by Ben Zion Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 137–38, these esoterica concerned theodicy and eschatology. Thus these ―secrets‖ are appropriate to the eschatological nexus of the passage in 1QpHab 7. 16

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

247

servants the prophets. This claim is virtually identical to the one made in the first passage from 1QpHab, above: the ―priest‖ was able to ―interpret the secret meaning of all the words of His servants the prophets, to whom God told all that would befall His people and city.‖ Therefore, according to the usual understanding of the second passage in 1QpHab, while Habakkuk did not know just when and what would take place in the end of days, the last gasp of the old world and the dawning of the new, i.e., at the time of the Qumran community, the ―Teacher‖ did. The ―Teacher‖ knew when in the immediate future the dawn of the new world would take place, when the ―final time‖ would come to its glorious finale, with all the social and religious consequences of belief in imminent millennial redemption. Not only that, but on this understanding of the text, since the ―Teacher‖ knew all the secrets, including those that Habakkuk did not know, such as just when ―the end‖ would take place, the ―Teacher‖ even went out on a limb and predicted the ultimate redemption of the world at some specific time soon. When the end did not come, as the ―Teacher‖ predicted, this disconfirmation was what caused the ―heretics‖ to depart into heresy. These convictions concerning the ―Teacher‖ fit perfectly with portrait of the Qumran group as living in a super-heated apocalyptic environment, as suggested by Cross above.17 17 Many scholars have understood this passage this way. See, for example, Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 128, n. 17: ―Cf. the explicit statement in 1QpHab 7:1–5 that God told Habakkuk to write what will happen to the last generation, but did not make known to him the fulfillment of the end. In contrast, God revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness ‗all the mysteries of his servants the prophets.‘‖ See also Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 83, who reached the same conclusion: ―All other contemporary teachers and even the prophets themselves did not know what God revealed to the ‫מושה הקדר‬. In the whole history of salvation, God revealed only to the Righteous Teacher ‫כול שזי דבשי עבדיו הנבאים‬.‖ Charlesworth repeated these conclusions, virtually word for word, in ―Revelation and Perspicacity in Qumran Hermeneutics?‖ in Roitman et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture, 173.

248

KETER SHEM TOV

This understanding, however, creates difficulties in the remainder of 1QpHab 7:1–8:3. There, we learn that as one of the mysteries of God the ―final time‖ will last longer than one might expect based on the words of the prophets. Furthermore, ―the men of truth, those who fulfill the law (‫ ‖)אנשי האמת עושי התושה‬were praised for their faithfulness to the truth when the ―final time‖ will continue on and on (i.e., not come to its glorious finale when expected). They were reassured, however, that all the times set by God would eventually come in the ―mysteries of his prudence (‫)בשזי עשמתו‬.‖ This assurance presumably included the end of the ―final time.‖ At the top of column 8, those who fulfilled the law were promised to be saved from judgment (in context, what we would call the ―last judgment,‖ at the end of days 18) because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness. However, if the ―Teacher‖ knew all the secrets of God‘s servants the prophets, including what Habakkuk did not know— i.e., just when the redemption would occur and at what specific time in the immediate future—according to the usual understanding of this passage, why should ―the men of truth, those who fulfilled the law (‫ ‖)אנשי האמת עושי התושה‬be praised for their faithfulness to the truth when the ―final time‖ continued on and on? How could those who fulfilled the law be promised to be saved from the ―last judgment‖ because of their faith in the ―Teacher of Righteousness,‖ if the ―Teacher‖ was wrong, and if he supposedly set a date when the ―final time‖ would end and it did not end then? Furthermore, all this implies that there were some Note also Michael E. Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 118: ―This attitude of the pseudepigraphic writers contrasts with that of the Dead Sea sectaries, whose pneumatic exegesis, so they claimed, uncovered meanings in prophecy that the prophets themselves had not known to be present there (see, e.g., 1QpHab 7:1–8).‖ I once shared this view. See Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (SJSJ 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 178–80. 18 On ‫ יום המשץט‬as the day of eschatological judgment see 1QpHab 4:2–4 and 10:3–5.

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

249

dissidents who were disappointed when the ―final time‖ did not come to its glorious finale, when it was supposedly promised to occur by the ―Teacher.‖ However, if the ―Teacher‖ knew what Habakkuk did not know—just when in the immediate future the redemption would take place—these ―dissidents‖ were the ones who were really faithful to the message of the ―Teacher‖! They believed his prediction so fully that they chose some other path when these predictions did not come true and the bad old world did not end. All this is complicated and unnecessarily convoluted.

5. DISSIDENTS AND DISCONFIRMATION This encourages the search for simpler explanations. I suggest two possibilities. First, perhaps the sin of the dissidents when the prophecy of the ―Teacher‖ failed was that this disconfirmation caused them to leave the group. If so, what could be the meaning of the ―the men of truth, those who fulfilled the law (‫)אנשי האמת עושי התושה‬,‖ praised for their faithfulness to the truth when the ―final time‖ continued on and on? What sort of faithfulness to the truth is their continuing to believe in a ―Teacher‖ who predicted the end but had been proven wrong? Historical experience suggests an answer: disconfirmation is a very different experience for insiders than for outsiders. What looks to outsiders like a devastating proof of the failure and folly of millennial dreams, leaving no door open for any hope of immediate redemption, is understood very differently by insiders. Yes, some insiders recognize that prophetic failure means that they were wrong and defect, yet, for others, disconfirmation becomes the ultimate proof of the truth of their ways and of the absolute soundness of their millennial beliefs. It can be very hard to extinguish the millennial fire burning so brightly and with such heat.19 The classic study is Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Group that Predicted the End of the World (NY: Harper & Row, 1964). See however, the challenge to some of Festinger-Riecken-Schachter‘s conclusions by Stephan D. O‘Leary, ―When Prophecy Fails and When it Succeeds: 19

250

KETER SHEM TOV

Indeed, believers in the millennium face innumerable small disconfirmations along the way. Their candidate for messiah can be arrested, or he can have a stroke and linger on in a coma. The first date predicted for the end can pass and nothing will happen. Facing these small disconfirmations, I have argued, these believers up the ante, that is, engage in more and more extreme measures to prove that they still believe. These range from simple and rational measures, such as going out to the public sphere and attempting to convince others of the truth of their convictions, to such extreme actions as not planting in the Spring because one is certain that the world will be redeemed before the Fall harvest. When what outsiders view as a crashing disconfirmation takes place, such as one‘s candidate for messiah dies (e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, the Lubavitcher Rebbe and many others in between) or becomes a Muslim (e.g. Shabbtai Tzvi), or the absolutely certain final date passes (e.g. the Millerites in the USA in the 1840s, or the group Festinger and his colleagues studied), some believers are ready to up the ante even more in order not to give up their certainty in the redemption of the world. For them, as noted above, somehow, disconfirmation becomes the ultimate proof of the truth of their ways. Indeed, while the group may ultimately disband, or mutate, if it can continue to survive and grow in some form or other after disconfirmation it may emerge even stronger than before. In those rare cases, disconfirmation can then be a source of flourishing on a scale unimagined before.20 Perhaps, then, ―the men of truth, those who fulfilled the law (‫)אנשי האמת עושי התושה‬,‖ praised for their faithfulness to the truth when the ―final time‖ continued on and

Apocalyptic Prediction and the Re-Entry into Ordinary Time,‖ in Apocalyptic Time (ed. Albert I. Baumgarten; NBS 86; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 341–62. O‘Leary showed that the movement started by the visionary Festinger and his colleagues studied did not collapse after the final disconfirmation. Furthermore, many historical examples prove that even what seems to be absolute disconfirmation does not lead to the immediate termination of millennial movements. 20 See Baumgarten, ―Four Stages in the Life of a Millennial Movement,‖ 61–75.

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

251

on, who did not lose faith in the ―Teacher‖ despite what had happened (better, not happened) were believers of this sort.

6. A SECOND UNDERSTANDING OF 1QPHAB 7:1–8 However, I would like to suggest a second understanding of 1QpHab 7:1–8:3, which yields an even smoother reading of the text as a whole. This understanding was first proposed by Talmon, in an article in 1951. He suggested that the crucial lines in column 7 of 1QpHab, ―point to hopes for an imminent messianic age amongst the members of the ―New Covenant‖ which the commentator saw fit to check (emphasis mine).‖21 Talmon expanded this insight in a comprehensive reconstruction of the history of the Qumran community. He proposed that the ―Teacher‖ was born out of intense emotional stress, triggered by the profound disappointment that the unrealized hope for an imminent onset of the millennium had evoked in the initial nucleus of Covenanters when the precalculated date passed uneventfully.22

Thus, the ―Teacher‖ was not the founder of the movement, but entered the picture in a second stage, who responded to his fellows‘ despair. His group was quietist and abstained from any predictions of when the ―end of the end‖ would come. Just as the Jews at the time of the Babylonian exile patiently bided their time until the day of their promised return, so the ―Teacher‖ and his community waited for the Messiah. When this new community withdrew to Qumran and became consolidated the authorities of the mother community took steps against their heterodoxy. It was then that the ―Wicked Priest‖ pursued the ―Teacher‖ and his followers to Shemaryahu Talmon, ―Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll,‖ VT 1 (1951): 36= The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989), 145. 22 Shemaryahu Talmon, ―Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters,‖ in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 119=The World of Qumran from Within, 284. 21

252

KETER SHEM TOV

Qumran, their ―house of exile (1QpHab 11:4–8).‖ The passages in col. 7 of 1QpHab that are under consideration here reflect the tension between those who followed the lead of the ―Teacher,‖ believing that the ―end of the end‖ was unknown, and the prior mother community.23 Whether one accepts Talmon‘s reconstruction of the history of the Qumran community or not, what is crucial in his understanding is that col. 7 of 1QpHab is the result of a rupture. This aspect is missing in the analysis of the relevant lines by Nitzan. She understood that as Habakkuk did not know the ―fulfillment of the end,‖ the ―Teacher,‖ who was vouchsafed by God knowledge of all the secrets of His servants the prophets, also did not know the ―fulfillment of the end.‖ He was as ignorant on this point as Habakkuk. Therefore, the ―Teacher‖ did not have any specific date for the ultimate redemption. All he knew and taught was that it would definitely come and come soon, whenever God in the mysteries of His prudence chose. 24 Therefore, when it turned out that the ―final time‖ continued on and on, past when some others were certain it was due, based on their understanding of the prophets,25 the ―Teacher‖ was not surprised or disconfirmed. Knowing the secrets of divine prudence, vouchsafed by God knowledge of all the secrets of His servants the prophets, the ―Teacher‖ was not disappointed, believing firmly that ―even if he tarries, I will wait for him to come, for he will surely come.‖ After all, the Teacher knew what Habakkuk knew (and what presumably the other prophets also knew)—that they did not know when the end would come.26 Ibid., 120–21=285. I would add that perhaps it was also a case of prudence on the part of the ―Teacher.‖ It is risky to ―go out on a limb‖ and set a specific date for the final redemption of the world (a form of ―upping the ante‖ discussed above). 25 A common basis for these calculations was the seventy weeks of years, as prophesied by Jeremiah. For one example, see Dan 9. 26 Bilhah Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1986), 171–74. See Shani L. Berrin [Tzoref], The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (STDJ 53; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 14, 23 24

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

253

I find this reading of col. 7 of 1QpHab to be the smoothest and simplest understanding of the text. When one adds the element of dissent and rupture noted by Talmon, the role played by the ―Teacher‖ becomes even more meaningful. Whenever in the life of whatever community these events took place, not everyone followed his lead. There were some who expected the imminent unfolding of the glorious finale at some specific time in the immediate future. When the ―final time‖ lasted longer than they expected they drew consequences of which the ―Teacher‖ disapproved. Nor was the ―Teacher‘s‖ disapproval surprising: some members of the ―Teacher‘s‖ group had expected the end at a specific date, based on their understanding of the prophets, while the ―Teacher,‖ following Habakkuk, had told them that he did not know when the grand finale would take place. Those who expected the final act of the human drama at a specific time were now dissidents. Difference and challenge to authority matter more at a time of high millennial expectation, when so much is at stake and any ―mistake,‖ however small can have world-changing implications. Since it is so easy to upset the divine plan for salvation the threshold of blame is very low and it is so easy to scapegoat. Therefore, those who drew consequences of which the ―Teacher‖ disapproved, after they pursued the millennium27 when he did not, could not benefit from what Duby called the who summarized Nitzan‘s interpretation as follows, Berrin [Tzoref], ibid., 14, n. 47: ―In this view, God revealed many mysteries to the Teacher of Righteousness, but some divine mysteries were not accessible to any humans, and one of these extreme esoterica was knowledge of the specific end-time.‖ Cf. Cana Werman, ―Eschatology at Qumran,‖ in The Qumran Scrolls and their World (Hebrew; ed. Menahem Kister; Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 2009), 2:530, who follows the usual understanding of this passage (above, n. 17), while citing Nitzan‘s commentary on 1QpHab, 530, n. 4. Apparently, Werman was unaware of the significance of Nitzan‘s suggestion for understanding the passage in a different way than that adopted by many other scholars. 27 I employ ―pursuers of the millennium‖ and its cognates as the English equivalent of what will come to be known in later Jewish parlance as ‫דוחרי הרצ‬.

254

KETER SHEM TOV

―enormous areas of indifference perhaps, sometimes of neutrality, at any rate undefined and changing fringes (above, n. 13).‖ This difference at this time and in these circumstances made a difference. Accordingly, they were denounced for their disloyalty to the ―Teacher,‖ while the men of truth—who fulfilled the law and followed the ―Teacher‖ in not pursuing the millennium—were reassured for their loyalty. They were promised a favorable fate at the last judgment, whenever it would come. These were defining moments for those who remained loyal to the ―Teacher,‖ well worth a place in the collective memory of his followers. It is so easy to see the Qumran community in bright and sunny terms. After all, we only have the evidence of insiders and never benefit from the outlook of a critical outsider, an invaluable source of comparison and contrast in the case of other similar movements.28 The texts talk in lofty terms of purity, holiness, and loyalty to the covenant. Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the ways in which this community was ―sectarian,‖ in the most pejorative sense of the term. If we could be certain that their regulations were always enforced with absolute strictness, it was a very mean, manipulative, and controlling organization. Its members did not enjoy freedoms we would consider basic and inviolable: one form of punishment consisted of having food rations docked. That is, deviant members were starved into obedience. Their sexual lives were subject to control, as they were expected to donate two days wages per month to the discretionary fund of the ―overseer of the camp,‖ to be used to assist people in need.29 When there are equivalent movements in the contemporary world and the broader society becomes aware of the way their members are exploited by the leader(s) the police are often involved. While I have argued elsewhere that Qumran was more tolerant of difference than we If only we had an account of Qumran written by someone whose brother had taken his share of the family assets and deposited them with the covenanters‘ community! 29 E.g., 1QS 6:25; CD 13:7–19; 18:13–17. However, one aspect of equivalent contemporary movements for which we have no evidence about Qumran concerns sexual exploitation of the members by the leader(s). 28

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

255

might imagine, my point here is that this was not always the case when the millennium was at stake.30 On this matter, the ―Teacher,‖ whose words were from the ―mouth of God‖ could not be ignored.

7. ROOSTERS AND OWLS Perhaps my point will be clearer if I introduce terms suggested by Richard Landes, based on a well-known Rabbinic analogy. At times of heightened millennial expectation, there are roosters and owls in the barnyard. The roosters eagerly proclaim the imminent arrival of the eschatological dawn, while the owls insist that it is still night, and darkness will last a long time. Not surprisingly, the roosters and owls are rarely indifferent to each other and do not live so harmoniously together. The noises in the eschatological barnyard can be loud and cacophonous, the disagreements notable. This barnyard could be really nasty. As Landes has noted ironically, at these times there is no ‫שנאת חינם‬, unbased hatred, as all hatred is fully justifiable.31 Based on the consensus view concerning Qumran, it is usually understood as a community led by roosters and filled to the brim with other roosters. Perhaps the biggest rooster of all was the ―Teacher,‖ who, according to some scholars, may have claimed for himself an important role in the scenario of the ―final times.‖32 Against this consensus of Qumran as crammed with roosters, I am suggesting that the Qumran covenanters were not so monolithic.

Cf. Albert I. Baumgarten, ―Karaites-Qumran-the Calendar-And Beyond: At the Beginning of the Twenty-first Century,‖ in Roitman et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture, 603–19. 31 Richard Landes, ―On Owls, Roosters and Apocalyptic Time: A Historical Method for Reading a Refractory Documentation,‖ Union Seminary Quarterly Review 49 (1996): 41–65. See also idem, ―Roosters Crow, Owls Hoot: On the Dynamics of Apocalyptic Millenarianism,‖ in O‘Leary and McGhee, War in Heaven/Heaven on Earth, 19–46. 32 See further Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 103 who discussed this conclusion but rejected it, insisting that ―nowhere...is there any suggestion that the historical Teacher had messianic status.‖ 30

256

KETER SHEM TOV

There were also owls at Qumran, one of whom was no less than the ―Teacher,‖ and the roosters and owls did not get along. Landes has also argued two further important conclusions: (1) the owls usually control the written historical record. On reflection, this is not so surprising, since thus far in human experience, at least, the owls were usually right and the roosters wrong. The eschatological dawn did not arrive and the night continues. Therefore, those likeliest to go to the trouble and make the significant effort to commit their views to writing and to preserve that written record were owls. Indeed, it is a good working assumption that if one finds a written record of some moment of millennial excitement it was written from the perspective of owls. (2) Some owls were once roosters. They became owls under duress or after the fact. For one example, I note Peter, who according to Mark 14:51–72 and parallels renounced Jesus three times before the cock crowed, announcing: ―I do not know this man of whom you speak.‖33 From that perspective, in conclusion, I suggest, first, that it may not be an accident that the principal passage analyzed in this paper, 1QpHab 7:1–8:3 as I propose to understand it, following Talmon and Nitzan, reflects the perspective of an owl, who explicitly claimed to be an owl from the beginning, and to have always been an owl. In this text, as in so many others, the owls controlled the written historical record. Second, and much more speculatively, perhaps the Qumran ―Teacher‖ was an owl after the fact. Possibly, earlier on, he was once a rooster, but then something happened—perhaps the date for final redemption in which he believed passed with no change, as suggested by Talmon—that caused him to change his mind, and he became an owl. As might be expected, based on accumulated experience, it turned out that Landes‘ ornithological analogy is even reflected in the gospel account, as if the gospel authors knew the difference between roosters and owls. Peter, having begun as a rooster, was compelled to become an owl three times, ―before the cock crowed.‖ That is, once he was forced (at least temporarily) to view Jesus as an ―owl,‖ he did this before the cock crowed. Peter was no longer a rooster, announcing the imminent arrival of the millennial dawn. 33

WHAT DID THE ―TEACHER‖ KNOW?

257

the owls were right, so that those who did not make the switch with the ―Teacher‖ became dissidents, while those who joined him as owls were reassured and praised. They authored texts which survived, even if only in the special climatic conditions of caves on the shores of the Dead Sea, texts which still fascinate and puzzle us thousands of years later.

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS: CONTRASTING COVENANT COMMUNITIES IN 1QS 5:1–7:25 AND 1 COR 5:1–6:11 Bradley J. Bitner 1. INTRODUCTION: THE NEGLECTED ASPECT OF A COMPARISON There is no small distance between Qumran and Corinth. Between the two ancient sites, now as in the first century, lies a cultural and linguistic gulf. Yet since the discovery of the scrolls in Cave 1 some sixty years ago, scholars have drawn comparisons between texts linked to the two communities. In this study I propose critically to re-examine the specific and recurrent comparison many have made between 1QS 5:1–7:25 and 1 Cor 5:1–6:11. I will do so first by charting the history and often problematic assumptions involved with the comparison. Next I will propose a new comparative method that moves beyond surface structures to the political discourses and dynamics in both texts. Against this backdrop, I will then map out the respective discourses each distinctly offers by combining linguistic and conceptual resources for certain rhetorical purposes. Finally I will reflect on not only similarities, but especially on the differences, between the two texts. In conclusion, I argue that whereas both the writer(s) of 1QS and the apostle Paul were drawing on quite similar Jewish texts and participating in similar political and ethical debates, there are significant contrasts between the contours of community envisioned in the two resultant discourses. These contrasts are important and deserve careful attention and reflection. 259

260

KETER SHEM TOV

2. GENEALOGY OF A COMPARISON Tracing the genealogy of comparisons between 1QS and 1 Corinthians highlights scholarly trends and assumptions related to ―parallels‖ and the relationship between Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Many have been too quick to draw structural and conceptual parallels between the communities called for by both texts. Still others have denied that there is any mutually interpretive benefit at all. One important problem that remains is the under-articulated consensus that both texts fit in some way in the matrix of Second Temple Judaism. Recently George Brooke adapted de Vaux‘s archaeological periodization in order to describe and contextualize seven stages in the scholarly comparison of Qumran and the NT. 1 His periodization (Table 1) offers a helpful lens for viewing the genealogy of the comparison in question. Table 1 Stage Period

Dates

Characteristics of Comparative Approach

1

pre-Qumran

pre-1947

Parallels suggested between the Essenes or the Damascus Document (CD) and the NT

2

Period IA

c.1948–1952

Initial excited suggestions of significant (verbal and conceptual) parallels to illuminate the NT

3

Period IB

early 1950s– 1977

3 varied approaches a) use of Qumran as ‘background’ to NT b) rejection of Qumran as largely irrelevant to NT c) emerging consensus: a complex relationship between Qumran and the NT

George J. Brooke, ―The Qumran Scrolls and the Study of the New Testament,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. George J. Brooke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 3–18; the condensed form preserves Brooke‘s language. 1

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS Stage Period

Dates

261

Characteristics of Comparative Approach

4

Abandonment c.1980–1990

a parting of the ways, for various reasons, between Qumran and NT studies

5

Period II

c.1991–early 2000s

adaptation and elaboration of ‘consensus view’ that the Qumran material provides a general Second Temple Jewish framework for approaching the NT

6

Period III

Present (as of 2005)

sporadic interaction focused on range of exegetical traditions and intertextual sensitivity

7

Period IV?

Future (beyond 2005)

(a few) continuing efforts to demonstrate the mutual illumination possible between Qumran scrolls and the NT

Brooke’s schema is particularly instructive for the present study, one which seeks to add to a persistent stream of comparative work on The Community Rule (1QS) and the Pauline epistle known as 1 Corinthians.2 This is because, despite the many reasons he enumerates for the general disengagement of NT scholars with the scrolls, Brooke notes two aspects of what he terms the ‚consensus view‛ that, I believe, have sustained this particular comparison between 1QS and 1 Corinthians. First, there has been general agreement that elements of community structure and practice reflected in both documents offer suggestive ‚parallels.‛3 In other words, many perceive similarities among the political and administrative aspects of the groups refracted in each text. Second, the scrolls and NT documents are increasingly understood to exhibit similar currents of Jewish thought, yet with variegated forms and functions.4 That is, rather than being viewed as providing ‚source material‛ for the NT writers, many interpreters point to similar Jewish ethical and liturgical resources used by each text. Other, less sophisticated, schematics have been offered; e.g., the tripartite model of Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (London: SCM Press, 1997), 191. 3 Brooke, ―Qumran Scrolls,‖ 12–13, 17–18. 4 Ibid., 13. 2

262

KETER SHEM TOV

But while from a distance apparent parallels abound, closer examination reveals significant differences.5 Indeed, the problem of parallels continues to haunt such comparisons. It will therefore be helpful, with the aid of Brooke‘s schema, to rehearse briefly some of the notable studies examining 1QS and 1 Corinthians, noting the comparative method in each case.6 The language of parallels and an emphasis on similarity predominated in the early scholarship of ―Periods IA–B.‖7 Communal meals (1QS col. 6; 1 Cor 10 and 11)8 and aspects of constitutional (or ―ecclesiastical‖) administration9 were early subjects for comparison. This was often justified on the basis of Hermann Lichtenberger, ―Qumran,‖ TRE 28 (1997): 75: ―weisen zwar Parallelen auf, sind jedoch unterschiedlich begründet.‖ I came to this reference through the essay of Brooke, ―Qumran Scrolls,‖ 13 n.51. 6 See the important treatment of the larger narrative and dynamics of this problem in John T. Fitzgerald and L. Michael White, ―Quod Est Comparandum: The Problem of Parallels,‖ in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White; NovTSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 13–39. The classic note of caution with regard to Qumran and the NT was sounded by Samuel Sandmel, ―Parallelomania,‖ JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. 7 This is not to imply an absence of methodological considerations or a complete neglect of differences, but only to draw attention to the fascination with ―parallels.‖ Oscar Cullmann is characteristic in ―The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research Into the Beginnings of Christianity,‖ in The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. Krister Stendhal with James H. Charlesworth; NY: Crossroads, 1992), 18–32; repr. from JBL 74 (1955): 213–26. 8 Karl G. Kuhn, ―Über den ursprünglichen Sinn des Abendmahles und sein Verhältnis zu den Gemeinschaftsmahlen der Sektenschrift,‖ Evangelische Theologie 10 (1950/51): 508–27; transl. and ―substantial‖ revision as ―The Lord‘s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,‖ in The Scrolls and the New Testament, 65–93. 9 Bo Reicke, ―Die Verfassung der Urgemeinde im Licht jüdischer Dokumente,‖ TZ 10 (1954): 95–113; transl.: ―The Constitution of the Primitive Church in the Light of Jewish Documents,‖ in The Scrolls and the New Testament, 143–56, esp. 146–51. 5

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

263

perceived similarities of genre, subject matter, geography, and chronology. But, to use categories long ago articulated by Deissmann with regard to so-called parallels, sometimes analogy (similarity of concepts or structures) was confused with genealogy (usually in the form of direct influence from Qumran to Corinth). Some early scholars assumed, for example—and a few still seem to assume—that Paul consciously drew upon traditions or formulae from Qumran.10 Rather than positing an analogous relationship between 1QS and 1 Corinthians, such approaches dubiously attempt to draw a more or less direct line of genealogical influence. In the latter stages of ―Period IB,‖ studies by scholars such as J. A. Fitzmyer and J. Murphy-O‘Connor continued to compare Qumran texts to Paul‘s Corinthian epistles.11 In some of these, the justification for such a comparison was more often assumed than articulated.12 Usually operative was a perceived thematic similarity between the two as ―Jewish‖ texts. Two notable monographs of

See Kuhn, ―The Lord‘s Supper,‖ 87. For the difference between analogy and genealogy in relation to the (ab)use of ―parallels,‖ see Fitzgerald and White, ―Quod Est Comparandum,‖ 36. As Fitzgerald and White note, the use of comparanda for NT studies was first articulated in those terms by Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (transl. from the 4th German edition; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927), 265. 11 See, e.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ―A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10,‖ NTS 4 (1957-8): 48–58; repr. with an additional postscript in Paul and Qumran (ed. Jerome Murphy-O‘Connor; London: Chapman, 1968), 31–47 [subsequent citations to the latter version]. Cf. more recently, Cecilia Wassen, ‗‗‗Because of the Angels‘: Reading 1 Cor 11:2–16 in Light of Angelology in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, (2 vols. ed. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold; VTSup 140; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2:735–54. 12 Fitzmyer, ―Qumran Angelology,‖ 31, takes it for granted that his reader will agree that ―the new evidence from Qumran‖ has a ―bearing‖ on the ―Pauline expression‖ dia tous angelous in 1 Cor 11:10. 10

264

KETER SHEM TOV

such a kind in this period were those by Gärtner on the temple 13 and Forkmann on expulsion.14 In ―Periods II and III,‖ that is, roughly the last two decades, the broad consensus that the Qumran texts and Paul‘s letters were all generated within a broad Second Temple framework has animated comparisons.15 Yet even here, there have been differences in method, particularly with respect to 1 Cor 5–6 and 1QS. Some, like H.-W. Kuhn, still vigorously employ the language of parallels together with ill-defined categories such as ―related sociological situation‖ and ―same Jewish background‖ in order to justify their comparative enterprise. 16 T. Hägerland has gone further and, on the basis of the Cave 4 fragments of the Community Rule has suggested an extensive ―structural agreement‖ and ―likely‖ influence of 1QS on the so-called ―ritual of excommunication‖ in 1 Cor 5.17 Overall, however, for most exegetes analogy, rather than genealogy, still predominates and many continue to compare the 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 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965). 14 Goran Forkmann, The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity (Lund: Gleerup, 1972). 15 This is the second (of three) and most popular category of comparative approaches between Qumran and Paul identified by Timothy H. Lim, ―Paul, Letters of,‖ in EDSS 2:638. To this category belong works (primarily of the 1980s and 90s) by scholars such as George Brooke, Markus Bockmuehl, Timothy Lim, and Ed Sanders; see Brooke, ―Qumran Scrolls,‖ 11–18. 16 Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, ―A Legal Issue in 1 Corinthians and in Qumran,‖ in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 489–99. 17 Tobias Hägerland, ―Rituals of (Ex-)Communication and Identity: 1 Cor 5 and 4Q266 11; 4Q270 7,‖ in Identity Formation in the New Testament (ed. Bengt Holmberg and Mikael Winninge; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 43–60. 13

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

265

texts in thematic terms, focusing on conceptual similarities between the two texts. These include concepts such as legal process, 18 excommunication,19 purity,20 temple,21 cursing,22 or women‘s authority.23 What is missing, in my view, from the current comparative enterprise is an articulated method for approaching the two texts as discrete discourses, grounded in particular communal settings, each participating distinctly in the larger debate about politics and ethics in Second Temple Judaism and in the Hellenistic world. Such a method, which I begin to work towards in the following section, would require us to reflect upon the ways in which Second Temple texts variously appropriate and shape the language and ethical

Mathias Delcor, ―The Courts of the Church in Corinth and the Courts of Qumran,‖ in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis (ed. Jerome Murphy-O‘Connor; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), Ch. 4, 69–84. More briefly: Matthias Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 280, 321–27. 19 William Horbury, ―Extirpation and Excommunication,‖ VT 35 (1985): 13–38. Horbury draws briefly on both Qumran and 1 Cor as evidence for a ―thread‖ of covenant curse and exclusion linking ―the postexilic community with the general Jewish body of the Roman period‖ (ibid., 38). 20 Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 21 Albert L. A. Hogeterp, Paul and God‘s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (BTS 2; Leuven: Peeters, 2006). 22 David R. Smith, ―Hand This Man Over to Satan:‖ Curse, Exclusion, and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5 (LNTS 386; London: T&T Clark, 2008); 1QS and other Qumran material, 99–102; reflections on ―parallels‖ in the reception history of 1 Cor 5:3–56. 23 George J. Brooke, ―From Qumran to Corinth: Embroidered Allusions to Women‘s Authority,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 195–214. 18

266

KETER SHEM TOV

resources of the Hebrew Bible in their attempts to form polities of purity often within larger civic frameworks.

