The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honour of Martin G. Abegg on the Occasion of His ... on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 115) 9004271147, 9789004271142

Citation preview

The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Edited by George J. Brooke Associate Editors Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar Jonathan Ben-Dov Alison Schofield

volume 115

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/stdj

Marty in Venice

The War Scroll, Violence, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Essays in Honour of Martin G. Abegg on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday

Edited by

Kipp Davis (lead editor) Dorothy M. Peters Kyung S. Baek Peter W. Flint

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The War scroll, violence, war and peace in the Dead Sea scrolls and related literature : essays in honour of Martin G. Abegg on the occasion of his 65th birthday / edited by Kipp Davis, Kyung S. Baek, Peter W. Flint, Dorothy M. Peters.   pages cm -- (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; volume 115)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-27114-2 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-30163-4 (e-book) 1. War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. I. Abegg, Martin G., honouree. II. Davis, Kipp, editor. III. Baek, Kyung S., editor. IV. Flint, Peter W., editor. V. Peters, Dorothy M., 1958– editor.  BM488.W3W37 2015  296.1’55—dc23 2015026104

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-9962 isbn 978-90-04-27114-2 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-30163-4 (e-book) Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents Preface and Acknowledgements xi List of Tables and Figures xii Abbreviations xiv List of Contributors xv

Introduction 1 Introduction 3 Dorothy M. Peters 2 From Concordance to Concordance: Martin G. Abegg’s Work on Computerising and Concordancing the Dead Sea Scrolls 13 Emanuel Tov 3 From “The War Scroll” to A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: Marty Abegg . . . In His Own Words 23 Jason Kalman

The War Scroll 4 Text, Timing, and Terror: Thematic Thoughts on the War Scroll in Conversation with the Writings of Martin G. Abegg, Jr. 49 George J. Brooke 5 Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the Syntax and Semantics of the War Scroll (1QM): The Noun Phrase as Proof of Concept 67 Robert D. Holmstedt and John Screnock 6 The “Mysteries of God” in the Qumran War Scroll 107 Anthony R. Meyer 7 “There and Back Again”: Reconstruction and Reconciliation of the War Text 4QMilḥamaa (4Q491a–c) 125 Kipp Davis

viii

contents

8

Priestly Covenants in 1QM and 1QSb 147 Dongshin D. Chang

9

The War Rule Texts and a New Theory of the People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Brief Thought Experiment 163 Robert Kugler

War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls 10

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll  175 Alex P. Jassen

11

The Naval Battle in the Qumran War Texts 204 Brian Schultz

12

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction 215 John Kampen

13

Cutting Off and Cutting Down Shechem: Levi and His Sword in the Rylands Genizah Fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document 237 Dorothy M. Peters and Esther Eshel

14

Prophecy, False Prophecy, and War in the Dead Sea Scrolls 260 James E. Bowley

15

Prayer, Liturgy, and War 275 Daniel K. Falk

16

Purity in War: What is it Good for? 295 Ian Werrett and Stephen Parker

War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christian Text and Interpretation 17

Violence, Apologetics, and Resistance: Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue 319 Torleif Elgvin

contents

18

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls 341 Craig A. Evans

19

The Sword-in-the-Mouth of Jesus the King: Declarations of War and Peace in the Gospel of Matthew 354 Kyung S. Baek

20 Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt 364 Michael O. Wise 21

The Cave 11 Psalm Scroll (11Q5) and the Textual History of Ethiopic Psalm 151: Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior 390 Steve Delamarter A Bibliography of Martin G. Abegg 409 Compiled by Kyung S. Baek and Kipp Davis General Bibliography 413 Index 451

ix

Preface and Acknowledgements This volume is well over a decade in the planning and making. Although its formal beginnings were in October 2011 when the editors met to set out the timetable of the project, Dorothy Peters and Kipp Davis were in conversation already in 2004 about producing a book to honour their former thesis advisor, Marty Abegg. We owe Marty Abegg a tremendous debt of gratitude, and the production of this volume could not have been possible without the help of many. We are primarily grateful to all the conributors, who were so enthusiastic and supportive of the project, and whose fine papers have made this not only a fitting tribute to our friend, but also a useful and invaluable resource for the academy. We thank George Brooke for his acceptance of the volume for publication in the Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah series; also for Prof. Brooke’s very helpful feedback at various stages of production from its conception to the delivery of the completed manuscript. We are grateful to Ed Cook for his service as a guest editor of the essay by Robert Holmstedt and John Screnock. Our thanks also to Maaike Langerak at Brill for her expert and expedient handling of the draft, the production of the proofs, and the printed work. We are finally thankful to our colleagues: Dorothy, Peter and Kyung at TWU, and Kipp at the University of Agder in Kristiansand, Norway. Kipp is especially grateful to Årstein Justnes and Torleif Elgvin, his partners in the NFR funded project Biblical Texts Older than the Bible (2012–2015), for their generous allotment of time that was required for overseeing the volume while a post-doktor at UiA. We are ultimately indebted to our families for their enduring love and support: to Greg (Dorothy); to Linda, Madeline, Isaiah and Micah (Kyung); to Amanda and our children (Peter); to Lisa, Jaydon, Nick, and Jacob (Kipp). Kipp Davis (lead editor) Dorothy M. Peters Kyung S. Baek Peter W. Flint

Fraser Valley, BC, Canada, July 2015

List of Tables and Figures Tables 5.1 Attributive adjectives 80 5.2 Predicative adjectives 81 5.3 Substantival adjectives 81 5.4 Adverbial adjectives 84 5.5 NP-Internal PP 84 5.6 Semantically restrictive relative clause 86 5.7 ‫ ה‬relative clause 88 5.8 Unmarked relative clause 89 5.9 Apositive 91 5.10 Structure of cardinal number phrases 98 5.11 Order and structure of additive complex numerals 99 5.12 Order, structure, and gender agreement of teen constructions 100 5.13 Order, structure, and gender agreement of multiplicative complex numerals 101 5.14 Summary of order, structure, and gender agreement in all numeral syntax 102 5.15 Simple coordination 104 7.1 Images of 4Q491 frgs. 11 i–ii, 12, renumbered and aligned to Abegg’s fragment numbers 129 13.1 The Aramaic Levi Document: Levi as proposed narrator 248 15.1 Outline of 1QM 277 15.2 Papyrus opisthographs 291 16.1 Population distribution of Jewish males in antiquity 309 16.2 Eligibility of Jewish males for inclusion among the “Sons of Light” 313 Figures 1.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 7.1

Marty with Professor Wacholder and his book reader 6 Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls 32 Transparency 2: “Unconcording” a text 38 Transparency 3: Raw data entry 39 Transparency 4: Text-tagging spreadsheet 40 Qumrân Grotte 4 III, Planche VI, 4Q491 frg. 11 i–ii + 12 131

list of tables and figures

7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 13.1 13.2 20.1 21.1 21.2 21.3

xiii

4Q491 frg. 11 i–ii + 12 arranged to scale; Based on Qumrân Grotte 4 III, Planche VI 131 4Q491a, c frgs 11 i–ii Layers 1 & 2 in vertical alignment II = 11γ–δ i : 11β—δ, ζ ii 134 4Q491a, c frgs 11 i–ii Layers 1 & 2 in vertical alignment III = 11ε–ζ, θ i : 11η ii 134 4Q491a, c frgs 11 i–ii in layers 137 Rylands Genizah P1185-1 Recto 240 Rylands Genizah P1185-1 Verso 242 Hand-drawing of obverse 377 Relationship of manuscripts based on shared linguistic variations 396 Relationship of manuscripts based on shared variants of substance 397 Relationship of manuscripts based on all variants 398

Abbreviations The title abbreviations for all journals, series, and texts follow Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds, The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999).

List of Contributors Kyung S. Baek Ph.D. (cand.), University of Manchester James E. Bowley E.B. Stewart Family Chair of Language and Literature, Millsaps College, Jackson, Miss. George J. Brooke Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester Dongshin Dohnson Chang Adjunct Instructor, ACTS Seminary of Trinity Western University Kipp Davis Post Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway Editor, Green Scholars Initiative Steve Delamarter Professor of Old Testament, George Fox Evangelical Seminary, Portland, Ore. Torleif Elgvin Professor of Bible, NLA University College, Oslo Esther Eshel Professor of Bible, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Craig A. Evans Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, NS Daniel K. Falk Chaiken Family Chair in Jewish Studies, Pennsylvania State University Robert D. Homstedt Associate Professor of Ancient Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages, University of Toronto

xvi

list of contributors

Alex P. Jassen Associate Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University Jason Kalman Associate Professor of Classical Hebrew Literature and Interpretation, Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati Research Fellow, University of the Free State, South Africa John Kampen Van Bogard Dunn Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Methodist Theological School in Ohio, Delaware Robert Kugler Paul S. Wright Professor of Christian Studies, Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Ore. Anthony R. Meyer Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Dorothy M. Peters Adjunct Instructer, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC Brian Schultz Assistant Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Fresno Pacific University, Fresno, Calif. John Screnock Kennicott Fellow in Classical Hebrew, University of Oxford Emanuel Tov J.L. Magnes Professor of Bible Emeritas, Hebrew University, Jerusalem Ian Werrett Associate Professor of Religious Studies, St. Martin’s University, Lacey, Wash. Michael O. Wise Scholar-In-Residence, University of Northwestern, St. Paul

Introduction

∵

Chapter 1

Introduction Dorothy M. Peters 1

Martin G. Abegg

“I bought a special ruler and measured every waw and yod in the War Scroll.” Who does this? Marty Abegg, apparently. “I like puzzles!” is what Marty offers as an explanation for why he chose to study the War Scroll for his Ph.D. dissertation. Seeking and finding previously “undiscovered treasure” was also what compelled him; the treasures of Qumran were to be found not only in caves, but also within the Hebrew world of words and texts.1 This volume features a photo of an untrimmed Marty, temporarily unleashed from administrative responsibilities and paper-plate receptions, while following the investigative footsteps of his favorite fictional Venetian, Commissario Guido Brunetti, having just spent days climbing the Swiss Haute Route with Sue, his wife. (Marty has assured the editors that no holy books were used to create the pile on which he sits!) If your first encounter with Marty was in one of his many haunts and hideouts, you might not peg him immediately as a world-renowned scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even his undergraduate students are regularly astonished

* Quotations in this Introduction are excerpted from an interview recorded by the author on December 4, 2014. Unless otherwise cited, other stories are recounted as told to the author over the years she has known him as her teacher, thesis advisor and, finally, colleague. 1  This particular puzzle was the already well-known lexical problems plaguing some words in the War Scroll, problems arising from difficulty distinguishing between the scribe’s formation of the waw and yod. The good news, Marty discovered after making the measurements, was that the scribe did know the difference between these letters; the scribe did make subtle distinctions. However, there he found an overlapping area in which the two letters do look the same. Unfortunately, all of the lexically challenged words were in the area of overlap in which distinctions were not made. He wonders whether the scribe of antiquity had the same questions about these words; whether the scribe was “purposely ambiguous” and deliberately messy, concluding, “It is curious that all the words that I surfaced that did have questions about ‘How do we spell them?’ . . . all of those words, the waw and yod distinction is ambiguous.” This is one of just many mysteries still to be solved from the War Scroll.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_002