3. COMPARATIVE METHOD: FROM DISCOURSE TO DYNAMICS In view of the interpretive history sketched above, I must be explicit about the kind of comparison I want to make in this paper. My concern is to juxtapose two specific texts of the Second Temple period at the levels of covenantal discourse and political dynamics, particularly with reference to exclusion and ethics. That is, I mean to analyze aspects of both 1 Corinthians and 1QS in terms of what Metso has called the ―shifting covenantal discourse‖ of Second Temple Judaism, with its thematic integration of law and wisdom and reconfigurations of covenant, temple, holiness, and exclusion motifs.24 Such an analysis of discourse entails a study of terminology, scriptural citation strategies, ethical resources, and finally of rhetorical function. In this sense, at the level of discourse, I am comparing the texts in a way that might allow us to perceive covenantal resonances (terms, phrases, concepts) but also, and more importantly, significant rhetorical dissonances (the shape of the argument and of the polities assumed and posited). As C. Newsom has argued with regard to 1QS generally, ―The individual qualities ... and many of the phrases echo scripture and the moral discourses of other Second Temple literature. [But] the selection, combination, and accentuation … delineates the distinctive sectarian character [of each].‖ 25 For this reason any reflective comparison of the two discourses should also undertake Sarianna Metso, ―Shifts in Covenantal Discourse in Second Temple Judaism,‖ in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (ed. A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 497–512. A similar point was made recently by Karl P. Donfried, ―Paul the Jew and the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context, 2:722, who argues that Paul needs to be set within ―an intramural set of disagreements that take place within the Judaisms of the late Second Temple period.‖ 25 Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 129, italics mine. 24

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

267

to contrast each in its distinctiveness—discursive analogy will thus form the basis for perceiving rhetorical differences. This is true not only with regard to the rhetoric of each text, however, but also in respect of the communal dynamics implied by those discourses. In making this distinction, I am playing on the difference between, on the one hand, the texts and the rhetoric they preserve and, on the other hand, the socio-political dynamics the texts point to in their respective Sitzen im Leben. I am aware of the difficulties facing any interpreter who wants to move from text to socio-historical setting, especially in the case of 1QS.26 Nevertheless, for the moment, I simply want to articulate covenantal discourse and political dynamics as the two lenses through which I will examine both 1 Cor 5–6 and 1QS cols. 5–7. That both texts embody elements of such discourse and dynamics is sufficient for the comparison I wish to make.27 How does one map a discourse and mark its dynamics? I propose to attempt the former with the tools of philology and rhetorical criticism. By noting terms, citation strategies, textual resources, and the rhetorical shape of each text in turn, I will aim to sketch a detailed picture of the covenantal discourse that each encodes. The rhetorical shape of each discourse forms a bridge to the question of dynamics. Tracing the contours of the distinctive practices and widely varying ethical exigencies reflected by the texts before us will allow us to glimpse the political dynamics of each community. In both stages the analysis will focus on exclusion and ethics as the nexus of discourse and dynamics. Exclusion commends itself See, e.g., Sarianna Metso, ―In Search of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule,‖ in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 306–15. A classic caution with respect to NT texts is John M. G. Barclay, ―Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,‖ JSNT 31 (1987): 73–93. 27 For a recent comparison of related texts, albeit in a different manner, see Thomas R. Blanton, Constructing a New Covenant: Discursive Strategies in the Damascus Document and 2 Corinthians (WUNT 2, 233; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 26

268

KETER SHEM TOV

as a category because it is semantically broad enough to encompass the gradations of separation from aspects of communal life called for by both texts. Whether separation from food and fellowship, prohibition from participation, or expulsion from the community, exclusion is an appropriate term in English. Furthermore, since exclusion and exile were political acts and concepts in the world of our texts, I will speak of political discourse and covenant community rather than sects and sectarians.28 E. A. Judge has pointed to the crucial role of civic, or civic-like institutions, in the social world of the early Christian groups. These structures of politeia29—whether in the polis, Roman coloniae, associations, or groups self-identifying as covenant communities—remind us that politics (rather religion)30 is the native first century category for discussing group structure, practice, and identity. Exclusion and purity fit comfortably within ancient political discourse in which law—whether constitution or covenant—was an administrative tool oriented toward a certain telos. This is a major reason why some, such as M. Weinfeld 31 and

In so doing I differ from Timothy H. Lim, ―Towards a Description of the Sectarian Matrix,‖ in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (ed. Florentino García Martínez; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 7–31, esp. 30–31. 29 See Edwin A. Judge, ―The Social Pattern of Early Christian Groups in the First Century,‖ in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge (ed. David M. Scholer; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 10–20. Cf. Lucio Troiani, ―The ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ of Israel,‖ in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11–22. 30 A point supported by the analysis of Brent Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven: Yale, 2013). 31 Moshe Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (NTOA 2; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). 28

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

269

M. Klinghardt,32 have argued we should understand the community of the Rule in terms of Graeco-Roman associations.33 Without necessarily agreeing at every point with their interpretation, I would commend their emphasis on the political.34 Constitutions, charters, and covenants served, with their dual axes, to regulate relations among members of a community as well as relations with the gods. Furthermore, if politics is an appropriate way to conceive of the communities and texts at Corinth and Qumran, then ethics follows naturally as a category. Ethics, in the classical sense of a communally oriented ―way of life,‖ integrates terms and concepts inherent in both texts.35 Johann Maier, in his important essay of fifty years ago, ―Zum Begriff ‫ יחד‬in den Texten von Qumran,‖

Mathias Klinghardt, ―The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations,‖ Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 722 (1994): 251–67. 33 The important monograph by Yonder M. Gillihan, Civic Ideology, Organization, and Law in the Rule Scrolls: A Comparative Study of the Covenanters‘ Sect and Contemporary Voluntary Associations in Political Context (STDJ 97; Leiden: Brill, 2012) appeared too late for me to interact with it fully in this essay. Gillihan‘s careful study begins, 4–5, by arguing that ―the Covenanters‘ organization and laws developed as practical expressions of their alternative civic ideology, and . . . they articulated their civic ideology in terms that fit rather well within the political discourse of their time . . . [but] what was previously though to be the product of ―associational influence‖ actually derived from the Covenanters‘ appropriation of existing state patterns, whether real or ideal, or their creation of new organizational and legal patterns through sectarian exegesis of Scripture, or their reformulation of conventional political practices in the language of the Torah.‖ 34 See Bruno Blumenfeld, The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy, and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), esp. Introduction and chs. 2–3. 35 For a complementary approach to ethics at Qumran, using modern theory, see Marcus Tso, Ethics in the Qumran Community: An Interdisciplinary Investigation (WUNT 2, 292; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Cf. John I. Kampen, ―Ethics,‖ in EDSS 1:272–76. 32

270

KETER SHEM TOV

noted that yaḥad, in its ―double aspect‖ of separation and association, denotes a certain Lebensweise.36 I now turn to the texts themselves in order to map these covenantal discourses of exclusion and ethics.

4. MAPPING THE DISCOURSES 4.1. 1 Cor 5:1–6:1137 Our first text comes from a letter that addresses itself to a community within a larger civic context. Within that letter 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 forms a convenient and clear rhetorical unit for analysis.38 It connects to themes found in the opening four chapters of the epistle. There the apostle Paul initiates his response to reports brought by Chloe‘s people (1:11). To the Corinthian ekklēsia rent by factionalism, he proclaims again the message of Christ crucified (1:18–25; 2:2; 3:11). In chapters one and two he draws out from that message of the cross strands of unity and purity. As he does so, he attempts to persuade the Corinthians to live together in such a way that results in divine glory (1:2, 10, 30, 31; 3:5–7, 21–23). Johann Maier, ―Zum Begriff ‫ יחד‬in den Texten von Qumran,‖ ZAW 31 (1960): 165–66. The σ ίγ ι of 1 Cor 5:9, 11 and ι ι ά of 1 Cor 6:3, 4 also suggest such a ―way-of-life-in-community‖ conception of ethics. 37 Translations below are my own based on the Greek text of NA27. 38 Both interpreters who argue for partition theories (e.g. J. Weiss) and those who take the letter as a unity (e.g. M. M. Mitchell) recognize this to be the case. The former sometimes posit 5:1–6:11 as a distinct epistle; cf. Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), xl–xliii. The latter group see rhetorical and conceptual links with the surrounding context, but still treat 5:1–13 and 6:1–11 as distinct subsections of the epistle, the first anticipating the second; cf. Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 112–18, 228–32. While I value observations on the textual ―seams‖ offered by the former group, I remain more persuaded on the basis of internal and external evidence of the letter‘s integrity. For the purposes of my argument here, one‘s view has little bearing. 36

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

271

Then, in 3:5–4:5, Paul introduces the key metaphor that organizes the motifs of concord and holiness recurrent in his covenantal discourse: the temple. The assembly at Corinth is a temple made holy by the presence of the divine Spirit (3:16, 17). As a covenant minister of the kingdom of God (4:20; cf. 2 Cor 3:6), Paul adopts at the end of chapter four a stern tone toward those whom he calls ―puffed up‖ (4:6, 18, 19). Then, in 5:1–13 and 6:1–11 he embarks on a specific and targeted response to two related, quasi-judicial issues that have arisen. Each threatens the unity and purity of the community, and each therefore also threatens the ekklēsia‘s ability to bring glory to its Lord.39 The first of these issues relates to the man engaged in porneia (5:1)—sexual misconduct. The second concerns ―small matters‖ that are giving rise to conflict and litigation within the ekklēsia (6:1, 2). Paul‘s response, with its mandate of exclusion and ethical exhortation, relates to their distinctive life together. He has in view the political and ethical dynamics of the Christian assembly located within the larger colony of Roman Corinth. With regard to 1 Cor 5 as a covenantal discourse, B. Rosner has concluded: Paul‘s profound indebtedness to the Scriptures opens up a fuller understanding of the reasons for the expulsion in 1 Corinthians. Scripture in 1 Corinthians 5 is not peripheral, but integral and germane to the formation of Paul‘s ethics and ecclesiology. The very heart of Paul‘s instructions to remove the offender is best conceived in terms of Pentateuchal covenant and temple exclusion, and many of the details find their roots in Scripture.40

Mitchell, Paul, 118: ―All of the issues which Paul treats in 5:1–6:11 … are fundamentally political problems, which Paul addresses using appropriate political terminology and topoi.‖ Yet her almost exclusive focus on the Graeco-Roman comparative evidence leads her to overemphasize concord as the chief political issue at stake and to downplay concerns of purity. 40 Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 63. 39

272

KETER SHEM TOV

With this brief orientation, let us turn to an examination of the covenantal discourse of this section by noting first terminology, next citations, then broader ethical resources from the Hebrew Bible, and finally the rhetorical shape of the whole.

4.1.1. Terms There are five related sets of terms I wish to note. These sets have to do with exclusion, standing, process, purity, and penalty. First, exclusion. Paul‘s discourse maps the permeable boundaries of the community primarily by means of verbs of association and exclusion. The verb ἴ (5:2) and its compounds ί (5:7) and ξ ί (5:13) vocalize Paul‘s enunciation of the Deuteronomic command: ―Expel the evil person from among you!‖ This unrepentant member of the community, arrogantly puffed up in a sexual relationship with his father‘s wife, is to be ritually excluded, delivered over ( ί ι, 5:5) from the Christian assembly into the power of Satan. Members of the assembly may associate (σ ίγ ι) with those outside in matters of everyday life, but not with one claiming to be inside who is engaging in an impure mode of life ( ὴ σ ίγ ι, 5:9, 11). In 5:12–13, Paul explicitly adopts the language of inclusion and exclusion as he speaks of ―those outside‖ the community ( ὺ ἔξ ) and ―those inside‖ ( ὺ ἔσ ). Entirely within the limits of what we know as chapter five, Paul introduces his lexicon of communal exclusion and intensifies it by repetition. The second set of terms concerns standing, one‘s status within the community. From the start, in 5:1, Paul sounds a very Jewish note in referring to the nations (the ἔ ι). Yet he has used the term in a peculiar way, applying it as the antithesis of the assembly, itself a mixture of Jews and Gentiles professing loyalty to Jesus as the Messiah. Only Gentiles who continue to act like Gentiles (or worse than Gentiles) are truly Gentiles. Those within the community are called brothers and sisters ( ι ὀ ό , 5:11; 6:8), holy ones (6:2) who ought to be wise (6:5) enough to handle matters that arise. Paul rhetorically allows for colonial-style gradations of status in the ekklēsia: there are those who are least in the assembly ( ξ έ ῇ σίᾳ, 6:4); yet they are still better suited to act as judges than the unrighteous (6:1), unworthy (6:2), and disloyal ones (6:6) who are outside the community (cf. 1:26–29). There is a strong binary

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

273

definition of standing in community here—for purposes of ecclesial politics one is either visibly within or without the covenant community. Process is the third category. Here we witness a dynamic approach to administrative judgment related to membership in the community. Paul has heard a report (5:1) and issues a response, a judgment already made in absentia (5:3). The group is to assemble in the Lord‘s name (σ έ ὑ , 5:4) before taking action to expel the immoral man (5:5, 13). Paul also employs the language of festival (5:8) and of eating together (5:11) in speaking of the communal activities of the assembly. The inner administrative process of adjudication or arbitration dominates 6:1–11. As a quasijudicial assembly, the ekklēsia is to ―seat‖ judges from within ( ί , 6:2–4) and to engage internally in evaluative ethical judgment (( ι ) ί ; 6:1, 2, 3, 5, 6). Fourth is Paul‘s terminology of purity. Here, as elsewhere in Paul‘s epistles, the infamous triad of sexual immorality (5:1; 6:9– 11), idolatry ( ἰ ά ι; 6:9), and greed ( έ ι; 6:10) appear prominently. Also noteworthy among terms for impurity is the language of leaven ( ύ , 5:6–8) and of the evildoer ( ό , 5:13). Finally, Paul refers to the purity of community members granted in Jesus Messiah and by his Spirit in 6:1—they were washed ( ύσ σ ), made holy ( γιάσ ), and justified ( ι ιώ ). Fifth comes the language of penalty, closely associated here with exclusion. The offender against divine law and communal purity is to be expelled (5:2) and delivered over to Satan for destruction of the flesh ( ἰ ὄ ῆ σ ό , 5:5). Even more powerfully, those whose ethics continue to match the politics of this age-world (6:2; cf. 10:11) are excluded from any inheritance in the consummation of the divine kingdom ( σι ί ήσ σι , 6:9, 10). Table 2 Terminology of Exclusion and Ethics in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 Exclusion

ί , ξ ι ί ι ( ὴ)σ ίγ ἱ ἔξ ; ἱ ἔσ

; ι

274

KETER SHEM TOV Terminology of Exclusion and Ethics in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 Standing

Process

ἱἔ ι ἱ ξ

ὀ έ

ι

ό

ῇ

σίᾳ

σ άγ ( ι ) ί ί

(Im)Purity ὁ Penalty

ι

ἱ ἰ ύ

ά ό ύ ; ἁγιά

ι; ἱ ; ι

έ

ι

ιό

see terms above for exclusion ὁὄ ῆ σ ό σι ί

έ

Throughout this section, Paul employs a distinctive lexicon of purity and politics (Table 2), one from which he crafts a covenantal discourse of exclusion and ethics. But his discourse has a distinctive accent, consonant with the word of the crucified Messiah he proclaims. By it he aims persuasively to produce a certain kind of community with particular ethical and political commitments.

4.1.2. Citation and Allusion Scriptural allusion and explicit citation also play an important role in this section. I briefly mention three references to the Hebrew Bible: Exod 12:14–20, Deut 17:7, and Dan 7:22.41 First, in 5:6–8 Paul evokes the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread from Exod 12 when he writes:

For a detailed list of possible allusions see Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, ―I Corinthians,‖ in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 705–13. 41

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

275

6 ‗Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole batch? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new batch, just as you are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 So then, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of purity and truth.‘

Although he adapts the image for his own Christological-ethical purpose, there are obvious links between his text and the context of Exod 12:14–20. Among these are the leaven as a sign of purity and separation, the condemnation of boasting, and the threat and curse of being cut off by divine judgment which animates both contexts.42 Second comes the most explicit citation, namely, Deut 17:7 in 5:13: ―Expel the evil person from among you.‖ This Deuteronomic expulsion formula is repeatedly linked in its Pentateuchal context with the judgment of covenant violations, especially idolatry. It is not difficult, therefore, to see why Paul has chosen to weave this alte Exkommunikationsformel into his Corinthian admonition just here as he concludes the subsection on addressing impurity within the community.43 Third, many have recognized an echo of Dan 7:22 in 6:2–3. In the Danielic text, the arrival of the Ancient of Days signals righteous judgment and the inheritance of the kingdom for the holy ones. Paul would have the members of the assembly likewise Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 133–38; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (trans. J.W. Leitch; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 98–99; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 214–20; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 400–08. 43 Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 145; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 102; Fee, First Epistle, 221–27; Thiselton, First Epistle, 417–18. Cf. William Horbury, ―Extirpation,‖ 28; Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 61–80; Sean M. McDonough, ―Competent to Judge: The Old Testament Connection Between 1 Corinthians 5 and 6,‖ JTS 56 (2005): 99–102; Ciampa and Rosner, ―I Corinthians,‖ 709–10. 42

276

KETER SHEM TOV

consider themselves heirs of the kingdom and judges of the world (even of angels), not to mention trifling matters of communal conflict.44 Much more could be said of further scriptural allusions in Paul‘s text, and of the manner in which he contemporizes their force for his hearers. But it is sufficient here (Table 3) to note his appeal to these three key texts. Table 3 Scriptural Citation/Allusion in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 OT citation/allusion

1 Cor reference

Focus

Exod 12:14–20

5:6–8

Passover lamb, yeast, and communal purity

Deut 17:7

5:13

Cast out the evil one from among you

Dan 7:22

6:2, 3

Judgment of the holy ones in the kingdom of God

These appeals to Hebrew Bible texts provide us with a baseline for investigating further the covenantal resources from which Paul draws, consciously or unconsciously, in constructing his argument.

4.1.3. Resources The next step in mapping Paul‘s covenantal discourse is to locate passages in the LXX or Hebrew Bible where not only single terms, but clusters of similar terms and concepts occur. 45 To do so is to note important coordinates that help to establish ―trajectories‖ of

Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 146–47; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 104–5; Thiselton, First Epistle, 425–26. 45 This approach has affinities with the intertextuality of Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985); even more so with that of Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, esp. chs. 3 and 4. 44

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

277

covenantal discourse—and particular emphases within that discourse—upon which Paul drew. In drawing on the Exod 12 Passover passage, Paul taps into an important text dealing with themes of holy covenant assembly within the Exodus narrative. As commentators have noted, this Exodus language and concern for purity is already used intertextually within the Deuteronomic codes.46 In texts such as Deut 16:1–8, 23, and 26:13 the concern for purity in the community is expressed in relation to the assembly and the tabernacle, in connection with laws on sexuality, and with implications of communal exclusion. In most of these texts Israel‘s redemption from Egypt forms the backdrop for the ongoing remembrance of the covenantal relationship to the Lord of the Exodus and for the demands of covenant holiness and the imperative of communal exclusion for impurity. Likewise, the expulsion formula of Deut 17:7 rests in a network of commands regarding idolatry, sexual immorality, and covenant community, the same formula appearing also elsewhere in Deuteronomy.47 Wherever it occurs it is related to covenant violation and frequently to covenant curses.48 By this concise, unmarked citation, Paul demonstrates a dependence especially upon the covenant discourse of Deuteronomy which he modifies precisely for the Corinthian situation.49 The Deuteronomic tip of the iceberg protruding in 5:13b implies far more extensive resources shaping the language and thought of Paul‘s argument. 50 Already Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 134–37; Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 64–68, 92–93, argues for a verbal and conceptual trajectory leading from Exod 12:15, through texts such as Lev 17, to the paradigm of expulsion in Deut, and on to 1 Cor 5. 47 Deut 13:5; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 24:7. 48 Point made in detail by Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 65–66. 49 Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 145, ―Die Einsetzung des Plurals entspricht den Verhältnissen. Das Fehlen der Zitationsformel zeigt nur, wie Paulus im AT lebt; in diesem pathetischen Moment kann er keinen treffenderen Ausdruck finden, als die alte Exkommunikationsformel.‖ 50 Further examples and argument in Brian S. Rosner, ―‗Drive out the wicked person‘: A Biblical Theology of Exclusion,‖ EvQ 71 (1999): 25–36. 46

278

KETER SHEM TOV

One additional scriptural resource not at first obvious in Paul‘s discourse of covenant exclusion is the post-exilic literature of Ezra and Nehemiah. Especially in Ezra 9–10 what Rosner has termed the motifs of covenant, corporate responsibility, and holiness recur in a narrative context of prohibited marriages and exclusion. He plausibly suggests a connection between the situations faced by Paul and Ezra and argues that both authors produced texts standing ―in a discernible Biblical tradition.‖51 Nehemiah 9–10 evinces similar terms and concepts in a narrative context akin to that of Ezra.52 Particularly in contexts of communal assembly and covenant renewal in these post-exilic narratives, the interconnection between marital relationship with outsiders and idolatry threatens the purity of the community and evokes the possibility of covenant curse.53 Table 4 Some Scriptural Resources Apparent in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 Texts

Discourse Elements

Exod 12

Passover

Deut 16, 23, 26

holy covenant assembly purity exclusion

Deut 17:7, et al.

sexual sin idolatry holy covenant assembly covenant curse exclusion

For the Deut 17:7 citation ―als Schlussstein‖ in Paul‘s argumentation, Martin Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 163–64. 51 Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 80–81. 52 See esp. Neh 9:2, 10:28, 13:3 for the language and concepts of covenantal separation and exclusion. 53 Esp. Ezra 10:1–16.

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

279

Some Scriptural Resources Apparent in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 Texts

Discourse Elements

Ezra 9–10 Neh 9–10

covenant renewal unlawful marital relations idolatry exclusion

Undoubtedly other resources from the Hebrew Bible are evoked in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11, as Paul appears to be drawing (consciously or unconsciously) on specific textual resources among the larger covenantal discourses concerning exclusion and ethics (Table 4). In constructing his argument he is particularly focused on texts that weave together covenant strands of temple, purity, idolatry, sexual sin, and curse, especially in the form of exclusion.

4.1.4. Rhetoric The final step in mapping the Pauline discourse of exclusion and ethics is to note its rhetorical shape. Given that Paul has drawn, linguistically and conceptually, from certain covenantal resources available to him, how has he shaped his argument specifically for Corinth? In 5:1–13 Paul shifts to the report he has received (ὅ ύ ι, 5:1) about porneia in the community and renders his judgment upon the offender: expulsion from the community (already in 5:2). He grounds this command (γά , 5:3) upon his authoritative judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus and issues instructions for a quasi-judicial process within the assembly, issuing in a covenant curse (5:4–5). Drawing on a fund of citations and resources for covenantal purity, in 5:6–8 Paul repeats and bolsters his position that the offender must be cast out of the assembly so that (ὥσ ) the purity of the community may be maintained ( ύ ι ἰ ι ι ί ί , 5:8).54 Among those who emphasize the curse aspect of 1 Cor 5:5 are Adela Yarbro Collins, ―The Function of ‗Excommunication‘ in Paul,‖ HTR 73 (1980): 251–63; Horbury, ―Extirpation;‖ and D. R. Smith, ―Hand this man over to Satan.‖ 54

280

KETER SHEM TOV

Paul pauses in 5:9–11 to clarify the contours of the community he espouses, interpreting his own earlier instructions for the Corinthians. 55 The members of the covenant community, he insists, are to live in two politeias simultaneously—the common colony of Corinth and the holy assembly of the ekklēsia.56 Yet their participation in these dual communities, while simultaneous, is not undifferentiated in its ethical demands. Most importantly, Paul insists that their exclusion or non-association with certain persons pertains not to ―evildoers‖ generally, but only to those called by the name ―brother‖ who refuse to repent of impure behavior (5:11). In this political framework, the ethical conclusion is emphatic exclusion (5:13). The Corinthians, whom Paul views as politically and ethically confused—even intransigent—are to expel the evildoer, thereby restoring covenant integrity to the community.57 The next section, in 6:1–11,58 continues the themes of covenant membership and purity but combines the note of exclusion with that of jurisdiction.59 Purity and community are interrelated and reinforced, now with regard to the process and For the significance and method of this earliest occasion of Pauline self-exegesis, see Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 18– 20. 56 Mitchell, Paul, 113, ―The term which Paul uses in 5:9 and 11, σ ίγ σ ι, shows that what is at issue here is political association and membership.‖ 57 Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 145–46; John P. Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 93–101. 58 Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 94, correctly notes, ―Unlike 5:1–13 there is no Biblical quotation in 6:1–11 which we may use as a possible way into a wider field of Scriptural background.‖ Nevertheless, as Rosner‘s own argument in ch. 4 demonstrates, together with the observations above, Paul in 6:1–11 is quite dependent on what might be termed ―Deuteronomic assumptions.‖ 59 McDonough, ―Competent to Judge,‖ 99–102, is unaware of Mitchell‘s earlier argument that the citation of Deut 17:7 and original context function as a crucial pivot in Paul‘s movement from 5:1–13 to 6:1–11, Paul, 230–31. 55

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

281

setting of conciliation; ethics is again connected to politics.60 Far from being a disconnected digression, as it sits between 5:1–13 and 6:12–20, this section is firmly clamped into place.61 In his response to another report, Paul presses for an internally consistent model for engaging the politics of conflict. Grievances between brothers are wrongly being laid before judges outside the holy assembly (6:1). In 6:2–3 it begins to emerge that the covenantal framework Paul is advancing is not merely a lateral alternative to that in colonial Corinth. Rather, with the language of kosmos and the Danielic allusion (6:2), Paul presumes the irrupting presence of a new age that demands a new political-ethical form of life.62 Eschatological politics forms the basis for his understanding of covenantal jurisdiction (6:2–3). Paul again clarifies his vision of overlapping politeiai in 6:4–6. Even those with least standing in the covenant community are more competent in such cases than civil magistrates who are characterized as unrighteous ( ι , 6:1; ὺ ξ έ ῇ σί , 6:4).63 Judicial competence in the case of internal disputes corresponds to political membership; jurisdiction Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture, 99–100; Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache, 165–68. 61 Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 145–46, ―So ist das Stück 6,1–11 im Zusammenhang fest verklammert . . . Im Einzelnen sind allerlei stilistischrhetorische Feinheiten bemerkenswert . . . Das Ganze ist äusserst lebhaft und eindringlich mit seinen kurzen, pointierten Sätzen, ein rechtes Beispiel für die gewissen weckende Predigt des Apostels im Stil der volkstümlichen Diatribe.‖ Weiss sees four subsections: vv. 1–5a, 5b–6, 7– 8, 9–11. I describe the flow of the text slightly differently here, viewing it through the rhetorical lens of covenant exclusion and jurisdiction. 62 Edward Adams, Constructing the World: A Study in Paul‘s Cosmological Language (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 126–29. Cf. 1 Cor 10:11 and context. 63 Bruce W. Winter, ―Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church: The Forensic Background to 1 Corinthians 6:1–8,‖ NTS 37 (1991): 559–72 understands the magistrates as legally and ethically corrupt on the model of inherent corruption in Graeco-Roman litigation. Not all concur; cf. Adams, Constructing the World, 127. 60

282

KETER SHEM TOV

should be shaped by the eschatological ethic of the community. Throughout this opening portion, the doubled strands of holy ones and unrighteous, assembly and world, brother and unbeliever are woven together, reinforcing the fabric of holy covenant community that underlies the ethical injunctions to follow. Paul inferentially64 advances his argument in 6:7–11, the following two sub-sections, turning his focus again to purity and exclusion. Brothers are dealing with one another, he claims, according to an ethic incommensurate with the covenantal basis of the community. Paul‘s naming of this covenant community with kingdom language is striking. The assembly is a political prolepsis of nothing less than the kingdom of God ( σι ί , 6:9). As such, the unrighteous (ἄ ι ι, repeated in 6:9) will be excluded from its communal inheritance (fut. pl. ήσ σι , 6:9). Purity once again requires exclusion; for Paul this is political consistency. Purified by God in his Messiah and by his Spirit, Paul insists they are already members and heirs—by divine oath and act—of that covenanted kingdom (6:11; cf. 1:4–9).65 This rhetoric of Pauline exclusion sits, finally, within a covenantal discourse carefully crafted for the Corinthian assembly.

𝔓46 and other mss lack ὖ , but the implied contrastive inference becomes clear when the έ is correlated with the following pair of questions beginning ι ί and the ά of 6:8; Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 151; Fee, First Epistle, 239. 65 Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 156, rightly notes the performative power of Paul‘s eschatological rhetoric here: ―ein Neues, Mächtiges, Göttliches ist mit zwingender Gewalt in ihr Leben eingetreten.‖ 64

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

283

Table 5 Rhetorical Shape of 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 5:1 Report-response 1: porneia (communal event) 5:2 Judgment-exclusion 5:3–5 Process-purpose (covenant curse) 5:6–8 Purity-exclusion (covenant holiness) 5:9–11 Clarification: overlapping politeiai (covenant community) 5:12–13 Conclusion 1: exclusion (covenant integrity) 6:1 Report-response 2: civil litigation (communal event) 6:2–3 Eschatology-jurisdiction 6:4–8 Clarification: overlapping politeiai (covenant community) 6:9–10 Purity-exclusion (covenant holiness) 6:11 Conclusion 2: purity (covenant integrity) The shape of Paul’s argument (Table 5) highlights his distinctive use of terms, citations, allusions, and broader covenantal resources. While the themes of covenant community such as holy assembly, purity, and exclusion may appear across various trajectories of Second Temple discourse, 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 shows every indication of being fashioned selectively with a particular group, its internal life, and its surrounding civic community in mind. For Paul, the intrusion of a holy kingdom in the form of the nascent Corinthian assembly provides the political basis for the ethical imperatives of covenant curse and exclusion. But it also allows, to some extent, for movement between polities and their ethical demands. Otherwise, Paul argued, one would be obligated to go out of the very world (5:10).

284

KETER SHEM TOV

4.2. 1QS 5:1–7:2566 In contrast to 1 Cor 5:1–6:11, our second text appears to assume right from the start a complete separation from the world, at least insofar as larger civic structures are concerned.67 1QS 5:1–7, 25 also forms a clearly defined rhetorical unit. Metso has described how clearly in the manuscript evidence this section is demarcated within the larger Serekh ha-Yaḥad. Not only does it develop self-contained themes of life in community, it is also delineated by marginal scribal marks.68 And although the 4QSb,d fragments containing cols. 5–7 demonstrate some textual variants,69 Metso and others regard it as a central and, within the extended redactional history of the text, perhaps an early section of The Community Rule.70 In its final redactional form 1QS 5:1–7:25 is a covenantal discourse. The opening line (5:1) functions as an internal heading All translations are my own, based on the Hebrew text in Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, DSSSE, vol. 1. 67 On the problem of defining the Sitz im Leben for 1QS see generally, Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 32–46, and particularly, the two essays by Sarianna Metso, ―The Relationship Between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,‖ in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery (ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick; STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 85–93; and ―Sitz im Leben,‖ 306– 15. 68 Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 22; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 14–15, at 15 n.11: ―The signs in 5:1 point to the beginning of the set of regulations for community life, and the sign at the end of column 7 presumably marks the end of this section, for the next column begins a unit very different from the one of the two preceding columns.‖ See also Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 206–07. High resolution digital images are now freely available thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Project hosted by the Israel Museum at http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/community. 69 4QSb = 4Q256; 4QSd = 4Q258. 70 Textual Development, 143–49. See more recently, Sarianna Metso, The Serekh Texts (LSTS 62; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 17–19. 66

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

285

for the section: ―This is the rule (‫ )הסשך‬for the men of the community (‫)לאנשי היחד‬.‖71 As a ―rule‖ text, it lacks the occasional nature of a Pauline epistle.72 Nonetheless, 1QS, with its layers and accretions over time, constitutes a discourse that itself attempts to shape a volunteer into a faithful member of the yaḥad. C. Newsom is among those who have discussed at length the language of purity and separation, the vision of the yaḥad as a temple, and the specific accentuation given by 1QS to Deuteronomic and other scriptural language.73 She argues that 1QS draws upon a fund of common language: Common language is thus subtly inflected by stylistic emphasis, creating a rhetoric of distinction and division. Words are given meaning not through stipulated definitions or through concrete examples but formally, through the linguistic resources of synonymy and antinomy. The linguistic world, like the social world of the sectarian, is constituted by the paired actions of separating and uniting. The very language he is taught to speak is an icon of the life he will live.74

Let us examine more closely some of the terms, citations, and resources that 1QS draws upon to form such an iconic (covenantal) rhetoric of distinction.

Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 10–13, notes the political and associational connotations of ‫סשך‬, sometimes rendered in Gk. as άξι . 4QSb,d: ―This is the teaching (‫ )מדשש‬for the wise leader (‫)למשכיל‬ concerning the men of the Torah (‫)אנשי התשה‬.‖ 72 A point also made by Gillihan, Civic Ideology, 507. 73 Self, 111–52, at 149–50: ―There is surely a distant echo of Deuteronomy in the rhetorical shape of the Serek ha-Yaḥad as a whole, with its motivating introduction, middle section of community procedure and rules, and its conclusion with poetry. In the Serek ha-Yaḥad the discourse of procedural rules drawn from the world of Hellenistic associations is brought together with the discourse of Israelite law to produce a unique form of speech.‖ 74 Newsom, Self, 110. 71

286

KETER SHEM TOV

4.2.1. Terms Many scholars have examined the terminology of community formation in 1QS. I have already mentioned Maier‘s classic essay on the yaḥad terminology at Qumran, which takes careful account of the prevalence of that term in 1QS. 75 The studies of WernbergMøller, Schiffman, and Weinfeld remain indispensable for terms relating to standing, process, and penalty. 76 Building on these analyses, I will note, as above for 1 Cor 5:1–6:11, five sets of terms pertaining to exclusion, standing, process, purity, and penalty. In the first set, there are three verbal roots, each denoting varieties of exclusion. The first, and the favorite of 1QS, is ‫בדל‬, here mainly in the hiphil but also in the niphal and hophal forms. It is used not only of separation from that which is impure (5:1, 10, 18) but also of exclusion from the pure food and fellowship with the yaḥad (6:25; 7:1, 3, 5, 16).77 ‫ שחר‬is the second verb of exclusion, appearing in the qal only. Like ‫בדל‬, it too is used in both the weaker sense of separation from impurity and exclusion from the community (5:15; 6:16). The final and perhaps most forceful verb employed for the act of exclusion is the piel of ‫שלח‬. It appears as the choice term in 1QS for final expulsion from the community (7:16–17, 25; cf. 8:22). The terms of the second set are those relating to standing in the community.78 Here 1QS displays a multilayered and repetitive lexicon of association and status. Terms for the community as a whole predominate and include men of the community ( ‫אנשי‬ ‫היחד‬, 5:3, 15–16), the community of the eternal covenant ( ‫יחד‬ ‫בשית עלם‬, 5:5–6), the council of the community (‫עקת היחד‬, 5:7, passim) which is itself equated with entering the covenant of God ―Zum Begriff ‫יחד‬.‖ Wernberg-Møller, Manual of Discipline; Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983); Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern. 77 Cf. 2:16; 8:11, 13, 24; 9: 5, 9, 14, 20. 78 I leave aside here the debated roles of priests (kōhănîm), the official at the head of the many (pāqîd) and the overseer (mǝbāqqēr), basic treatments of which may be found, e.g., in Schiffman, Sectarian Law, passim, and Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 19–21. 75 76

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

287

(‫יבוא בבשית אל‬, 5:8), the multitude of the men of their covenant (‫שוב אנשי בשיתם‬, 5:9), the assembly of holiness (‫עדת רודש‬, 5:20), and strikingly, Israel (‫יששאל‬, 5:22; cf. 6:13). Individual members of the yaḥad are referred to twice as brothers (‫אח‬, 5:25; 6:10), but there is an important division in terms of rank (‫כתכונו‬, 6:4, 9, 10, 22). Juniors must submit to seniors (‫הרטן לגדל‬, 5:23; 6:2; cf. 6:26), likewise the remainder of the people to the elders (‫הזרנים‬, 5:8–9).79 Also noteworthy are the verbs of association (or dissociation) employed in 1QS. The verbal form of ‫ יחד‬is used to describe joining the assembly (5:6, 20), for assembling together (6:6), and in the negative for shunning a member of the community who turns away to wickedness (5:14). Several times ‫ עשב‬is employed in piel or hithpael forms to speak of association (6:17, 22; 7:24; cf. 8:23; 9:8). Finally, the niphal masculine plural participle of ‫ לוה‬is used once to describe those joining themselves for community (‫ ;הנלוים עליהם ליחד‬5:6; cf. 4:3). Terms describing internal process include words and phrases for assembly, enrollment, probation, and structure, and especially for judgment and decision making.80 These appear primarily, but not exclusively, in 6:1–7:25. I mention only a few of the most prominent here. The community comes together in council or in the session of the many (‫מושב השבים‬, e.g., 6:8).81 Appointment of authorities (priests, elders, the mǝbāqqēr) is assumed rather than described in this section of 1QS (e.g., 5:2–3).82 Oaths are sworn for binding oneself to the community (piel of ‫רום‬, e.g., 5:8, 10) and decision by lot governs many cases of judgment (e.g., ‫יקא תכון‬, For the performative aspects of ranking and hierarchy in 1QS, see Newsom, Self, 140, 146–8. 80 For full discussion of the complex internal processes described in 1QS, see Schiffman, Sectarian Law; Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern; Klinghardt, ―The Manual of Discipline;‖ and Gillihan, Civic Ideology. 81 Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 74, considers the council of the Many to be ―an assembly responsible for fixing the rules of the sect, acceptance of new members and routine jurisdiction.‖ 82 Regulations for entrance and appointment are also detailed in other sections of 1QS. See summary overview in Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 16–23. 79

288

KETER SHEM TOV

5:3).83 Language for judgment and examination both of new and old members (especially those charged with breaking the Rule in some way) figures conspicuously, marked by verbal forms of ‫דשש‬ (5:20; cf. 6:6), ‫( שץט‬6:24),‫( שאל‬6:11, 15; 7:21).84 Purity terminology appears frequently in this section, although it is largely formulaic and somewhat vague rather than explicitly linked to the litany of specific offenses in 6:24–7:25. The language of circumcision (‫מול‬, 5:5), atonement (‫כץש‬, 5:6), and holiness (‫רדש‬, 5:6 passim) characterizes the purity of those within the community; those outside are implicated in terms of evil (‫שע‬, 5:1), uncleanness (‫טמא‬, 5:14, 19), and injustice (‫עול‬, 5:10). The ―pure food‖ of the community (‫טהשת‬, 5:13; 6:25; 7:3, 16, 19) is a motif; the term‘s repetition as ―purity‖ or ―pure thing‖ (6:22; 7:25) further heightens the contrast of ritual holiness within the community with life outside.85 Penalties in this section of 1QS range from the exclusion from communal activity to temporary and finally absolute expulsion.86 These involve removal (signified by the verbs of exclusion detailed above), after examination or trial, from the communal meal (e.g., 6:25), exclusion from the community ranging from ten days to two years (7:1–21), or complete banishment (e.g., 7:25). Additionally, eschatological penalties for those outside the covenant community are described in the language of covenant curse (‫נרם באלות בשית‬, 5:12) and fierce judgments (‫משץטים גדולים‬, 5:12–13).

For philological notes, see Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline, 92 n. 15. Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 23 connects the ―decision by lot‖ to the Greek voting by ψῆ in Hellenistic guilds and associations. 84 Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 73–74, correctly argues (contra Schiffman) that terms like šōphēṭ are used in an executive, as well as a strictly juridical, sense in 1QS (and CD). 85 Further discussion in Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 161–68 and Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 21–38. 86 Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 168–73 Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 41–43. 83

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

289

Table 6 Terminology of Exclusion and Ethics in 1QS 5:1–7:25 Exclusion

‫בדל‬ ‫שחר‬ ‫שלח‬

Standing

‫אנשי היחד‬

‫אח‬

‫יחד בשית עלם‬

‫יחד‬

‫עקת היחד‬

‫כתכונו‬

‫שוב אנשי‬

‫עשב‬

‫בשיתם‬

‫לוה‬

‫עדת רודש‬ ‫יששאל‬ Process

(Im)Purity

‫מושב השבים‬

‫דשש‬

‫רום‬

‫שץט‬

‫יקא תכון‬

‫שאל‬

‫מול‬

‫שע‬

‫כץש‬

‫טמא‬

‫רדש‬

‫עול‬

‫טהשת‬ Penalty

see verbs of exclusion above

‫נרם באלות בשית‬ ‫משץטים גדולים‬ 4.2.2. Citations Explicit Hebrew Bible citations are rare in 1QS as a whole but several are concentrated in this very section. As Metso has noted, the presence of these citations in 1QS and their absence from

290

KETER SHEM TOV

4QSb,d implies the redaction of 1QS with a view toward legitimizing communal politics and ethics.87 Others concur that the presence of scriptural material here bolsters halakhic instruction. 88 Although the consensus has long been that 1QS twists or disregards the original context of scripture, 89 it is worth noting the citations as they have been fit into their new context. 90 In 1QS 5:15 Exod 23:7 appears: ―You shall remain at a distance from every lie.‖91 This comes in a subsection clearly titled (5:7b) ―These are their rules of conduct, according to all these statutes, when they are admitted to the community.‖ It is immediately preceded by an allusion to Lev 22:15–16 (5:13–14), a text regarding the purity of the ―holy things‖ in Israel. Together these texts help to clarify and confirm the binding oath of separation taken by those entering the community (5:8–13).92 A second explicit citation follows quickly (5:17), this one from Isa 2:22: ―Shun the man whose breath is in his nostrils, for how Sarianna Metso, ―The Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Community Rule,‖ in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 228. But see the recent considered critique of this claim by Shani Tzoref, ―The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule,‖ in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (ed. Matthias Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 203–34, at 231–32. 88 Newsom, Self, 111; Tso, Ethics, ch. 5. 89 Preben Wernberg-Møller, ―Some Reflections on the Biblical Material in the Manual of Discipline,‖ ST 9 (1955): 40–66, at 65: ―The great liberty with which our author treats biblical passages makes the investigation into a potential dependence on a Bible text . . . extremely difficult.‖ 90 Wernberg-Møller, ―Reflections,‖ 51–52, notes the ―striking‖ manner in which the OT material has been adapted to its ―particular contexts‖ in 1QS. See also Tzoref, ―Use of Scripture,‖ 230. 91 Both Metso, ―Use of Old Testament,‖ 220 and Wernberg-Møller, ―Reflections,‖ 66 note that the form of citation conforms to the phraseology of the LXX rather than the MT. 92 Metso, ―Use of Old Testament,‖ 220–21. 87

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

291

much is he worth?‖ In its new context it continues the theme of covenant exclusion for the sake of purity, given emphasis by the following interpretive comment (5:18), ―For all who are not numbered in his covenant will be segregated, they and all that belongs to them.‖93 These citations and allusions (Table 7) provide a foothold for considering larger scriptural resources that the writer(s) of 1QS drew upon in constructing the ethical and exclusionary shape of covenantal community they envisioned.94 Table 7 Scriptural Citation/Allusion in 1QS 5:1–7:25 Citation/allusion

1QS Text

Focus

Lev 22:15–16

5:13–14

separation, purity

Exod 23:7

5:15

separation, purity

Isa 2:22

5:17

exclusion, purity

4.2.3. Resources When we attempt to chart the clusters of terms and concepts drawn upon by 1QS, certain Hebrew Bible texts stand out. This is particularly true when we follow the thread of the exclusionary language mobilized by 1QS back into earlier contexts of covenant community, purity, covenant renewal, and separation. Some of these turn out to coalesce with resources evident in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 while others do not. The favorite term for separation in 1QS, ‫( בדל‬in the hiphil), appears in several covenantal epicenters. In Exod 26:33 it is used of the veil woven for the tabernacle which separates the Holy from the Most Holy Place. This application to temple space is taken up

Ibid., 221–22. Wernberg-Møller, ―Reflections,‖ 58, recognized other notable allusions in this section: Isa 28:16 (5:5), Jer 23:17 (5:19), and 1 Sam 3:13 (7:1). 93 94

292

KETER SHEM TOV

and applied to the eschatological temple by Ezekiel (22:26, 42:20).95 The verb is also a favorite in the Levitical demarcation between holy and common or unclean. 96 In a context of covenant renewal following the enumeration of blessings and curses, Deut 29:21 (29:20 MT) warns against covenant apostasy in a formulation strongly echoed in 1QS: ―And the Lord will exclude him (‫)והבדילו‬ from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this book of the Law.‖ Finally, the hiphil and niphal forms of ‫ בדל‬cluster noticeably in Ezra (9:1; 10:8, 11, 16)97 and Nehemiah (9:2; 10:28; 13:3), precisely in those post-exilic covenant renewal texts discussed above in relation to the Pauline text.98 Both remaining verbs of exclusion employed by 1QS, ‫שחר‬ and ‫שלח‬, appear in similar contexts of ritual purity and covenantal separation. Of particular note here are occurrences of ‫ רחק‬in the citation of Exod 23:7 and ‫ שלח‬in Lev 16:10, 21, 22, 26 (Day of Atonement context). The appearance of ‫ שלח‬in the classic expulsion text of Adam from Eden in Gen 3:23 and (rhetorically) of Israel‘s covenant expulsion in Isa 50:1 (as divorce) also suggests scriptural resources available, consciously or unconsciously, to those who shaped the final form of 1QS.99 Other texts incorporating terminology and concepts found in 1QS 5:1–7:25 certainly exist.100 But a focus on the verbs of expulsion reveals several distinct covenantal loci (Table 8) with elements of temple, purity, covenant renewal, and exclusion.101

Newsom, Self, 125, refers to the pervasive and ―submerged metaphor of the community as the sanctuary.‖ 96 Lev 10:10; 11:47; 20:24–26. 97 Cf. Ezra 9:2 for the use of ‫ עשב‬in the Hithpael as in 1QS 6:17. 98 Newsom, Self, 137, notes this connection, attributing ―considerable symbolic significance‖ to the repetition of ‫ ;בדל‬cf. 151. 99 Cf. other divorce contexts: Deut 22:19, 29; 24:1, 3, 4. 100 See, e.g., Wernberg-Møller, ―Reflections,‖ 41 n.1. 101 See comments of Tso, Ethics, 83–91, on the role of Deuteronomy and Isaiah in 1QS. 95

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

293

These larger resources are some that provide what Newsom calls ―a general deuteronomic‖ frame for 1QS.102 Table 8 Some Scriptural Resources Apparent in 1QS Texts

Discourse Elements

Exod 23, 26 Lev 16 Ezek 40–48

covenant tabernacle/temple holiness, purity

Gen 3 Deut 29

holiness covenant curse expulsion

Ezra 9–10 Neh 9–10

covenant renewal judgment separation

4.2.4. Rhetoric The composition of 1QS 5:1–7:25 has received the most thorough treatment by Metso, its rhetorical effect by Newsom. Both help us to see the manner in which the rule text works to define, create, and preserve a certain kind of covenant community. Fundamental to the rhetorical shape of the section as a whole is the threefold repetition of the rule heading (5:1; 6:8b, 24).103 Within these three major subsections (5:1–6:8a; 6:8b–23; 6:24–7:25) there are further subunits adding specificity. The first major subsection, 5:1–6:8a, introduces and organizes the holy covenant community. The community is portrayed as one set apart for truth and humility, justice and uprightness. This portrayal in 5:1–7a serves as a motivation for joining and as a

Self, 111–22. 5:1: ‫ ;וזה הסשך‬6:8: ‫ ;וזה הסשך‬6:24 ‫ואלה המשץטים‬. Each section also marked diplomatically by a vacat or paragraphus; see Metso, Textual Development, 15, 116. 102 103

294

KETER SHEM TOV

―trope of reorientation.‖104 A covenant oath of membership acts as the ―gateway ritual‖ into the community, effecting simultaneously a separation and a new association (5:7b–20a).105 This is followed by details regarding the examination of new members (5:20b–6:1a) and regulations for meetings in assembly (6:1a–8a). A second subdivision describes the rules for the session of the rabbîm (6:8b–13a) and the protocol for the probationary period for covenant membership (6:13b–23). It is this section, with its regulation of speech, seating, and actions in assembly, that perhaps more than any other has stirred comparisons with Graeco-Roman voluntary associations. The apparent similarities revolve around a distinct ―discourse of the assembly‖ that rhetorically constitutes the covenant community and characterizes its form of speech.106 Finally, in 6:24–7:25 comes the penal code with its litany of examination and discipline for communal violations. Although there is an ethical nexus binding the varieties of transgression and gradations of exclusion, Newsom is surely right to point out the evaluative as opposed to behavioral focus of this ―rhetorical constitution.‖107 The political contours of this community require a vigilant exercise of evaluation and exclusion. At the bottom of column 7 the text concluding the entire section breaks off with the energetic expulsion of the one who associates with any person outside the covenant community (7.25; ‫)לשל]חו‬

Newsom, Self, 136. The infinitive construct ‫( לשוב‬5:1) sets this tone immediately. 105 Newsom, Self, 136. Repetition of ‫ לשוב‬gives the purpose of the oath (5:8). 106 Newsom, Self, 145–46. 107 Newsom, Self, 148–49, at 148: ―rules and penalties are not included here . . . for the purposes of instruction in behavior. Rhetorically, the reader is not instructed about what he may or may not do but rather how he, as a member of the session, shall judge.‖ 104

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

295

Table 9 Rhetorical Shape of 1QS 5:1–7:25 5:1–7a Introduction: holy covenant community 5:7b–20a covenant oath (separation/association) 5:20b–6:1a Admission of new members 6:1b–8a communal meetings and ethics 6:8b–13a Session of the Rabbim 6:13b–23 Probationary period for covenant membership 6:24–7:25 Penal code The shape of this section (Table 9) highlights its rhetorical function. As a rule text compiled over many generations, in its final form it is not so much a handbook for communal praxis as a crafted expression of communal ethos. 108 This ethos is one of community, purity, and exclusion that gives a distinctive accent to particular covenantal resources from the Hebrew scriptures.

5. DYNAMICS OF COVENANT COMMUNITY: COMPARISON AND CONTRAST From the outset of this comparison the aim has been an appraisal of 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 and 1QS 5:1–7, 25 at the levels of covenantal discourse and political dynamics, particularly with reference to exclusion and ethics. My contention has been that despite good reasons for comparing the two texts over the past sixty years, equally important results of such a comparative investigation are in fact the dissimilarities they exhibit. In concluding this study, therefore, it is necessary, having outlined the contours of each discourse, to highlight explicitly key similarities and differences. When we interpret this comparative data, the contrasts are conspicuous and warrant further reflection. 5.1. Similarities In the history of scholarship the focus has been overwhelmingly on comparison for the sake of similarity. Yet when examined closely the language, citation strategies, and rhetorical shape of our texts 108

Newsom, Self, 135.

296

KETER SHEM TOV

reveal only two types of limited similarity—one of sources, the other structural. Neither type, however, is ultimately very surprising nor necessarily the most significant aspect emerging from the comparison. The first may be largely explained in terms of the common sources available to Jewish authors of the Second Temple period. The second is, in most instances, possible to explain in view of the broadly Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman setting in which the communities connected to these texts were situated. A brief summary of each strand of similarity will draw together the evidence reviewed above and highlight the importance of categories for effective comparison and scholarly debate. First, the evidence of each text points to a similarity of sources, shared discursive resources from Jewish literature. The respective authors drew from a variety of overlapping scriptural discourses in constructing their texts. A significant degree of overlap in the cases of 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 and 1QS 5:1–7, 25 helps to explain why they have been so often compared. The covenantal complex of temple, purity, community, and exclusion found in source texts such as Deuteronomy and Ezra accounts for much of the apparent likeness between them. This is especially true of their ethical language and eschatological concerns. In the end, however, the shape and function of each text is far less similar than the resources they have in common. The careful listener discerns considerable difference in their accentuation and rhetorical effects. The second type of similarity is structural and finds its explanation in the broad cultural context of the Hellenistic world. Studies, like those of Weinfeld and Klinghardt, that have focused on organizational pattern and communal processes in terms of Graeco-Roman associations have brought many of these structural similarities to the surface. I have questioned the appropriateness of the category of ―sect‖ often applied to the group reflected in 1QS and proposed a political model of constituted (covenant) community instead. In his recent study, Gillihan appears to agree and accounts for this structural similarity of constituted communities not so much in terms of associational influence as in the broader political patterns of Hellenistic communities. Smaller groups formed along similar structural lines, but this organizational

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

297

resemblance ought not to veil the distinctiveness of each group‘s ―alternative civic ideology.‖109 Given the two types of similarity—sources and structures— evident to so many who have examined both 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 and 1QS 5:1–7, 25, certain disagreements among scholars are perhaps more intelligible. First of all, many scholars approach the study of these texts, either individually or in tandem, with only one of these types of similarity chiefly in mind. Those who focus on the covenantal resources apparent in each discourse often overplay that Jewish ―background‖ in their interpretations. Weinfeld levels this criticism at Schiffman with regard to 1QS, Schiffman admits that the organizational rules of the sect and especially the penal code and the rules of entry and expulsion have no basis in Jewish scripture but he nevertheless argues that these rules were intended to fulfill ideals inherent in the Bible. I, for one, cannot agree with this supposition. The evidence . . . shows that the organizational rules of the Qumran sect have nothing to do with specific Jewish ideals.110

From the outset of his study, however, Weinfeld acknowledges the different perspectives offered by sources and structure, asserting that his conclusions about the community‘s form were distinct from the questions of ―the nature and character of the sect as such.‖111 This is an important caution for those who approach a comparative study with structural similarities foremost in mind and

Gillihan, Civic Ideology, 505–6, speaks of ―a general proliferation of associations throughout poleis and territories under Hellenistic and Roman imperial rule‖ but argues that ―[m]ost ancient associations‘ organization and regulation was based on that of the local polis, and the empires of which they were part. Thus associations tended to have similar state-like features . . . Replication of state patterns helps to explain why groups separated by temporal, linguistic, geographical, and we may add, ideological, gulfs, resembled each other in quite striking ways.‖ 110 Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 71; cf. his criticism of Schiffman‘s treatment of the concepts ―judges‖ and ―reproof,‖ 73. 111 Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 7. 109

298

KETER SHEM TOV

sometimes downplay the influence of particularly Jewish texts and concepts in their interpretations. 112 The first lesson here is that, although similarities certainly exist between 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 and 1QS 5:1–7:25, not all similarities are themselves alike. Scholars would do well to reflect carefully on just what kind of comparison they wish to make in order to ensure they are engaged in the same conversation. A second lesson is that similarity should not be allowed to eclipse difference in the enterprise of comparison. In the case of this particular comparison it has tended to do so. That is why it is important to summarize the contrasts between these texts. 5.2. Contrasts Despite similar sources and structural patterns, both 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 and 1QS 5:1–7:25 reflect at least two important types of contrast. These contrasts relate to the rhetorical shape and rhetorical effects of each discourse in its final form. In some ways these contrasts mirror the two types of similarity discussed above. The first involves the precise way that similar covenantal language and resources are utilized and arranged in each text. The second pertains to the structure and processes each aims to constitute. A summary of each type of contrast on the basis of the evidence examined earlier emphasizes their importance.

5.2.1. Rhetorical Shape To begin with, there are three ways that our texts differ in their rhetorical shape. Each exhibits distinctiveness in its use of key terms, specific resources, and importantly, in its basic genre. Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern, 76, concludes, ―Schiffman‘s work is most important for understanding the sectarian laws and its minutiae; however, the body of sectarian rules of organizational procedure as a whole, and its particular provisions, cannot be understood unless we take in account the specific rules conditioned by the esoteric nature of the sect, and their parallels in ancient society.‖ Gillihan, in Civic Ideology, 506–10, perpetuates the sociological language of ―sect‖ but makes significant advances towards refining and re-politicizing the categories of inquiry to be brought to these texts. 112

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

299

5.2.2. Terminology Whereas Paul‘s language draws upon a household lexicon and exhibits flashes of emotion to emphasize the communal life of the Corinthians, the text of 1QS uses hierarchical terms to describe the yaḥad in a more detached mode. In 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 Paul repeatedly refers to members as brothers (5:11; 6:5, 6, 8). In 1QS 5:1–7:25, although brother is used twice (5:25; 6:10), overwhelmingly the members of the community are portrayed as a collective or in impersonal terms of rank. Paul portrays his community as together heirs to the kingdom of God (6:9–10). But in 1QS there is no mention of kingdom or inheritance. Instead one finds a repetition of phrases relating the community to the (Mosaic) covenant and characterizing it as true Israel. In terms of affect, it is only in the Corinthian text that one encounters raw emotional language (esp. 5:2) that opens a window on the relational bonds and life within the community.113 In 1QS there is a marked absence of terms granting access to emotional life within the yaḥad and among its members. By the use and avoidance of particular terms and phrases, the shape of each text displays a nuanced rhetoric of covenant community.

5.2.3. Scriptural Resources Both texts show signs of influence especially from Ezra, Nehemiah, and Deuteronomy (generally). But an exclusive focus on these significant similarities may conceal from us a fine-grained particularity in the way each marshals prophetic and purity texts for divergent rhetorical purposes. The explicit scriptural citations in 1QS (see Table 7 above) cluster tightly together (5:13–17) in a larger section (5:7b–20a) that draws out the implications of the covenant oath for the separation and new association of members. Although these citations are diverse in origin, they are employed to drive home a single, focused rhetorical point: covenant Cf. the treatment of Paul‘s ―therapy of the emotions‖ in relation to 2 Corinthians by Laurence L. Welborn, ―Paul and Pain: Paul‘s Emotional Therapy in 2 Cor 1:1–2:13; 7:5–16 in the Context of Ancient Psychagogic Literature,‖ NTS 57 (2011): 547–70. 113

300

KETER SHEM TOV

membership, sealed by binding entrance oath, entails specific and rigorously exclusive purity practices. In the Pauline discourse, however, the evocations of scripture are less concentrated (see Table 3 above), being dispersed among distinct rhetorical subsections in the service of an accumulating argument. The first purity text (Exod 12:14–20, in 5:6–8) lays the preparatory and motivating groundwork for the expulsion to follow. This expulsion, in the form of the wholesale adoption of the formula from Deut 17:7 (5:13), comes at the first rhetorical climax in this section. Subsequently, not at a climax but as an initial building block in the rhetoric of the next section dealing with inter-communal disputes, the eschatological force of the allusion to Dan 7:22 (6:2, 3) renders plausible a new conceptualization of communal jurisdiction. Consequently, we see that one level of similarity between 1 Cor and 1QS modulates into important difference. That is, quite specific (and different) scriptural resources related to broadly similar covenantal loci and concerns are deployed distinctively in the focused rhetorical shape of each text.

5.2.4. Genre These differences of terminology and rhetorical application of scripture are to some degree linked to the difference of genre between the two texts, but the nature of that link is complicated. Paul‘s text is clearly epistolary and occasional, consisting of authoritative instructions directed to a small community in an identifiable locale. 1QS, however, is a rule text, redacted and adapted over an extended period of time for a community (communities?) whose location is less easy to discern. Although these differences of genre and setting may explain certain features of variation between the respective texts (i.e., Paul‘s emotional appeal in 1 Cor 5), they do not appear to account for all of the differences of terminology or resources we have observed. One could, for instance, imagine Paul including in his letter to Corinth a more hierarchical list of process and penalties in the spirit and style of 1QS. Or conversely, we might picture the community of the Rule receiving a letter from an external authority that addressed a particular set of concerns by applying scriptural resources and enjoining commands. The point here is simply that differences of genre do not entirely mitigate or explain the other observable contrasts of terminology and uses of scriptural resources. Given

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

301

the report-response shape of Paul‘s epistolary text and the accretions of casuistic process and penalties in 1QS,114 genre certainly plays an important and complex role in tracing and evaluating the rhetorical shape of each text as well as the particularities of political structure and ethical life held out for the respective communities. This observation on genre and setting tempts us to hazard a leap from texts to world and leads us to a consideration of rhetorical effects.

5.2.5. Rhetorical Effects In their final shape, 1 Cor and 1QS each attempt to constitute a covenant community and to institute processes for evaluation and exclusion. But important contrasts of communal structure and dynamics of process emerge on the basis of the distinctive elements that shape each text.

5.2.6. Communal Structure Despite being similarly directed toward covenantal purity, the communities figured by the Pauline and the Qumran texts differ in their outward orientation and internal characteristics. Paul‘s occasional epistle is not a formally drafted charter; yet particularly in this section it presupposes and argues for, if only in outline, a certain constitutional structure for the community. 115 Paul names the community as an assembly, a kingdom even, and yet its boundaries are permeable. There is an assumption that the community, although gathering regularly, nevertheless participates in the life of the larger civic community. This is especially evident in the clarification regarding association and exclusion in 5:9–11 (cf. 6:1, 6). By contrast, the covenant community figured and

Newsom, Self, 143, 150. Gillihan, Civic Ideology, 507, emphasizes the point that Paul ―wrote no political tractate, let alone a politeia.‖ My conclusions here with regard to Paul‘s politics and ethics in 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 modify Gillihan‘s general summary, 509–10. 114 115

302

KETER SHEM TOV

scripted by 1QS differs markedly from that proposed by Paul.116 Locating the geographical and social setting of the yaḥad is difficult, especially given the redacted state of the text and the language of 6:1–8.117 As a result, the impression throughout is of a highly defined structure almost completely cut off from larger civic polities. Entrance into and maintenance in the community are highly regulated, resulting in rigid boundaries between insiders and outsiders. Furthermore, within the Pauline periodic assembly there is a marked status ambiguity. Paul certainly claims and asserts his apostolic authority in absentia. But the language of brothers works against rank or formal hierarchy. In fact, there is a status reversal in the rhetoric of competence surrounding the seating of communal judges (6:2–4). By contrast, in the Rule text, rank and hierarchy dominate the description of communal gatherings and disciplinary evaluations (6:8b–7:25). This section of 1QS functions as a ―rhetorical constitution‖ scripting appropriate speech and evaluation within a somewhat idealized but very hierarchical covenant community.118 In addition, as an assembly of the divine kingdom the community envisioned in Paul‘s text is not a voluntary association. Rather, members have been called into its polity (cf. 1:9), divinely constituted as rightful heirs of its privileges (6:11). The fact of exclusion does not necessarily belie the hopeful possibility of reinstatement (5:5).119 In 1QS, however, on the basis of examination and oath, joining the community is voluntary (5:20b– 6:1a), and expulsion from the yaḥad is final (7:22–25).120 These contrasting structural aspects rhetorically propose quite distinctive covenant communities.

For the notion of ―figured worlds‖ and ―remaking the language‖ of ―sectarians‖ in 1QS, see Newsom, Self, 91–101. 117 Metso, ―Sitz im Leben;‖ Newsom, Self, 143. 118 Newsom, Self, 149. 119 Thiselton, First Epistle, 392–400. 120 Cf. Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 167–69. 116

EXCLUSION AND ETHICS

303

5.2.7. Dynamics of Process Although both texts instruct their respective communities in processes of evaluation and exclusion, they do so in a widely differing manner. Paul‘s critical judgment regarding expulsion and covenant curse in the case of the evildoer is made from afar (5:3– 5). He calls for a simple quasi-judicial gathering and communal speech act in assembly in order to effect the exclusion. 121 The outcome is firmly expressed, but throughout, Paul‘s treatment of procedure is merely suggestive, not only for expulsion from the community, but also for evaluation and conciliation in cases of dispute. By contrast, 1QS prescribes communal life in explicit detail—from admission and probation to accusation, examination, and expulsion. Moreover, in the Pauline text, judging officials are not named, specific penalties are not dictated, and the emphasis is on the exercise of spiritual wisdom by all members of the community (6:4–5; cf. 2:14–16). The internal life and protocols of the Corinthian polity envisioned by Paul are only constituted in outline. But in 1QS there is a sense of evolving case law at work in the litany of offenses and penalties.122 Given its highly didactic and prescribed nature, there is less room in the community it constitutes for wisdom in cases of evaluation or dispute. The protocols of the yaḥad are rehearsed in detail, resulting rhetorically in a rigidly structured pattern of covenant community. Finally, in 1 Cor there is no detail concerning authoritative office bearers and a certain attempt to balance purity concerns with peace and conciliation. Conversely, in 1QS various authoritative officials are explicitly designated, members are ranked according to levels of seniority, and ritualized purity nearly eclipses the possibility of restoration and reconciliation (cf. 7:25). For full recent discussion of the interpretation of 1 Cor 5:5 see D. R. Smith, ―Hand This Man Over to Satan.‖ 122 One has the impression that cases were added in the course of successive redactions, possibly on the basis of communal records; cf. Metso, Textual Development, 116, who makes this suggestion but notes the ―haphazard‖ order of cases is matched by 4QSb,d. 121

304

KETER SHEM TOV

6. CONCLUSION In light of the preceding juxtaposition of 1 Cor 5:1–6:11 and 1QS 5:1–7:25 both aspects of the enterprise of comparison (similarity and difference) are seen to be relevant. Similarities of covenantal resources from the Hebrew Bible and Hellenistic and GraecoRoman structures account for the many comparisons attempted by scholars in the previous half century. Both texts exemplify Second Temple Jewish authors arguing for a particular political and ethical structure and life in covenant community. Both construct their respective communities in terms of temple space and purity that must be maintained through expulsion of transgressing members. But when each discourse is investigated more closely in terms of its language, scriptural resources, and rhetorical shape, contrasts and distinctive features begin to emerge from the shadow of similarities. Paul‘s text stands out because of its occasional nature, preserves an emotional appeal, contends for a community with certain kinds of permeable boundaries, and assumes members dependent upon spiritual wisdom for evaluation and expulsion. 1QS is distinctive as a rule text, delineating a community almost completely closed off from others, and providing protocols and language for an extensive list of officials and penalties. While it is easy to see what has motivated so many comparisons between these texts, a more promising method for future juxtapositions of this kind requires an accent on difference over similarity. The political and ethical distance that asserts itself in these textual remains from Qumran and Corinth requires us to attend to such contrasts.

ESCHATOLOGY AND SEXUALITY IN THE SO-CALLED SECTARIAN DOCUMENTS FROM QUMRAN1 William Loader Of all the explanations of where the sectarian movement which produced the community documents of Qumran belonged within Judaism of the time, the most convincing remains that they are somehow connected to the Essenes. 2 Strikingly Pliny reports a community on the Dead Sea which contains no women and who practice sexual abstinence and are called Essenes. The descriptions in Philo and Josephus of rules of the Essenes have much in common with what we find in the documents. Commonly, scholars pointed also to what they called Essene celibacy. Closer examination of both Philo and Josephus, on the one hand, and the Scrolls, on the other, has shown the need for closer differentiation. Even the term ―celibacy‖ can lead to For what follows see also the extended discussion of sexuality in the scrolls in William Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). 2 See the review in Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins, ―Introduction: Current Issues in Dead Sea Scrolls Research,‖ in The Oxford History of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 5–7 and in the same volume Joan E. Taylor, ―The Classical Sources on the Essenes and the Scrolls,‖ 173–99. 1

305

306

KETER SHEM TOV

misunderstanding, especially if filled with the meaning it has held for Catholic priestly celibacy: namely something that is lifelong. This can easily lead to overlooking different kinds of celibacy, including temporary celibacy determined by time or place,3 not to speak of how such abstinence should be understood. While the accounts in both Philo and Josephus reflect their espousal of control of the passions and limiting sexual intercourse to the purpose of procreation, the grounds to which they give most attention have little to do with sexuality or sexual behaviour at all, but at most reflect gender stereotypes. 4 As Philo explains, the problem with having women present in a commune, is that they are, he alleges, naturally quarrelsome and make community difficult to sustain (Hypoth. 11.3, 14). Their quarrelsomeness need not have anything to do with sexuality. In other words one of the major factors determining the admiration of the Essene rule of males living together without women has little or nothing to do with sex at all. The ideal of being a community without women was newsworthy and wonderful apparently for all three, Pliny, Philo, and Josephus. Only Josephus alerts us to the less newsworthy phenomenon of some Essenes who did marry (B.J. 2.160). Rather than see this as his own invention to justify his own marrying as thus not falling short of the Essene ideal which he rates so highly, as Mason suggests,5 Josephus is probably giving us reliable information. At Already Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumrân and Modern Biblical Studies (London: Duckworth, 1958), notes of the Qumran Essenes: ―They are priestly apocalyptists, not true ascetics‖ (56). See also his discussion of celibacy, where he proposes that it derived from holy war tradition as the Essenes saw themselves preparing for eschatological battle and an estate where procreation would be redundant (71–74). 4 See the discussion in William Loader, Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 108–109 (Philo), 334–39 (Josephus). 5 Steve Mason, ―What Josephus Says About the Essenes in his Judean War,‖ in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson (ed. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardins; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000), 449. See also Steve 3

ESCHATOLOGY AND SEXUALITY

307

least it is information that coheres with the evidence found in the supposedly Essene literature found at Qumran. There we have evidence of both. As the Damascus Document puts it: some live in camps, that is, scattered across Judea; others appear to be concentrated in a centre, very likely at the Qumran site, where the level of holiness demands sexual abstinence because of the impurity created by emission of semen, as in the temple complex, and, according to the Temple Scroll, the whole sacred city (11QTa 7:6–9a).6 In this sense Pliny or his sources give us information which matches up well (Nat. Hist. 5.17). None of the information we have in the surviving documents suggests that the abstinence and probable absence of women have anything to do with their quarrelsomeness nor with the distrust of the passions. Most recently Naomi Koltun-Fromm, in a wide ranging discussion which ranges from the sources of the Pentateuch to the fourth century C.E. Christian father, Aphrahat, and his rabbinic contemporaries, shows that celibacy can be espoused primarily on the basis of concern with holiness, and need not bear any relation to what preoccupied the West, namely the danger of the passions and preoccupation with procreation.7 The role of sacred place and time is well illustrated in what was apparently one of the most favoured texts among the Essenes, namely the book of Jubilees. There Adam and Eve engage in sexual intercourse before they enter the garden, not for procreation, and after they leave the garden, issuing in the birth of Abel and Cain, but abstain while in the garden, because it is a sanctum (Jub. 3:12; 4:26; 8:19).8 The issue is not anything immoral or indecent or unworthy about sexual union or sexual desire, but the matter of Mason, ―The Historical Problem of the Essenes,‖ in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Bak; SBLEJL 30; Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 245–46. 6 See the discussion in Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality, 128–35. 7 Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 8 William Loader, Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 277–79.