4

Peters

to discover for themselves the stature of their professor when they stumble across his name in books about the Scrolls. Encountering Marty in a Seattle street-side shop that sells old books or maps or vinyl records, you could easily visualise him as collector and proprietor par excellence. Hearing him tell of a musical gig from his college days, when he and his band opened for Three Dog Night, you might think him still a musician, rocking along with his guitar. Walking along a remote and rocky point of British Columbia island coastline, you see and wave to a scruffy guy constructing a house built with beams and bookcases and east to west views of ocean sunrises and sunsets and want to contract him to build your own dream. At a symposium on whales, you hope that the local island computer geek is not a hacker but that he restricts his technical expertise to the study of whales and the birdcalls he collects on his database. While studying Modern Hebrew in your community, your volunteer teacher’s humble love for the language and his kindness and patience with you as a learner, evokes the image of a man who could be equally at home teaching in the local Bible School or community college. These are the many pastimes of Marty. Yet, it is the guild of Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls scholars that has been blessed, for what characterises Marty in the pursuit of these, his pastimes, has also characterised him in the pursuit of his profession. We can only be grateful that this computer savvy puzzler and collector, this constructing and reconstructing, relentlessly clue-following, musicloving, teaching, Indiana Jones of a treasure-hunting man came to devote himself to the exploration of the Dead Sea Scrolls more than 30 years ago. How Marty came to the study of Hebrew and the Dead Sea Scrolls could be described as series of inspired chance happenings. 2

Early Life and Hebrew University

When asked what prepared him for working in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Marty replies, “I collected baseball cards!” As a boy, he scoured newspapers to obtain the player stats. Already then, he was “predisposed to build databases,” he reflects. Marty’s interest in things Hebraic began in Grade 4 when he was living in New York.2 On Wednesdays, the Jewish children brought their Hebrew Bibles to class and, after lunch, would go off to Hebrew school. Those who were not 2  While his father was completing a Ph.D. in civil engineering at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, in 1958–1960.

Introduction

5

Jewish, however, went over to the Methodist church. They coloured pictures. Marty remembers feeling “ripped off”; if you were not Jewish, you could not read this book. But he was also fascinated. First of all, the words looked like secret code to him, something you could break. Secondly, the words read backwards. There must be treasures in the Hebrew Bible, thought he, even as a little boy. Years later, after graduating ( just barely!) from college with a degree in geology, life took an unexpected turn. Marty was on a solitary hike in the west coast Olympic mountains and there he met a girl. He married her, then went to seminary and even pastored a church for a while. But his frustration at merely being able to “cough back” the contents of the Statement of Faith to his seminary professors motivated Marty to study the language and the text of the Bible, to know them really well, so that he could come to his of his own convictions about what it said. One day, a friend of Marty’s father said to the senior Dr. Martin G. Abegg, “Your boys are interested in the Bible; they need to go to Israel to study.” By 1984, Marty was enrolled as a Comparative Semitics student in the Hebrew University. Two years later, in 1986, he signed up for a course in the Bible Department on the book of Septuagint Jeremiah that was to be taught by Emanuel Tov. Over the summer, the course topic changed to a seminar on the biblical scrolls from the Dead Sea.3 Marty wanted to drop the class. Marty tried to switch to another course. But Marty could not find another course to fit his schedule. But that is where it began. This year-long seminar “. . . brought out the Indiana Jones in me,” as Marty tells it. In the spring of 1987, Marty was at the Qumran site with a couple of buddies, looking for Cave 1Q with pictures, trying to triangulate their position with maps. After three to four hours of searching, they finally stumbled upon it. This sense of discovery was compelling, heightening his appetite for more. 3

The War Scroll

“I fell into the hands of Ben Zion Wacholder” is how Marty remembers the next part of his journey of discovery. By the time Marty transferred to Hebrew Union College in 1987, Ben Zion Wacholder was almost blind, but still reading

3  This was several years before Tov became the Chief Editor of the DSS but Tov had been given the responsibility for publishing the biblical scrolls of Jeremiah and Joshua from Cave 4Q, which appeared in DJD 14 and DJD 15 in 1995 and 1997.

6

Peters

FIGURE 1.1 Marty with Professor Wacholder and his book reader

one word at a time, highly magnified, with the help of a video camera and television screen. In his first conversation with Wacholder, Marty boldly proposed himself as his teaching assistant. Shortly after that, the two were collaborating on various projects including work on the Temple Scroll and the Damascus Document and, later, the fascicles of the Preliminary Concordance. Together, they read all of the major available non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and Marty started collecting and entering the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls electronically. “By the time I left HUC,” Marty recalls, Wacholder had “graduated to reading one letter at a time. But he was not deterred. He read constantly . . . or we read to him.” Over the years the two worked together, it would seem that the student became even more like the teacher, sharing a love for learning, a tenacity for pursuing the meaning of a text and that generous impulse to share with others the things they had learned. Although Marty could be described as “battle-ready,” he certainly does not seek out controversy. Therefore, it is ironic that it was his Ph.D. dissertation, a critical edition of the War Scroll, that thrust him and his mentor into the thick of one of the most publicised historic battles involving the Dead Sea Scrolls. When he was choosing a dissertation topic, the Cave 4 texts related to the War Scroll (4Q491–497) had just been published. As Marty describes it, had

Introduction

7

the variant texts of the Community Rule or the Damascus Document been available first, he could just as easily have chosen them. He was simply seeking a good puzzle to solve. But they weren’t and he didn’t. So the War Scroll it was. Marty began to hear of the existence of texts among the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls material that might, potentially, help him with his work on the War Scroll. For example, in addition to 4QSM (4Q285) to which Milik had referred, he heard the rumours that calendar texts were on the way. Because the War Scroll referred to 26 priestly courses whereas the Hebrew Bible mentioned only 24, he suspected that the calendar texts might help solve this puzzle. The story of Marty’s design of a computer program that helped him reconstruct these texts from the (by now) infamous “word-in-context” card index concordance is told well by Emanuel Tov and Jason Kalman in this volume (see Tov and Kalman) and will not be reiterated here. But there is a detail or two to add. During this time, Marty remembers walking back and forth between his home and HUC, trying to reconstruct the calendar texts in his mind. During these walks and the process of reconstructing, he learned about the 364 day sectarian calendar. In time, he was able to reconstruct not only the not-yetpublished Dead Sea Scrolls texts that he needed for his dissertation, but also the Cave 4 texts of the Damascus Document for Wacholder. One learns about what someone loves and values by the stories they choose to tell. When Marty tells about the day that he presented his reconstructions of the Cave 4 Damascus Document texts to his teacher, it is abundantly clear how meaningful this was for him. In the late spring of 1992, Marty completed his dissertation, “The War Scroll from Qumran Caves 1 and 4: A Critical Edition.” Soon afterwards, other projects quickly presented themselves (see Tov and Kalman). The dissertation went onto a shelf; there it remained for many years, unpublished. 4

Trinity Western University

In 1995, Marty came to Trinity Western University. The Dead Sea Scrolls Institute (DSSI) at TWU was the brainchild of Craig A. Evans who was engineered the coup that brought Marty Abegg and Peter Flint to the university that summer. With the inauguration of the DSSI came the first Biblical Studies graduate students, many who came to TWU not just to study the Dead Sea Scrolls, but specifically to study under the guidance of these world class Qumran scholars. Dozens of their students have gone on to complete Ph.Ds in some of the finest universities in North America and Europe, including the editors and several

8

Peters

contributors to this volume. Over the next 20 years, symposia and conferences brought the world of Dead Sea Scrolls and Bible scholarship to TWU. As Marty tells it, the Dead Sea Scrolls are also a human story. What drew him was what has drawn others to these texts: “We saw ourselves in the story and we recognised people that we knew.” Marty’s own substantial contributions to scholarship are being multiplied as another generation of students learn from their teacher as Marty learned from his own. They witness and absorb the dedication to a meticulous study of languages and text, but also the character of the person who is teaching them. In this next season, Marty plans to continue to work with students at TWU but will be unleashed from full time faculty responsibilities. He hopes to take the “time to bring to bear everything that I have learned in the last years but have not really had the time to cook,” before, as he puts it, “things start sliding out faster than you can put them in!” In the months to come, at the time of this writing, Marty is completing his work on the Judean Desert documentary texts and the preparations for the third volume of the print concordance. While he continues his work on the Peshitta and a syntax project, he is dreaming of a Qumran grammar and more of what he calls “computer games”; for example, a digital, morphologically analyzed edition of all of the exegetical midrashim. Finally and full circle, Marty has returned, once again, to the War Scroll. Years ago, he was contracted to write its commentary. However, before commenting on the War Scroll, he wanted to be sure that he understood just what the text was saying. He also brought his students alongside him in that quest; teaching a graduate seminar on the syntax of the War Scroll is just one example.4 Now, finally, close to 30 years after he first began his work with the War Scroll, Marty is nearing completion of the critical edition to appear in the new Brill series Dead Sea Scrolls Editions. Then will come the commentary, to be published in the Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This present volume described below, is envisioned as a companion to Marty’s forthcoming critical edition of the War Scroll and the commentary; the essays written by his colleagues, friends, and former students, in ongoing conversation with his work.

4  One contributor, John Screnock, was a participant in this seminar, and has made good on its mandate in conjunction with Robert D. Holmstedt (his Doktor Vater and Marty’s collaborator), in their essay appearing in Chapter Five, “Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the Syntax and Semantics of the War Scroll (1QM): The Noun Phrase as Proof of Concept.”

Introduction

5

9

The Essays in the Volume

The volume is divided into four parts: Introduction, The War Scroll, War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls and War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christian Text and Interpretation. In the first essay, EMANUEL TOV writes from his perspective as editor-inchief of the Dead Sea Scrolls, providing an overview of the scholarly career of Marty Abegg, especially his work in computerising ancient texts in both directions “from concordance to words and from words to concordance.” JASON KALMAN then focuses on the fine details of the process Abegg went through from card-catalogue to the publication of the Preliminary Edition. Included in this valuable component to the history of the re-discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, is a never before published transcription of the earliest recorded, raw and fresh, oral report by Abegg of the breakthrough, delivered late in 1991. GEORGE J. BROOKE introduces the section on the War Scroll by arguing that the War Scroll functioned as a “forceful speech act” that created a sense of anticipated victory. Multiple versions of the scroll and its very verbosity served to re-equip the “forces of light” so that every version became a new weapon. While War cannot be explained away as a “catharsis for quietests,” states Brooke, its words may have worked “emotionally and performatively” both to endorse and control “destructive aspirations” while its sense of eschatological time allowed for the delay of divine vengeance. The first of three technical studies on the War Scroll is offered by ROBERT D. HOLMSTEDT and JOHN SCRENOCK, who provide a preliminary view of their vision for a descriptive grammar of syntax and semantics in the Qumran Scrolls, by using the noun phrase in the War Scroll as a proof of concept. Holmstedt and Screnock offer this exhaustive treatment of a significant grammatical component that includes features not previously discussed, and provide with it a model to follow for future full descriptions of grammar for other individual texts. In his essay, ANTHONY R. MEYER argues that the shared features in 1QM and the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–108) include an understanding of God’s hand in the suffering of the righteous as a mystery. Meyer explores the semantic range of the term ‫ רז‬as it pertains to the War Scroll, denoting the idea of Godordained suffering leading directly to the ultimate vindication of the righteous. KIPP DAVIS tackles the puzzle of 4Q491 that formed a major component of Marty Abegg’s HUC dissertation. Based on his analysis of the digitised images, and with the use of photo-editing tools, Davis argues for re-joining the fragments that were once separated by Abegg into three distinct manuscripts. Davis rather posits that 4Q491 is an intriguing individual scroll containing