308

KETER SHEM TOV

place. Unlike later rabbinic traditions, it similarly deems sacred time, namely the sabbath, as a realm where sexual union is out of place (Jub. 50:8). At all other times it is affirmed. Such values, relating both to space and time, are reflected in the Damascus Document (CD 11:5; 4QDf/4Q271 5 i 1–2; CD 12:1–2),9 and they are also reflected in the insistence found in the Temple Scroll, that the temple‘s sacred space extends to include the holy city (11QTa 45:11–12).10 The issue is the ability to be in a state of purity in sacred space and time. The issue is not the worthiness or unworthiness, let alone the danger of sex and sexual desire. Much has been written about the extent to which the sectarians whose collection was found at Qumran were celibate, from the beginnings of Qumran scholarship when they were viewed through the lens of Philo, Josephus, and Pliny, through to the final publication of all of the scrolls, after which most agree that the people of these scrolls included normal family life.11 It is not my purpose in this paper to re-engage that discussion, on which I have written extensively,12 but to address one aspect has a significant bearing on the issue: namely, eschatology. In investigating attitudes towards sexuality, that is, sexual attitudes and behaviours in the broadest sense, in the Qumran literature, it is important to try to uncover how the writers might see sex in their image of the ideal world, in other words in their Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality, 164–67. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality, 16–25. 11 Maxine L. Grossmann, ―Women and Men in the Rule of the Congregation: A Feminist Critical Assessment,‖ in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. Maxine L. Grossmann; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 229–45, contrasts the conclusion of the earliest generation of scholars on celibacy, based on Philo, Pliny, and Josephus, with the present: ―The fact that scrolls scholars today might nuance or even flatly contradict many of these originating assumptions is the product of several distinct developments‖ (229), not least ―the publication of new texts (including the vast fragmentary array of material from Cave 4)‖ (229). 12 Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality, 363–83; Loader, Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments, 100–09, 334–39. 9

10

ESCHATOLOGY AND SEXUALITY

309

eschatology. If in one‘s ideal world all live in a constant state, time, and place of holiness, then one could imagine that acts which create emissions that render people impure, would have to cease to exist. If all are to join Moses at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:15), as it were, then clearly sexual relations, marrying or giving in marriage have no place. One tradition attributed to Jesus of Nazareth claims that in the age to come people neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mark 12:25), the issues not being relief from organising weddings, but, as the context suggests: sexual relations. They cease to be. All shall be like the holy angels. Luke‘s reworking of the tradition inserts another thought: if people are to be immortal like angels, then procreation, producing offspring is redundant, and so, sexual relations have no place—assuming, of course, a value system that sees the validity of sexual relations as grounded solely in the production of offspring (Luke 20:34–36). Enoch is told to scold the angels by making much the same point: they are immortal, so they do not need women (1 En. 15:5–7). Luke‘s emphasis likely also reflects the popular moral philosophy of his time which deprecated sexual passions with the same functional argument: sex is only for making babies, not for intimacy and oneness.13 Christian tradition which assumes a sexless utopia can either demand that some or all live in that state of holiness already now, probably the stance taken by some at Corinth, or simply demarcate two stages in history, as does Paul: God‘s good creation in this age which includes sex and marriage; and God‘s new creation in the next which does not.14 Each of these options leaves its mark in the New Testament collection. Most notably the Book of Revelation envisages a future without a temple because God‘s presence replaces it, making all space and time sacred and so having no place for sex, the rest of us joining the 144,000 who already have lived without defiling themselves with women, as it puts it (Rev 14:4).15

In an extreme form, Ocellus, Seneca, and Musonius Rufus. See William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 91–94. 14 Loader, New Testament on Sexuality, 459–67. 15 Ibid., 478–81. 13

310

KETER SHEM TOV

Where however the future is envisaged as including a temple and sacred space, but also space beyond it, thus for family, including abundance of offspring, then we can rightly assume that such values are already affirmed during this life. There are a number of texts pertaining to eschatology which indicate that this is the case in the so-called sectarian and related documents at Qumran. It is already presupposed in the expectation of an eschatological temple which in itself implies differentiation within space in relation to holiness and so requirements of purity and so sexual activity. Visions of the future are invariably larger than life or larger than this life‘s proportions and expectations. Where there seems to be embodiedness, it may be something more than physical, as Paul argues of the resurrected bodies of the righteous (1 Cor 15:35–49; 2 Cor 5:1–11), when in contrast to physical he describes them as spiritual or heavenly. Daniel‘s image of those who would shine like the stars (12:3) is the apparent inspiration behind many images of the time—from the scrolls to the gospels‘ portrait of the transfigured Jesus and the shining righteous of the end time (Mark 9:2–3; Matt 17:2; 13:43). Thus 4QWiles of the Wicked Woman 4Q184 speaks of ―those who shine brightly,‖ reflecting the astral imagery of Dan 12:3; similarly 1 En. 104:2–6. In many of the key eschatological texts we find the motifs of a transformed existence and of enhanced fertility and abundance. If we ask whether such transformed existence implies the presence or absence of normal human relations, including family and sexual relations, the answer appears to be that these will still have a place. This is often articulated or at least implied in the promises of abundance. Thus in the Treatise on the Two Spirits, the 1QS version of the Community Rule promises to those who walk in the spirit of light: ―healing and a spirit of peace in length of days and fruitful offspring (‫ )ץשות זשע‬with all everlasting blessings, eternal enjoyment with endless life, and a crown of glory with majestic raiment in eternal light (‫( ‖)עם מדת הדש באוש עולמים‬DSSSE) (1QS/1Q28 4:6b–8) (partly preserved in 4QSc/4Q257 5:4–5). On this Collins acknowledges, ―Some of the rewards of the righteous

ESCHATOLOGY AND SEXUALITY

311

would seem to require a corporeal state, but the body in question may be a spiritual rather than an earthly body.‖ 16 We need not confine this to a metaphor as in Wis 3:13, as Baumgarten suggests,17 let alone, with Steudel, deem it irrelevant to discussions of celibacy because it pertains to the future.18 My argument is exactly the opposite. For in this text we see both the motif of abundance and that of radiant embodiment, reflecting Dan 12:2–3, and thus the belief that in this glorious state of peace and longevity people will give birth to offspring, thus be married and have sexual relations, surely an affirmation of these things also in the present. While the Treatise appears to have been non-sectarian in origin, it ―exerted a significant influence on Essene thought.‖19 CD 2:11b–12a similarly speaks of a future for the remnant where God will fill the face of the world with their offspring (‫)למלא ץני תבל מזשעם‬. 4QInstrg/4Q423 3 1–5 / 1QInstr/1Q26 2 2–4 also assumes a future promising abundant offspring. John J. Collins, ―The Essenes and the Afterlife,‖ in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en homage à Émile Puech (ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar; STDJ 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 35–53, notes in relation to the Treatise on the Two Spirits: ―Some of the rewards of the righteous would seem to require a corporeal state, but the body in question may be a spiritual rather than an earthly body‖ (46). He suggests that the rule books assume that the righteous receive their reward immediately after death (47). 17 Joseph M. Baumgarten, ―The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage,‖ 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; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 17–18; Joseph M. Baumgarten, ―Celibacy,‖ in EDSS 1:123. 18 Annette Steudel, ―Ehelosigkeit bei den Essenern,‖ in Qumran Kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. Jörg Frey and Hartmut Stegemann with the collaboration of Michael Becker and Alexander Maurer; Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 123. 19 Armin Lange, ―Wisdom Literature and Thought in the Scrolls,‖ in The Oxford History of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 459, and see also pp. 471–72. 16

312

KETER SHEM TOV

Likewise the Pesher on Psalms (4QpPsa/4Q171) promises to those who return that they will live for a thousand generations and that the inheritance of Adam will be given to them and ―to their seed forever‖ )‫( (ולזשעם עד עולם‬1–10 iii.1–2a). The following context then speaks of their repossessing the holy mountain (1–10 iii.10– 11). This coheres with the expectation in the Temple Scroll of a future in which the people will return to the land, liberated, and then multiply and rejoice (59.12). 11QSefer ha-Milḥamah/11Q14 1 ii.11 // 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah/ 4Q285 8 8 takes up the promise of Exod 23:26, that there will be no miscarriage in the time of future blessing, clearly assuming that marriage, sexual relations, and procreation are a normal part of life in the future as in the present. Its rationale for guaranteeing such fruitfulness is notably, that God and the holy angels will be with them, a reason not for abstinence, but for fertility! (ii.14b // 8 10– 11). Multiplying assumes sexual relations in a community where people marry and bear children. It means that this would also have been seen as normative in the present. The promise of living for a thousand generations is also to be found in CD 7:6 / 19:1–2, for all who are faithful. It differentiates among members of the community, the men of perfect holiness, who are all to uphold the Law (6:14–7.4a). There are two kinds of such members: those who live in camps, marry and have children, on the one hand, and the rest, who evidently do none of these things (7:4b–9a / 19:1–5a).20 The claim that they shall live for a thousand generations applies, I have argued, to both, though its garbled echo in Pliny‘s account links it to celibacy and the survival of the community in the here and now without women. 21 The So also Baumgarten, ―Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage,‖ 18– 19; Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts (CQS 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 91; Sidnie White Crawford, ―Not According to Rule: Women, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran,‖ in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 132, 148; Maxine L. Grossman, ―Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document,‖ DSD 11 (2004): 235–37; Steudel, ―Ehelosigkeit,‖ 117–18. 21 See the discussion in Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality, 129–36. 20

ESCHATOLOGY AND SEXUALITY

313

allusion here and in the Psalms Pesher is to Deut 7:9 where the reference is to God‘s keeping covenant for a thousand generations, taken as implying that God therefore ensures life for a thousand generations. The expectation of abundant offspring appears to have been a standard hope, understandable in days of high infant mortality and the importance of offspring for the survival and sustenance of the household. Thus already in 1 En. 10:17 the author envisages the time of the earth‘s renewal by Michael as being one where ―all the righteous will escape and they will live until they beget thousands, and all the days of their youth and their old age will be completed in peace,‖ and this will be in a world in which ―every vine on its will yield a thousand jugs of wine, and of every seed that is sown on it, each measure will yield a thousand measures, and each measure of olives will yield ten baths of oil‖ (1 En. 10:19). Similarly, 1 En. 5:9 promises that ―the number of the days of their life they will complete.‖ The full and abundant life includes abundant offspring. Marriage and sexual union have their normal place. It later finds expression in 2 Baruch where the author combines the expectation that the righteous will be transformed to be like angels, indeed greater than them, and will not grow old (2 Bar. 51:9–12), with the assurance that women will no longer have pain when they bear (2 Bar. 73:7). It also envisages superabundance of produce and of wine (2 Bar. 29:5). Interestingly, even Philo envisages a future of abundance for his nation in their own land, ‚both of the necessaries, corn, wine and oil, the means of enjoyable life, that is the numberless kinds of tree fruits, and also by the fruitful multiplying of oxen and goats and other cattle‖ (Praem. 107), but more significantly: ―no man shall be childless and no woman barren‖ o ἄγ σ ῖ γ σ ι, also citing Exod 23:26 ( ἔσ ι ἄγ σ ῖ ῆ γῆ ―No one shall miscarry or be barren in your land‖); ―all the true servants of God will fulfil the law of nature for the procreation of children‖ (Praem. 108–109).22 The matter is further complicated where beside See Loader, Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments, 132–35. See also John J. Collins, ―Sectarian Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in The Oxford 22

314

KETER SHEM TOV

or beyond the time of earthly fulfilment, sometimes seen as a messianic reign, there follows a life in the heavenly realm, which, if seen as a sanctuary, would require celibacy. This may well be the case in both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch (4 Ezra 7:26-44; 2 Bar. 48:48– 52:7), as it is in Revelation. In the past there has been much discussion about whether statements in the Hodayot envisage resurrection or belief only in an immortal soul. The latter would have relevance for our theme, since it would leave no place for embodied human relations, including sexual ones, and would stand in tension with the passages we have considered thus far. When 1QHa 11:20 reads, ―You have raised me up to an everlasting height, so that I can walk about on a limitless plain,‖ raising up is a metaphor. The assumption, however, is that such elevation entails assurance of everlasting life. The passage goes on to speak of taking one‘s place with the angels as one‘s eternal destiny, understood as something which is both a present and a continuing reality. It then sets this in contrast to what appears to be a description of future judgement (1QHa 11:25–36), which the writer will now survive. Nothing is said about what that future state of being looks like, so that the natural assumption is that it continues to be in some embodied state as now. 23 Similarly in 1QHa 12:20–22 the theme of future judgement returns with the assurance that those in harmony with God will, as it puts it, ―stand before you forever and … be secure forever more.‖ Puech argued

History of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 157–58. 23 See also James H. Charlesworth, ―Prolegomenous Reflections Towards a Taxonomy of Resurrection Texts,‖ in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity: Presented to James H. Charlesworth on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. Ian H. Henderson and Gerbern S. Oegema with the assistance of Sara Parks Richter; SJSHZ 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 248–250. In 1QHa 19:11–12 we read similarly of a writer reporting his joining the sons of truth and the lot of the holy ones, but also of being raised from the dust as the worms of the dead to an everlasting community.

ESCHATOLOGY AND SEXUALITY

315

that these statements imply a future resurrection,24 but it is not explicit in the text. Embodiedness need not entail belief in resurrection of one‘s corpse without remainder, as Paul and the gospel writers assume; it could simply be presumed to be the case wherever post-existence is understood to involve more than a kind of resting survival. Jub. 23:31, for instance, depicts a form of existence in which those on high can look down on their former bodies. Forms of belief in the nature of future existence were diverse, and even among those espousing a resurrection of the body without remainder, the new embodiedness is far from a replication of flesh and blood, but can appear, disappear, shine, and be properly designated spiritual, as later Christian texts about the resurrection of Jesus and of believers illustrate (1 Cor 15:35–49; Luke 24:31). Puech, then, rightly points to some of the texts we considered above which envisage ―the arrival of a messianic kingdom at the end of the eschatological war at the finish of the final Jubilee, the Day of the Lord or the Last Judgement‖ which assured ―the resurrection of the just dead and the transformation of the living just into the glory of Adam upon an earth purified by fire and renewed, in the company of angels in the presence of God.‖25 Such resurrection was to be understood not as a return to former life, but as transformation, as in Dan 12:3 and may have included the notion of an intermediate state, already reflected in 1 En. 22.26 Émile Puech, La croyannce des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? (EB 21–22; Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 363–66. See also the discussion in George J. Brooke, ―The Structure of 1QHa XII 5 – XIII 4 and the Meaning of Resurrection,‖ in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en homage à Émile Puech (ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar; STDJ 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 15– 33, who argues that a belief in future resurrection has informed the author‘s depiction of his present relationship with God (26–33). 25 Puech, ―Resurrection,‖ 279. 26 Puech, ―Resurrection,‖ 270–71. He argues for the influence of Daniel 12 on 4QDibHama/4Q504, 4QMessianic Apocalypse/4Q521, the Community Rule, and the Thanksgiving Hymns, and suggests that its concepts also underlie 1/4QInstruction (where he finds both post mortem individual 24

316

KETER SHEM TOV

At one level the so-called sectarian and related documents at Qumran share, therefore, what was a fairly standard eschatology of a future of abundance, including of human offspring, and so affirmed family and sexual union. They had their particular notions of their key role in that future world, but basically it looked like the present one but with everything working as it should. Usually it is envisaged as a transformed existence, for which terms like resurrection are problematic as commonly understood, but at least an embodied existence and not one which was without human sexual relations in their proper place. Celibacy, whether permanent or temporary, was about abstinence in defined places and times. While in 1QM 7:4-6 it relates to the instance of holy war, its primary focus elsewhere is holy space and holy time generally, whether in war or not, in the present and in the age to come, especially in relation to the sanctuary and, for some, the sabbath. It is not about permanent celibacy, and certainly not about supposed dangers inherent in sexual passions. For some, avoiding semen impurity might morph into avoiding sexual relations permanently and from there into deeming the impurity as a sign of the unholy as of lesser value or even as immoral, but it is not evident that writers of these documents made such connections.

judgement and universal judgement), the War Scroll, D, and Pseudo-Ezekiel, where he sees it in the use of Ezek 37 (263–76).

PART 5. THE TEMPLE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

317

A TEMPLE BUILT OF WORDS: EXPLORING CONCEPTS OF THE DIVINE IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT Dionysia A. van Beek 1. INTRODUCTION For some time now, the Damascus Document has remained one of the most intriguing and provocative texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection. Scholarship has continuously been debating its origins, redaction, and the nature of the community it represented.1 In particular, CD has often been examined in connection with 1QS, as both share certain content. During the 1960s Jacob Licht identified CD and 1QS as representing two distinct groups due to their differing economic systems and social structures (J. Licht., The Rule Scroll: A Scroll From the Wilderness of Judaea, 1QS 1QSa 1QSb. Text, Introduction and Commentary [Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965], 14–17) The shared content between CD and 1QS, including similarities in law and theology, expression, terms and literary features, has been discussed in detail by Philip Davies, Sects and Scrolls: Essays on Qumran and Related Topics (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 134; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 139–50, and Charlotte Hempel, ‚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; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:77–92. Scholars like Geza Vermes and John Collins assert that the documents did not represent distinct 1

319

320

KETER SHEM TOV

In recent years, Maxine Grossman has offered an alternative historiography to the Damascus Document (from here referred to as CD), in which she explores the relationship between complex texts and reception theory, the way in which a text can have a different meaning for each reader depending on their personal context. 2 Grossman’s discussion includes a range of possible meanings and purposes of the ‚three admonitions‛ or exhortations in CD, by exploring their perception of time and history. 3 Although the exhortation section has indeed been discussed in great detail by Grossman among others, I have found earlier suggestions as to its purpose different from my own. Philip Davies’ outline of the structure of CD relies on a covenant-formulary model, resulting in the exhortation section being divided into four components: History, Laws, Warnings, and The New Covenant. 4 What is most interesting and relevant to this paper is Davies’ statement in explaining his formulary model that the reason the structure of CD has not been comprehensively understood by scholars is due to an inability to determine ‚the boundaries of source-material or redactional sub-divisions in the Admonition, or to explain how it grew into its present form.‛ 5 He then suggests that one may be guided through the text by the redactor’s train of thoughts. This paper will attempt to determine the mindset of the redactor. When examining any ancient text, we generally often unconsciously start with the assumption that the author thinks in our terms; that he understands reality and the physical world in communities, but rather a single movement that developed over a sustained period (John J. Collins, ‚The Yaḥad and ‘the Qumran Community,’‛ in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (JSJSup 111; ed. Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 81–95; Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 16. 2 Maxine L. Grossman, Reading for History in the Damascus Document: A Methodological Study (STDJ 45; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1–37. 3 Grossman, Reading for History, 88–124. 4 Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the ―Damascus Document‖ (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 51. 5 Ibid., 49.

A TEMPLE BUILT OF WORDS

321

much the same way the modern reader does. The worldview of the interpreter, their own social and historical context, can unconsciously influence and even limit the process of translation. Considering the modern reader is far removed both temporally and contextually from the ancient author, it is extremely difficult to determine exactly how similar our perception of the world is to an ancient author‘s. Nevertheless, this paper hopes to demonstrate that fragments of ancient perception can present themselves to the modern reader through texts, giving a glimpse into an ancient worldview. CD is one such text, the content of which is wholly and emphatically concerned with revealing what it considers to be reality: Israel, the Temple, and a desire to seek the ongoing revelation of God. In keeping with Grossman‘s emphasis on approaching texts from various perspectives, I wish to offer an alternative reading of CD. By setting aside some of the perceptions we assume to be common across human experience, we may allow ourselves to maneuver into a position from which CD is better understood. The literature I will discuss in relation to CD will be limited to works specifically referenced in the text. In addition to literary analysis, I will also consider extra-literary evidence—the architectural structure and ritual function of the Temple at Jerusalem. I believe that the ideology that dictates the organization and structure of the Jerusalem Temple is similar to that which guides the hand of the author and the structure of CD. What has the Jerusalem Temple to do with Qumran? The dwelling place of God, the Temple, is a crucial aspect of CD. The Temple cult is not merely a vague remembrance of Jewish practice in CD; although opposition existed between the authorities of the Temple and Qumran, much was shared. The Jerusalem Temple was fashioned according to the ideal of holiness manifested by boundaries and purification practices. The same ideal is also reflected in CD by its expressions and literary structure. The language, structure and expression of CD fundamentally manifest boundaries comparable to the physical structure of the Temple in Jerusalem.

322

KETER SHEM TOV

2. THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT Let us briefly review the Damascus Document.6 The document is concerned with the history and laws of Israel, and with the implications and requirements for daily living which result. While the text is usually divided by scholars into two parts, the first being an Exhortation and the second a list of Halakhot,7 I believe that it would be more appropriate to divide CD into three parts: 1) Exhortations, 2) Thematic Pesher, and 3) Halakhot. In any case, my current discussion focuses on the first section, the Exhortations. Fragments from CD were recovered from caves 4, 5 and 6 at Qumran. These corroborated the antiquity of the composition, which had previously been known from two medieval copies that had already been found in 1896 amongst discarded documents of the Genizah adjoining the Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo.8 While scholarship generally agrees that the text is not a single composition but a compilation of older core segments and later additions, there is good reason to assess the text in its final composition.9 In the words of Davies: It seems… perfectly legitimate to consider the possibility that our document can be approached as a whole; the fact that it may have existed in different recensions does not mean that there did not exist an original compilation whose structure and plot can be discerned. As to the Cairo manuscripts, the Qumran fragments in any case confirm… the essential reliability of the A text in particular.10

Citations of CD are taken throughout from Geza Vermes, CDSSE. Ibid., 128. 8 Solomon Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, Vol. I: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). The manuscripts are catalogued as T-S 10K6 and T-S 16.311. 9 CDSSE, 127. 10 Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 48–49. 6 7

A TEMPLE BUILT OF WORDS

323

This paper will draw on Manuscript A with a focus on the Exhortations.11 Of the medieval copies, referred to as Manuscript A and Manuscript B, Manuscript A substantially corresponds to cave 4 fragments from Qumran and as it is more complete, will be the most reliable base text for this study.

3. THE FUNCTION OF CD: A DESCRIPTION OF THE COVENANT PEOPLE 3.1. Three Shema’s There are three ―exhortations‖ within columns 2 and 3, and these will be my focus as they form the framework of the first section of text and set the tone for the rest of the document, revealing the author‘s structure and purpose. The exhortations are signaled by variations of the construction to ―hear‖ (‫ )שמע‬in the imperative, and are highly reminiscent of those found in Deut 6. Within the Torah, Deut 6 continues an outline of the commands, decrees and laws given to Moses and Israel following the Exodus. Essentially, it conveys the foundational precepts given to Israel to ensure their endurance as a distinct people under God‘s Law. These exhortations are introduced in Deut 6:1 as decrees given to Moses in order for him to instruct Israel. What is worth noting here is that God has appointed a teacher, Moses, to instruct his people, Israel, in how they ought to think and act as a people; this has obvious parallels to the Teacher of Righteousness and the emphasis on the behavior of the ‚Covenant People‛ in CD. In Deut 6, the construction ‫ ושמעת יששאל‬appears in verse 3, calling Israel to obey God with the promise that, should they do so, they will be blessed. The second exhortation appears in verse 4, and is perhaps one of the best known passages in Deuteronomy, ‚Hear Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one,‛ and takes the construction ‫שמע יששאל‬. Similar constructions appear in CD, although each begins with ‫( ועתה‬and now…), a common Hebrew The Hebrew text and English and German translations have been consulted in the following respectively: DSSSE, vol. 1; Eduard Lohse, Die Texte Aus Qumran: Hebräisch und Deutsch, (München: Kösel, 1971). 11

324

KETER SHEM TOV

device that signals a new subject. The cue indicates that each exhortation addresses a different yet connected theme within CD. Each construction takes a different subject (either ‚all who…‛ or ‚sons‛). Further, each is qualified in different ways, the first reading ‫― ועתה שמעו‬And now, hear,‖ the second ‫― ועתה שמעו אלי‬And now, listen to me,‖ and the third reads, ‫― ועתה בנים שמעו לי‬And now, sons, listen to me….‖ I would like to underline that the exhortations of CD and Deuteronomy 6 share a basic structure: A teacher believed to be appointed by God presents a distinct or ―chosen‖ people with decrees, commands and laws. Detailed laws or precepts are preceded by exhortations signaled by the verb ‫שמע‬ which convey the fundamental principles of the distinct people. If the fundamental principles and ideologies of the community behind CD are, like Deuteronomy, indeed indicated by the exhortations in the document, their analysis is crucial for understanding the general context of the entire document. It is necessary therefore to engage in an analysis of the three exhortations, examining their context and structure. 3.2. The Structure of CD-A Let us now consider the broader context of CD. The three exhortations found in CD form a process through which an individual is briefed on what it means to be part of the congregation. Initially, the document calls those who know righteousness and invites them to understand the community within the context of Israel, ―Listen now all you who know righteousness, and consider the works of God; for he has a dispute with all flesh….‖ Column 1 moves from a description of the covenant curses unleashed on Israel from the time of the exile (cf. Dan 9), to the specific history of the community, paying close attention to those who would oppose them (1:1–24). Its focus is on the preservation of a remnant who seek God with a ―whole heart,‖ despite being opposed by the Scoffer and his supporters—those who would transgress the Covenant. Once the initiate is given an overview of the community and its place in Israel‘s history, he is given a second exhortation (2:2: ―And now, listen to me, all who enter the Covenant, and I will uncover your ears to the paths of the wicked‖). The initiates are asked to consider the behavior of ―the wicked,‖ and to contrast that behavior with the nature of God. By

A TEMPLE BUILT OF WORDS

325

discussing wickedness in contrast to God‘s upright nature, the community immediately establishes a distinct boundary between what will be defined as good and evil. This column provides a ―moral radar‖ for initiates, and enforces the notion that one‘s goodness or wickedness is evident in their deeds just as God‘s supremely good nature is evident in his deeds. The third exhortation, (2:14: ―And now sons, listen to me and I shall uncover your eyes so that you can see and understand the deeds of God‖), discusses the deeds of God by recounting in detail the history of the forefathers—Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob‘s sons. It is through God‘s deeds, revealed in this history, that the audience is able to discern ―His ways,‖ and respond accordingly. The exhortations form a series of progressive steps taken by one entering into the community which allows them, i) a description of the community and its primary concerns (God, Israel, Sanctuary and Covenant); ii) a picture of the moral character of God according to the community; and iii) an understanding of the way in which God‘s character is manifested through his interaction (his ―deeds‖) with Israel. Each exhortation displays a growing claim to reveal aspects of the divine. This process seems a formative part of the community as a whole, as can be seen in the first column: ―…[God] hid his face from Israel and from his sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But when he remembered the covenant with the forefathers, he saved a remnant for Israel and did not deliver them up to destruction…And they realized their iniquity and knew that they were guilty {men}; but they were like blind persons and like those who grope for a path over 20 years. And God appraised their deeds, because they sought him with an undivided heart, and raised up for them a teacher of righteousness, in order to direct them in the path of 12 his heart‖ (CD-A 1:3–11).

The exhortations parallel the formation of the remnant, in their acknowledgment of iniquity, search for righteousness, and the

12

DSSSE, 551.

326

KETER SHEM TOV

unveiling of their eyes to the heart or character of God as seen through his deeds.

4. THE RECEPTION OF THE TEMPLE 4.1. Sacred Space and the Temple/Tabernacle The spatial language of the exhortations reveals insights into concepts of the sacred which I must discuss. George J. Brooke‘s discussion on spatial language in the Dead Sea Scrolls as viewed by a contemporary audience will serve us well here. I am arguing that an analogue exists between the physical design of the Temple at Jerusalem and the literary structure of CD due to the fact that both manifest similar concepts of sacred space as a result of shared concepts of the divine. Brooke seeks to determine where the Qumran pesharim were made and used by first exploring spatial concepts within the pesharim, by better understanding instances of ―obvious spatial language‖ within the texts. 13 He begins the process by recognizing that a different perception of space, amongst other things, exists within the scrolls than that of held by the modern reader. Space is not simply synonymous with place, but contains complex layers of meaning; he reasons that spatial language in the pesharim should be explored in order to ascertain how space is perceived and how it functions according to the sectarian. Exploring spatial language in the pesharim proves a challenge for Brooke, which he acknowledges is due to the ambiguous language of the text.14 CD also proves ambiguous in terms of its spatial language, although not to the extent of the pesharim. Brooke‘s methodology, determining how space is perceived by the community which stands behind a text, is something I would like to employ here. However, to this I would like to add another dimension: exploring the ancient perception of sacred space as manifested in temple structure. George J. Brooke, ‚Room for Interpretation: An Analysis Of Spatial Imagery In The Qumran Pesharim,‛ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (ed. Charlotte Hempel; STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 309–10. 14 Ibid., 313. 13

A TEMPLE BUILT OF WORDS

327

The way in which the Covenant and Temple are described leading up to col. 3 gives the modern reader an insight into the text‘s otherwise ambiguous language and expression. Col. 1 begins, ―and now, listen all those who know justice/righteousness, and understand the actions of God;‖ the passage then goes on to qualify the nature of God‘s actions. It states that God delivered Israel and the sanctuary to the sword, that he ―hid his face from Israel and from his sanctuary.‖ Here, the Hebrew used is miqdash (‫ )מרדש‬or ―holy place,‖ with the sense of being separated/set apart.15 Within the historical context of CD, the term designates the Temple as a cultic center of purity which has been separated from the profane; it denotes that which has been devoted to the ‚sphere of the sacred.‛16 More broadly, the term ‫ רדש‬or ―holy‖ is given an explicit meaning in Num 16:38 in the dedication of the censers of the Korahites to the Lord, specifically in their capacity to function in cultic ritual. The term continues to be used in reference to things and people subject to divine consecration. This is most evident in the term‘s predominant use in reference to the Levitical priesthood. This concept is manifested through the physical boundaries of the Temple.17 In CD, the beginning of col. 1 provides us with two basic insights into the author‘s understanding of the divine: Firstly he claims a ―holy dwelling place‖ or sanctuary associated with his people Israel, and secondly this sanctuary is defined by its distinctiveness from what is considered common, and is reliant on Israel‘s ability to maintain ―faithfulness.‖ See Thomas E. McComiskey, ―‫קדש‬,‖ in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2 vols.; ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke; Chicago: Moody, 1980), 2:786–89. 16 Ibid., 789. The term is the same found in Num 10:21, Ezek 44:8; 43:21 and Dan 11:31. 17 See, e.g., Exod 29:21, 37; 30:29; Lev 6:18, 27. People or objects can be designated as holy through cultic restriction, e.g., by abstinence, fasting etc. Holiness in this sense fundamentally requires the distinction between the realms of the sacred and profane, the holy and the common/ the many and progressively few. The Debir, or the ―The Holy of Holies,‖ is the dwelling place of the divine, and thus is the purest space. 15

328

KETER SHEM TOV

4.2. Cultic Function in CD and the Temple Returning to the exhortations as the framework of CD cols. 1–3, the second and third exhortations use the verb galah (‫)גלה‬, meaning ―to uncover‖ to describe the revelation of the ways of the wicked and God‘s deeds. While previous scholarship has already discussed the exhortations and their purpose of revelation, the discussion has been limited to the revelation of Israel‘s position in light of covenant language.18 Hebrew often uses the Qal stem of the verb ‫ גלה‬in conjunction with sensory organs, and its use here with ―the ears‖ is not unusual or specific to divine revelation.19 However, the verb is frequently used within the context of divine revelation in Hebrew.20 The point is not simply that the acts of God are being revealed, but that the instructor of this passage is claiming the ability to reveal them. This ‚instructor‛ is identified by Vermes as the ‚guardian‛ or Mebaqqer of the Community, whose ‚aim is to encourage his sectaries to remain faithful, and with this end in view he [the guardian] sets out to demonstrate from the history of Israel and the Community that fidelity is always rewarded and apostasy is always chastised.‛21 I would like to modify Vermes’s observation by suggesting that the instructor’s role does not merely consist of preaching. As previously discussed, the three exhortations which Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 53. Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 1:160–61. See Hans-Jürgen Zobel, ―‫גלה‬,‖ TDOT 2:476–78; Claus Westermann and Rainer Albertz, THAT 1:418–26. 20 See, inter alia, Amos 3:7; Num 24:4, 6; Gen 28; 35:7; 1 Sam 2:27; 3:7, 21; Isa 40:5; 53:1; 56:1. Although the second exhortation does use the Qal, ―I will uncover your ears…,‖ the third exhortation is unusual in that the Piel stem is used instead. This form always denotes the uncovering of something which is otherwise concealed; it denotes revelation. There are two primary uses of the Piel of ‫גלה‬. The first is divine revelation and the second is the designation of proscribed sexual activity (this mainly occurs in Leviticus and Deuteronomy). It is the context implicit in the third exhortation of the Damascus Document that allows one to identify divine revelation as the use of the Piel in this instance. 21 Vermes, CDSSE, 128. 18 19

A TEMPLE BUILT OF WORDS

329

form the framework of the first half of CD evolve with the development of their qualifications: ―Listen,‖ ―Listen to me,‖ ―Listen, sons, to me.‖ By the third and final exhortation the instructor identifies himself as the one who is able to give divine revelation, ―And now sons, listen to me and I shall uncover your eyes so that you can see and understand the deeds of God.‖ He is functioning as an intercessor between the sacred and the profane spaces—he is acting as a priest would. CD allows one to pass through progressive stages of revelation. The audience22 moves from the outside into the heart of the community, in much the same way as a person entering the Temple precinct at Jerusalem would move through progressive areas of sacred space. When approaching God, men would pass through these boundaries until they reached the Court of Israel, where they could see but not enter the inner sanctuary or tabernacle or have access to the Holy of Holies. Only the High Priest could enter into the presence of God, uncover and pass through the veil in the tabernacle into the Holy of Holies, and act as an intercessor between the divine and the profane. In the same way it is only the instructor of CD who claims that he can reveal God to the ―sons,‖ and uncover their eyes in order that they may see and understand His deeds. Further, it is possible that the gender boundaries seen in the Temple structure are reflected in CD. The instructor only directs his admonition specifically to ―sons‖ in the last exhortation. The previous two exhortations remain non-gender specific. If women were a part of this community (the halakhot forming the second half of CD suggest they are, as marriage is discussed), they may well have been subject to the first two exhortations but excluded from the third and most revelatory exhortation, paralleling the boundary that existed I use the word ―audience‖ because I believe the text was intended for an assembly to hear: i) it is designed to be read aloud, indicating that an audience is required; ii), the text‘s purpose is to initiate new members, which requires a community or group to enter into; iii) the rules of that community are included at the end. The rules are quite practical and outline everyday living, and as such only have relevance within an existing community. 22

330

KETER SHEM TOV

between the Court of Women and Court of Israel in the Temple. Ultimately, while the Damascus Document and the Temple at Jerusalem are formally very different entities—one a literary composition and the other an architectural object—they both manifest similar concepts of boundary in sacred space in their structure. See fig. 1. Fig. 1

In terms of sacred space, let us briefly consider the broader connection between the Dead Sea Scroll collection and the Temple. Although different entities, the Temple at Jerusalem and the Dead Sea Scrolls share concepts of sacred space. Both of the communities behind the Temple and the scrolls recognized the same treatment of sacred documents. Jodi Magness notes that the sectarians replicated the Temple practice by which sacred scrolls considered ‘clean’ or ‘pure’ were stored with food also considered

A TEMPLE BUILT OF WORDS

331

so.23 Shared concepts of the sacred are also evident through the discovery of linen scroll wrappers found at Qumran in Cave 1, which bore representations of the Temple layout consistent with that described in the Temple Scroll. This sectarian custom emulates that of the Temple Community, where hiding scrolls within the Temple was practiced.24 There seems a strong connection between the two communities in regard to the use of sacred space as evidenced by their practices of scroll handling.

5. WHAT TO MAKE OF THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TEMPLE AND CD Generally speaking, CD seems to be a reinvention of Israel‘s story: a simple case of reception history. It takes the general Jewish notion of a people distinct from the world, chosen by God to be his people in obedience to his precepts, and applies this notion in a very direct way and in new circumstances. Despite the geographical distance between Khirbet Qumran and the Temple, the concept of a divine sanctuary remains central to the community as a defining feature of Israel‘s history and the appointed place of ritual worship. This ideology is reflected in the structure of the exhortations, and the precepts which ensue. The exhortations form three stages, through which an individual would be progressively exposed to divine revelation by a Teacher of Righteousness-like figure, in much the same way as the High Priest of the Temple would. I am not trying to argue that an identical analogue of the Temple exists within CD but rather that CD manifests primary ideologies which emulate the Temple.

Jodi Magness, ―Scrolls and Hand Impurity,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (ed. Charlotte Hempel; STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 94. 24 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 1:198–200. 23

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Philip Church 1. INTRODUCTION When John Allegro published lines 10–13 of what he referred to as col. I of 4Q174 in 1956, he assigned the siglum 4QFlorilegium to the composition,1 a title that Fitzmyer considers to have been ―ineptly chosen.‖2 This title endured until 1994, when Annette Steudel argued that 4Q174 should be combined with 4QCatena A John M. Allegro, ―Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,‖ JBL 75 (1956): 332. In 1958 Allegro published the complete column plus a few lines from the following column (idem, ―Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrašîm,‖ JBL 77 (1958): 350–54, and was also responsible for the DJD edition in John M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4.1 (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 53–57. DJD 5 needs to be read in conjunction with John Strugnell, ―Notes en marge du Volume V des ‗Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan‘,‖ RevQ 7 (1969–71): 163–276. In what follows I use the column and line numbers assigned by Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (―Florilegium‖) und 4Q177 (―Catena A‖) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 23–29. Since Steudel‘s reconstruction what was formerly designated col. I is now designated col. III. 2 Joseph Fitzmyer, Essays on The Semitic Background of the New Testament (The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 82. 1

333

334

KETER SHEM TOV

(4Q177), and that these two scrolls were the remains of two copies of a longer document, which she designated 4QEschatological Midrasha,b.3 One common feature of both scrolls is the presence of the expression ―the last days‖ (‫)אחשית הימים‬, suggesting to Steudel that this was the theme of the combined document.4 Given the absence of any textual overlap and the differing orthographical features, her conclusions are not quite proven, but the importance of her work is generally accepted.5 As well as ―the last days,‖ the text refers to the ―Interpreter of the Law‖ (‫דושש התושה‬, 1 III 11), the ―sons of light‖ (‫בני אוש‬, 1 III 8–9) and the ―community‖ (‫היחד‬, 1 III 17). These features indicate that it is most likely a community composition. 6 The Herodian script is evidence of a date for this copy sometime in the second

Steudel, Midrasch, 1–2. Ibid., 161. ‫ אחשית הימים‬appears in 4Q174 1 III 2, 12, 15, 19; 13 + 14 v 3; 4Q177 11 + 10 + 26 + 9 +20 + 27 II 10; 2 + 24 + 14 + 3 + 4 + 1 + 31 III 2, 5, 7; 12 + 13I + 15 IV 7; 13II V 6. For the use of ‫ אחשית הימים‬at Qumran, see ibid., 161–63. 5 See the published reviews by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, VT 45 (1995): 429–30; George J. Brooke, JSJ 26 (1995): 381–83; John J. Collins, JBL 114 (1995): 315; Philip R. Davies, JTS 46 (1995): 238; James C. VanderKam, CBQ 57 (1995): 576–77; Timothy H. Lim, JNES 57 (1998): 71–72. See also Jonathan G. Campbell, The Exegetical Texts (CQS 4; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 53–54. Strugnell, ―Notes en marge,‖ 236–37, first proposed that these two scrolls may have been copies of a single document. 6 John J. Collins, ―Beyond the Qumran Community: Social Organization in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ DSD 16 (2009): 351–69, appeals for a stop to the practice of referring to the Qumran community ―despite the lure of convenience.‖ Notwithstanding this, I refer to the community reflected in the scrolls and who probably hid them in the caves around Qumran as the (Qumran) community. I recognize that this community was probably part of ―a religious association spread widely throughout the land‖ (Collins, ―Beyond the Qumran Community,‖ 369) and that different theologies are reflected the various documents. 3 4

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

335

half of the first century B.C.E. 7 About 26 fragments make up five or six columns. Most of column III has been reconstructed. Ever since 4Q174 was first published, scholars have noted connections with the Epistle to the Hebrews, usually related to the appearance of 2 Sam 7:14 (4Q174 1 III 11) and Ps 2 (4Q174 1 III 18). Hebrews 1:5 juxtaposes 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7, and Ps 2:7 also appears in Heb 5:5. As Brooke maintains, ―both authors were acquainted with a tradition whereby 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 belong together,‖8 although I would add that the authors do different things with these texts. But there is more than this to 4Q174 and Hebrews. In what follows I will discuss 4Q174 II 19 – 1 III 13 and will then turn my attention to Hebrews and draw out some

George J. Brooke, ―The Ten Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 426 traces the development of the community‘s self-understanding vis-à-vis the temple. He considers that the notion of the community as a temple was the last of three stages, also arguing from this that 4Q174 was probably composed late in the first century B.C.E. Campbell, Exegetical Texts, 35 suggests that it may have been composed earlier. 8 George J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament: Essays in Mutual Illumination (London: SPCK, 2005), 77. This connection was first noted by F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: Tyndale, 1959), 80 n.37; see also idem, ―‗To the Hebrews‘ or ‗To the Essenes‘,‖ NTS 9 (1963): 221 and idem, The Epistle to the Hebrews (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 55. See also George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 209–10; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1989), 53; David A. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‗to the Hebrews‘ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 96; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; NY: Doubleday, 2001), 192; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 75; Peter T. O‘Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 68. Allegro, ―Further Messianic References,‖ 177, refers to ―obvious NT parallels,‖ but makes no specific mention of Hebrews. 7

336

KETER SHEM TOV

similarities between the two texts. This essay is an exercise in the mutual illumination of these two texts. The text reads as follows:9 [... the house of Ju]dah, but the God of Is[ra]el sh[all] 19 [be with them, as He said though the prophet: ―And I will appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and] Col. 3 1 [no] enemy [shall overtake them ag]ain, [nor] evildoer [afflict] them any [mo]re, as formerly, from the time that 2 [I appointed judges] over My people Israel‖ (2 Sam 7:10–11a). This ―place‖ is the house that ... [shall be built for Him] in the Last Days, as it is written in the book of 3 [Moses: ―A temple of] the Lord ... [which His hands will establish]; the Lord will reign forever and ever‖ (Exod 15:17–18). This passage describes the house that no [man with a] permanent [fleshly defect] shall enter, 4 nor Ammonite, Moabite, bastard, foreigner or alien, forevermore. Surely His holiness 5 shall be rev[eal]ed there; eternal glory shall ever be apparent there. Strangers shall not again defile it, as they formerly defiled 6 the Temp[le of I]srael through their sins. To that end ... [He has said he would build for himself] a Temple of Adam (or Temple of humankind) and that in it they sacrifice to him 7 ... [works of thanksgiving]. And as for what He said to David, ―I [will give] you [rest] from all your enemies (2 Sam 7:11b), this passage means that He will give them rest from [al]l 8 the children of Belial, who cause them to stumble, seeking to destroy the[m by means of] 2.18

This translation is from Michael O. Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (rev. ed.; New York: HarperOne, 2005), 256–57, with some emendations. The italicized words in square brackets in III 2 replace ―[they shall build for Him];‖ the italicized words square brackets in III 3 replace ―are you to prepare with your hands‖ (see the discussion in footnote 15, below); the italicized words in square brackets in III 6 replace ―He has commanded that they build Him‖ (see the discussion in footnote 19, below); and the italicized words in square brackets in III 7 replace ―proper sacrifices‖ (see the discussion in footnote 28, below). 9

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

337

their [wickedness]. They became party to the plan of Belial in order to cause the S[ons] of 9 L[ight] to stumble. The plotted wicked schemes against them, [so that they might fall pr]ey to Belial through guilty error. 10 ‚Moreover the Lord dec[lares] to you that He will make you a house,‛ and that ‚I will raise up your offspring after you, and establish the throne of his kingdom 11 [fore]ver. I will be a father to him, and he will be My son‛ (2 Sam 7:11c, 12b, 13b– 14a). This passage refers to the Shoot of David, who is to arise with 12 the Interpreter of the Law, and who will [arise] in Zi[on in the La]st Days, as it is written, ‚And I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen‛ (Amos 9:11). This passage describes the fallen Branch of 13 David, [w]hom He shall raise up to deliver Israel.

2. THE THREE SANCTUARIES OF 4Q174 Line 19 of column II through line 13 of column III of 4Q174 quote and interpret 2 Sam 7:10–13. Line 19 of column II is lost, but Puech reconstructs the beginning of a quotation of 2 Sam 10–11a which ends in 1 III 2.10 The column interprets the Samuel text with reference to Exod 15:17–18 (line 3) and Deut 23:3 (line 4). Lines 7–9 read 2 Sam 7:11b to refer to the enemies of the community in the manner of a pesher, although without using the precise terminology. Lines 10–11 quote parts of 2 Sam 7:11c, 12b, 13b, 14a and explain this text with reference to the rebuilding of the fallen tent of David in Amos 9:11, and an allusion to the ―sprout‖ of David.11 The vacat in line 13 signals the start of a new section in line 14 dealing with Ps 1:1. Émile Puech, La croyance des Esseniens en la vie future: immortalite, resurrection, vie eternelle? Histoire d‘une croyance dans le Judaisme ancien (EB 21, 22; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1993), 574, 76. Only a few letters remain of line 18 at the bottom of fragment 4, and nothing remains of line 19. Steudel, Midrasch, 29–30, 41, adopts Puech‘s reconstruction. 11 The ―sprout‖ of David could be an allusion to Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12. As George J. Brooke, ―Miqdash Adam, Eden and the Qumran Community,‖ in Gemeinde ohne Temple/Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im 10

338

KETER SHEM TOV

The opening words of 2 Sam 7:10 refer to the ―place‖ (‫)מרום‬ that the Lord will establish for his people, and 1 III 1–13 is almost solely concerned with this place. It is the eschatological dwelling place of God of the last days of Exod 15:17, ―the sanctuary of the Lord which his hands will establish‖ (‫מרדש יהוה כוננו ידיכה‬, 1 III 3).12 The ―place‖ is also either or both of Israel‘s historical temples (‫מרדש יששאל‬, 1 III 6), now desolate,13 which will be replaced by the sanctuary of the Lord. Finally, the ―place‖ is an interim ―sanctuary of people‖ (‫מרדש אדם‬, 1 III 6), existing between the time of the desolation of the sanctuary of Israel and Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999), 286–87, points out, in this text the sprout of David does not build the temple as in Zech 6:12; rather, the Lord builds it in the last days. The NRSV (and many other English translations) translate the Hebrew word ‫ צמח‬with ―Branch.‖ For the translation ―sprout‖ see HALOT 1033–34, and Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 91–93. 12 Allegro (DJD 5:53) restores [‫ ]מרדש אדני‬at the start of line 3, following the MT of Exod 15:17, although BHS notes MS evidence for the reading ‫מרדש יהוה‬. Steudel, Midrasch, 42 inserts fragment 21 containing the single word ‫ יהוה‬into the lacuna at the start of the line. Strugnell, ―Notes en marge,‖ 225 and Puech, La croyance, 573–74, 577 also adopt this reading. 13 Devorah Dimant, ―4Q Florilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,‖ in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky (ed. André Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, and Jean Riaud; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 174–75. Earlier Dimant proposed that it was likely to be Solomon‘s temple, ―the only one desolated by foreigners at the author‘s time‖ (Devorah Dimant, ―Qumran Sectarian Literature,‖ in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT II 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984], 519). However, given the critique of the Second Temple reflected in some Qumran texts it could plausibly refer to that temple. For recent arguments against the view that the Qumran community had turned its back on the temple in Jerusalem see Martin Goodman, ―The Qumran Sectarians and the Temple in Jerusalem,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (ed. Charlotte Hempel; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 263–73.

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

339

the inauguration of the eschatological sanctuary. Thus, this place is the ―Jerusalem sanctuary‖ (‫)מרדש יששאל‬,14 the ―eschatological sanctuary‖ (‫ )מרדש יהוה‬and ―a sanctuary of people‖ (‫)מרדש אדם‬. That the ‫ מרדש יששאל‬refers to one of Israel‘s temples is clear from its description as having been defiled by aliens, and desolate (lines 5–6). It is also clear that the ‫ מרדש יהוה‬is the sanctuary to be established by the Lord ―at the end of days‖ (‫)באחשית הימים‬, in which he will reign forever and ever, as Exod 15:17–18 claims.15 Whether it is envisaged as heavenly or earthly is unclear in 4Q174;16 however, if Steudel is right, it is a rebuilt I interpret ―the temple of Israel‖ as the Jerusalem temple. Another possibility is the Samaritan temple at Gerizim, but it seems unlikely that the text is critiquing this temple, since the scrolls display no interest in it. 15 In the DJD edition Allegro makes no attempt to fill a lacuna in line 3 where the construction of the ‫( מרדש יהוה‬DJD 5:53) is described. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 99 restores ]‫―( [ יבנה] ל[וא‬he will build for himself‖). Dimant, ―4Q Florilegium,‖ 166, 68 and Steudel, Midrasch, 25, 42 restore [‫―( ]ל[וא] [ יכין‬he will establish for himself‖). Michael O. Wise, ―That Which Has Been is That Which Shall Be: 4QFlorilegium and the ‫מרדש אדם‬,‖ in Thunder in Gemini and Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine (ed. Michael O. Wise; JSPSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 154 ]‫―( [יכוננו] ל[וא‬they will establish for him‖), which Steudel, Midrasch, 42 considers to be too long for the lacuna. Examination of the images in Emanuel Tov and Stephen J. Pfann, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche (Leiden: Brill, 1993), fiche 74 confirms Steudel‘s judgment. Moreover, in Exod 15:17 it is clear that the Lord establishes this sanctuary, and no human. 16 David Flusser, ―Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam vii,‖ IEJ 9 (1959): 99–104; Dimant, ―4Q Florilegium,‖ 185–86; Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 207–08; Wise, ―That Which Has Been,‖ 166; Lawrence H. Schiffman, ―Community without Temple: The Qumran Community‘s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,‖ in Gemeinde ohne Temple/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), 280, envisage an earthly sanctuary. Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the 14

340

KETER SHEM TOV

temple in Jerusalem, since in 4Q177 IV 15, those who fear God will enter Zion and Jerusalem (in the last days). Certain classes of people including, but not limited to, those described in Deut 23:3 will be excluded since ―God‘s holy ones are there‖ (4Q174 1 III 4).17 New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 30–35 seems to envisage the eschatological sanctuary as the community itself. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 185, suggests that it is ―heaven on earth.‖ Puech, La croyance, 584, is unsure whether the future temple to be built by God is ―céleste, analogique et spirituel, ou concret et materiel.‖ 17 For this reading see Allegro, DJD 5:54; Joseph M. Baumgarten, ―The Exclusion of Netinim and Proselytes in 4QFlorilegium,‖ in Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 66; Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 92, 100–07; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, ―Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für das Verständnis des Galaterbriefs aud dem Münchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neuen Testament,‖ in 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; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 203. It involves reading ‫ רודשו‬as a plural noun with a singular suffix, written defectively, something that occurs from time to time at Qumran, see Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 59, and George J. Brooke, ―The Qumran Pesharim and the Text of Isaiah in the Cave 4 Manuscripts,‖ in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. Ada RapoportAlbert and Gillian Greenberg; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 309–10. Both Allegro (DJD 5:53) and Steudel, Midrasch, 25 restore ‫רדושי‬ (a construct plural or a first person singular pronominal suffix) rather than ‫רודשו‬. Since these words do not appear to be a quotation with God as the speaker it is difficult to understand how a first person suffix can be construed in a context where God is consistently referred to in the third person (see Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 105). Steudel, Midrasch, 31 reads a plural construct and renders the words ―sondern die Heiligen des Namens (?)‖ (reading ‫ שם‬as ―name‖ rather than ―there,‖ although as the question mark indicates she is unsure). Puech, La croyance, 577 similarly reads ―les saints de nom.‖ Wise, ―That Which Has Been,‖ 155 reads ‫ רדושו‬as a singular noun with a third person singular suffix, which he translates as

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

341

The identification of the sanctuary of people (‫ )מרדש אדם‬is debated. Since this expression is a construct chain, any reading such as ―a sanctuary amongst men‖ is excluded.18 However, the precise force of the genitive is difficult to determine. The sanctuary of Israel (‫ )מרדש יששאל‬could be described as a genitive of advantage, referring to the national shrine for Israel. The sanctuary of the Lord (‫ )מרדש יהוה‬is probably a subjective genitive, the sanctuary to be established by the Lord. For the sanctuary of Adam the first option (―a sanctuary for humanity‖) is possible, while the second (―a sanctuary built by a man/Adam‖) is unlikely since line 6 implies that the Lord will build it for himself (‫)לבנות לוא‬.19 It is ―his holiness‖ and construes the expression as part of a new sentence. God‘s holy ones could be the sanctified members of the community, angels or both. Allegro, ―Fragments,‖ 351; Yigael Yadin, ―A Midrash on 2 Sam vii and Ps i–ii (4QFlorilegium),‖ IEJ 9 (1959): 96; Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 181–83; Joseph M. Baumgarten, ―The Qumran Sabbath Shirot and Rabbinic Merkabah Traditions,‖ RevQ 13 (1988): 213 suggest that they are angels, referring to Deut 33:3. Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 281– 82 argues that they are members of the Qumran community, while Puech, La croyance, 583–84 argues from his understanding of 4Q511 35:1–8 that they are both angels and members of the community: ―[l]es élus, des purifiés et des saints, seront associés aux anges dans le culte du temple eschatologique que la communauté préfigure et prépare dès maintenant.‖ See the discussion in Anne Gardner, ―‗Holy Ones‘ and ‗(Holy) People‘ in Daniel and 1QM,‖ 151–83, in this volume. 18 This reading is adopted by Yadin, ―Midrash,‖ 96 and Flusser, ―Two Notes,‖ 102. 19 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977–1983), 1:185; Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 92; idem, ―Miqdash Adam,‖ 287. Steudel, Midrasch, 31 translates, ―[u]nd er sagte, daß man ihm ein Heiligtum von Menschen bauen solle,‖ and Wise, ―That Which Has Been,‖ 155, ―and he ordered that they build him a Temple of Adam.‖ This is possible, given that the infinitive construct ‫ בנות‬does not inflect for person, gender or number; however, as George J. Brooke, ―From ‗Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron‘ to ‗Sanctuary of Adam‘: The Laicization of Temple Ideology in the Qumran Scrolls and its Wider

342

KETER SHEM TOV

probably best, therefore, to read ‫ מרדש אדם‬along with most scholars as a sanctuary consisting of people.20 The ‫ מרדש יששאל‬is specifically said to have been defiled formerly (‫בשאישונה‬, 1 III 5), while the imperfect tenses of all the verbs relating to the sanctuary of the Lord indicate that it is still future.21 Infinitives and a participle describe the ‫מרדש אדם‬, indicating that this sanctuary, over against the former sanctuary of Israel and the future sanctuary of the Lord, exists in the present and is the community itself,22 an ―interim, temporary sanctuary

Implications,‖ JSem 8 (1996): 130–31 rightly points out, this sanctuary is also subsumed under the citation of Exod 15:17. An ideal sanctuary replacing the defiled ‫ מרדש יששאל‬is unlikely to be built by human hands. 20 Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 185; idem, ―Laicization,‖ 130–33; idem, ―Miqdash Adam,‖ 285–301; idem, ―Ten Temples,‖ 427; Dimant, ―4Q Florilegium,‖ 174–89; Schiffman, ―Community without Temple,‖ 279–80; Campbell, Exegetical Texts, 37–38. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ―The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,‖ NTS 7 (1961): 314 was the first to hint that this text may envisage the notion that the sanctuary consisted of the community, although he does not develop the suggestion. He comments that the scroll applies the sanctuary of the Lord referred to in Exod 15:17 ―to the Qumran community, which is the new Israel, the new ‗house‘ [of 2 Sam 7:13].‖ Gärtner, Temple and Community, 34–35 was the first to argue for this reading. Otto Betz, ―The Eschatological Interpretation of the Sinai Tradition in Qumran and in the New Testament,‖ RevQ 6 (1967): 101 identifies this temple as ―the living temple of the eschatological community.‖ Against this, see Allegro, ―Fragments,‖ 352; Yadin, ―Midrash,‖ 96; Flusser, ―Two Notes,‖ 101, 102; Daniel R. Schwartz, ―The Three Temples of 4 Q Florilegium.,‖ RevQ 10 (1979): 83–91; Wise, ―That Which Has Been,‖ 166, all of whom imply that both the ‫ מרדש יהוה‬and the ‫ מרדש אדם‬are physical structures. 21 Dimant, ―4Q Florilegium,‖ 177–78. Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 248 claims that ―passages that refer to the events of the last days generally use the imperfect tense.‖ 22 Dimant, ―4Q Florilegium,‖ 177–80, 188–89.

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

343

which will stand until the Lord constructs the eschatological sanctuary for himself.‖23 Significantly, the expression is ‫ מרדש אדם‬rather than ‫מרדש‬ ‫איש‬, a phenomenon Brooke connects with the idea of Eden as an archetypal sanctuary.24 Brooke argues that this is not just a ―human temple,‖ but ―a community summoned to live out Adam‘s cultic calling in the last days.‖25 He develops this idea in two separate essays,26 suggesting that the expression refers to a preliminary eschatological sanctuary in which ―[a]s with Adam in Eden … the priesthood … is that of humankind itself.‖27 In this sanctuary ―incense sacrifices‖ (‫ )מרטישים‬will be offered before God, that is ‫―( מעשי תודה‬deeds of thanksgiving,‖ 1 III 7).28 The language of Brooke, ―Miqdash Adam,‖ 287. Brooke, ―Ten Temples,‖ 427 (―the Edenic sanctuary where Adam worshipped‖). 25 Ibid. 26 Brooke, ―Laicization;‖ idem, ―Miqdash Adam,‖ 285–301. This had been suggested earlier by Baumgarten, ―Qumran Sabbath Shirot,‖ 212–13, and Michael O. Wise, ―4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam,‖ RevQ 15 (1991): 131, although Wise argued that the ‫ מרדש אדם‬and the ‫מרדש יהוה‬ of 4Q174 had the same referent, that is, ―the temple which Israel is to build for the first stage of the eschaton, the End of Days.‖ When this happened ―the land would regain its Edenic luxuriance, and they would offer to God, for the first time since the beginning, a proper worship‖ (p. 132). For more recent arguments along the same lines see Wise, ―That Which Has Been,‖ and Joseph M. Baumgarten, ―Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees,‖ 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), 8–10. 27 Brooke, ―Laicization,‖ 132. Brooke suggests that ‫מרדש אדם‬ conveys the double sense, both of the ―sanctuary of man/men‖ and ―sanctuary of Adam,‖ with the term expressing ―how both the proleptic last days community-sanctuary and the divinely constructed eschatological sanctuary would be places where the intention of God in creating Eden would be restored‖ (Brooke, ―Miqdash Adam,‖ 288–89). 28 It is debated whether this line reads ‫―( מעשי תודה‬deeds of thanksgiving‖) or ‫―( מעשי תושה‬deeds of Torah‖). For the former reading 23 24

344

KETER SHEM TOV

sacrifice is metaphorical; the sacrifices consist of thanksgiving.29 Thus the community envisaged itself as a ―holy house,‖ and their worship as sacral worship. Lines 7–9 interpret the words of 2 Sam 7:11 concerning rest from enemies as the end of Belial and his plans. Then after a vacat at the end of line 9, a new paragraph starts with the quotation of 2 Sam 7:11b–14, where the Lord promises to build a house for David, that is, the Davidic dynasty. Any indication that David‘s descendant (‫זשע‬, line 10) is Solomon is avoided, and the text is applied to the ―last days‖ (‫אחשית הימים‬, line 12). It refers to the ―sprout of David‖ (‫קמח דויד‬, line 11), a messianic figure who would stand with the Interpreter of the Law. Finally, this messianic figure is connected to the fallen ―booth‖ ( ‫ )סוכה‬of David, which according to Amos 9:11 would be rebuilt, that is the eschatological sanctuary.

see Strugnell, ―Notes en marge,‖ 221; Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 92; Puech, La croyance, 578; Steudel, Midrasch, 31, 44; Kuhn, ―Die Bedeutung,‖ 202–09; G. Wilhelm Nebe, ―4Q174, 1–2, I, 6f im Lichte von Sektenschrift und Jub 2,22,‖ RevQ 18 (1998): 583–88; Brooke, ―Ten Temples,‖ 427. For the latter see Allegro, ―Fragments,‖ 352; idem, DJD 5:53–54; Yadin, ―Midrash,‖ 96; William R. Lane, ―A New Commentary Structure in 4Q Florilegium,‖ JBL 78 (1959): 343; Dimant, ―4Q Florilegium,‖ 169; Baumgarten, ―Purification after Childbirth,‖ 8–10. The reading ‫מעשי תודה‬ is a subtle play on the words ‫מעשי תושה‬, in a similar vein to the expression ‫מרדש אדם‬. Brooke, ―Ten Temples,‖ 426–27 refers to the ―range of wordplays‖ in 4Q174: ―the ambiguity of the miqdaš ‘ādām is its reference both to the Edenic sanctuary of Adam and to the human sanctuary of the community, and the offering of deeds of thanksgiving allows for readers to see the requirement upon them of both right worship and right action (―deeds of the law‖). Earlier Brooke (―Miqdash Adam,‖ 288) suggests that ‫ מעשי תודה‬refers in the first instance to deeds of thanksgiving, but that the audience would recognize a pun on the more common expression ‫ מעשי תושה‬and realize that the deeds of thanksgiving also encompassed deeds of Torah. 29 For similar language see Ps 100:4; Heb 13:15–16; 1QS VIII 9–10; IX 4–5.

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

345

3. 4Q174 AND HEBREWS As noted above, numerous scholars have recognized connections between 4Q174 and Hebrews, particularly in the appearance of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2 in both texts. In the following discussion I demonstrate several other connections. 3.1. The Last Days Steudel claims that ―the last days,‖ the last period of history, immediately prior to the time of salvation, which has already begun,30 is the theme of 4Q Eschatological Midrash a and b.31 The same could be said of Hebrews. Hebrews 1:2 sets the eschatological tone of the book by noting that God‘s definitive speech to humanity in the Son who sat down at the right hand of God was uttered ―in these last days‖ ( ’ σ ύ ). The exaltation of the Son ―in these last days‖ is the perspective from which Hebrews is to be read. That the last days have already begun is even clearer in Hebrews with the addition of the demonstrative adjective ὗ .32 The exalted Son has sat down ―in these last days.‖

Steudel, Midrasch, 161–63. See footnote 4 (above). 32 The expression ’ σ , or similar, appears several times in the LXX and the NT, but only in Heb 1:2 does the demonstrative adjective ὗ appear. The words appear with the genitive singular of ἔσ in Num 24:14; Jer 23:20; 25:19 (MT 49:39); Dan 10:14, and with the genitive plural of ἔσ in Gen 49:1; Deut 8:16; Josh 24:27; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; Jer 37:24; Dan 2:28, 29; 2 Pet 3:3. Ἐ ’ σ ῳ appears in Deut 4:30, and ῖ σ ι ι in Isa 2:2; Dan 11:20; Acts 2:17 (replacing , ―after these things,‖ in Joel 2:28 LXX [MT: 3:1]). In the NT the last day (singular) is anticipated in John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48. The words σ ι ι (―in last days,‖ anarthrous) appears in 2 Tim 3:1 and combinations of ἔσ and appear in 1 Pet 1:20; Jude 18. 30 31

346

KETER SHEM TOV

3.2. A Sacrifice of Praise Secondly, Heb 13:15–16 encourages the readers to offer to God a sacrifice of praise ( σ ἰ σ ), to do good deeds and to share their possessions, actions described as sacrifices ( σ ι) that are pleasing to God. This language is similar to the ―works of thanksgiving‖ of 4Q174. The language of sacrifice in both texts involves the application of temple and cultic symbolism to the worship of the respective communities.33 3.3. The Eschatological Temple Thirdly, an important theme in Hebrews is the eschatological goal of the people of God. In what follows I make a cumulative case for understanding this eschatological goal as the ultimate dwelling place of God with his people that he was expected to prepare in the last days, equivalent the sanctuary of the Lord of 4Q174.