10

Peters

multiple compositions that were forged together through an “inspired connection” between liturgy and accounts of the “triumphant stages of eschatological battles.” In the first of two essays on the composition and interpretation of the War Scroll, DONGSHIN D. CHANG examines the significance of the phrase, “the covenant of perpetual priesthood” within the literary contexts of War Scroll and 1QSb. He argues that, while the phrase is used in 1QSb to describe, develop, and support a priestly covenant ideology for the sons of Zadok, in particular, its use in 1QM seems to promote the “presence and function of multiple priestly groups.” ROBERT KUGLER offers a “thought experiment.” Based on the diversity within the War Rule texts, he makes a case for the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be understood as an ethnos that was never univocal in its self-understanding and that could, simultaneously, accommodate a “range of self-differentiating perspectives” while being unified in opposing the Judean ethnos stewarding the temple. Kugler finds that the later stages of 1QM provide the “end of the story” to the “attempted ethnogenesis” where its apocalyptic view of the future “left behind the field of ethnic differentiation.” The essays in the second section explore themes of “war and peace” in the Dead Sea Scrolls. ALEX JASSEN provides a new study of violent imagery in the War Scroll that moves beyond the literary and historical emphases that have dominated previous studies. Jassen argues that depictions of violence in the Dead Sea Scrolls generally should be understood as purely rhetorical devices for empowering their disempowered owners. Within the War Scroll, depictions of eschatological conflict functioned as a propagandistic tool to prepare the Sons of Light as they inched closer and closer to what they believed was the imminent end of days. In his essay, BRIAN SCHULTZ observes that the end of the war described in haMilḥamah involves a going out to the sea with a subsequent return to dry land (4Q285 4 5–10), a development not found anywhere in Serekh haMilḥamah (1QM and 4Q491–497) and incongruent with what is known of Israelite warfare. Schultz suggests that “new exegesis” arising in the Roman period, interpreting the Kittim of Num 24:24 in light of Dan 11:30, made a military confrontation at sea integral to the understanding of the Last Days, once the Kittim were identified as the Romans as Israel’s “last enemy” expected to suffer defeat. JOHN KAMPEN compares and contrasts the various responses of accommodation and resistance to violence as advocated in the wisdom writings of Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, Daniel and Instruction. Although Instruction does not explicitly refer to violence, Kampen suggests that its development of an ideology

Introduction

11

on poverty and need was a response to the structural violence of oppressive indebtedness. DOROTHY M. PETERS and ESTHER ESHEL present readings of a newly rediscovered fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document that records a previously unknown exegesis of the Shechem incident in Gen 34. In this fragment, Levi is subtly distanced from circumcision deception and habitual use of the sword; simultaneously, the use of the sword against Shechem is divinely authorised in the hand of Levi, as a wise, zealous and righteous priestly archetype. JAMES E. BOWLEY explores rhetorical weapons used by the Yahad within the ideological warfare of Second Temple Judaism. Rival leaders associated with false prophets are condemned and leaders claiming to receive communication from the deity are authenticated. DANIEL K. FALK finds evidence from a “living liturgical context” for the War Scroll, for liturgical use and re-use of prayers for different purposes and for worship as spiritual warfare. For Falk, the elaborate system of prayer in the War Scroll is, in itself, a military tactic. IAN WERRETT, in collaboration with Stephen Parker, attempts to account for the three preordained losses of the Sons of Light in their battles against the Sons of Darkness, as recorded in the War Scroll. In Joshua, those Israelites fighting a holy war and who have sanctified themselves “do not lose.” Werrett argues that the battles losses in the War Scroll, in contrast to a battle loss in Joshua, cannot be attributed to ritual or moral violation. Even so, purity was to be both the prerequisite for those engaged in eschatological war but also the state of being required to achieve the final victory over the Sons of Darkness. Finally, five essays in the third section explore the theme of “war and peace” in early Jewish and Christian text and interpretation. In his analysis of Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba revolt, MICHAEL O. WISE offers a new reading of this letter written to Simon bar Kosiba that has implications for the geographic extent of the rebel government and absorption of Gentile revolutionaries into the Second Revolt. According to Wise, the letter was never delivered. TORLEIF ELGVIN reads what he calls “Qumran sectarian resistance texts” as a dialectic response to Hasmonaean ideology, stage-building and harsh government. The restorative messianism of the pro-Hasmonaean voice is shown to differ from the more apocalyptic and eschatological voice of the anti-Hasmonaeans. CRAIG A. EVANS argues for eschatological features shared between some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (e.g. the War texts and the Messianic Apocalypse [4Q521]) and the teachings of Jesus and New Testament evangelists. Shared features include similar ways of interpreting Daniel, similar understandings of

12

Peters

being at war against Satan (Jesus) and Belial (Qumran War texts), and similar expectations of an eschatological Jubilee. Jesus’ vision is distinctive, however, in replacing the call to take up arms with “turning the other cheek, praying for enemies [and] forgiving the sins and debts of others.” According to KYUNG S. BAEK, the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the king of the Jews and a royal messiah who takes up the sword—not in the hand but in the mouth—with his teaching and declarations concerning the kingdom of heaven. Advocating to his disciples a non-violent revolution against all opposing political-religious-spiritual powers, Jesus’ sword-in-the-mouth announces his kingdom of peace, which is extended to Israel (10:1–42) and all the nations by his disciples (28:16–20). In this way, Jesus’ teaching and commission to his disciples can be understood as a call-to-arms or taking up the sword in the mouth. Finally, STEVE DELAMARTER traces the development of the “David as warrior” motif in Psalm 151—a Hebrew psalm found at Qumran in 11Q5 (Psalms Scroll) but also preserved in the Ethiopic Old Testament—as linked to the textual history 45 Ethiopic manuscripts, transcribed and analyzed by him. While Delamarter observes that “the earliest extant form of the text is stamped into the entire tradition,” the Ethiopic tradition is also observed to be interested in “preserving the variations” and in “specifying the theological usefulness of each.” On a final note, we, the editors, are honoured to present this collection of essays from friends, colleagues and students—admirers all—to Marty as a gift and in appreciation for everything that he has taught us about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bible and also about life. We close with words from the War Scroll that Marty himself has inscribed into countless books and letters: ‫חזקו ואמצו‬ and ‫שלום וברכה‬. (1QM 15:7; 17:7). We will answer and say back your own words to you, our friend. Be strong and courageous, Marty. May peace and blessing follow you, all of the days of your life.

CHAPTER 2

From Concordance to Concordance: Martin G. Abegg’s Work on Computerising and Concordancing the Dead Sea Scrolls Emanuel Tov 1 Introduction Marty was destined, so to speak, to become one of the leading experts in making biblical and Qumran texts available in the form of both texts and concordances on paper and especially in electronic format. When reading the list of courses he took as well as his list of publications, one is left with the impression that he unwittingly prepared himself, or was predestined, to fulfill these tasks.1 Marty knows the biblical and Qumran texts inside out and has all the linguistic and computer skills that are necessary for fulfilling these tasks. On top of this, his determination and perseverance, as well as his peace of mind— as it appears to an outsider—left him well equipped to perform such work. That he apparently also sees a poetic beauty in the gathering of words can be seen in his citation of Neil Young who opens for Volume I of the Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance (see n. 26): “Words, words, words, between the lines of age . . .” He then chose Bob Dylan to open for Volume 3 (see n. 27): “And every one of them words rang true and glowed like burning coal . . .” This is the Marty I know, quoting from contemporary songs even in his correspondence. Martin G. Abegg is probably the only scholar who has worked on the computerisation of the ancient texts in both directions, from concordance to words and from words to concordance. When I first wrote this last sentence, I had forgotten that Marty had made the same observation in his interview with Hershel Shanks: “So I began with the concordance and I end with the concordance. It’s rather fitting, I think.”2 *  Thanks are due to Roy Brown, Ed Cook, Weston Fields, and Dorothy Peters, all of whom read earlier drafts of this paper. 1  I might mention that Marty took his first course on the scrolls with me in Jerusalem in 1986–1987. 2   Hershel Shanks, “Will Marty Abegg Ever Find a Job? Scroll Scholar Thrives Despite Unauthorized Publication,” BAR 29/1 (Jan/Feb 2003): 36–39, 70 (the quote is from p. 70).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_003

14

Tov

2 Beginnings At the beginning of his career, Abegg cleverly reconstructed complete texts from their fragmentary notation in the hand-written card index of the unpublished texts. The card index formed a preliminary concordance that was compiled in 1960 as a tool for the use of the very small international team, and was not intended for use by the general public.3 The story commences with Abegg’s doctoral adviser, Prof. Ben Zion Wacholder, who received official permission to use the photocopied edition of the card index; a real treasure for anyone but most particularly for those who, like him, strongly disliked the monopoly of the international team. Wacholder allowed his student to use that copy and, after a short time, Marty realised that he was holding a mine of information in his hands. He immediately foresaw that this card index would enable him to consult complete lines of unpublished Dead Sea Scroll texts. For this purpose, Abegg devised a system for retrieving crucial information on the complete text lines by combining the fragmentary information provided on an index card in the keyword-in-context concordance with the information given on the words adjacent to each headword. By manipulating this information, using an off-the-shelf database program on his home computer, Marty was able to reconstruct lines of text and ultimately entire compositions. Marty needed this information for his doctoral dissertation, but he also wanted his elderly teacher, Prof. Wacholder, to enjoy the fruits of his computing labour. Wacholder had been waiting for these texts for decades. A special type of cooperation developed between student and teacher and soon the idea was born to make this information available to the international community. After much painstaking work, text after text became visible on Marty’s computer screen, and then the student-teacher team, now working together as a pair of editors needing to make editorial decisions, realised that they needed a publisher. They found an excellent accomplice in this task in Hershel Shanks who—in his own words—would do everything in his power to liberate the scrolls. The result of these labours of love was a three-volume edition, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, published by the Biblical Archaeological Society with a foreword by Shanks himself that emphasised the victory of his Sons of Light over the Sons of Darkness.4 It was a complete 3  Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, W.G. Oxtoby, J. Teixidor, A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew and Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Caves II–X, Including Especially the Unpublished Material from Cave IV (Göttingen: privately printed, 1988). 4  A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, 1–3 (ed. B.Z. Wacholder and M.G. Abegg; Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991, 1992, 1995).

From Concordance to Concordance

15

edition in every sense of the word even though it was named “preliminary.” Improving from volume to volume, each one provided more information than its predecessor. The second volume was no longer completely based on the card index; the editors were able to improve the readings with the aid of the photographs in the facsimile edition of most of the scroll fragments, which had been published in the meantime.5 The edition was improved by the addition of the inventory (PAM) numbers of the photographs and indications of parallel texts. Professionally, the work was superb and H. Stegemann, an insider, pronounced in 1992 that Marty’s reconstructions were “a trustworthy representation of about 98% of the textual evidence.”6 In 1996, Abegg also published a full-fledged concordance based on these three editions.7 Although Abegg was happy to enrich his dissertation with the newly gained information and to help his dissertation supervisor in his research, his professional pride in his youthful activity was mixed with some discomfort regarding his relationship with the members of the international team and with apprehension regarding his chances in the job market. He followed his conscience, for the benefit of his teacher, himself and other Qumran scholars and against the advice of his close friends who feared detrimental consequences to his career. However, in actual fact, his academic future was never in jeopardy and this action gave him, above all, a lot of experience and a head start in the glorious activities that were to come. At the time, those of us on the DJD editorial team were surprised at the publication of this so-called “bootleg” edition, and the preoccupation with this issue took away precious time from our editorial responsibilities, but the volumes also helped us and I never held a personal grudge against Marty. In later years, I realised that he was the best in the field and I soon took him on board to help us out with the concordancing of the scrolls within the DJD series.

5  Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991). 6  Hartmut Stegemann, “Computer-Generated Dead Sea Scrolls Texts 98% Accurate,” BAR 18/1 (1992): 70. 7  A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle Four: Concordance of Fascicles 1–3 (ed. B.Z. Wacholder, M.G. Abegg, and J. Bowley; Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1996). For a detailed description, see J. Kalman, Hebrew Union College and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College—Hebrew Institute of Religion, 2012), 61–70. Thanks are due to Dr. Kalman for kindly making the book available to me.

16 3

Tov

Computer Modules of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Texts

I am not a biographer and it is possible that I am presenting some details in the wrong sequence but, to the best of my understanding, the three stages of Abegg’s work overlapped somewhat with the work on the Preliminary Edition (1) continuing from 1991 to 1996, (2) the work on the computer modules lasting from 1992 until now, and (3) the work for the DJD series and its concordances stretching from 1996 until today. Obviously there was and remains a constant cross-fertilisation of these projects in the fields of electronic and conventional publication. At the same time, we should realise that in Abegg’s world this dichotomy does not exist, since the paper publications derived from electronic databases. I commence with the computer modules of the Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical texts. A great part of Abegg’s computer work saw the light of day in an electronic form through the computer program “Accórdance,” or in Marty’s pronunciation, “Áccordance” (the earliest version of the program was named acCordance). Drs Brown, that is Roy Brown, programmer, and Helen Brown, administrator, are the spiritual parents of this enterprise and Roy told me in May 2013: I met Marty first in 1992 at the SBL meeting in Kansas City when a public announcement was made to “open up” the DSS to all scholars. . . . Over the next 5–6 years we collaborated on how to be able to develop an electronic text of the Qumran fragments with grammatical tagging that would work with Accordance, which was a rather new piece of software at the time. The existence of the Qumran electronic text was first announced publicly in the 1994 SBL, where he and I co-presented a paper, which showed the first preliminary results of searching the Qumran text by computer. The paper, presented by Martin G. Abegg, Jr. and Roy B. Brown, was named “A Time for Tagging? (For Everything There Is a Season)” and delivered at the Qumran session at the SBL meeting on 20 November 1994. The goals of this paper were to:

• Make Qumran texts accessible for grammatical analysis; • Provide a convenient method for viewing and searching the Qumran text; and • Provide a tool to help improve the form of the Qumran text. The texts were recorded from a variety of sources, and obviously one of the purposes of the recording was to indicate the fragmentary nature of the text

From Concordance to Concordance

17

and likely sentence breaks. The certainty of the letters in the text was indicated using special overstrike characters within words in a manner analogous to pointing or cantillation characters in the Masoretic Text (MT). Among other things, the recording made use of a three-level reference system (manuscript, fragment or other parameter, line): (1) the manuscript name (serving as a book name in other text files); (2) a free “string” name that can be anything, depending upon the nature of the manuscript (the column number, fragment number, or combinations thereof ); and (3) the line number in the text. By convention, the manuscript names are separated from the following string by a space, and the string and the line number are separated by a colon or period. This combined information was absolutely necessary for search procedures. Each fragment was thus treated as a separate book with the fragment number embedded as part of the book name. Basically, the reference system (developed after much trial and error) is influenced by the traditional biblical referencing system used in the English-speaking world. The first line in the Damascus Document is thus referred to as CD 1:1, which means column 1, line 1 in that text, similar to Gen 1:1.8 After further development work, the first Qumran nonbiblical text module was released in November 1999 as part of Accordance. This module (QUMRAN) records all the Qumran texts identified by their inventory number (e.g., the large copy of the Temple Scroll is listed as 11Q19). It includes all the features of the text denoted in the official editions, usually DJD, such as the diacritical signs, spacing between words, superscript position, but not the exact size of the spacing between words, the presence of top and bottom margins, parallels between fragments, photograph numbers and bibliographical details.9 The QUMRAN module is accompanied by an English translation of the ­nonbiblical

8  Roy Brown notes (14 July 2013): “The biggest problem we had with the conventional referencing was the inconsistent use of spaces in the designation of some of the mss, which causes problems in cleanly identifying the reference in software. In some cases we simply put the reference details together, such as in 4Q416 f2iv:6, or in other cases we used an underscore character to join the pieces, such as in 4Q381 f76_77:14. (We used underscore so that the software would not confuse a hyphen with a range of references.)” 9  The “readme” file of 2009 mentioned the following collaborators in this project: “Martin G. Abegg, Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook are responsible for the morphological analysis along with Casey Toews and a host of Trinity Western University graduate ­students— Michael Anthony Apodaca, Elizabeth Campbell Chace, Jarod Jacobs, Dana Ouellette, Dorothy Peters, and Suzanne Vance.”

18

Tov

texts (QUMENG module), based on the published translations by Abegg, Michael Wise and Ed Cook (November 1999).10 The first of Abegg’s two Qumran modules of biblical texts was released in November 2007. A unique feature of the two modules is that they allow the user to search for the data either according to the sequence of chapters as they appear in the Hebrew Bible (module DSSB-C[hapter]) or by manuscript (module DSSB-M[anuscript]). The first type of search renders a list of all the references to each biblical verse arranged sequentially according to the Judaean Desert sources.11 The second type of search enables the user to search for the special features of each individual manuscript. For example, this feature enabled me to investigate the orthographic and morphological features of the individual Qumran manuscripts. The DSSB-C module is accompanied by an English translation module (DSSB-E) based on the published translation by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich.12 The particular strength of the Accordance program proves very advantageous when using both of these modules. Among other things, the program enables the display to be in parallel text “panes” (columns) of any text present in MT, the scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the Septuagint (LXX), all the way through to modern Scandinavian translations; it also allows for a parallel text display of the modules QUMRAN and QUMENG. Marty Abegg’s computer modules of the Dead Sea Scrolls record texts as well as the morphological analysis of all the words in the text; they are visible when needed, and otherwise are used behind the scenes in the resident search programs. The “readme” file explains, among other things, how these morphological analyses were compiled, and in particular which lexical source(s) guided Abegg and his colleagues in their work on the modules in this case mainly HALOT.13 The tagging system used was that of the Michigan-Westminster grammatical tagging scheme, which is also used by the Accordance BHS-W4 (Hebrew Bible) text module, subsequently named HMT-W4.14 The lemmatisation of the

10  Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). 11  Thus in Isa 1:2, the module provides the text of 1QIsaa, 4Q55, 4Q56, and 4Q63. 12  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter W. Flint, Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible, Translated for the First Time in English (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999). 13  L. Köhler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000). 14  The earlier name of the MT module, BHS-W4, was subsequently changed to HMT-W4 to reflect its origins from the Leningrad Codex rather than the BHS prepared by the German Bible Society. In practice, the two modules are virtually identical.

From Concordance to Concordance

19

fragmentary texts from the Judaean Desert was no small task.15 Of course, the editors of the official editions had already made certain morphological decisions on the text words visible in their notes and translations. However, the editors were sometimes wrong or Abegg and his colleagues occasionally disagreed with them; furthermore, the early editions did not provide this guidance. They had to decide on appropriate procedures that were described briefly in the “readme” files, and more extensively in the introductions to the printed concordances (see below). A preliminary module of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts from the Judaean Desert sites other than Qumran was first released in November 2009 and is now nearing completion in 2015. The QUMRAN module (version 5.6.1) was reviewed favorably and extensively by Benjamin G. Wright III.16 Some problematic aspects were mentioned by the reviewer, such as the unclear text base in the case of substandard text editions of the scrolls, especially those published in DJD 5.17 Other problematic items mentioned by the reviewer have been removed in subsequent versions of the QUMRAN module. Abegg and his colleagues also prepared Accordance modules of the Greek corpus of biblical scrolls found in the Judaean Desert (November 2009). The logic of these modules is identical to that of the Hebrew Bible modules: DSSGB-C(hapter) provides the Greek texts in toto, and DSSGB-M(anuscript) concords the Greek text document by document.18 This is a relatively small corpus of Greek biblical texts, which includes the important Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever. The “readme” files all modestly state: “Nevertheless, it is still a work in progress and we will continue to correct errors and make updates available yearly.” However, all these modules are masterpieces of precision. In addition to regular word searches, Abegg’s grammatical tagging system of the Qumran scrolls allows for a variety of grammatical search activities within the Accordance program, but this is not the place to describe them in detail. Within the Accordance environment, Abegg has also contributed to other areas not directly related to Qumran, such as the first and only tagged text of 15  For a description, see Martin G. Abegg, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More Than (Initially) Meets the Eye,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M.L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 48–68. 16  Benjamin G. Wright III, Review of Accordance Qumran Module for Macintosh, Version 5.6.1., Oak Tree Software, DSD 11 (2004): 373–76. 17  J.M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968). 18  Martin G. Abegg, Jr. and James E. Bowley were responsible for the morphological analysis. Jarod Jacobs and John Screnock transcribed and proofed.

20

Tov

the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah, and the supervision of the first ever transcription and grammatical tagging of the Peshitta translation of the Hebrew Bible, as well as other smaller projects. Marty Abegg and Accordance also graciously made their electronic texts available to other projects. Many of the nonbiblical texts form an important part of the Judaean Desert text transcriptions included in The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library.19 Abegg’s database is also the backbone of the biblical counterpart of that database edited by Donald W. Parry.20 Many of the nonbiblical texts were also incorporated into the paper edition named The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader edited by Parry and myself.21 Marty’s work on the database was done partly under the aegis of the Ben Zion Wacholder Professorship that was initiated in 2005 at his school, Trinity Western University, through a donation from OakTree Software, the developers of Accordance. The purpose of this professorship was to help Marty with his work and to provide for research assistants who contributed to the project. 4

The Discoveries in the Judean Desert Series

Abegg’s work for the DJD series started around 2000 when I, as editor-in-chief, asked him to contribute a concordance of a limited area, that of the proper nouns, to the summarising volume in the DJD series, DJD 39.22 This index containing fifty-five folio pages represents a major piece of research unlike anything existing at the time. Based on Abegg’s database, this concordance includes all the geographical names, gentilics, and names of individuals, together with brief English glosses, including the joint listing of the different by-forms of names such as Joshua/Jeshua and the various Hebrew equivalents of Isaac, all brought under one common denominator. This concordance also includes a piece of thorough research on the comparative frequency of all the names as well as specific names in the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran ­literature. It also 19  The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library, Brigham Young University, Revised Edition 2006, Vol. 3 of Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library (ed. E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2006) . 20  The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library—Biblical Texts (Brill, 2015). 21  The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Parts 1–6 (Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005; 2d ed., vols 1–2, 2013). 22  “Concordance of Proper Nouns in the Non-biblical Texts from Qumran” in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E. Tov; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 229–84.