3.3.1. The World to Come – Heb 1:6 Hebrews 1:6 refers to the introduction of the firstborn into the world ( ἰ ), a text that has been read as referring either to the incarnation of the firstborn, his exaltation to the right hand of God, or the Parousia. Hebrews 1:5–6 contains three quotations from the LXX linked with the word ά ι (again). These are Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14, and Deut 32:43 where all God‘s angels are called

O‘Brien, Hebrews, 527 suggests that the genitive ἰ σ (―of praise‖) is epexegetical and that the expression means ―a sacrifice consisting of praise.‖ While this might be correct, it is the appositive that follows, ’ ἔσ ι ι ὁ γ ύ ῷ ὀ ι (―that is the fruit of lips that confess his name‖) that gives this sense. The original readers would have heard an echo of Lev 7:11–15 where this was a ritual prescribed by the Torah, see Carl Mosser, ―Rahab Outside the Camp,‖ in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 388–89, and footnotes 19–20. Cf. also Attridge, Hebrews, 401, ―[t]he new covenant community has a cult that is quite outside the realm of the cultic.‖ 33

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

347

upon to worship the firstborn.34 The word ά ι in v. 6 is sometimes read as an adverb modifying ἰσ γ to give the reading ―when he again brings the firstborn into the world.‖ This reading is adopted mainly, but not exclusively, by earlier readers of Hebrews,35 who usually refer to the Parousia. However, it is preferable to read the word in the same sense as in v. 5, as a syntactical marker introducing a third of the three quotations. This gives the reading, ―and again, when he brings the firstborn into the world.‖36 This precise source of the third quotation is complex, but has no impact on this essay. It can be traced back to Deut 32:43, however; the LXX of that verse reads σ σ σ ῷ ἱ (―and let all the sons of God worship him‖). Deut 32:43, as reflected in Ode 2:43, reads σ σ σ ῷ ἱ ἄγγ ι , which agrees with Heb 1:6b, apart from the addition of the definite article before ἄγγ ι. 4QDeutq 5 II 7 reads ‫―( והשתחוו לו כל אלהים‬and bow down to him all you gods‖), a line missing from the MT. 35 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), 1:66–67; Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1892; reprint, 1980), 22–24; Hans Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913), 15; Franz-Josef Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung: Zur theologischen Grundfrage des Hebraerbriefs (Munich: Zink, 1955), 94–95; Simon J. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: van Soest, 1961), 19; Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (12 Auflage; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 113; James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), 143; William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefs (WMANT 53; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 23– 24; DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 96–97. 36 I grant that it is most natural to read ὅ ὲ ι ἰσ γ γῃ as ―and when again he brings ...‖ However, a similar construction appears in Wis 14:1 where the ι is clearly a syntactical marker. Johannes P. Meier, ―Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5–14,‖ Bib 66 (1985): 509–10 explains why the particular word order in Heb 1:6 is necessary and why this word order does not require the adoption of the other reading. This reading is adopted by James A. 34

348

KETER SHEM TOV

The word ἰ normally refers to the inhabited world of humans, and if taken in this sense, it would refer to the birth of Jesus or the Parousia. However, when the text of Hebrews refers to the incarnation it uses the word όσ (10:5), and the Parousia is foreign to the context of Heb 1:5–6. If, as I have argued, the word ά ι is a syntactical marker, then since the other two quotations in the verse refer to the exaltation of the Son of God, the third should be taken in the same way. The ἰ is the realm to which the Son has been exalted.37 Οἰ also appears in Heb 2:5, in the expression ἰ έ έ σ , ἧ (the world to come to which we refer), referring back to Heb 1:6, and showing that his introduction to the heavenly world is his introduction to the world Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 10–11; Ceslas Spicq, L‘Épître aux Hébreux (3rd ed.; 2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1952), 2:17; Larry R. Helyer, ―The Prototokos Title in Hebrews,‖ SBTh 6 (1976): 7–8; Bruce, Hebrews, 56; William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 26; Craig R. Koester, ―The Epistle to the Hebrews in Recent Study,‖ CurBR 2 (1994): 192; Kenneth L. Schenck, ―A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,‖ JBL 120 (2001): 478–79; Ardel B. Caneday, ―The Eschatological World Already Subjected to the Son: The ἰ of Hebrews 1:6 and the Son‘s Enthronement,‖ in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts (ed. Richard Bauckham et al.; LNTS 387; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 32–33; O‘Brien, Hebrews, 68; Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 104. 37 Οἰ appears in Pss 93, 95–99 to refer to the eschatological world where the Lord is enthroned and this usage seems to be reflected here. See Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung, 96; George Johnston, ―Οἰ έ and όσ in the New Testament,‖ NTS 10 (1963): 353–54; Albert Vanhoye, ―L’ ἰ dans l‘épître aux Hébreux,‖ Bib 45 (1964): 253; Meier, ―Symmetry and Theology,‖ 507; Bruce, Hebrews, 58; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 27; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 117–18; DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 96–97; Schenck, ―Celebration,‖ 478–79; Koester, Hebrews, 193; Johnson, Hebrews, 69; Caneday, ―Eschatological World,‖ 28–39; O‘Brien, Hebrews, 69; Cockerill, Hebrews, 105.

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

349

to come where he is crowned with glory and honor. In Heb 2:5–10 his exaltation is as a pioneer ( γ ). God is through him leading many heirs to glory. The world to come where the Son is exalted is where God and his people will dwell together in the eschaton, when all things will be made subject to humanity in fulfillment of the creation mandate of Gen 1:26 that is celebrated in Ps 8 and quoted in Heb 2.

3.3.2. God’s Rest—Heb 3–4 Hebrews 3–4 describes the coming world as ―God‘s rest‖ with a midrashic treatment of Ps 95:7–11. And, while in Heb 3, the rest is the promised land that the wilderness generation was forbidden to enter,38 in Heb 4 it remains in the future. In Ps 95 both the Hebrew word translated rest (‫)מנוחה‬, and the Greek word in the LXX ( ά σι ) appearing in Heb 3–4 are qualified with first person pronouns referring to God. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible where a word for ―rest‖ is qualified in this way, the referent is God‘s rest in Solomon‘s temple (Ps 132:8, 14; Isa 66:1).39 Exodus and wilderness imagery implicit in Heb 1–2 becomes explicit in Heb 3 as the faithless and disobedient wilderness generation is held up as an example to avoid. For implicit Exodus and wilderness imagery see Heb 1:6a where God ―leads‖ ( ἰσ γ ) the firstborn into the coming world and 2:10 where God ―leads‖ (ἄγ ) many heirs to glory. In 2:15–16 Jesus becomes human to free the descendants of Abraham from ―slavery‖ ( , cf. Exod 6:2–6; 13:3, 14; 20:2; Lev 26:45 [LXX]; Deut 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6, 11; Judg 6:8; 1 Kgs 9:9 [LXX]; Jer 41:13; Mic 6:4). The reference to the faithfulness of Moses in 3:1–6 recalls the Exodus and wilderness wanderings. As Peter E. Enns, ―Creation and Recreation: Psalm 95 and its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,‖ WTJ 55 (1993): 272 shows, the wilderness generation and the recipients of Hebrews were in analogous situations, both travelling to a goal (Deut 12:9; Heb 2:10) and both with a tendency to rebel. 39 In 2 Chron 6:41 Solomon invites the Lord to go to ―your resting place‖ ( ά σι σ ) in the newly constructed temple. For the reference to the temple in Ps 132:8, 14, see Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitl. Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970), 37–38; Jon C. Laansma, ―I Will Give you Rest:‖ The Rest 38

350

KETER SHEM TOV

This suggestion is supported by the Sitz im Leben of the Psalm, where in the first part the worshippers call upon one another to approach God in the temple and in the second part they are challenged with a prophetic summons to listen to the voice of God, lest they be barred from entering God‘s rest (the temple) as were the wilderness generation.40 Thus while the primary referent of God‘s rest in Ps 95: 7b–11 is the promised land, the land itself does not exhaust the significance of the promise of rest. Rather, the land is to be recognized as a holy place, with increasing levels of holiness culminating in the temple.41 The temple is a microcosm of the universe; that is, the cosmic temple where God is said to have rested after the creation in Gen 2:2, a text quoted in Heb 4:4. God‘s rest for the wilderness generation was the promised land, with secondary temple connotations; God‘s rest for the readers of Hebrews is God‘s resting place in the temple/universe, the world to come of Heb 2:5, Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2, 98; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 39–40, 42. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, ―Psalm 95: Gattungsgeschichte, Kompositionskritische und bibletheologische Anfragen,‖ in Neue Wege der Psalmforschung (ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; Herders Biblische Studien 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 39 argues that the pronominal suffix in Ps 95 has the sense ―the resting place that the Lord would provide for Israel.‖ While this is possible in the context of the Psalm and its background in Deut 12:9 and 1 Kgs 8:56, since a genitive pronominal suffix attached to this noun elsewhere refers to the rest of the Lord himself it tends to suggest a subjective genitive (the Lord‘s resting place). On p. 461 Hossfeld also suggests that the Lord‘s rest has ―rich connotations ranging from the land as heritage, to the Temple, to peace with God.‖ 40 I am aware of the critical issues surrounding the two very different parts of the Psalm. Comparison with Pss 50 and 81 which have a similar structure indicates that it is not out of the question that Ps 95 is a unified composition, and of course, this is how the author of Hebrews would have read it. The Psalms Targum also supports this identification, reading ‫―( מנוחתי‬my rest‖) as ‫―( לנייח בית מרדשי‬the rest of my sanctuary‖). 41 W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1974), 94, 150–53.

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

351

which Jesus has already entered (1:3, 6). The idea of the promised land has faded from view, and the destination of the many heirs God is leading to glory (Heb 2:10) is explicated. This is where the dominion over the world to come is exercised (2:5), where God has rested since the creation, and where he will rest forever with his people. This is the eschatological temple that God was expected to prepare in the last days, expected in Hebrews as well as in 4Q174.

3.3.3. An Enthroned High Priest: Heb 8:1–2 The exaltation of the Son of God in Heb 1:1–3 is established from Ps 110:1, considered to have been spoken to the Son, who obeyed and sat down at the right hand of God. Psalm 110:1 also features in Heb 8:1, where the one who has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven is designated as a high priest. In the Bible an enthroned high priest only appears in Zech 6:13 (LXX) and in Heb 8:1.42 Zechariah 6:9–14 is an oracle commanding the prophet to make a golden crown and place it ―upon the head of Joshua the high priest‖ ( ὴ ὴ Ἰ σ … ἱ έ γά – 6:13). This symbolic action is then explained with reference to one called ―Sprout‖ who would sprout and build the house of the Lord, just as he is expected to do in 4Q174 III 10–13. Zechariah 6:13 [LXX], continues with reference to this ―Sprout‖ as follows: ό ... ά ξ ι ι

Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 205 and Koester, Hebrews, 375 refer to a ―secondary allusion‖ to Zech 6:13. Francis C. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures (London: SPCK, 1959), 25 attributes this allusion to Justin. See Justin Dialogue, 115: ὔ ὴ ι Ἰ σ ἱ έ 42

γ Υἱ

έ ή ξι ἴ Π

ῷ ι

ῷ ὑ ά ψι , ἔ ι ίξ ι ὑ έ ἱ έ , , Χ ισ ὅ (PG 6: 741–44, ―so I proceed now to show

that the revelation made among your people in Babylon in the days of Joshua the priest, was an announcement of the things to be accomplished by our Priest, who is God, and Christ the Son of God the Father of all,‖ trans. A. Cleveland Coxe, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Chronologically Arranged with Notes, Prefaces, and Elucidations (The AnteNicene Fathers, Volume 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 498–99.

352

KETER SHEM TOV

, ἔσ ι ὁ ἱ ύ ξι (―and he will sit on his throne, and will be a priest at his right hand‖). That this text is echoed in Heb 8 is seen in the context of temple building in Zech 6 and the true tent pitched by the Lord in Heb 8:2; the words ξι (as his right hand) in Zech 6:13 and Heb 8:1;43 the use of έγ as a qualifier for the ―high‖ priest in Zech 6:11 and in Heb 4:14; 10:21; and the mention of the throne in Zech 6:13 and Heb 8:1. Hebrews 8:1 combines Zech 6:13 with Ps 110:1, indicating that the eschatological temple anticipated in Zechariah is in the frame.44 Similar expectation also surfaces in 4Q174 where the one called ―Sprout‖ builds the eschatological temple.

The MT of Zech 6:13 reads ‫והיה כהן על כסאו‬. As Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: IVP, 1972), 136 notes, the MT has the high priest enthroned, a comment ―so unusual as to make the translator hesitate,‖ and substitute ―on his right hand‖ for ―on his throne.‖ 44 See ibid., 135–37; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 217–19; David L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1985), 275–78; Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok‘s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (OTM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 146–49. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 137–38 argues that the temple referred in Zechariah is the eschatological temple rather than the second temple. She continues, ―[l]ike many other prophetic passages ... [Zech 6] was concerned with the focal point of all history, the coming of the Davidic king, who would transform the concepts of Temple and leadership.‖ Smith, Micah-Malachi, 219 suggests that the reference to those who are ―afar off‖ building the temple of the Lord in Zech 6:15 is to another [eschatological] temple. Whether or not this suggestion is valid, the oracle here influences speculation about the temple, and has apparently had an influence on the text of Hebrews at this point. I discuss the implications of the allusion to Zech 6:13 in Philip A. F. Church, ―‗The True Tent which the Lord has Pitched:‘ Balaam‘s Oracles in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews,‖ in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts (ed. Richard Bauckham, et al.; LNTS 387; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 156–57. 43

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

353

3.3.4. The True Tent that the Lord has Pitched—Heb 8:2 In Heb 8:2 this enthroned high priest is described as a minister of the sanctuary, the true tent that the Lord has pitched and no human ( ἁγ ι γ ῆ σ ῆ ῆ ι ῆ , ἣ ἔ ξ ὁ ύ ι , ἄ ). While it is debated whether this text refers to two part heavenly sanctuary: a holy of holies ( ἅγι ) and an outer tent ( σ ὴ ι ή), the larger context of Hebrews suggests that the καί joining the two descriptions is ί explicative, and that the combined expression refers to the heavenly temple as a whole,45 described as ―the true tent that the Lord has pitched.‖ This is an allusion to Balaam‘s oracle in Num 24:6, the significance of which has escaped most readers of Hebrews.46 Elsewhere, I have argued that in the LXX (the source Cockerill, Hebrews, 354. See also Bruce, Hebrews, 180; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 200, 205; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 402; Koester, Hebrews, 374, 376; Robert P. Gordon, Hebrews (2nd ed.; Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2008), 109; O’Brien, Hebrews, 288. Those who read this text as a description of a two part sanctuary include Delitzsch, Hebrews, 2:18–19; Westcott, Hebrews, 211–14; Helmut Koester, ‚‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13:9–14,‛ HTR 55 (1962): 309; Otfried Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetische-religiongeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f und 10,19f (WUNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1972), 59; Mathias Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser (WUNT 41; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1987), 38; Attridge, Hebrews, 217; John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 155, 160–61; James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 173. Attridge, Hebrews, 218 notes that what the author intends by this distinction requires further clarification, and Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 210 comments, ‚There is ... no common agreement among these writers as to the theological significance of the distinction.‛ 46 Moffatt, Hebrews, 105 suggests a reminiscence of Num 24:6 and Exod 33:7. See also R. McL. Wilson, Hebrews (Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1987), 133 and Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 205 for passing references to Num 24:6. Gordon, Hebrews, 109 calls the allusion a ―purely 45

354

KETER SHEM TOV

of the allusion in Heb 8:2), Balaam saw the Lord and his people camping together in the wilderness, and with a mix of Eden imagery combining eschatology with protology, he anticipated the eschatological dwelling of God with his people.47 The encampment of Israel and the Lord was in the preliminary tent pitched by Moses in which God would dwell with his people (Exod 25:8); the true tent is the eschatological temple pitched by the Lord where God will ultimately dwell with his people.

3.3.5. A City Prepared by God—Heb 11:16 4Q174 invokes Exod 15:17 to describe the eschatological sanctuary where God will dwell with his people, a text to which there is no clear allusion in the NT.48 There may, however, be an intertextual echo in Heb 11:16.49 Exodus 15:17 (LXX) anticipates the sanctuary verbal parallel‖ and Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews (SP 13; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2007), 161 thinks the image from Num 24:6 is ―somewhat accidental.‖ Ellingworth, Hebrews, 402–03 notes Isa 42:15 (sic, Isa 42:5); Isa 40:22; Exod 33:7; 1 Chron 16:1 as other possible parallels. Of these Exod 33:7 is the most appropriate, with Heb 8:2 contrasting the action of Moses pitching the tent of meeting with the Lord pitching the ―true‖ tent. But as I have argued elsewhere (Church, ―True Tent,‖ 145– 57), there is a clear allusion to Balaam‘s oracle, and recognizing this allusion adds considerably to the understanding of this text. For this reading of Heb 8:2 see also G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church‘s Mission (NSTB 17; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2004), 294–99 and O‘Brien, Hebrews, 289. 47 Church, ―True Tent,‖ 147–57. 48 It does not appear in the list of citations and allusions in NA27, p. 775. For the use of this text elsewhere in middle Judaism see Dimant, ―Qumran Sectarian Literature,‖ 519; Anna Maria Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Propheten Legenden Vitae Prophetarum (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995), 1:289; Shani Tzoref, ―Qumran Pesharim and the Pentateuch: Explicit Citation, Overt Typologies, and Implicit Interpretive Traditions, ‖ DSD 16 (2009): 190–220 (203, n.30). 49 George Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetischreligionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT 2, 212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 469–70.

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

355

which the Lord‘s hands have prepared (ἑ ι ); in Heb 11:16 Abraham and the patriarchs live in tents in the land of promise, looking for a better, heavenly homeland, aware that God has prepared (ἑ ι ) a city for them. While the evidence for the echo is slim, this verb only appears a handful of times in the LXX with God as subject. Most of these texts refer to the creation of the world,50 but two significant texts, Exod 15:17, 23:20 refer to God bringing his people to the place that he has prepared for them, that is the ultimate goal of the Exodus. In Hebrews, as in Exod 15:17 the eschatological temple is not made with human hands (8:2; 9:11) with the implication (explicit in 8:2) that it was prepared by God.

3.3.6. Mount Zion, the Heavenly Jerusalem—Heb 12:18–24 Hebrews 12:18–24 is a finely balanced pericope that claims that the readers have come not to Sinai but to Zion. This ―grand finale‖ of Hebrews51 consists of two contrasting sentences, the first beginning with the expression ... σ ύ (―you have not come‖), and the second beginning with σ ύ (―but you have come‖). While no specific location is named as the Ps 23:2 (MT 24:2); 64:7 (MT 65:6); 102:19 (MT 103:19); Prov 3:19; 8:27. Ps 103:19 refers to the Lord‘s throne being established in heaven. This word appears several times in the NT to refer to the eschatological goal of the people of God, prepared by God for them (Matt 25:34; John 14:2; 1 Cor 2:9; Rev 21:22, with temple connotations in John 14:2; Rev 21:22). 51 Barnabas Lindars, ―The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,‖ NTS 35 (1989): 402. Lindars actually refers to 12:18–29 as the ―grand finale.‖ Others who assign climactic significance to 12:18–24 in the rhetorical structure of Hebrews include William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 448; Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 87; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 669; George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 143; Koester, Hebrews, 548; Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 78; Thompson, Hebrews, 266; O‘Brien, Hebrews, 477. 50

356

KETER SHEM TOV

place to which the readers have not come, 52 it is clear from the group of descriptors joined by the conjunction ί that Sinai is in view. The words describe ―the physical phenomena accompanying the giving of the law,‖53 followed by the reaction of the people who could not endure the order that no animal touch the mountain, and of Moses who trembled with fear. The overriding emotion that surfaces in this description is terror at the presence of God. The place to which the readers have come is Mount Zion, a destination that is qualified with several descriptors, only some of which are relevant to this essay.54 The first descriptor identifies Zion as the ―city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem‖ ( ι , Ἰ σ ὴ ῳ).55 Given that this is the The first sentence claims that the readers have not come to what can be touched using the present passive participle of ψ (―to touch, handle‖). Several witnesses to the text add ὄ ι–the dative singular of ὄ , ―to a mountain‖). This reading seems to be secondary, probably assimilated to v. 22 where ―Mount Zion‖ (Σι ὄ ) is the place to which they have come. See Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 441 n. x; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies‘ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition) (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 605. 53 Johnson, Hebrews, 326. See the discussion in Son, Zion Symbolism, 31–35. The marginal notes in NA27 identify allusions to Exod 19:16–19; 20:18; Deut 4:11–12; 5:22; and the words ἔ ἰ ι (―I am terrified,‖ 12:21) are from Deut 9:19 where Moses describes his terror at Sinai/ Horeb. 54 David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in ―The Epistle to the Hebrews‖ (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 160; J. M. Casey, ―Christian Assembly in Hebrews: A Fantasy Island,‖ TD 30 (1982): 332; Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 143; Attridge, Hebrews, 372; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 440–41 n. w. 55 All of these expressions are anarthrous in Greek. I have supplied a definite article in English where appropriate. Johnson, Hebrews, 327 translates ―a city of the living God, a heavenly Jerusalem,‖ as though there were more than one of each. He also translates the ί in the expression ι , Ἰ σ ὴ ῳ with ―and,‖ reading ―Mount Zion, and a city ...‖ But surely this ί is explicative, identifying 52

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

357

only reference to Zion in Hebrews, the readers may have inferred that the author was referring to the earthly Zion over against Sinai. However, the two descriptors clarify that the earthly Zion is not in view. The city recalls the city with foundations (11:10) that God had prepared for Abraham and the patriarchs (11:16),56 that is, the heavenly Jerusalem.57 Thus, the author has taken the well-known imagery of Zion/Jerusalem as the place of access to God and, by means of the adjective ―heavenly‖ ( ι ), applied it as a metaphor for access to God.58 The sense in which this city can be described as ―heavenly‖ is important. Since the readers have access to it, it is clearly not ―up in heaven.‖ Rather, as elsewhere in Hebrews, what is heavenly refers to what is to come, now come into the present. 59 This is the eschatological dwelling of God with his people.60 Just as God formerly dwelt with his people in the earthly Jerusalem/Zion, he now dwells with his people in the heavenly Jerusalem/Zion. 61 The Zion with the city and Jerusalem (Spicq, Hébreux, 2:405; Lane, Hebrews 9– 13, 441 n. gg; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 677; O‘Brien, Hebrews, 483). 56 Johnson, Hebrews, 331; Lois K. Fuller Dow, Images of Zion: Biblical Antecedents for the New Jerusalem (New Testament Monographs 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 173–74. For the significance of the ―city‖ in Hebrews see Peter. W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 214–21. 57 Attridge, Hebrews, 374. G. W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews (AB 36; NY: Doubleday, 1972), 222 thinks it is a reference to the restored earthly city of Jerusalem, called ―heavenly‖ because of its divine origin. He refers to Ezek 40–48; Zech 14:9–11. But this is to misread the eschatological outlook of Hebrews. See Gordon, Hebrews, 43–44. 58 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 466. 59 Heb 3:1; 6:4; 8:5; 9:23; 11:16. 60 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 465; Koester, Hebrews, 544; Son, Zion Symbolism, 91; O‘Brien, Hebrews, 483. 61 The notion of a (new) heavenly Jerusalem is absent from the Hebrew Bible, but appears in Rabbinic and apocalyptic literature as the eschatological dwelling place of God with his people. See T. Dan 5:12–13; 2 Bar. 4:2–7; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 10:27, 54; 13:36; 1 En. 90:26–39; 2 En. 55:2; Tob 13:10–16; Sib. Or. 3.787; 5. 250–51; Gal 4:26; Rev 3:12; 21:1–4;

358

KETER SHEM TOV

figurative language used elsewhere for this dwelling: ―the world to come‖ (2:5); ―God‘s rest‖ (4:1–11); ―the true tent‖ (8:2); ―the heavenly things‖ (8:5); ―the prepared city‖ (11:16) is now extended to include the heavenly Jerusalem. While in 4Q177 the people anticipate returning to the earthly Zion and Jerusalem with joy, in Hebrews Mount Zion is identified with the heavenly Jerusalem, and the people are there already. The next pair of descriptors refers to the inhabitants of the heavenly Jerusalem, the ―myriads of angels in a festal gathering‖ ( ι σι γγ γύ ι), and the ―assembly of the firstborn, inscribed in heaven‖ ( σᾳ γγ ῖ ). In 4Q174 certain classes of people were to be excluded from the ‫ מרדש יהוה‬because ―God‘s holy ones were there.‖ I noted above the questions surrounding the identification of these. In Hebrews it is explicit: angels are there. Some scholars also read the ―assembly of the firstborn inscribed in heaven‖ as a further reference to angels,62 but the notion of enrolment in heaven seems to indicate that humans are in view. They are the firstborn ones, who belong to the firstborn one, already in the world to come (1:6). This is the ―assembly‖ ( σ ) of Heb 2:12 that he came to sanctify, the siblings of b. Ḥag 12b; b. B. Bat. 75b. See C. K. Barrett, ―The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,‖ in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (ed. W. D. Davies and David Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 374–76. Philo (Somn. 2. 250) refers to Jerusalem not made of wood or stone, but found in a peaceful human soul. Thus, in Philo Jerusalem is allegorised as a ―vision of peace‖ (Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 144; Kåre Sigvald Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo and Qumran (NovTSup 119; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), 215). In Hebrews, there is no such allegory; rather the heavenly Jerusalem is a metaphor for the dwelling of God with his people. 62 Spicq, Hébreux, 2:407–08; Hugh A. Montefiore, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: A&C Black, 1964), 231; Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1984), 50.

4Q174 AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

359

Jesus, enrolled in heaven, now assembling in the heavenly temple,63 and participating in the ―Sabbath celebration‖ (σ ισ ) of Heb 4:9.64 While 4Q174 excludes defiled people because God‘s holy ones are present, Hebrews includes those who have been enrolled in heaven, who are now given unimpeded access to the presence of God in his eschatological temple. 3.4. Summary and Conclusions Taken together these texts make a strong, cumulative case for reading the heavenly temple in Hebrews as the eschatological dwelling of God with his people, the same reality as the ‫מרדש‬ ‫ יהוה‬anticipated in 4Q174. Both texts anticipate the time when God and his people will dwell together in the eschaton. While 4Q174 describes this reality as the ‫מרדש יהוה‬, Hebrews describes it with a number of metaphors. But what of the other two sanctuaries in 4Q174? The notion of a ‫מרדש אדם‬, an interim sanctuary made up of people in anticipation of the last days when God will build this eschatological temple is muted at best in Hebrews. 65 I noted above that the eschatological temple of the last days in 4Q174 is described with verbs in the imperfect tense. It is still anticipated. It is different in Hebrews. In Heb 1:1–3 the exalted Son has sat down ( ισ , aorist) ―in these last days.‖ The implication is that the last days have arrived and the eschatological temple is now in place. In Heb 8:2 the true tent has already been pitched (ἔ ξ , aorist) by the Lord. And in 12:22–24 God‘s people have already come ( σ ύ , perfect) to the heavenly Jerusalem. The eschatological Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 162; Bruce, Hebrews, 358; Attridge, Hebrews, 375; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 468–69; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 679; Johnson, Hebrews, 332. 64 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 467; Koester, Hebrews, 545. 65 Gärtner, Temple and Community, 88–99 detects the idea of the community as a temple in Heb 12:18–24. This is not quite correct. There, the community has proleptic access to the eschatological temple, but is not the temple itself. The idea may be lurking in the background of Heb 3:1–6 and in the cultic language of 13:15–16. It is of course present elsewhere in the NT. See 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16. 63

360

KETER SHEM TOV

dwelling of God with his people is now established with the exaltation of Jesus. There is no need for an interim sanctuary. 4Q174 looked back to the defiled temple of Israel and looked forward to the temple of the Lord still to be established, and described the community itself as an interim temple made up of people. In Hebrews the temple of Israel is marginalized, never getting a mention, although I would argue that it lurks beneath the surface in the call in 13:13 for the recipients to exit the camp and the claim of 13:14 that they have no continuing city.66 The interim ―community as a temple‖ is muted, if it is present at all, while the eschatological temple of the Lord is now established with the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God. This is the ultimate goal of the people of God. The presence of these ideas in both texts is evidence of a conversation about eschatological expectation in Second Temple Judaism, a conversation to which both the author of Hebrews and those who composed 4Q174 had a contribution to make.

The claim of Heb 8:13 that what is obsolete and growing old is about to be destroyed ( ισ ) may be a veiled reference to the destruction of the temple, see BDAG 155. The word is a hapax legomenon here in the NT, but appears over fifty times in the LXX with this sense, of which eighteen are in Jeremiah, at times referring to the destruction of Jerusalem preceding the exile. This is significant given that Heb 8:8–12 is a long quote from Jeremiah. See Jer 9:10; 10:22; 12:11; 18:16; 19:8; 25:9, 11, 12; 26:19; 27:3, 13, 23; 28:26, 9, 37, 41, 62. For the word‘s use elsewhere in the context of the destruction of a temple see Jdt 4:1. For the place of the temple in Hebrews see Peter W. L. Walker, ―Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:9–14 and the Dating of the Epistle,‖ TynBul 45 (1994): 39–71, and Steve Motyer, ―The Temple in Hebrews: Is it There?‖ in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology (ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 177–89. 66

THE TEMPLE SCROLL: ―THE DAY OF BLESSING‖ OR ―THE DAY OF CREATION‖? INSIGHTS ON SHEKINAH AND SABBATH Antoinette Collins 1. INTRODUCTION ―The day of blessing‖ or ―the day of creation‖ is an enigmatic and damaged phrase1 in the Temple Scroll that has caused much scholarly discussion and even dissension. This paper aims to explore in some detail the Temple Scroll text of column 29:7–10 from which our opening words were quoted. To aid this exploration, a brief description of the Temple Scroll and its date will provide a Sitz im Leben and historical context. Building on this background the question of image—is it an earthly, heavenly, or eschatological temple?—leads us to the focus text of this discussion: …they shall be (?) my people and I will be theirs forever. [And] I will dwell with them forever and ever. And I will consecrate my [T]emple with my glory, (the Temple) on which I will settle my glory, until the day of blessing, {or the day of creation –this parenthesis addition is mine} on which I will create my temple and establish it for myself for all times (lit. days), according to The scroll is damaged at this point which renders the reading of the two Hebrew words ambivalent and open to speculation. 1

361

362

KETER SHEM TOV the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel.2 (11QTa 29:7–10)

Further questions arise. How can the Temple to be created by God as stated above be a fulfilment of the Bethel covenant with Jacob in Genesis 28? To attempt to answer this question a link between ―the day of blessing / the day of creation,‖ creation itself and the Sabbath will be considered. The answer will be further examined through the concept of divine indwelling prominent in both the Temple Scroll in particular and the Dead Sea Scrolls in general.

2. WHAT IS THE TEMPLE SCROLL? The Temple Scroll, or as Milgrom in 1978 described it ‚the long awaited Temple scroll,‛3 is one of the later discovered of the Dead Sea Scrolls and has made significant contributions to an increasing understanding of the Scrolls themselves as well as the nature of Jewish religious thought at the time of composition. The Temple Scroll is the longest of all the Dead Sea Scrolls.4 It is 8.75 metres or 28.5 feet and ‚consists of nineteen sheets, mostly of three or four columns each.‛5 Yigael Yadin regards the scroll as canonical scripture of the Jewish sect who wrote it. He states, ‚I believe it [the Temple Scroll] was held to be holy scripture by the sectarians—there can be no doubt that its members treated it as a document of major importance.‛6 Milgrom similarly states: ‚the Dead Sea Sectarians regarded the Temple Scroll as quintessential

The translation is from Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), vol. 2, Text and Commentary, 128–29. I will use this translation unless otherwise stated. 3 Jacob Milgrom, ―The Temple Scroll,‖ BA 41 (1978): 105–20 (105). 4 Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985), 57. See also Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: Brill, 1996), xliv. 5 Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll (STDJ 75; Leiden: Brill, 2008), xvii. 6 Yadin, (1985) The Temple Scroll, 224. 2

THE TEMPLE SCROLL

363

Torah, the true word of God.‛7 Yadin also argues that the scroll could perhaps be the hitherto unidentified Book of Hagu,8 which is referred to in the Damascus Document and the Messianic Rule, or as ‚the Second Torah, a Book of the Second Law which has been revealed only to the sect, and which was considered by them accordingly as ‘canonical’.‛9 Yadin also suggests that ‚it (therefore) seems to me possible, perhaps even probable, that our Temple Scroll was composed by none other than the founder of the sect, whose name was Zadok.‛10 However Schiffman more recently and less certainly argues that despite the volume of research already undertaken on the Temple Scroll ‚its place in the sectarian corpus still remains somewhat enigmatic.‛11 He thus suggests that the Temple Scroll may not be related to the sectarian documents found in the same area. Indeed Schiffman more specifically argues: that the Temple Scroll may have emerged from a related group either contemporary with or earlier than the Qumran sect. Other scholars have sought to place it much earlier, which in my view confuses elements of the source material with the completed scroll. And so the enigma remains. (…) we still do

Milgrom, ―The Temple Scroll,‖ 119. Such a comment by Milgrom indicates the fluidity of the Torah and indeed canonical scripture at the time of writing, editing, and utilisation of the Temple Scroll. 8 Yadin, (1985) The Temple Scroll, 225. 9 Yadin, (1985) The Temple Scroll, 229. Furthermore Vermes also argues ―The aim of the redactor [of the Temple Scroll] is to present the message of the scroll not as an interpretation of the Bible, but as an immediate divine revelation,‖ CDSSE, 191. The description ―second Law‖ echoes the Greek name given to the Book of Deuteronomy. 10 Yadin, (1985) The Temple Scroll, 228. Other recent commentators are more cautious and refer to the writers / redactors of the texts as the ―sons of Zadok‖ without elaborating on the name of the founder. See García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, lii. 11 Schiffman, Courtyards, xvii. 7

364

KETER SHEM TOV not know who wrote the scroll or why. Neither do we know how it has made its way to the Qumran caves.12

3. DATE OF THE TEMPLE SCROLL Yadin dates the original composition of the scroll (though not the current manuscript) as ‚not later than the third quarter of the second century BCE, namely, the first years of the reign of John Hyrcanus or slightly earlier.‛13 Schiffman concurs with this date also.14

4. THE TEMPLE OF THE TEMPLE SCROLL The Temple Scroll, as its name suggests, is preoccupied with the design and construction of the Temple, as well as Temple rituals and procedures, all of which fill up almost half the document. 15 The Temple Scroll itself has distinctive literary characteristics, the most obvious, even after only a superficial reading, is the change of scriptural references and allusions to the first person, so that the scroll reads in part as if coming directly from God. A work of such length and status, having the Temple as its major topic, should give some further understanding of the writer’s concept of the Temple. But as Yadin questions: What kind of temple was he [the writer] talking about, prescribing such elaborately detailed ordinances? And on what biblical sources did he draw, sources that could justify his putting into the mouth of God, speaking in the first person

Schiffman, Courtyards, xx. Schiffman provides an extensive footnote (6) here with further references to the scholarly discussion of the provenance of the Temple Scroll. 13 Yadin, (1985) The Temple Scroll, 222. 14 Schiffman, Courtyards, xvii. Vermes elaborates ―the latter (Temple Scroll) may be safely dated to the second century BCE. But it may also have an antecedent history reaching back to the pre-Qumran age‖ (Vermes, CDSSE, 191). 15 Yadin (1985), The Temple Scroll, 112. 12

THE TEMPLE SCROLL

365

singular both as master-architect and law-giver, a revolutionary ‗Torah‘ on the Temple?16

James C. VanderKam argues that the temple of the Temple Scroll is not the Solomonic sanctuary or its successor.17 He quotes Schiffman Our author did not intend simply to tie his temple to that of Solomon. Solomon‘s temple was not regarded by him as correctly designed, whereas he saw his temple as the fulfilment of that which God had commanded in Deuteronomy. The scroll‘s temple was the one that should have been built then. It is this temple that is appropriate for the indwelling of God‘s presence.18

The plurality of differing scholarly arguments about the identification of the Temple of the Temple Scroll is obvious and will continue no doubt not only in this paper but for generations to come as the following discussion will corroborate.