From Concordance to Concordance

21

lists the Hebrew names not evidenced in the Bible. The introduction to the concordance thus serves as a monographic study on nomenclature. The fact that Marty was able to extract the data on the proper names from his database in 2002 shows that already, at that time, the database was in good shape. It continued to improve, partly through new assignments.23 Major tasks were the preparation of the concordances for the final DJD volumes 37 and 40,24 both published in 2009.25 These concordances include brief English glosses and grammatical tags (not found in earlier concordances), and vol. 40, recording the Hodayot texts from Cave 1, also includes parallels to the Hodayot texts from Cave 4. On the basis of his earlier projects, Abegg was now able to prepare, together with other scholars, overall concordances of all the Judaean Desert texts, and these volumes probably constitute the culmination of Marty’s projects in a printed form. It should be remembered that electronic searches of individual words, together with the creation of full-fledged concordances was most effectively achieved within the Accordance program, and these possibilities aided Abegg in the production of the conventionally printed concordances. The first volume to appear contained the nonbiblical texts in almost 1,000 pages, produced together with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook.26 This concordance was followed by a volume of the biblical texts containing 750 pages, this time by Martin G. Abegg, James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook as equal editors.27 The last volume covering the “Judean Desert Texts except for Qumran” is nearing publication in 2015. The greatness of these concordances lies in their precise documentation of the contents of the DJD volumes, based

23  Supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation enabled by contributions by Richard and Betsy De Vos since 2001. 24  Émile Puech, Qumran Cave 4.XXVII: Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550–575a, 580–587 et Appendices (DJD 37; Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), 524–61; Hartmut Stegemann with Eileen. Schuller, and Carol Newsom (translations), Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f (DJD 40; Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), 323–402. 25  Earlier concordances had been prepared by Stephen J. Pfann or Stephen J. Pfann together with Claire Pfann. 26  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook, in consultation with Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance I. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 27  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, in consultation with Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance III. The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010).

22

Tov

on sound linguistic principles, and not—in the misguided searching of one reviewer—in the provision of new readings.28 Volume 1 provides listings of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words and number signs for all the texts published in DJD as well as elsewhere in a group of select editions. Each word is accompanied by an English gloss and a grammatical tag. In its lexical decisions, the concordance mainly follows HALOT. Volumes 2 and 3 follow the same principles. Marty Abegg has made a long journey from concordance to texts and from texts to concordance, and his colleagues will always remain in his debt. 28  Elisha Qimron, iej 56 (2006): 236–40.

CHAPTER 3

From “The War Scroll” to A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: Marty Abegg . . . In His Own Words Jason Kalman 1 Introduction Those of us lucky enough to count Marty Abegg as a friend, teacher or colleague can equally agree that he is an absolute mensch. That his intellect and talent, generosity and kindness, are wrapped in remarkable humility and modesty suggests that he probably will cringe when informed of a Festschrift in his honour. Despite his momentary discomfort, I am grateful for the opportunity to offer publicly my thanks to Marty for his support and friendship. While a Festschrift offers the opportunity to acknowledge the debt we owe him for what he has taught us, the words of his own teacher, Professor Ben Zion Wacholder, offered a quarter-century ago, perhaps honour Marty in a way that none of us can. On Thursday evening, 19 December 1991, with the issue of access to the Dead Sea Scrolls taking up much space in newspapers and other media, Wacholder and his graduate student, Mr. Martin G. Abegg, Jr. addressed a crowd gathered at Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC–JIR) in Cincinnati on “Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In his preliminary remarks to the community, the senior scholar noted: They say you learn from your students more than you learn from the books. So the one reason I am interested in students is because I want to learn and when you have a student like Marty, you learn a great deal! The lectures that evening by Wacholder and Abegg had come about because of the publicity surrounding the appearance of the first fascicle of A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four published by the Biblical Archaeology Society in September 1991. But, the story of Marty’s involvement with the scrolls began much earlier, as Professor Tov has noted in his essay in this volume. Abegg’s career as a Ph.D. student at HUC began in 1987, and soon after his arrival, the necessary pieces for the groundbreaking publication began to coalesce. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_004

24

Kalman

In 1988 Ben Zion Wacholder approached John Strugnell, the editor-in-chief of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, for permission to photocopy the Dead Sea Scrolls concordance, which had been printed based on a card catalogue assembled in Jerusalem by Joseph Fitzmyer, Raymond Brown, Willard Oxtoby and Javier Teixidor. It is reported that Wacholder and Strugnell were traveling together in a taxi to give papers at a conference at Haifa University to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the scrolls when Wacholder raised the issue of the concordance.1 Strugnell granted permission, sending Wacholder a formal authorisation to be used if Wacholder could find a party willing to copy the 2,500 pages.2 Wacholder had David Gilner, librarian of HUC-JIR’s Klau Library, approach Baltimore Hebrew College professor Joseph Baumgarten, who granted permission for his college to copy the volumes.3 The bound copies arrived in Cincinnati in October.4 The library catalogued the volumes with the intention of having open access, in-library use in place by November. The concordance drew no immediate publicity, and its primary user was Martin Abegg who was working on his dissertation “The War Scroll from Qumran Caves 1 and 4: A Critical Edition” (HUC-JIR, 1992). At the 1990 Society of Biblical Literature meeting in New Orleans, Abegg offered a paper based on his research, “4Q491 (4QMilhamaa)—An ‘Ensemble’ of Manuscripts?”5 The response to it was troubling, as he and Wacholder noted: “As is common in Dead Sea research, the unknown contents of unpublished scroll manuscripts were used to challenge our ideas.”6 Upon his return to Cincinnati, Abegg examined the concordance hoping to garner more information about the texts used to undermine his paper, especially 4QCurses (4Q280) and 4QSM (4Q285), which had appeared in preliminary studies by scroll editor Jozef Milik.7 Searching for the specific sources, Abegg realised that the entire text could be reconstructed because each word 1  See Martin Abegg, Michael Phelps, and Hershel Shanks, “Will Marty Abegg Ever Find A Job? Scroll Scholar Thrives Despite Unauthorized Publication,” BAR 29/1 (2003): 37. For the conference proceedings see Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ/Testi E Documenti 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992). 2  Strugnell to Wacholder, 12 October 1989, “Release” enclosed, Administrative File: Dead Sea Scrolls, Klau Library. 3  Gilner to Baumgarten, 1 December 1989, Administrative File: Dead Sea Scrolls, Klau Library. 4  Lesley to Gilner, 2 November 1990, Administrative File: Dead Sea Scrolls, Klau Library. 5  See Abstracts AAR/SBL (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990): 378. 6  Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, “After 30 Years of Yearning, We Saw the Texts Suddenly Appear,” Los Angeles Times (29 September 1991): 3. 7  Email communication with Martin Abegg, 2 May 2008. Milik’s publication is, “Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-resha‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 95–144.

From “ The War Scroll ”

25

was provided in context. He started with 4QTohorot Ba (4Q276) (2 fragments), 4Q285 (10 fragments) and 4QWar Scroll-like Text B (4Q471) (8 fragments), which were necessary for his dissertation. These texts he also compared to the photographic plates after public access was granted in late October 1991.8 Abegg followed this work with reconstructions of a series of calendrical texts (4Q320–330) and then, as a treat for his teacher, the fragments of the Damascus Document from Cave 4 (4Q266–273).9 Initially, Abegg reconstructed the texts by cutting and pasting the entries manually in a word processor on a Macintosh computer. Because the computer could only accept texts that were typed from left to right, the Hebrew words were entered in reverse, starting with the last letter.10 Eventually Abegg created a computer program that he called “Glue,”11 which helped place the words in their correct position once entered.12 To reconstruct the unpublished corpus, Abegg entered 42,000 lines of Hebrew and 10,500 lines of Aramaic.13 He approached Wacholder with the first fifty pages of reconstructed texts in early 1991. Wacholder wanted to publish them, but Abegg was concerned about the career he might never get to have. Colleagues, including Edward Cook14 and Bruce Zuckerman, recommended to Abegg that he avoid publishing the material.15 Likewise, HUC-JIR professor Stephen Kaufman counseled against it.16 Hershel Shanks of the Biblical Archaeology Society, who had been the 8  For the texts and discussion see Abegg, “The War Scroll from Qumran Caves 1 and 4: A Critical Edition” (Ph.D. diss., HUC-JIR, 1992), 73–76 (4Q276), 110–116 (4Q285), and 117–135 (4Q471). 9  Email communication with Martin Abegg, 2 May 2008. See also Martin Abegg, “‘Rabbi Computer’ Recreates Unpublished Texts,” BAR 33/3 (May/June 2007): 51–52. 10  Ben. L. Kaufman, “Secrets of Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (4 September 1991): A1, A10. Quote on A10. 11  Martin Abegg, “ ‘Rabbi Computer’ Recreates Unpublished Texts,” 52. 12  “Focus on the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Textbusters,” Reform Judaism 20/3 (Spring 1992): 54. 13  Kaufman, “Secrets of Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered,” A1, A10. 14  Cook was a staff member of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project housed at HUC-JIR, Cincinnati from 1988–1997. He is the author of Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Light on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994). In Chapter 4, “The Rediscovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” he provides a brief account of the reconstruction of the Cave 4 texts based on conversations with Martin Abegg and his own recollection of events. 15  Email communication with Martin Abegg, 10 May 2008. 16  Following the release of the volumes, Kaufman editorialised against their work, offering (1) that he thought the result of their efforts created a problematic text from a scholarly perspective, and (2) that the action was immoral in that it “scooped” scholars who had devoted much of their lives to preparing texts for publication and had been promised the

26

Kalman

primary voice in the crusade to make the unpublished fragments available to the public, encouraged him to publish the material. Abegg later explained his reasoning for risking his career by publishing the reconstructions: The straw that broke the camel’s back was Ben Zion [Wacholder] himself. Here was a man who was one of a very special generation who had been uprooted from Eastern Europe during World War II, who had spent their whole lives studying Jewish literature and law and knew it by heart, and yet had been kept away from this material all these years. For Ben Zion and others like him, I finally made the decision.17 The initial publication was to consist of five volumes of Abegg’s reconstructed texts (the project only required four fascicles to complete), and an English translation to be done primarily by Wacholder.18 Wacholder turned to Shanks in the spring of 1991 to publish the material after talks with E.J. Brill of Leiden had failed.19 With the financial support of the Manfred and Anne Lehmann Foundation, the first volume appeared on 4 September 1991.20 A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle 1 (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991) included the texts that Abegg had prepared following the 1990 SBL meeting for his dissertation work and for Wacholder’s research.21 The public response to the volume was immediate. Members of the editorial team were upset about having their own work undermined and their rights to produce first editions circumvented. First they challenged the morality and legality of what Abegg and Wacholder had done. Frank M. Cross of Harvard called the texts pirated and said they would have no real effect on the pace of rights to publish first editions. See “The Ethical Issues: A Position Statement,” Newsletter of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon 9 (February 1992): 1, 5. 17  Abegg, Phelps, and Shanks, “Will Marty Abegg Ever Find A Job?” 38. 18  According to Kaufman, “Secrets of Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered,” A10. 19  For discussion of the reasons for E.J. Brill’s withdrawal see Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “Research of Qumran Scrolls in the Netherlands,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective (ed. D. Dimant; STDJ 99; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 487–510 (507). 20  The press release issued by Shanks on behalf of the Biblical Archaeology Society indicated that the official release of the volume would take place at 10:00 a.m. at the New York Hilton. See “Press Conference Announcement: Secret Dead Sea Scrolls Being published by Biblical Archaeology Society,” MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, The Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. 21  Wacholder and Abegg, “After 30 Years of Yearning,” 3.

From “ The War Scroll ”

27

publication of the scrolls.22 New York University professor Lawrence Schiffman, who served as a reader for Abegg’s dissertation, was quoted as saying, “I don’t know if what they’ve done is ethical. You’re really publishing another person’s work.”23 Finally, Strugnell stated he had given the concordance to Wacholder only for his scholarly use and suggested that the publication was equivalent to stealing.24 In general, the media noted, critics accused Wacholder of violating his agreement with Strugnell.25 The authorisation, in fact, includes no restrictions: “To whom it may concern: If you are willing, for my part I authorise making one complete photographic or xerox reproduction of your copy of our publication ‘A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments for Qumran cave II-X’ (5 vols, Gottingen 1988) for Prof B Z Wacholder.”26 Since copies of the concordance were available for in-library use at Harvard and Baltimore Hebrew College, the only real advantage for Wacholder and Abegg was longer periods of access.27 Charging the two men with impropriety led to a second type of challenge from the editorial team. Since the material was now available, the editors, at best, could only discourage people from purchasing and using it. Some senior scholars insisted it could not exceed 80% accuracy because of errors in the original concordance and that the newly published materials were not really new. Others argued the volume would be outdated by 1997. This argument suggested that it had usefulness in the short term but would quickly be surpassed.28 Finally, Émile Puech, a member of the editorial committee, told a Chicago

22  John Noble Wilford, “Computer Breaks Monopoly on Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The New York Times (5 September 1991): A1, A7. 23  Wilford, “Computer Breaks Monopoly.” 24  Wilford, “Computer Breaks Monopoly.” 25  Noam M.M. Neusner, “Scholars Feud Over Bootlegged Scroll,” Detroit Jewish News (13 September 1991): 32–33. Quote on 32. 26  The italicised portion is added by hand to the typed letter. It is signed by “Professor John Strugnell, Editor-in-Chief, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” 12 October 1989. 27  See “Dead Sea Scroll Concordance Now Available for Use by Scholars,” BAR 16/2 (March/ April 1990): 23. 28  “Bootleg Volume of Long-Secret Dead Sea Scrolls Is Published,” The Los Angeles Times (5 September 1991): 18. Ellen K. Coughlin, “Biblical Scholars Construct Bootleg Version of Some Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (11 September 1991): A9, A12; Wilford, “Computer Breaks Monopoly,” A7; Neusner, “Scholars Feud Over Bootlegged Scroll,” 32; Abraham Rabinovich, “Bootleg Scrolls,” The Jerusalem Post International Edition (week ending 26 October 1991): 11.

28

Kalman

Tribune reporter that the team would sue.29 This was preempted by another trial, Elisha Qimron vs. Hershel Shanks over the unattributed publication of 4QMMT. This legal proceeding proved to be far more sensational.30 Wacholder and Abegg mounted their own public defense to these challenges. First, they argued for the ethics of their actions. Wacholder’s concern was that part of the reason for the monopoly was to keep Jewish scholars out. This he ascertained from Strugnell’s public comments about Judaism and the fact that, despite Israeli control, the core of non-Jewish editors had remained in place without interference since the capture of the materials in the Rockefeller Museum during the Six Day War.31 Further, Abegg argued, the ability to reconstruct texts from the concordance suggested that preliminary editions of the scrolls could have been made available in the 1960’s. What was unethical, Abegg asserted, was the unnecessary hoarding of the scrolls for so many decades.32 Some of the scholars feared that erroneous material in the reconstructions would be used as the basis for new scholarly work. Wacholder, however, played down these fears: “These scholars, with all their eminence and the best ability, have themselves introduced misconceptions. . . . They will have

29  The Tribune contributed to the story in the Cincinnati paper. See also Ron Grossman (Chicago Tribune), “Computer Gives Life to Ancient Texts. Dead Sea Scrolls, Unseen, Were Pieced Together From Phrase List,” The Kansas City Star (5 September 1991): A1. 30  For an overview of the case see the essays collected in On Scrolls, Artefacts and Intellectual Property (ed. T.H. Lim, H.L. McQueen, and C.M. Carmichael; JSPSup 38; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). A copy of the court’s ruling is translated in Lim et al., eds., On Scrolls, Artefacts and Intellectual Property, 26–62. The case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court of Israel. The ruling with a summary of the previous court action is likewise found in On Scrolls, Artefacts and Intellectual Property, 233–58. For specific legal discussion see Cindy Albert Carson, “Raiders of the Lost Scrolls: The Right of Scholarly Access to the Content of Historic Documents,” Michigan Journal of International Law 16 (1994–1995): 199–248. See, more recently, Raphael Israeli, Piracy in Qumran: the Battle over the Scrolls of the Pre-Christ Era (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2008). Shanks discusses the case, as well, in his autobiography, Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Adventures of an Archaeology Outsider (London: Continuum, 2010): 161–75. 31  Jonathan Schachter, “Scholars Issue Unauthorized Version of ‘Secret’ Scrolls,” The Jerusalem Post, (5 September 1991): 1 and back page. Reprinted in, “A Tale of an Unauthorized Scroll,” Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia), (13 September 1991): 5, 79. Abegg’s suggestion on 79. Also reprinted in “Exposing the ‘Secret Scrolls,’ ” The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (13–19 September 1991): 19–20. 32  Schachter, “A Tale of an Unauthorized Scroll,” 5, 79.

From “ The War Scroll ”

29

to eat their words, and these texts will show it.”33 Wacholder and Abegg did not go undefended. The New York Times editorialised: Some on the committee might be tempted to charge the Cincinnati scholars with piracy. On the contrary, Mr. Wacholder and Mr. Abegg are to be applauded for their work—and for sifting through layer upon layer of obfuscation. The committee with its obsessive secrecy and cloak and dagger scholarship, long ago exhausted its credibility with scholars and laymen alike.34 Numerous scholars who had been denied access to the material likewise lauded their actions, as did a number of prominent religious leaders.35 Eventually, the scholarly community had to concede the value of the volumes. Even Schiffman, who had challenged the ethics of bootlegging the scrolls, remarked: “ ‘For my own research, this is very important . . . When you get rid of the hoopla, they have put a lot into the arena that some scholars have been wanting for a long time.’ ”36 A thorough study of the first volume later proved it to be far more accurate than had been supposed. Harmut Stegemann of Gottingen University examined the edition and concluded that it was “a trustworthy representation of about 98% of the textual evidence.”37 In a long letter to Shanks, Stegemann wondered whether, because of the accuracy, Wacholder and Abegg might have 33  Schachter, “A Tale of an Unauthorized Scroll,” 79. 34  “Breaking the Scroll Cartel,” The New York Times (7 September 1991): 22. 35  Yehuda Lev, “Our Town—Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (13–19 September 1991): 4. Privately, several scholars corresponded with them offering encouragement. Jacob Neusner, for example, wished that Ben Zion “and Hershel go from triumph to triumph.” Neusner to Wacholder, 30 January 1992, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. See, also, W. Gunther Plaut, “Dead Sea Scrolls are Taking too Long to Decifer [sic],” Canadian Jewish News (24 October 1991): 11. 36  Neusner, “Scholars Feud Over Bootlegged Scroll,” 32. The following month, Schiffman outlined the contribution made by the texts reconstructed by Wacholder and Abegg for understanding the Jewish community that produced the scrolls, especially regarding their calendar, ritual practices, and even the Sadducean origins of the sect. Lawrence Schiffman, “Piecing together the saga of the scrolls,” The Jewish World (11–17 October 1991): 3, 14. 37  Harmut Stegemann, “Computer-Generated Dead Sea Scrolls Texts 98% Accurate,” BAR 18/1 (Jan./Feb. 1992): 70.

30

Kalman

had access to earlier unpublished transcriptions or photos. Furthermore, he subscribed for the forthcoming fascicles noting that, even as an insider who had access to the original materials, the reconstructions proved to be remarkably helpful.38 That the first fascicle had gone into a second printing by the time the second volume of texts appeared in July 1992 helps prove its success, as does the appearance of fascicles 3 (1995) and 4 (1996).39 That the official publications took another two decades meant that the high quality transcriptions Abegg and Wacholder continued to publish remained valuable to scholars who otherwise could only examine the un-deciphered photographic plates. André Caquot of the Collège de France noted after reading the Sapiential material in fascicle 2, “I confess, as everybody should confess, that Wacholder and Abegg did a useful & valuable work for our time of scientific dearth.”40 The reconstructions continue to be cited throughout scholarly literature but also served the academy in other ways. They were used by Stephen Reed to make corrections and additions to the Dead Sea Scroll Inventory Project of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center which had been initiated just a few years earlier in 1988.41 In their digital format Abegg and Wacholder’s reconstructed texts helped the Israel Academy of the Hebrew Language continue its work on the historical dictionary of the Hebrew language and prepare materials on the grammar of Qumran Hebrew.42 Their transcriptions of a number of texts were likewise included in The Dead Sea Scrolls on CD ROM: The Farms Electronic Database.43 Finally, at least a number of media outlets attributed the eventual release of the Cave 4 materials to the public to Abegg and Wacholder’s chutzpah in publishing the reconstructions. Several newspapers linked the actions of the Huntington Library to release their copy of the negatives of the Scrolls to Wacholder and Abegg’s publication. The New York Times again supported them with an editorial:

38  Stegemann to Shanks, 5 October 1991, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. 39  “BAS Publishes Fascicle Two of DSS Transcripts,” BAR 18/4 (July/Aug. 1992): 70. 40  Caquot to Shanks, 17 January 1995, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. 41  Reed to Abegg, 5 March 1992, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 1, Folder: Correspondence, 1990s, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. 42  Talshir to Wacholder, 10 May 1995, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 1, Folder: Correspondence, 1990s, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. 43  Parry and Reynolds to Wacholder, 16 June 1997, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 1, Folder: Correspondence, 1990s, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.