5. AN EARTHLY, HEAVENLY OR ESCHATOLOGICAL TEMPLE? R. J. McKelvey, writing some time prior to Yadin’s thorough and authoritative publication of the Temple Scroll, suggested that because the idea of heavenly worship is present in the Dead Sea literature, it follows, that the notion of a heavenly temple is existent in the Temple Scroll too.19 McKelvey continues ‚The presence of the heavenly temple and worship in the Qumran writings reflects the widespread interest of Jews in the subject.‛20 He also states: ‚How Yadin (1985), The Temple Scroll, 112. James C. VanderKam, ―The Theology of the Temple Scroll: A Response to Lawrence H. Schiffman,‖ JQR 85 (1994): 129–35 (132). 18 Ibid., 132. 19 R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple, The Church in the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), 37. 20 McKelvey, The New Temple, 37. The Book of Revelation in the Christian Scriptures also expresses similar interests. See Revelation chapters 11 and 21. 16 17

366

KETER SHEM TOV

much the sectarians were interested in the heavenly temple and cult per se may become clearer with the publication of new material.‛21 Much ‚new material‛ has by now been published and as Yadin suggests22 the answer is in the text itself: And I will consecrate my [T]emple with my glory, (the Temple) on which I will settle my glory, until the day of blessing, {or the day of creation – this parenthesis addition is mine} on which I will create my temple and establish it for myself for all times (lit. days), according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel (11QTa 29: 8–10)

These intriguing and even unexpected words (in style and theme) occur in the scroll at the end of the statutes on the festivals and just prior to the columns detailing the Temple plan. Thus they appear to be used as a transitional, bridging sentence with all the importance of a connecting, explanatory statement. Yadin has this to say: Here then is the answer. The author was definitely writing about the earthly man-made Temple that God commanded the Israelites to construct in the Promised Land. It was on this structure that God would settle his glory until the day of the new creation when God himself would ―create my temple ... for all times‛ in accordance with his covenant ‚with Jacob at Bethel.‛23

According to Yadin the author accepted and believed in an earthly temple ―on which I will settle my glory‖ (11QTa 29:8) together with a possible future, heavenly temple that God would finally build on ―the day of blessing / day of creation.‖24 The whole scroll, however, it seems, is generally concerned with the earthly Temple of the present and God‘s law in that Temple. But to return to the focus text itself ―And I will consecrate (‫ )רדש‬my Temple with my glory, (the Temple) on which I will settle my glory, until the day of McKelvey, The New Temple, 37. Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 1:113. 23 Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 1:113. 24 Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 1:114. 21 22

THE TEMPLE SCROLL

367

blessing, (or, the day of creation) on which I will create my temple and establish it for myself for all times‖ (11QTa 29: 8–10); this text has intrigued and baffled scholars up to recent times. The term ‫יום‬ ‫― הבשכה‬the day of blessing‖ according to Yadin signified the end of days.25 This section of the text, Yadin claims, is crucial for understanding the nature of the Temple as conceived by the author.26 The actual text here is damaged so it is difficult to decipher the Hebrew as well as the intention of the author/editor and so the question must be asked—is the Hebrew ‫—יום הבשכה‬ ―the day of blessing‖ or ‫― יום הבשיה‬the day of creation‖? Yadin comments suggesting that ‫ יום הבשכה‬indicates the end of days so is eschatological in meaning while ‫ יום הבשיה‬specifies the ―day of new creation.‖ So Yadin provides us with a double interpretation: The scroll stresses that all the sacrifices discussed are to be offered in the Temple built by the Children of Israel, whereon the Lord will cause his name to dwell. That Temple will stand until the ―Day of Blessing‖ (‫ יום הבשכה‬i.e., the End of Days)—or the ―Day of the (New) Creation‖ (‫ )יום הבשיה‬and the Lord himself will on that day build the Temple in fulfilment with the covenant that he made with Jacob at BethEl.27

Such thinking will be further developed in the following discussion.

6. SHEKINAH AND SABBATH But can Yadin‘s translation and interpretation be extended? To do so let us focus more closely on this enigmatic text that has puzzled many scholars and in particular consider the themes of God‘s presence and/or God‘s indwelling, as well as blessing, creation and Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 1:183. Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 2:125. 27 Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 2:125. Yadin also notes in his comments on the text (p.129, n.10) that: ―the covenant with Jacob at Beth-El ... takes up much of the Book of Jubilees.‖ See also Yadin, (1983) Temple Scroll, 1:183. ―Covenant‖ and ―Jacob at Bethel‖ seems thus to be a pre-occupation in the religious thinking of some Jewish groups at the time of composition and editing of the Temple Scroll. 25 26

368

KETER SHEM TOV

Sabbath with special reference to those almost unfathomable words ―day of blessing‖ / ―day of creation.‖ Here again is the text in full: …they will be my people and I will be theirs forever. [And] I will dwell (‫ )שכן‬with them forever and ever. And I will make holy (‫ )רדש‬my Temple with my glory, (the Temple) on which I will settle (‫ )שכן‬my glory, until the day of blessing, (or, the day of creation) on which I will create my temple and establish it for myself for all times (lit. days), according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel (11QTa 29:8–10)

6.1. Covenant at Bethel Let us consider the last part first—the covenant at Bethel with Jacob. How does this link into a sectarian text about the Temple in the second century BCE? What has this to do with eschatology? J. M. Baumgarten rightly notes that the Temple Scroll ―adds a new element‖ that the Temple is a ―fulfilment of the covenant made with Jacob at Beth El.‖28 But how is the Temple to be created on ―the day of blessing / day of creation‖ by God as stated here in the Temple Scroll a fulfilment of the Bethel covenant with Jacob in Gen 28? Jacob builds an altar at Bethel in Gen 35 when he returns there. God‘s part in the covenant involves Jacob‘s return to and inheritance of the land. But neither Jacob nor God actually built a Temple at Bethel even though Bethel literally means ―the house of God.‖ Is the name ―house of God‖ an allusion to the Temple? It is certainly used to describe the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore is there an association with the land promised to Jacob and divine presence in that land? ―‗The land is mine‘ says the Lord.‖ Undoubtedly the thinking of the time of the Temple Scroll as expressed in other Dead Sea texts and Apocrypha suggests that the concept of divine indwelling in the community who wrote the Dead Sea texts was quantitatively and securely established in the mindset of the authors of these texts. Two examples to illustrate

Joseph M. Baumgarten, review of Yigael Yadin, Megillat ha-Miqdaŝ, The Temple Scroll (Hebrew), JBL 97 (1978): 584–89 (589). 28

THE TEMPLE SCROLL

369

such thinking would be Jub 1:17 and 4QFlor 1–2,29 where ―the house of the last days‖ is interrelated to ―my people Israel.‖ Here we have eschatology, the house of God ―of the last days‖ and the people linked in what would seem to be a covenant relationship. George Brooke proposes ―that the community‖ is ―a temporary replacement for a future, eschatological Temple.‖30 Furthermore J. M. Baumgarten suggests that the covenant at Bethel alludes to the promise of people-hood. ―A nation and a company of nations shall come from you‖ (Gen 35:11).31 ―This nation would in the latter days become the true embodiment of God‘s sanctuary.‖32 It would seem that the divine presence or divine indwelling is in the people, the land and in the Temple perhaps as a consequence or characteristic of the ―day of blessing‖ / ―day of creation.‖ Either phrase could accommodate such an interpretation. 6.2. Shekinah The scroll itself emphasises that what endows the Temple with holiness is the indwelling of God—the Shekinah of later rabbinical discernment. Furthermore Schiffman supports such thinking ―The text (of the Temple Scroll)33 clearly takes as synonymous the presence of God‘s name and his own dwelling in the Temple. The name of God appears here almost as a hypostatization, like the Shekinah, the divine presence, as understood by the rabbis.‛34 The people and ‚[T]his collection of texts assembled from 2 Samuel and the Psalter, and combined with other scriptural passages, serves to present the sectarian doctrine identifying the Community with the Temple…‛ Vermes, CDSSE, 493. 30 George Brooke referred to by Hanne von Weissenberg, ‚The Centrality of the Temple in 4QMMT,‛ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (ed. Charlotte Hempel; STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 293–305 (295). 31 NRSV. 32 Baumgarten, Review of Megillat ha-Miqdaŝ, The Temple Scroll, 589. 33 Parenthesis is mine. 34 Lawrence H. Schiffman ―The Theology of the Temple Scroll,‖ JQR 85 (1994): 109–123 (116). See also Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 2:127– 128. 29

370

KETER SHEM TOV

the Temple too are the embodiment of the Shekinah on the day of blessing / creation. I will dwell (‫ )שכן‬with them forever and ever. And I will make holy (‫ )רדש‬my Temple with my glory, (the Temple) on which I will settle (‫ )שכן‬my glory, until the day of blessing (or, the day of creation) (11QTa 29:8–9)

To further explore the contribution of Shekinah theology and thinking to our discussion a word analysis is pertinent here. The root ‫‚ שכן‬to dwell‛ can be found approximately 20 times throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls collection35 and strikingly 15 times36 in the Temple Scroll alone which in itself is significant for the underscoring of the latent presence of shekinah theology in the Temple Scroll per se, while in the current focus text (29:7–10) it occurs twice with a total of three times in chapter 29. To further analyse the use of ‫ שכן‬a simple table may prove thought-provoking: MEANING

NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES IN TEMPLE SCROLL

Dwelling of the name of God

Seven times

Dwelling with the people— Five times usually forever. Dwelling of God

Twice

Dwelling of glory of God

Once

Görg notes that in Ezek 43:7, 9 God, who ‚will reside among the people of Israel‛ consents to an ‚unconditional divine presence‛ that at the same time symbolizes God’s ‚self-binding to Israel‛ and the foundation for the ‚Shekinah theology.‛37 Thus there is a

Manfred Görg, ―‫שכן‬,‖ TDOT 14:691–702 (702). This number is my calculation. Görg finds 14 occurrences of ‫שכן‬, see Görg, ―‫שכן‬,‖ 14:702. 37 See Görg, ―‫שכן‬,‖ 14:701. 35 36

THE TEMPLE SCROLL

371

strong precedent that has established itself for previous, present and future Shekinah theology.38 Shekinah theology can be linked with covenant theology as divine indwelling strongly supports a covenant relationship. The prominence of the covenant is clearly apparent in col. 29. ―There the festival section of the document concludes with the traditional covenantal formula that God will be theirs eternally, will be with them, and will dwell among them.‛39 6.3. The Day of Blessing / Creation: Sabbath The ―day of blessing‖ ‫ יום הבשכה‬could also be identified with the only day recorded that God has blessed—that is, the Sabbath: ―God blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy, because on that day he rested after all his work of creating‖ (Gen 2:3). The Sabbath is the one and only day blessed by God and sanctified in the whole creation process. The other days of creation are not ―blessed and made holy.‖ The Sabbath is the last entity to be created in Gen 1. It forms the end of a time sequence. So the Sabbath is truly a ―day of blessing.‖ Poignantly in its place at the very epitome of Creation is, unpredictably, this final day of Creation—day seven, the ―day of blessing.‖ Has the author of the Temple Scroll deliberately linked his thinking and message into the Sabbath and why would he bother to do this? The text we are discussing contains several thematic ideas— blessing, creation, covenant and God‘s glory all of which it must be remembered are Sabbath themes. A further question comes to mind; is the author of the Temple Scroll using this text to associate the Temple with the Sabbath?—which in itself is a ―day of blessing,‖ a day of holiness and of course the final ―day of creation.‖ The Sabbath is a day of recreation or more pertinently recreation—and thus can be the ongoing renewal of creation. The strong bond between Sabbath and all creation leads us to recreation or new creation. It is also a day of the consciousness of 38 39

For further biblical references see Görg, ―‫שכן‬,‖ 14:701. VanderKam, ―The Theology of the Temple Scroll,‖ 132.

372

KETER SHEM TOV

God‘s indwelling—shekinah—that we mentioned above in relation to the Temple Scroll and the indwelling of God in and with the people. Furthermore Schiffman notes that part of the polemic of the author of the Temple Scroll was concerned with the holiness or blessedness of the whole land as sacred space.40 His plan envisioned concentric spheres of holiness, beginning with the Temple complex at the centre and extending outward to the tribal allotments, to the cities of Israel, and into the houses where the people dwelled. He was also concerned with the sanctity of the entire land as sacred space.41

The Sabbath is the only day blessed and made holy—it is a day of sacred time and sacred space. The allusions to Sabbath and the indwelling of God in the people and the entire land conform to the characteristics of the covenant with Jacob. This seems to be a text of particular holiness—a mini ‚holiness code‛ as in the Book of Leviticus and the holiness of the whole land as in Deuteronomy. The Temple Scroll is often compared to the latter book and considered close in content and style. Just as Deuteronomy is regarded (as its Graecized name suggests) for example as ‚a second law‛ so too the Temple Scroll is considered to be ‚a rewritten Torah.‛42 In the Temple Scroll the author/editor endeavors to present a Torah particularising on ‚the sanctity of the Temple, the land and the Jewish people.‛43 The text explicitly defines this sanctity as being in awe of the sanctuary because of the indwelling of God‘s presence. Once again the key to sanctity here is the divine presence. This presence and the attendant sanctity it engenders are understood to radiate from the temple to the rest of the land,

Schiffman, Courtyards, xxviii. Ibid., xxviii. 42 Ibid., xx. 43 Ibid., xx. 40

41

THE TEMPLE SCROLL

373

thus endowing it and the people who dwell on it with holiness and sanctity.44

That this text occurs in the scroll as a transitional or bridging text between the end of the statutes on the festivals (the section just preceding our text coincidently mentions Sabbath-linked sacrifices) and the columns detailing the Temple plan defines it as a connecting, explanatory statement. It is a teaching in itself that sets the tone for the following Temple plan. It seems more than coincidental. It would appear that the Sabbath festival and divine indwelling in the people and the land form a Temple covenant assertion. Sabbath observance is a strong and active component of covenant commitment. As stated above the divine indwelling resides in the land and the people as a covenant bond with God. The linking of ‚the day of blessing / day of creation‛ with the Sabbath holiness of divine presence, as a blessed day at the pinnacle of the Gen 1 creation account, establishes the setting for the Temple plan to follow. Embedded in this short text from the Temple Scroll is a covenant teaching that leads into the following detailed Temple description and prescriptions as part of a covenant proclamation. Covenant is an underlying theme throughout the Temple Scroll; indeed it begins with a covenant note by following Exod 34:10–16 which is ‚the renewal of the covenant with Israel.‛45 VanderKam suggests that ‚it may be that the purpose was to codify in a more complete way what were the implications of the second covenant made in Exodus.‛46

7. SUMMARY Divine indwelling in the people is seen to be intimately correlated through God‘s covenant with Jacob at Bethel. Covenant and God‘s Schiffman ‚The Theology of the Temple Scroll,‛ 120. Yadin, (1983) The Temple Scroll, 2:1. See also von Weissenberg, ‚The Centrality of the Temple in 4QMMT,‛ 301: ‚the epilogue of 4QMMT‛ reveals ‚a concern also for covenant faithfulness, related to the Temple and its cult … even though the term covenant is nowhere explicitly mentioned,‛ unlike the Temple Scroll, as is evident in our text here. 46 VanderKam, ‚The Theology of the Temple Scroll,‛ 132. 44 45

374

KETER SHEM TOV

presence with the ―covenanters‖ of the Dead Sea scrolls are both prominent themes in the central text of this paper and as such lead us logically to that focal text col. 29:8–10 while further developing and opening up associations with the idea of Sabbath through divine indwelling, blessing and creation. ―The day of blessing‖ (‫ )יום הבשכה‬appears to be an obvious connection to the Sabbath as the only day blessed and made holy by God and as such is the centre and epitome of creation. Yet this vital link of Sabbath and creation allows for and encourages the translation ―day of creation‖ (‫ )יום הבשיה‬as well. Both are appropriate interpretations of the enigmatic Hebrew according to the discussion presented in this paper. ―The attitude of the Qumran covenanters to the Jerusalem temple and the sacrificial cult is an extremely complex one.‛ 47 In the literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls ‚we are given indications not only of their eschatological hopes but also of their present historical situation.‛48 The historical reality of the composers of these ancient texts, as revealed in the Scrolls, demonstrates great interest and preoccupation with the cult. A preoccupation reinforced in the Temple Scroll as its name suggests. However within this great scroll it is possible to uncover insights that provide perceptions into the interpretation of the spirituality behind the ritual of the cult in a combination of such significant concepts as Shekinah or divine indwelling with the people, Sabbath and covenant in the interpretation of ―day of creation‖ / ―day of blessing‖ in the Temple Scroll. …they will be my people and I will be theirs forever. [And] I will dwell with them forever and ever. And I will make holy (‫ )רדש‬my Temple with my glory, (the Temple) which I will dwell on it with my glory, until the day of blessing, (or, the day of creation) on which I will create my temple and establish it for myself for all times (lit. days), according to the covenant which I have made with Jacob at Bethel. (11QTa 29:8–10)

47 48

Lloyd Gaston, No Stone on Another (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 119. Ibid., 119.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

1. Albert I. Baumgarten, Bar Ilan University: ―What Did the ‗Teacher‘ Know?: Owls and Roosters in the Qumran Barnyard‖ 2. Bradley J. Bitner, Macquarie University: ―Exclusion and Ethics: Contrasting Covenant Communities in 1QS 5:1–7:25 and 1 Cor 5:1–6:11‖ 3. Philip Church, Laidlaw College: ―4Q174 and the Epistle to the Hebrews‖ 4. Antoinette Collins, The Broken Bay Institute and University of Newcastle: ―The Temple Scroll: ‗The Day of Blessing‘ or ‗The Day of Creation‘? Insights on Shekinah and Sabbath‖ 5. Marianne Dacy, The University of Sydney: ―Plant Symbolism and the Dreams of Noah and Abram in the Genesis Apocryphon‖ 6. John Davies, Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney: ―4QTestimonia (4Q175) and the Epistle of Jude‖ 7. David Freedman, The Central Synagogue, Sydney: ―Eulogy for Alan Crown‖ 8. Anne Gardner, Monash University: ―‗Holy Ones‘ and ‗(Holy) People‘ in 1QM and Daniel‖ 9. Stephen Llewelyn, Stephanie Ng, Gareth Wearne and Alexandra Wrathall, Macquarie University: ―A Case for Two Vorlagen Behind the Habakkuk Commentary (1QpHab)‖ 375

376

KETER SHEM TOV

10. William Loader, Murdoch University: ―Eschatology and Sexuality in the So-Called Sectarian Documents from Qumran‖ 11. Martin Shields, The University of Sydney: ―What has Qohelet to do with Qumran?‖ 12. Emanuel Tov, The Hebrew University: ―The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Proximity of the PreSamaritan Qumran Scrolls to the SP‖ 13. Shani Tzoref, Israel Antiquities Communities—Past and Present‖

Authority:

―Qumran

14. Dionysia Andrea van Beek, Macquarie University: ―A Temple Built of Words: Exploring Concepts of the Divine in the Damascus Document‖ 15. Ian Young, The University of Sydney: ―‗Loose Language‘ in IQIsaa;‖ ―The Contrast Between The Qumran And Masada Biblical Scrolls In The Light Of New Data A Note In Light Of The Alan Crown Festschrift‖

INDEX OF AUTHORS Abegg Jr., Martin G. 26, 27, 32, 33, 93, 187, 200, 336 Adams, Edward 281 Albertz, Rainer 155, 328 Albright, William Foxwell 24 Alexander, Philip S. 32 Alexander, T. Desmond 360 Allegro, John M. 21, 35, 36, 203, 204, 208, 214, 333, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 344 Alvarez, Andrea E. 40 Amihay, Aryeh 217 Anderson, Arnold A. 203, 208, 214 Angel, Joseph 46 Archer, Gleason L. 327, 328 Atkinson, Kenneth 239 Attridge, Harold W. 68, 335, 346, 353, 356, 357, 359 Avigad, Nahman 218, 219, 221 Azize, Joseph 114 Baek, Kyung S. 239 Baigent, Michael 28 Baillet, Maurice 60, 61 Bak, Kyung S. 307 Baldwin, Joyce G. 352 Bar-Asher, Moshe 3, 24, 39, 63, 119, 198 Barclay, John M. G. 267 Barrett, C. K. 358 Barton, John 199 Bauckham, Richard 212, 213, 346, 348, 352

Baumgarten, Albert I. 6, 36, 48, 235, 238, 239, 240, 248, 250, 255, 284, 312, 340, 341, 343, 344, 368, 369, 375 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 311 Beale, Gregory K. 151, 274, 354 Becker, Michael 311 Ben-Ezra, Daniel Stökl 44, 45, 219 Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev 63 Benoit, Pierre 23, 25 Bernstein, Moshe J. 38, 45, 61, 123, 131, 135, 218, 219, 220, 241, 264 Berrin, Shani L. see Tzoref Berthelot, Katell 219 Betz, Otto 342 Beyerle, Stefan 63 Bitner, Bradley J. 6, 49, 259, 375 Blanton, Thomas R. 267 Blumenfeld, Bruno 269 Boccaccini, Gabrielle 31, 48, 49 Bockmuehl, Markus 264, 334 Boustan, Raanan 48 Bowman, John 60 Brady, Monica 61 Brekelmans, Christianus H. W. 154, 155, 160, 167, 170, 172, 173 Briggs, Charles A. 157 Brooke, George J. 40, 49, 51, 136, 203, 206, 208, 209, 214, 215, 219, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265,

377

378

KETER SHEM TOV

315, 326, 334, 335, 337, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 369 Broshi, Magen 39, 238, 239 Brown, Francis 157 Brown, Judith 36 Brownlee, William H. 20, 138, 142, 143, 145 Broyles, Craig C. 101 Bruce, Frederick F. 329, 335, 348, 353 Buchanan, G. W. 357 Burrows, Millar 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 Callaway, Philip R. 40 Campbell, Jonathan G. 334, 335, 342 Caneday, Ardel B. 348 Cansdale, Lena 3, 37, 38, 39, 198 Caquot, André 60, 338 Carmignac, Jean 29, 151 Carson, Donald A. 274 Casey, J. M. 356 Charlesworth, James H. 81, 82, 241, 247, 262, 314 Chazon, Esther G. 284 Church, Philip A. F. 7, 333, 352, 354, 375 Ciampa, Roy E. 274, 275 Claußen, Carsten 200 Cockerill, Gareth Lee 348, 353 Cohen, Chaim 91 Cohen, Hillel 31 Collins, Adela Yarbro 279 Collins, Antoinette 7, 361, 375 Collins, John J. 30, 41, 42, 45, 49, 92, 137, 152, 154, 155, 156, 160, 168, 169, 176, 177, 240, 241, 247, 255, 305, 310, 311, 313, 314, 319, 320, 334 Conzelmann, Hans 275, 276 Coogan, Michael D. 92 Cook, Edward 200, 336

Coppens, Jean 154 Coxe, A. Cleveland 351 Craigie, Peter 164 Crawford, Sidnie White 41, 42, 62, 68, 83, 84, 312 Cross, Frank Moore 34, 36, 66, 73, 83, 91, 236, 237, 239, 240, 247, 306 Crown, Alan David 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 25, 32, 37, 38, 39, 59, 89, 90, 113, 114, 117, 119, 198, 203, 235, 375, 376 Cryer, Frederick H. 186, 290 Cullmann, Oscar 262 Dacy, Marianne 5, 6, 90, 113, 217, 375 Dahood, Mitchell 163, 164, 175 Daube, David 358 Davidson, Maxwell J. 341 Davies, John A. 6, 203, 375 Davies, Philip R. 40, 52, 53, 151, 152, 155, 172, 182, 219, 319, 320, 322, 328, 334, 173 Davies, William David 350, 358 Davila, James R. 116 Day, John 335 de Dieu, Louis 84 de Vaux, Roland 20, 23, 25, 34, 43, 260 Deissmann, Adolf 263 Delcor, Mathias 265 Delitzsch, Franz 347, 353 Dequeker, Luc 154, 161, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177 DeSilva, David A. 335, 347, 348, 357 Desjardins, Michel 306 Dever, William G. 48 Dexinger, Ferdinand 60, 62 Dimant, Devorah 22, 24, 29, 41, 43, 44, 45, 53, 85, 220, 338,

INDEX OF AUTHORS 339, 342, 344, 354 Donceel-Voute, Pauline 39 Donceel, Robert 39 Donfried, Karl P. 266 Dorival, Gilles 86 Doudna, Gregory L. 90, 113, 119, 126, 129, 130, 141 Dow, Lois K. Fuller 357 Dowling, Jennifer 5, 10, 90, 113 Driver, Godfrey Rolles 35 Driver, S. R. 157 du Toit, Jaqueline S. 36 Duby, George 242, 253 Duhaime, Jean 152, 171, 182, 239, 307 Dupont-Sommer, André 35, 36, 60 Edwards, Douglas R. 39, 238 Eggler, Jürg 168 Ego, Beate 338, 339 Ehrensvärd, Martin 89, 94, 96 Eisenman, Robert H. 27, 37 Elliger, Karl 137, 140, 142 Ellingworth, Paul 348, 353, 354, 355, 357, 359 Elwolde, J. F. 91 Enns, Peter E. 349 Eordegian, Marlen 22 Erez, Daphne Barak 22 Eshel, Esther 38, 62, 83, 220, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229 Eshel, Hanan 22, 26, 39, 62, 82, 133, 134, 209, 210, 214, 238, 241 Evans, Craig A. 53, 101 Faigan, Suzanne 5, 90, 113 Falk, Daniel K. 221, 222, 224 Fee, Gordon D. 275, 282 Festinger, Leon 249, 250 Fields, Weston W. 19, 20, 21, 23 Fishbane, Michael 276 Fitzgerald, John T. 262, 263

379

Fitzmyer Jr., Joseph A. 27, 198, 203, 217, 221, 224, 225, 226, 230, 263, 333, 342 Flint, Peter 24, 25, 27, 40, 92, 93, 101, 152, 155, 172, 239, 307, 319 Florentin, Moshe 3, 39, 63, 199, 198 Flusser, David 34, 35, 152, 339, 341, 342 Ford, J. Massingberd 60 Forkmann, Goran 264 Fox, Michael V. 189 Freedman, David Noel 3, 9, 39, 236, 375 Frerichs, Ernest S. 18, 44, 251 Frey, Jörg 41, 45, 63, 200, 311 Galor, Katharina 90 Gammie, John 194 García Martínez, Florentino 44, 124, 127, 133, 176, 183, 199, 220, 264, 268, 284, 311, 315, 339, 340, 343, 362, 363 Gardner, Anne 5, 151, 152, 162, 182, 341, 375 Gärtner, Bertil 264, 339, 342, 359 Gaston, Lloyd 374 Gathercole, Simon 360 Gesenius, Wilhelm 84, 85 Gillihan, Yonder M. 269, 285, 287, 296, 297, 298, 301 Goff, Matthew J. 190, 191 Golb, Norman 30, 39 Goldingay, John E. 156, 165 Goldman, Yohanan 86, 105 Goodman, Martin 338 Gordon, Robert P. 353, 357 Görg, Manfred 370, 371 Gräbel, George 354 Gray, George Buchanan 207 Green, William Scott 44, 251 Greenberg, Gillian 340

380

KETER SHEM TOV

Greenfield, Jonas C. 236 Greenspahn, Frederick E. 91, 98 Gropp, Douglas M. 61 Grossman, Maxine L. 42, 47, 104, 127, 308, 312, 320, 321 Grotius, Hugo 85 Guthrie, George H. 355 Hadas-Lebel, Mireille 338 Hägerland, Tobias 264 Halpern, Baruch 39 Hanneken, Todd Russel 30 Harding, G. Lankester 21, 20 Harkins, Angela Y. Kim 68 Harl, Marguerite 86 Harrington, Daniel 185, 186, 187, 192, 194, 195 Harris, R. Laird 327, 328 Hasel, Gerhard F. 154, 155, 162 Hasselbach, Rebecca 95 Hassencamp, Johann 84 Hata, Gohei 63 Heil, John P. 280, 281 Helyer, Larry R. 348 Hempel, Charlotte 28, 44, 45, 46, 47, 127, 312, 319, 320, 326, 331, 338, 369 Hendel, Ronald S. 85, 86 Henderson, Ian H. 314 Henze, Matthias 290 Herbert, Edward D. 92, 199 Hilhorst, Anthony 220 Hillel, Vered 217 Hiltunen, Chelica L. 70 Hirschfield, Yizhar 39 Hjelm, Ingrid 60 Hoegenhaven, Jesper 103, 107 Hoffman, Yair 113 Hofius, Otfried 349, 353 Hogeterp, Albert L. A. 265 Holmberg, Bengt 264 Holst, Søren 33 Horbury, William 265, 275, 279

Horgan, Maurya P. 139, 142, 235, 342 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 350 Hottinger, Johan H. 84 Hovel, Revital 31 Huehnergard, John 95 Humbert, Jean-Baptiste 90 Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno 45 Hurvitz, Avi 97, 98, 100 Hutchesson, Ian 90, 113, 119 Isaacs, Marie E. 355 Israeli, Raphael 27 Jassen, Alex P. 24, 30, 48 Jastram, Nathan 66, 69, 79 Johnson, Luke T. 335, 348, 356, 357, 359 Johnston, George 348 Jokiranta, Jutta 266 Judge, Edwin A. 268 Kalman, Jason 36 Kampen, John I. 38, 185, 187, 189, 190, 191, 194, 264, 269 Kapera, Zdzisław 29 Kartveit, Magnar 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 81 Käsemann, Ernst 358 Katzman, Avi 26 Kennicott, Benjamin 115 Kessler, Nadine 200 Kim, Angela Y. see Harkins Kim, Kyung-Re 85, 87 Kirkpatrick, Alexander F. 165 Kistemaker, Simon J. 347 Kister, Menahem 46, 253 Klinghardt, Mathias 269, 287, 296 Koenig, Jean 70 Koester, Craig R. 335, 348, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359 Koester, Helmut 353 Kolton-Fromm, Naomi 307 Konradt, Matthias 265 Kooij, Arie van der 105

INDEX OF AUTHORS Kratz, Reinhard G. 85 Kropat, Arno 102 Kugler, Robert A. 22, 40, 137 Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang 264, 340, 344 Kuhn, Karl G. 262, 263 Kuhn, Thomas 39 Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel 93, 94, 101, 103, 104, 106 Laansma, Jon C. 349 Lacoque, André 168 Lamberigts, Sylvester 172, 173 Landes, Richard 255, 256 Lane, William L. 348, 351, 353, 355, 356, 357, 359 Lane, William R. 344 Lange, Armin 31, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 199, 263, 311, 338, 339 Langlois, Michael 33 Leigh, Richard 28 Leitch, J. W. 275 Lemaire, André 106 Lemmeljin, Bénédicte 62 Levine, Baruch A. 207 Licht, Jacob 21, 319 Lichtenberger, Hermann 262 Lieu, Judith M. 320 Lim, Timothy H. 32, 33, 52, 137, 141, 264, 268, 305, 311, 314, 334 Lindars, Barnabas 355 Liver, Jacob 207 Llewelyn, Stephen 5, 45, 123, 375 Loader, William R. G. 6, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 312, 313, 347, 376 Lohse, Eduard 145, 323 Lübbe, John 208 Lucas, Ernest C. 156 Lust, Johan 105 Machiela, Daniel A. 218, 221, 228

381

Maeir, Aren M. 214 Magness, Jodi 43, 214, 239, 284, 330, 331 Maier, Johann 269, 270, 286 Margain, Jean 159 Marttila, Marko 89 Mason, Steve 239, 306, 307 Maurer, Alexander 311 McComiskey, Thomas E. 327 McDonald, Lee Martin 90 McDonough, Sean M. 275, 280 McGhee, Glen S. 48, 240, 255 McKelvey, R. J. 365, 366 Meier, Johannes P. 347, 348 Mertens, Alfred 151, 167 Metso, Sarianna 45, 46, 47, 214, 266, 267, 284, 289, 290, 293, 302, 303 Metzger, Bruce M. 356 Michel, Otto 347 Milgrom, Jacob 156, 362, 363 Milik, Józef, T. 34, 54, 209, 210 Miller-Naudé, Cynthia 99 Mitchell, Alan C. 354 Mitchell, David 210 Mitchell, Margaret M. 270, 271, 280 Moffatt, James A. 347, 353 Montaner, Luis Vegas 29 Montefiore, Hugh A. 358 Morales, Pablo Torijano 199 Moriya, Akio 63 Mosser, Carl 346 Motyer, Steve 360 Mueller, Gustav E. 33 Munnich, Olivier 86 Muraoka, T. 91 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 263, 265 Najman, Hindy 47, 214 Naudé, Jacobus, A. 172, 173, 176, 182

382

KETER SHEM TOV

Nebe, G. Wilhelm 344 Neusner, Jacob 44, 251 Newsom, Carol 38, 42, 43, 193, 194, 206, 266, 285, 287, 290, 292, 293, 294, 295, 301, 302 Newton, Michael 265 Ng, Stephanie 5, 45, 123, 375 Nicol, George, G. 169 Nitzan, Bilhah 125, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143, 252, 253, 256 Nongbri, Brent 268 Noth, Martin 154, 171 O’Brien, Peter T. 335, 346, 348, 353, 354, 355, 357 O’Leary, Stephen D. 48, 240, 249, 250, 255 Oegema, Gerbern S. 314 Olbricht, Thomas H. 262 Oppenheimer, Aharon 152 Otero, Andrés Piquer 199 Owen, Elizabeth 80 Pakkala, Juha 89 Pardee, Dennis G. 30 Parente, Fausto 268 Parry, Donald W. 54, 267 Pat-El, Na’ama 95 Paul, Shalom M. 62, 99, 312 Perdue, Leo G. 194 Person Jr., Raymond F. 107 Peters, Dorothy 220, 221 Petersen, Anders Klostergaard 133, 220, 241 Petersen, David L. 352 Peterson, David 356, 359 Pfann Jr., Stephen J. 33 Pfann, Stephen J. 32, 33, 44, 45, 219, 339 Philonenko, Marc 60 Pilhofer, Peter 338, 339 Pinnick, Avital 284 Ploeg, Johannes P. M. van der 151, 176

Polzin, Robert 106 Popović, Mladen 67, 183, 200 Porter, Stanley E. 53 Poythress, Vern S. 154, 155 Prato, Gian Luigi 199 Procksch, Otto 154 Propp, William Henry 38, 39 Puech, Émile 220, 311, 314, 315, 337, 338, 340, 341, 344 Pulikottil, Paulson 101 Pummer, Reinhard 2, 81 Qimron, Elisha 24, 27, 28, 340 Rabin, B. 151 Rabin, C. 151 Rapoport-Albert, Ada 340 Rappaport, Uriel 29, 152 Regev, Eyal 45, 48 Reicke, Bo 262 Rendsburg, Gary A. 95, 96 Reynolds III, Bennie H. 31 Rezetko, Robert 89, 94, 96, 106, 108, 111 Riaud, Jean 338 Richter, Hans-Peter 27 Richter, Sara Parks 314 Riecken, Henry 249 Rissi, Mathias 353 Robinson, James M. 27 Roetze, Calvin 48 Roitman, Adolfo D. 32, 33, 37, 44, 47, 49, 221, 238, 247, 255 Rooke, Deborah W. 352 Rooker, Mark F. 97, 98, 99, 100, 105 Rose, Wolter H. 338 Rösel, Martin 86 Rosner, Brian S. 271, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280 Roth, Cecil 35 Saebo, Magne 199 Sanders, Ed 264 Sanders, James A. 41, 90

INDEX OF AUTHORS Sanderson, Judith E. 62, 65, 66, 78 Sandmel, Samuel 262 Schachter, Stanley 249 Schattner-Rieser, Ursula 62, 81, 218 Schechter, Solomon 322 Schenck, Kenneth L. 348 Schenker, Adrian 86, 105 Schierse, Franz-Josef 347, 348 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 18, 20, 24, 29, 30, 32, 35, 38, 40, 41, 44, 52, 189, 214, 221, 238, 246, 286, 287, 288, 297, 298, 302, 311, 339, 342, 362, 363, 364, 365, 369, 372, 373 Schofield, Alison 42, 46 Scholer, David M. 268 Scholer, John M. 353, 356 Schuller, Eileen 22, 23, 29, 35, 40, 47, 61, 214 Schultz, Brian 152, 171, 178, 182 Schwartz, Daniel R. 342 Schwemer, Anna Maria 354 Segal, Michael 63, 64 Selden, John 84 Seow, Choon-Leong 156 Settembrini, Marco 158 Seybold, Klaus 350 Shanks, Hershel 24, 25, 26, 27, 38 Shemesh, Aharon 24 Shepherd, Michael B. 168 Shields, Martin A. 5, 185, 190, 197, 376 Sievers, Joseph 268 Sigvald, Kåre 358 Silberman, Lou H. 48 Silberman, Neil Asher 18, 20, 24, 36 Skehan, Patrick W. 62, 65, 66 Smith, David R. 265, 279, 303 Smith, Ralph L. 352 Snyder, H. Gregory 126, 128, 129,

383

130, 131, 134, 136 Son, Kiwoong 355, 356, 357 Spicq, Ceslas 348, 357, 358 Stegemann, Hartmut 43, 133, 311 Stendhal, Krister 262 Stern, Menahem 152 Steudel, Annette 45, 208, 311, 312, 315, 333, 334, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 344, 345 Stewart, Jon 33 Stone, Michael E. 28, 217, 248, 338 Strugnell, John 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 54, 333, 334, 338, 344, Stuckenbruck, Loren 224 Sukenik, Eliezer L. 19, 34, 55 Sussmann, Yaakov 27, 28 Swetnam, James 347 Synge, Francis C. 351 Tal, Abraham 2, 3, 39, 63, 119, 198 Talmon, Shemaryahu 48, 53, 54, 82, 115, 145, 251, 252, 253, 256 Taylor, Joan E. 44, 305 Thiering, Barbara E. 37 Thiessen, Matthew 61 Thiselton, Anthony C. 275, 276, 302 Thompson, James W. 353, 355 Thompson, Thomas L. 186, 290 Thordson, Maria 59, 60 Thordson, Thord 59, 60 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 124, 176, 220, 284, 311, 315 Toorn, Karel van der 47 Tov, Emanuel 4, 7, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 41, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 78, 83, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 101, 104, 106, 114, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 186, 198, 199, 263,

384

KETER SHEM TOV

284, 312, 339, 376 Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. 29, 199 Trever, John C. 54, 55 Treves, Marco 209 Troiani, Lucio 268 Tso, Marcus 269, 290, 292 Tzoref, Shani 1, 3, 4, 17, 32, 214, 221, 238, 246, 252, 253, 290, 354, 376 Uehlinger, Christopher 86 Ullmann-Margalit, Edna 37, 238 Ulrich, Eugene 41, 54, 62, 63, 65, 66, 73, 92, 93, 101, 104, 116, 240, 267 Usserius, James 85 Vahrenhorst, Martin 278, 281 van Beek, Dionysia A. 7, 319, 376 VanderKam, James C. 20, 24, 25, 27, 30, 40, 61, 68, 84, 172, 199, 200, 206, 240, 319, 334, 365, 371, 373 Vanhoye, Albert 348 Vermes, Geza 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 204, 208, 261, 319, 320, 322, 328, 363, 364, 369 Vervenne, Marc 199 Voitila, Anssi 266 Wacholder, Ben Zion 26, 27, 246 Walker, Peter W. L. 357, 360 Walters, Patricia 23 Waltke, Bruce K. 327, 328 Wassen, Cecilia 263 Wearne, Gareth 5, 45, 123, 375 Webb, Robert L. 213 Weeks, Noel 114 Weigold, Matthias 31, 263 Weinfeld, Moshe 268, 285, 286, 287, 288, 296, 297, 298 Weis, Richard D. 105 Weiss, Johannes 270, 275, 276, 277, 280, 281, 282 Weissenberg, Hanne von 62, 89,

369 Welborn, Laurence L. 299 Werman, Cana 253 Wernberg-Møller, Preben 286, 288, 290, 291, 292 Westcott, Brooke Foss 347, 353 Westermann, Claus 328 White, L. Michael 262, 263 Wilford, John Noble 28 Williamson, Ronald 358 Willis, Amy C. Merrill 156 Wilson, Edmund 22, 23, 24, 35, 36 Wilson, Robert McLachlan 353 Wilson, Stephen G. 306 Windisch, Hans 347 Winninge, Mikael 264 Winter, Bruce W. 281 Wise, Michael O. 30, 39, 60, 200, 336, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343 Woude, Adam S. van der 124 Wrathall, Alexandra 5, 45, 123, 375 Wright, J. Edward 48 Yadin, Azzan 35, 152 Yadin, Yigael 19, 20, 23, 24, 29, 34, 82, 115, 151, 172, 173, 176, 179, 218, 219, 311, 331, 341, 342, 344, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 373 Yardeni, Ada 27 Young, Ian 1, 3, 4, 5, 40, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 106, 108, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 376 Zahn, Molly M. 62, 63, 64, 70, 82, 89 Zangenberg, Jürgen 90 Zeitlin, Solomon 35 Zenger, Erich 350 Zevit, Ziony 99 Zobel, Hans-Jürgen 328

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES HEBREW BIBLE Genesis 1 1–11 1:14 1:16–18 1:26 2:2 2:3 3 3:16 3:23 5–15 6–15 6:1–4 7:6–12 9:2–27 9:20 9:21–27 12 12–50 12:11–20 12:17 12:20 13:1 14:13 14:24 17:14 20:12 20:14 20:16 20:17 24:1–36 24:67

25:7 25:12 25:19 25:20 25:21 26:7 26:8 26:9 28 28:5 30:26 30:26–36 30:32 30:33 30:36 31:11–13 31:20 31:24 31:41 31:52 35 35:7 35:11 35:28 42:16 44:22 49:9

177, 371, 373 86 177 177 349 350 371 162, 293 165 292 220 218 222, 226 223 225 218 219 217–218, 230 86 219 217, 230 88 88 218 218 88 75 88 88 218 108 75

75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 328, 362, 368 75 75 67 75 75 64, 67 67 75 75 75 75 368 328 369 75 67 67 74

Exodus 6–37 6:2–6 6:2–12

385

65 349 108

KETER SHEM TOV

386 6:12 6:23 6:27 6:30 7–11 7:1–13 7:18 8:19 8:20 9:3 9:8 9:8–12 9:9 9:18 9:19 9:24 10:2 10:5 10:15 10:24 12 12:1–7b 12:8 12:14–20 12:15 13:3 13:14 15:17 15:17–18 16:1 18:25 19:5 19:6 19:10 19:15 19:16–19 19:21 20 20:2 20:18 20:19

71 71 71 71 64 108 65 65 71 71 71 108 71 71 65 71 65 71 71 71 274, 277 108 86 274–276, 300 277 349 349 338–339, 342, 354–355 336–337, 339 73 65 158 158 71 309 356 71 67 349 356 65

20:21 22:15 23 23:7 23:20 23:26 24:1 24:9 25:8 25:21 25:33 26 26:33 26:35 26:36–37 27:1–3 27:19 28:1 28:11 28:26 28:30 29:2 29:20 29:21 29:22 29:25 29:28 29:34–30:18 29:37 30:1–10 30:8 30:10 30:29 32:7 32:10 32:13 32:25–29 33:7 34:1 34:2 34:10–16 35:11

64, 67–68 164 293 290–292 355 312–313 71 71 354 73 72 293 291 66, 73 66 65–66 65, 71 71 72 72 66 72 66 66, 68, 327 66 72 66 65 327 65 72 65–66 327 71 65 72 208 353–354 72 72 373 72

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES 37:19 39:1 39:9 39:19 39:21 40 40:11 40:17 40:18 40:20 40:22 40:24 40:25 40:26 40:27

72 71 72 72 66, 72 72 73 73 72 73 72 72–73 72 72 72

Leviticus 1–16 2:1 2:4 6:15 6:18 6:27 7:11–15 7:12 8 8:11 8:22–30 10:10 11:44 11:45 11:47 12:3 16 16:10 16:21 16:22 16:26 17 19:2 20:7

156 73 72 73 327 327 346 72 72 73 66 292 156–158 156–158 292 88 293 292 292 292 292 277 156–158 156–158

20:24–26 20:26 21:1 21:6 21:7 21:8 22:15–16

387 292 156–158 157 156–157, 169 156 156 290–291

Numbers 9:15–23 9:23 10 10:1 10:1–10 10:21 12:16 14–36 15:39 15:40 16:5 16:7 16:35 16:38 20 20:13 20:14 20:17–18 20:18 20:20 21:12 21:13 21:20 21:22 21:23 21:33 22:5 22:6 22:8 22:10 22:11 22:16

174 174 174 174 173 327 66 66 195 157–158 156–157 156 74 327 68 66 67 67 73 73 66 66 66 66 66, 75 75 74 74 73 73–74 74 73

KETER SHEM TOV

388 22:18 22:19 22:22 22:23 22:25 22:27 22:28 22:29 22:32 22:33 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:14 23:15 23:30 24 24:4 24:6 24:9 24:13 24:15–17 26:10 26:33 27 27:1 27:2 27:11 27:18 27:22 27:23 31:20 33:31–37 36 36:1 36:1–2 36:2 36:4

74 73 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 207 328 328, 353–354 74 74 68, 204–205 74 74 68–69 74 69 69 74 74 66 66 68 68–69 69 69 69 69

Deuteronomy 1–3

64

1:10 1:24 1:30 2:8–14 2:32 2:33 2:34 2:36 3:1 3:2 4:11–12 5 5:6 5:22 5:28–29 5:30–31 5:31 6 6:1 6:3 6:4 6:12 7:6 7:8 7:9 8:14 9:12 9:12–14 9:19 10:6–7 10:22 11:7 11:8 12:9 13:5 13:6 13:11 14:2 14:21 16 16:1–8

72 75 75 67 75 75 75 75 75 75 356 67 349 356 68, 204–206 67, 70 69, 77 323–324 323 323 323 349 158, 161 349 313 349 71 117 356 68 72 75 75 349–350 277 349 349 158, 161 158, 161 278 277

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES 16:23 17:7 18:18–19 18:18–22 19:19 21:21 22:19 22:21 22:29 23 23:3 23:18–20 24:1 24:3 24:4 24:7 24:16–22 25:1–5 25:14–19 26 26:1–5 26:13 26:18 26:19 27:4–6 28:1 28:9 28:21–25 28:27–29 28:62 29 29:21 32:43 32:46 33 33:3 33:8–11

277 274–278, 280, 300 68, 204–206 64, 67 277 277 292 277 292 278 337, 340 117 292 292 292 277 117 117 117 278 117 277 161, 167 158, 161, 166 81 161, 166–167 158, 161 117 117 72 293 292 347 75 117 341 68, 205, 208

Joshua 6:5

181

6:20 6:26

389 181 205, 209

Judges 5:14–16 6:8

1 349

1 Samuel 1:9–11 2:23 2:27 3:7 3:13 3:21 4:5 13:1–14:9 21:14

115 115 328 328 291 328 181 108 126

2 Samuel 6:1–20a 6:15 7 7:1–12 7:10 7:10–11 7:10–13 7:11 7:11–14 7:12 7:13 7:13–14 7:14 22 22:1 22:14 22:20 22:22 22:24 22:49 22:50

108 181 335 108 338 336–337 337 336–337, 344 344 337 342 337 335, 345 110 111 111 111 111 111 111 111

KETER SHEM TOV

390 1 Kings 8:56 9:8 16:34 22 22:6–35

350 166 209 102 108, 110

2 Kings 4:9 18–19 18–20 18:13 18:13–19:8 18:17 18:20 18:21 18:22 18:24 18:27 18:29 18:30 18:32 18:33 18:36 19:4 19:6

156 108–109 107 108, 110 107 108, 110 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 109 108, 110 108 108

Isaiah 1–12 103 1–39 98 2:22 290–291 3 98 3–5 101, 105 3–6 109 3:24 101 3:24–5:30 96 4:2 166 4:3 101, 158, 162, 165–166 4:4 97, 166 4:5 101

5–6 5:1 5:1–7 5:1–6:8 5:2 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:11 5:19 5:25 5:29 6 6:1 6:1–8 6:3 6:8 28:16 36–37 36–39 36:1 36:1–37:8 36:3 36:4 36:5 36:6 36:7 36:9 36:10 36:12 36:13 36:14 36:15 36:18 36:21 36:22 37:1 37:2 37:3 37:4 40–55

101, 105–106 102 225 98, 102 97, 102 102 101–102 97 97 102 97, 102 97 169 98, 102 102 102, 169 102 291 101, 107, 109 107 109 107 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 98–99

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES 40–66 99 40:5 328 40:22 354 42:5 354 44–46 101, 109 44:5 99 44:24–46:7 99, 105 45:4 99 45:5 99 45:6 99 45:8 99 45:11 99 45:13 99 45:14 99 45:17 99 45:18 99 45:19 99 45:21 99 46:3 106 46:4 107 46:5 99 46:6 99 46:7 99, 106 50:1 292 53:1 328 56:1 328 62:11 166 62:12 157, 161, 166, 169 63:18 157, 161, 169 66:1 349

Ezekiel

Jeremiah

1:12 1:13 1:17 2:1 2:8 2:15 2:16 2:17

2:21 11:1–17 11:15–16 23:5 23:17 33:15 41:14 49:39

225 226 227 166, 337 291 166, 337 349 345

9:4 9:6 17:22–24 19:10–14 21:27 22:26 34:23 37 40–48 42:20 43:7 43:9 43:21 44:8

391

126 126 229 225 181 292 105 316 293, 357 292 370 370 327 327

Hosea 12:1

162

Joel 3:1

345

Amos 1:14 2:2 3:7 9:11

181 181 328 337, 344

Micah 6:4

349

Habakkuk 139 139 137, 144 138 144 148 137 140

KETER SHEM TOV

392 Zephaniah 1:16

181

Zechariah 1 1:12 3:8 6 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:15 14:9–11

169 169 337 352 352 337–338 352 352 357

Psalms 1:1 2 2:7 8 16 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:10–11 18 18:1 18:4 18:38 18:42 18:46 18:48 18:49 24:2 34 34:8 34:10 34:11 47:6 50 65:6 81

337 335, 345 335 349 165 163–165 162–165 163–165 164–165 110 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 355 163 162 157, 162, 165 163 181 350 355 350

83:7–14 89 89:28 92:13 95 95:7–11 100:4 103:19 106:16 110:1 118:8 118:9 118:10–12 118:15 118:16 132:8 132:14

118 168 166 217, 230 349–350 250, 349 344 355 156–157 351–352 174 174 174–175 174 174 349 349

Proverbs 9:10 30:3

162 162

Job 31:35 32:21 32:22 39:25

126 99 99 181

Song of Songs 5:5 7:7–8

230 230

Qohelet/Ecclesiastes 1:3 1:12–12:7 2:15 3:17 6:7–9 6:8 6:11 8:1

186 188 187 188 191 189 189 193

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES 8:16–17 11:9 12:9 12:14

187, 195 188, 196 194 188

Esther 2:10 2:20 4:8 4:17 5–6

97 97 97 97 102

Daniel 1:4 2:12 2:19–20 3 3:25 3:26 3:28 3:32 3:33 4 4:5 4:6 4:7–19 4:10 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:17 4:20 4:21 4:22 4:23 4:29 4:31 5:11 5:18 5:21

162, 182 165 246 162 162 159 162 159 168 170 152 152 225 170, 226 152–153, 226 153, 159, 170, 226 152 152–153 170 159 159 152–153 159 159, 168 152 159 159

6 6:1 6:22 6:24 7

393

162 167 163 163 153, 155, 158, 160, 166–168, 228 7–12 158 7:2 227 7:13–14 153 7:17 167 7:18 152–154, 158– 159, 165–168 7:21 154–155 7:22 152–155, 158– 159, 274–276, 300 7:25 152–155, 158– 159 7:27 152–154, 158– 161, 177 8 168, 170 8:13 15, 153, 168–169 8:14 153, 168 8:23 169 8:24 152, 160, 169 9 252, 324 9:16 153 9:20 153 9:24 153 9:26 153 11–12 151, 170 11:28 153 11:30 153 11:31 327 11:33 182 11:40–12 152 11:45 153 12:1–2 162, 166 12:2 170 12:2–3 311 12:3 170, 310, 315 12:7 153

KETER SHEM TOV

394 Ezra 3:11 3:12 8:28 9–10 9:1 9:2 10:1–16 10:8 10:11 10:16

1 Chronicles 181 181 169 278–279, 293 292 292 278 292 292 292

15:28 16:1 16:40

2 Chronicles 6:41 7:21 18:5–34 19:9 23:6 35:3

Nehemiah 9–10 9:2 10:28 13:3

181 354 97 349 166 110 97 169 156

278–279, 293 278, 292 278, 292 278, 292

APOCRYPHA Judith 4:1

Ben Sira 260

1 Maccabees 1:43 1:62

Wisdom of Solomon 169 169

2 Maccabees 4:14–15 4:41 4:42

95–96, 108

169 169 169

185 311 347

3:13 14:1

Tobit 357

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 2:2 13:43 17:2 25:34

Mark 207 310 310 355

9:2–3 12:25 14:51–72

310 309 256

Luke 20:34–36 24:31

309 315

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES John 1:21 1:45 6:14 6:39 6:40 6:44 6:54 7:40 11:24 12:48 14:2

207 207 207 345 345 345 345 207 345 345 355

Acts 3:22–23 7:37

207 207

Romans 5:14–15

144

1 Corinthians 1:2 1:4–9 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:18–25 1:26–29 1:30 1:31 2:2 2:9 2:14–16 3:5–7 3:5–4:5 3:11 3:16 3:17 3:21–23 4:6 4:18

270 282 302 270 270 270 272 270 270 270 355 303 270 271 270 271, 359 271 270 271 271

395

4:19 271 4:20 271 5 264, 271, 277, 300 5–6 264, 267 5:1 271–273, 279, 283 5:1–13 270–271, 279– 281 5:1–6:11 6, 49, 259, 270–271, 273– 274, 276, 278– 279, 283–284, 286, 291, 295– 299, 301, 304 5:2 272–273, 279, 283, 299 5:3 273, 279 5:3–5 283, 303 5:3–56 265 5:4 273, 279 5:5 272–273, 279, 302–303 5:6–8 273–274, 276, 279, 283 5:7 272 5:8 273, 279 5:9 270, 272, 280 5:9–11 280, 283, 301 5:10 283 5:11 270, 272–273, 280, 299 5:12–13 272, 283 5:13 272–273, 275– 277, 280 6:1 271–273, 281, 283 6:1–11 270–271, 273, 280–281 6:2 271–273, 276, 281 6:2–3 275, 281, 283 6:2–4 273, 302 6:3 270, 273, 276 6:4 270, 272, 281 6:4–5 303

KETER SHEM TOV

396 6:4–8 283 6:5 272–273, 299 6:6 272–273, 281, 299 6:7–11 282 6:8 272, 299 6:9 273, 282 6:9–10 283, 299 6:9–11 273 6:10 273 6:11 282–283, 302 6:12–20 281 6:19 359 10 262 10:11 273, 281 11 262 11:10 263 15:35–49 310, 315 15:45 144

2 Corinthians 3:6 5:1–11 6:16

271 310 359

Galatians 4:26

357

2 Timothy 3:1

345

Hebrews 1–2 349 1:1–3 359 1:2 345 1:3 351 1:5 335, 347 1:5–6 346, 348 1:6 346–349, 351, 358 2 349 2:5 348, 350–351, 358 2:5–10 349

2:10 349, 351 2:12 358 2:15–16 349 3 349 3–4 349 3:1 357 3:1–6 349, 359 4 349 4:4 350 4:9 359 4:14 352 5:5 335 6:4 357 8 352 8:1 351–352 8:1–3 351 8:2 353–355, 358–359 8:5 357–358 8:8–12 360 8:13 360 9:11 355 9:23 357 10:5 348 10:21 352 11:10 356 11:16 354–358 12:18–24 259, 355 12:18–29 355 12:21 356 12:22 356 12:22–24 359 13:13 360 13:14 360 13:15–16 344, 346, 359

1 Peter 1:20

345

2 Peter 1:19

207

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES Jude 1–2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 12–13 14–15 16

397

18 19 24–25

212 212 212 211 211 211 211 211 211 212 211 211 212

345 212 212–213

Revelation 3:12 11 14:4 21 21:1–4 21:22 22:16

357 365 309 365 357 355 207

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 2 Baruch 4:2–7 29:5 48:48–52 :7 51:9–12 73:7

357 313 314 313 313

1 Enoch 211, 222, 229–230, 309–310, 313, 315, 357

2 Enoch

207, 357

Jubilees 84, 115, 221–222, 225, 230, 307–308, 315, 367, 369

Assumption of Moses 211

Odes of Solomon 357

4 Ezra 7:26–44 14:44–47

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

2:43

347

Sibylline Oracles 357 314 90

357

398

KETER SHEM TOV

DEAD SEA SCROLLS 1QIsaa 4, 40, 89–95, 101–107, 109– 112, 119, 127, 198, 219 1QIsab 91–93 1QpHab (Habakkuk Commentary/Pesher Habakkuk) 5, 6, 45, 95–96, 123–130, 132– 149, 241–242, 244–248, 251– 253, 256 1QGenAp (Genesis Apocryphon/1Q20) 6, 115, 217–232 1QS (Community Rule/Serekh Hayahad) 6, 44–47, 49, 96, 127, 187, 193–197, 204, 207, 219– 221, 254, 259–267, 269, 284– 304, 310, 315, 319, 344 1QM (War Scroll) 5, 151–152, 160, 170–183, 193, 207, 209, 312, 316 1QH (Hodayot/Thanksgiving Hymns) 154, 193, 209, 314–315 1Q3 (1QpaleoLev) 70 1Q4 (1QDeuta) 198 1Q26 (1QInstruction) 311, 315 1Q27 (Book of Mysteries) 186–187, 189–192 1Q28a 363 2Q2 (2QExoda) 198 2Q3 (2QExodb) 198 2Q13 (2QJer) 198 2Q16 (2QRutha) 118 3Q3 (3QLam) 198 3Q15 (Copper Scroll) 35 4Q2 (4QGenb) 116 4Q3 (4QGenc) 70 4Q4 (4QGend) 70, 116 4Q5 (4QGene) 70 4Q14 (4QExodc) 106 4Q17 (4QExod-Levf) 4, 66, 69, 72– 73, 76–77, 79–80

4Q22 (4QpaleoExodm) 4, 61–62, 65–66, 69, 71–72, 76–78, 80, 82, 91 4Q23 (4QLev-Numa) 70 4Q25 (4QLevc) 70 4Q26 (4QLevd) 70 4Q26a (4QLeve) 70 4Q27 (4QNumb) 4, 66, 68–69, 73– 74, 76–77, 79–80, 83, 91, 198 4Q32 (4QDeute) 70 4Q33 (4QDeutf) 70 4Q34 (4QDeutg ) 116–117 4Q35 (4QDeuth) 117, 198 4Q37 (4QDeutj) 198 4Q38 (4QDeutk) 198 4Q40 (4QDeutm) 198 4Q41 (4QDeutn) 80, 83 4Q44 (4QDeutq) 347 4Q45 (4QpaleoDeutr) 70 4Q51 (4QSama) 91 4Q53 (4QSamc) 198 4Q57 (4QIsac) 198 4Q71 (4QJerb) 92 4Q73 (4QEzeka) 118 4Q74 (4QEzekb) 118 4Q78 (4QXIIc/4QMinor Prophetsc) 198 4Q80 (4QXIIe/4QMinor Prophetse) 198 4Q107 (4QCantb) 93 4Q109 (4QQoha) 198 4Q111 (4QLam) 198 4Q128 (4QPhyl A) 198 4Q129 (4QPhyl B) 198 4Q134–136 (4QPhyl G-I) 198 4Q137–144 (4QPhyl J-Q) 198 4Q158 (4QRPa) 4, 61, 67–70, 76– 80, 82, 84 4Q161 (4QpIsaa) 125, 130

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES 4Q163 (4QpIsac) 125 4Q169 (4QpNah/4QPesher Nahum) 21, 130, 243 4Q171 (4QpPsa/4QPesher Psalms A) 21, 130, 242–244, 312–313 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium/ 4QFlor/4QEschatological Midrasha,b) 7, 136, 208, 333– 346, 351–352, 354, 358–360, 369 4Q175 (4QTest/4QTestimonia) 6, 65, 67–68, 70, 83–84, 203–215 4Q177 (4QCatena A/ 4QEschatological Midrasha,b) 127, 333–334, 340, 358 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman) 193, 310 4Q206 193 4Q252 (4QComm Gen A) 84, 127– 128 4Q256 (4QSb - Community Rule) 193, 195, 284–285, 290, 303 4Q257 (4QSc - Community Rule) 310 4Q258 (4QSd - Community Rule) 193, 195, 284–285, 290, 303 4Q267 (4QDb - Damascus Document) 193 4Q271 (4QDf - Damascus Document) 308 4Q299 (4QMysteriesa) 191, 193 4Q299–301 (Book of Mysteries) 186–187, 189–192 4Q364 (4QRPb/4QReworked Pentateuch) 4, 64, 67–69, 75–80, 82, 84 4Q365 (4QRPc/4QReworked Pentateuch) 68–69, 82 4Q365a (4QTemple) 68 4Q366 (4QRPd/4QReworked Pentateuch) 68, 82 4Q367 (4QRPe/4QReworked Pentateuch) 68, 82

399

4Q371 61 4Q372 61 4Q373 61 4Q379 (4QPsalms of Joshua/ 4QApocryphon of Joshua) 206 4Q385–386, 388, 391 (PseudoEzekiel) 316 4Q394–399 (4QMMT/Halakhic Letter) 27–28, 38, 373 4Q400–407 (4QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) 38 4Q416 (4QInstrb/4QInstruction) 187 4Q417 (4QInstrc/Sapiential Work A/Book of Instruction/ 4QInstruction) 127, 186–187, 189, 191, 315 4Q423 (4QInstrg/4QInstruction) 311 4Q430 (4QHb/Hodayot) 209 4Q432 (4QpapH/Hodayot) 193 4Q491 (4QWar Scrolla) 178, 193 4Q491–496 (4QWar Scroll) 45, 96, 186 4Q496 193 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 315 4Q511 193, 341 4Q521 (4QMessianic Apocalypse) 315 4Q531 (4QGiantsc) 226 11Q2 (11QLevb) 198 11Q4 (11QEzek) 118 11Q5 (11QPsa/Psalms Scroll) 41, 91 11Q10 (11QtgJob) 193 11Q12 (11QJub) 193 11Q14 (11QSefer ha-Milhamah) 312 11Q17 (11QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice) 38 11QTa (11Q19/Temple Scroll) 307–308, 312, 331, 361–374

400

KETER SHEM TOV

11QTb (11Q20/Temple Scroll) 7, 124, 126–129, 133–134, 221, 225 Book of Hagu 363 Damascus Document (CD) 7, 44–

47, 168, 193, 207, 254, 260, 288, 307–308, 311–312, 316, 319– 331, 363 Masada, see Other Bible Versions

PHILO De Somniis 2.250 358 De Praemiis et poenis 313 Hypothetica 306

JOSEPHUS Bellum Judaicum 306

RABBINIC AND MEDIEVAL JEWISH LITERATURE Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 358 Ḥagiga 358 Menaḥot 53b 227

Genesis Rabba 217, 230 Midrash Tanḥuma 217, 230 Mishneh Torah 13 Psalms Targum 350

EPIGRAPHIC SOURCES Oxyrhynchus papyri 28

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Justin Martyr, Dialogue 351

GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE Pliny, Natural History 307

OTHER BIBLE VERSIONS 5/6HevPs 117, 129 Kennicott’s manuscript 30 115 Leningrad Codex 113, 115, 117, 119 MasGen 115 MasLeva 115–116 MasLevb 115–116 MasDeut 115–117 MasEzek 117–118 MasPsa 117–118

MasPsb 115, 118 MurXII 117 Samaritan Pentateuch 4, 59–88, 103, 106, 114, 204–205 Septuagint/LXX 4, 62, 64–66, 70–80, 83–88, 92, 103, 114, 164, 175, 207, 210, 276, 290, 345–349, 351, 353–355, 360 Vetus Latina 81