From “ The War Scroll ”

31

The Dead Sea Scrolls, held captive for four decades by researchers, are now under welcome attack from guerrilla scholars. Earlier this month, a pair of biblical scholars published a computer-generated version of a scroll reproduced from an index called a concordance. Now the Huntington Library, in California, has surprised the world with its photographs of the scroll manuscripts. It is opening them to all scholars—a just and valuable act.44 The Cincinnati Post editorialised: “Anyone with even the mildest interest in mankind’s religious heritage owes thanks to Wacholder and Abegg, and to the Huntington Library.”45 For all this success, in December 1991 Wacholder and Abegg were in a complicated position. The general public had embraced them for breaking the scroll monopoly. The scholarly community was somewhat divided, but evidence suggested to Wacholder and Abegg the need to continue their project of transcription and translation, especially after the photographs of the Cave 4 material were released later that year. However, research funds were low and much work needed to be done. On 19 December 1991, the two men addressed a crowd in Cincinnati to clarify errors in the press, show off some of their new discoveries, and lay the groundwork for a fundraising campaign. What follows is an annotated transcript of Marty Abegg’s comments from that same evening. These remarks are the earliest recorded unmediated account by the scholars involved of what led up to the groundbreaking project. I attempted to provide a detailed reconstruction of these events in earlier publications based on archival sources, but I only recently discovered the videotape of this event.46 As accurately as possible, Abegg’s remarks have been transcribed. However, to make reading the transcript easier, long sentences have sometimes been broken into shorter statements. Occasionally in oral presentation Abegg interrupted a sentence to add an additional thought. Sometimes I have rearranged these statements, preserving the intent but allowing the text to flow more clearly in written form. When Abegg displayed transparencies on the overhead projector for the community consisting of available published material, I have simply noted the content. In the case of materials he designed, I have provided a reconstruction intended to give the reader a fuller idea of what was being discussed, but not an exact replica of the transparency. The annotation includes 44  “Flash! From 200 BC,” The New York Times (24 September 1991): A30. 45  “Opening the Scrolls,” The Cincinnati Post (26 September 1991): A14. 46  See, most recently, Hebrew Union College and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cincinnati: HUC-JIR, 2012).

32

Kalman

FIGURE 3.1 Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Image courtesy of the American Jewish Archives (Near print file: Dead Sea Scrolls)

details from the archival record and media reports to contextualise Abegg’s remarks, to augment the narrative, and to add to the historical record of how Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship came to be what it is. Certainly it would be much poorer absent Marty’s many contributions. “Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls”47 Thank you very much. I am amazed, I would have to say. When we were first asked to present our story this evening, I was told we could expect 30 or 40 people and I had envisioned this very cozy roundtable discussion. I couldn’t even get my wife to come and all you people are here! It is amazing! Truly amazing! 47  I would like to express my gratitude to my graduate assistant Andrew Higginbotham who prepared the preliminary transcription of the video. This project could not have been completed without his help. The videotape is designated VT-795: Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls, December 19, 1991, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. Abegg’s talk runs from 4m27s to 26m12s. The introduction is by Alan Cooper, then director of the graduate school at HUC-JIR and now provost of JTSA.

From “ The War Scroll ”

33

I thought that what I would do [is] to warm up for Dr. Wacholder who is going to talk more [about] the content of the scrolls. He is much more able to do that than I. I thought that I would review the method that we used to break the code, so to speak, and to be able to publish the text, which we did. There has been much talk of this. You probably have all read something in the newspaper, but I find that even those that are in the know, so to speak, and possibly graduate students or staff here at Hebrew Union College, reading the newspaper reports has given them a somewhat slanted impression of what actually went on. If a reporter didn’t understand what I had said or what Dr. Wacholder had said, he is not going to put it into a means that you will understand it, either.48 So, some of you may understand all of this and for you, much of what I will say will be review, and you can wait for Dr. Wacholder. On the other hand, you may not understand yet how we were able to pull this off and, if that is the case, then you will enjoy my part of the program too. First of all, in keeping with the title of our session tonight, “The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” I thought I would start by relaying some of how we started together, Dr. Wacholder and I, and that is a secret in itself. This is a story that I have never told anyone and it really fits well with the subject of tonight’s talk. When I was first—I had first landed here in Cincinnati—and became a student here at Hebrew Union College, I had heard that Dr. Wacholder was working with the sectarian texts, that is the non-biblical texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls and I immediately attached myself to him, because that was an area of study that I had involved myself in Israel and that I had greatly enjoyed.49 And within the first year that I had worked for him as a graduate assistant, editing some of his papers and doing the menial tasks that . . . well, the very important tasks, actually, that graduate assistants do . . . I, we were, we were involved in putting together a commentary on a text that has become known as the Temple Scroll and Dr. Wacholder has been very interested in this text and so we . . . he had enlisted my help in writing a commentary with him. And one of the first things that popped up was a group of pictures at the back of the first edition 48  Note, for example, the garbled description of the project in Jonathan Schachter, “Scholars Issue Unauthorized Version of ‘Secret’ Scrolls,” The Jerusalem Post, (5 September 1991): 1: “Using a computer to reconstruct words and texts listed in a concordance of the scroll fragments prepared in the early 1960s by the authorised team of editors, the two scholars, Prof. Ben-Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, both of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, have produced A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls—The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four.” 49  Wacholder’s major work on sectarian materials had appeared a few years earlier: The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (HUCM 8; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983).

34

Kalman

of the Temple Scroll, which had included some fragments from the B manuscript, as we call it, of the Temple Scroll. And many of these pictures had never been transcribed and one of them was really quite interesting. It was just one word and the word had only two letters in it in Hebrew, this word is ‫רז‬, which means mystery or secret and this word was found nowhere else in the Temple Scroll and I thought that was somewhat interesting.50 And I showed it to Dr. Wacholder and immediately the project to do the concordance was, excuse me, the commentary was laid on a shelf and we began doing an edition of this B manuscript of the Temple Scroll.51 That was started by first of all by getting all of the ascension (sic) numbers or plate numbers that some of them had been published, some of them had not, and we found to our amazement that if we approached the Antiquities Authority in Israel with plate numbers and with some permission from the Dutch to allow us to see this material, they would send us the plates.52 And we were able to obtain not only those plates that 50  The fragment is identified in Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll Volume 3: Supplementary Plates (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society) as Plate 40* fragment 8 = (PAM 42.178). 51  Ben Zion Wacholder with the collaboration of Martin Abegg, “The Fragmentary Remains of 11QTorah (Temple Scroll)*: 11QTorahb and 11QTorahc plus 4QparaTorah Integrated with 11QToraha,” HUCA 62 (1991): 1–116. 52  In brief, Abegg’s description of events is accurate, but the Dutch scholars responsible for the materials from Cave 11 did not remain equally cooperative throughout the process. On 5 March 1990, Wacholder received copies of five plates of the fragments of 11QTb and official permission from the IAA to publish them. [Durocher to Wacholder, 5 March 1990, Administrative File: Dead Sea Scrolls, Klau Library, Cincinnati, Ohio]. The opening note in Wacholder and Abegg’s “The Fragmentary remains of 11QTorah (Temple Scroll),” acknowledges the help of both the IAA and the Dutch: “I thank the Israel Department of Antiquities and its archivist Sophie Durocher for their prompt and efficient service in furnishing all the plates requested along with the authorization to publish. The department’s photographer, Mrs. Tsila Sagiv, deserves special attention for her beautiful facsimiles. Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg made his plate of 11QTc available and was instrumental in providing me the authorization to use the copyrighted material from the Dutch Academy of Arts and Sciences.” See, also, Van der Ploeg to Wacholder, 29 June 1989, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.  At age 80 van der Ploeg still had unpublished texts for which he was responsible but, as he noted to Wacholder in slightly garbled English, “Years ago I had proposed [Adam Simon] van der Woude to publish the Qumran text of the [Royal Netherlands] Academy in one volume. At that time van der Woude did not agree, having too much work of various kinds. Some time ago it was he who proposed me the same thing, but now I had to refuse because of my age (80) and reasons of health.  Yigael Yadin has published the texts of 11QT he could find without asking permission from the Academy. The publication of those texts had been entrusted to me. Now I am

From “ The War Scroll ”

35

had been published but, with the help of Steve Reed at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California, we were able to also add to our list of plates that had not been published and we found that Israel was quite happy to provide these for us also. We thought that the door had been opened and that the atmosphere of this closed-ness and this secrecy over these texts had somewhat loosened up and we were delighted, as a matter of fact. . . . We came to discover however, after working with some 20 plates that . . . [when] we decided to take a little bigger bite [and] we gave them a list of 40 plates from Cave 11 that had not been published, someone blew the whistle in Israel and our request was turned down. . . . We have decided actually . . . that as long as we knew the plate numbers to ask for and we only asked for a couple of them at a time they were willing to provide for us, but as soon as we asked for this large number, they realised that something was up and they closed the door. We sent three letters requesting these additional plates and each time we were refused.53

not more interested in a publication by me of those texts. For this reason it is equal to me who publishes them, provided the publication is no longer delayed.” [van der Ploeg to Wacholder, 3 March 1990, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.] 53  Van der Woude was less helpful than van der Ploeg, granting Wacholder only the right to publish photographs of previously published material. See Sussmann to Wacholder, 21 July 1991, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. This helps explain the IAA’s response to later requests for access to the plates of unpublished materials, as does Abegg and Wacholder’s failure to include a detailed description of all the plates they wanted to access and wished to publish. See also, Sussman to Wacholder, 30 June 1991, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Biblical Archeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.  The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences had good reason to enforce their copyright and control access to their materials. According to van der Ploeg, the Academy, “had to pay the sum of f 250,000 for publishing the documents of 11Q entrusted to her . . . The primary intention of the Academy had been to buy the various MSS, but when they were nationalised by Jordan, it could only buy the right to publish them. The sum to be paid for that was the same sum the trustees of the then “Palestine Museum” had paid to acquire them . . . There was some criticism that such a big sum was used for a ‘Copyright.’ ” See van der Ploeg to Wacholder, 15 March 1990, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. On the Dutch acquisition see Jaqueline Du Toit and Jason Kalman, Canada’s Big Biblical Bargain: How McGill University Bought the Dead Sea Scrolls (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010), 372.

36

Kalman

At the same time, we were petitioning our library here at Hebrew Union College on the basis of somewhat of a weak argument that I had been allowed to see unpublished materials in my work with Professor [Emanuel] Tov in Israel, that they had broken their promise, so to speak, and that the door was opening up in some areas but they were still keeping their contract with Hebrew Union College and were not allowing the College to show their plates to anyone.54 We were refused by the College and, I think, probably rightfully so as things turned out.55 Also at this time we had become aware of the fact that there was a concordance that had been constructed—a secret concordance—that had been put together clear back in the 1950s, as early as 1958.56 It had been constructed 54  In mid-1969 HUC-JIR president Nelson Glueck (1900–71) solicited a $10,000 USD donation to help support Israeli efforts to make a security copy of the famed Dead Sea Scrolls, then housed in Jerusalem. The agreement was made between HUC-JIR and the Board of Directors of the Shrine of the Book. As per the agreement, the security copy, consisting of more than one thousand photographic negatives, was secretly stored in the Klau Library on HUC-JIR’s Cincinnati campus for more than twenty years. For detailed discussion of the agreement and its repercussions see Kalman, Hebrew Union College and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  In July 1989 Abegg wrote to the director of the Klau Library requesting access to the negatives of the unpublished scrolls arguing that while studying at the Hebrew University in 1986–87 he had been granted access to unpublished material by Emanuel Tov. Other students in the seminar even visited the vaults at the Rockefeller Museum to view the unpublished material “first hand.” Abegg to Zafren, 24 July 1989, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.  On 15 September 1989 Wacholder requested that HUC-JIR president Alfred Gottschalk make the security copy of the negatives available for consultation (not publication) by faculty and students. He reasoned that the access should be granted because the official editors were already releasing materials for consultation to scholars they favoured. He provided citations from several publications which included acknowledgement of such preferred access. Wacholder to Gottschalk, 15 September 1989, MS 829, Ben Zion Wacholder Papers, Box 3, Folder: Biblical Archaeology Society, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio. 55  HUC-JIR did not grant access to the negatives until October 1991 after the IAA announced a change to its previously restrictive policies. 56  The fact of the concordance’s existence had largely been kept a secret until its limited publication for the editors’ use in 1988. In a mid-1986 interview that Hershel Shanks conducted with Avi Eitan, Israel’s then-director of antiquities, Shanks could not get Eitan to confirm that the concordance existed. Only in reviewing the transcript of the interview did he finally confirm it. Hershel Shanks, “Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies,” BAR 12/4 (July/Aug. 1986): 38.

From “ The War Scroll ”

37

on 3 by 5 cards and had in the middle ’80s, by pressure of those who were working on the Dead Sea Scrolls that were not in Jerusalem and did not have access to the card catalog at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, there was pressure put on the group there to actually publish an edition of this concordance and that was done. There were 30 editions, 30 copies, that were made available to various people that were working officially with the material and various schools, Hebrew Union College not being one of them at that time. In 1989 when we became aware that this concordance was available, Dr. Wacholder personally asked if our College might be able to procure a copy and we were given permission to do so. So the College library had a copy made and they were put in the stacks, all 5 volumes in the stacks open for anyone. Any of you could have come in and taken a look at them. When I saw this concordance and—I will show you a sample page here. [Transparency 1: The entry for ‫ מאה‬in the Preliminary Concordance vol. 3, 1213]. You can see that what we have here are 3 by 5 cards, actually, photographed and then Xeroxed and there are 21 per page and some 2,200 pages in the concordance and the thing that was the key to our success, as we would put it—of course they, the authorities would put it a little differently—the key to our success was the fact that there was context to work with. We don’t just have a word list here. You can see that [even] if you don’t read Hebrew, that there is an underlined word on each card and then there are flanking words on either side of that giving the context on either side—sometimes a whole phrase, sometimes a whole line depending on who actually made this part of the concordance. With this context I was aware that I would be able to reconstruct anything that I desired. There were several things that I desired to see in connection to my dissertation at that time. For those of you that don’t read Hebrew and [for whom] English is a little easier . . . I’ve given you just exactly in the English what relates to what we did in the Hebrew. You can see, by looking at these five entries . . . that I stole from Strong’s Concordance that you can easily reconstruct Genesis 1:1 on the basis of these five phrases, which I have done at the bottom of the page here [See figure 3.2 below]. [It was] no difficult task and this is exactly what we did with the material from the concordance that was in our library. Now, at first, it was a matter of typing in the texts and then cutting and pasting and grouping texts together on the computer screen and I was able to reconstruct several manuscripts . . . in that manner. Some that I was interested in, some that Dr. Wacholder was interested in, and when we sat down and started to read these things, we were

38

Kalman “Unconcording” a Text beginning In the beginning God created Ge 1:1 God God created the heaven and the Ge 1:1 created God created the heaven and the Ge 1:1 heaven

the beginning God created the heaven Ge 1:1

earth

God created the heaven and the earth Ge 1:1

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth FIGURE 3.2 Transparency 2: “Unconcording” a text

somewhat amazed, actually, at the quality of text that we were able to pull out of the concordance. And so we determined at that time that it might be the wise thing . . . to actually enter the whole concordance into a database, which I then did. The next transparency shows an actual page or screen from this database and you can see I’ve put the . . . English in on the left . . . [See figure 3.3 below]. We have a volume number for the concordance, page number, the entry number, [and] what item was on the page. This is so we could get back to that entry if we ever need to in the future to make corrections or to look at it again. Then we have the actual lexeme, which . . . is equivalent to the item you would look up in the dictionary, if you wanted to do so. Then the manuscript, and this manuscript, if you could transliterate the Hebrew letters into English, you would see that this is P-Genesis-B, which is a pesher of Genesis B-text, which is quite interesting.57 Then we have fragment number 1, column number 1, line 57  Abegg and Wacholder were preparing this text for inclusion in the second fascicle where it appears on p. 212 as 4Q252 Pesher Genesisa. As they note, the preliminary concordance

From “ The War Scroll ” Text Reference Note Volume Page Entry Lexeme Ms Fragment Column Line Text Reference Note

39

‫ומעמ‬

3 1213 3

‫מאה‬ ‫בנעגפ‬

1 1 1

‫[ב]שנת ארבע מאות ושמונים‬ ‫ומעמ‬

FIGURE 3.3 Transparency 3: Raw data entry

number 1, and then finally the text itself, which says ‫בשנת ארבע מאות ושמונים‬, and this is “in the year four hundred and eighty,” and this text goes on to talk about the flood and ties in the actual details of the flood story to the calendar of the sect, which is somewhat different than the calendar that rabbinic Judaism has adopted. Now, once we have all this data in, it was very easy then to sort all the data in the database and you see the screen here—which if you are used to computers, especially spreadsheets, you’ll recognise the appearance of this—just a normal database and we have flipped things on the horizontal now [See figure 3.4 below]. We have from the left-hand side coming to the right, we have the column, then the page, then the item, the entry number, then the lexeme, finally the manuscript and you can see that I’ve sorted it according to manuscripts, so this is all P-Genesis-B, then finally it is sorted according to fragment, column number and line number, as you see, they are all 1’s all the way across and, if you can read any Hebrew at all, you can kind of scan down the lines here and you can see that it would be very easy to reconstruct that line produced in Jerusalem designated it PGenb but the text was later identified as belonging to PGena. The text is now identified as 4QCommentary on Genesis A. See George Brooke’s transcription, translation, and commentary in G.J. Brooke et al., in consultation with J. Vanderkam, Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 185–207.

40 Vol 258 159 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 4

Kalman Pg 916 358 205 143 358 1051 1051 1213 467 711 1390 1390 1704 1877 1894

Item 8 1 18 11 2 9 20 3 11 10 5 6 8 1 17

Lexeme MS ‫כי‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ארבע‬ ‫אלה‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ל‬ ‫מאה‬ ‫בוא‬ ‫חיים‬ ‫נח‬ ‫נח‬ ‫קצם‬ ‫שמונה‬ ‫שנה‬

‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬ ‫בנעגפ‬

Frag Col Line Text ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[‫ותש** כיא ק‬

‫[ב]שנת ארבע מאות ושמונים‬ ‫אמר‬/‫בא קצם לנוח ואלוהים‬ ‫[ב]שנת ארבע מאות ושמונים‬ ‫ארבע מאות ושמונים לחיי נוח‬ ‫אמר‬/‫בא קצם לנוח ואלוהים‬ ‫[ב]שנת ארבע מאות ושמונים‬ ‫לחיי נוח בא קצם לנוח‬ ‫ארבע מאות ושמונים לחיי נוח‬ ‫ארבע מאות ושמונים לחיי נוח בא קצם‬ ‫אמר‬/‫ים לחיי נוח בא קצם לנוח ואלוהים‬ ‫בא קצם לנוח‬ ‫[ב]שנת ארבע מאות ושמונים לחיי נוח‬ ‫[ב]שנת ארבע מאות ושמונים‬

FIGURE 3.4 Transparency 4: Text-tagging spreadsheet

number 1 of fragment number 1 of column number 1 of P-Genesis-B. And that is basically where we started. Now I wrote a program, a very simple one. The New York Times labeled me “a computer expert”—that’s nowhere near the case—I think Penn Jillette had it right in PC-Computing that “this is a good day for experts. If you can use your microwave for more than heating coffee, then you are an expert at microwaving.”60 And . . . that explains my expertise at computing. I do more than use WordPerfect, which makes me an expert! But what I did was I wrote a little program that does nothing more than compare the strings and glue them together and it does one other thing. If there were 58  The blank cells indicate that the text could not be clearly identified because the page was cropped when the concordance was photocopied. 59  The question marks indicate an unclear reference on original concordance card as reproduced. 60  Penn Jillette, “ ‘Computer expert’ cracks Dead Sea Scrolls,” PC-Computing 4/12 (Dec, 1991): 430. Jillette, half of the well-known comedy team Penn and Teller, wrote a regular column for the magazine between 1990 and 1994. In a satirical take on the Scrolls story subtitled, “How Steve Jobs, the Jordanian Government, Harrison Ford, and a bunch of stone-dead cave dwellers called the Essenes gave Martin Abegg the grooviest 15 minutes of fame,” Jillette dubs Abegg a “hero” for making the Scrolls available to the public. The article is archived online at: https://archive.is/pJac0 [accessed 7 July 2015].

From “ The War Scroll ”

41

any discrepancies in these strings, as it glued them together, it alerted me to that fact, so we could go back into the database, check the concordance to make sure that we had everything, ‫הכל בסדר‬, completely okay. And then as I discovered, most of the mistakes were not their mistakes as they transcribed the material, but my mistakes as I typed the stuff in backwards, which is always a trick. [Transparency 5 shows the reconstructed text of 4QCommGen A (4Q252) 1 i].61 This is finally, after I had exported it, and ran it through my Hypercard program, opened it up in Microsoft Word. Voila, we have a text, and a very good text this is. This is one of the more complete texts and this was one of the surprises to us. This supposedly very fragmentary material from Cave 4 turns out to contain some very complete and cogent and connected texts and that was one of the first kind of blocks or . . . items that made us move to actually publishing this material. When we saw the completeness of the texts, we determined these things had been in this form, . . . could have been published back in the 1950’s and were not. When we saw that the very unprecedented moves of allowing graduate students, such as myself, access to this material where senior scholars, such as Dr. Wacholder and other men on our staff here and elsewhere in the world, were not allowed to see them, we determined that . . . the ethical shoe was on the other foot, so to speak.62 . . ., We looked for a publisher and the look [did] not [take] long because Hershel Shanks at the Biblical Archaeology Review . . . had been soapboxing for the release of this material for some time, 61  See Fascicle 2, pp. 212–13. 62  While describing a Dead Sea Scroll session at the 1990 Society of Biblical Literature Meeting in New Orleans, Hershel Shank’s editorialised concerning Abegg’s supervisor: “There is something demeaning about senior scholars having to ask Sidnie White, already a major Qumran scholar at age 31, if she would identify and spell certain Hebrew words in unpublished texts that she, through Cross and Strugnell, has access to. As this inquiry was taking place in one session, I looked over at the white-haired Ben-Zion Wacholder of Hebrew Union College, who was listening intently to absorb in his legendary capacious memory the facts young Sidnie White was generously divulging.” Hershel Shanks, “When 5,613 Scholars Get Together in One Place: The Annual Meeting, 1990,” BAR 17/2 (March/ April 1991): 63.  A broader discussion of the ethical questions is provided above. That Abegg had a more nuanced understanding of the ethical questions than presented in this forum is clear from his other published statements during this period.

42

Kalman

for almost a decade now.63 And we approached him and he was very excited about publishing the text and the rest is history, as you know. Shortly after our release of our texts, the Huntington Library made the decision to release their photos. Within a few weeks after that release there was a publication made available by Professors [Robert] Eisenman and [James] Robinson of California in which they published more than 1700 unpublished plates.64 So “the jig is up,” so to speak, and the material is available to us all now. And that . . . is the last portion of my part of the presentation and I would like transparency 6. I believe the next is the [IAA] statement of release . . .  Probably the most exciting thing, people ask at this point what, what we are going to do with our project and actually we aren’t finished yet. We had determined before the release of the material and the opening up of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that our project really was three-pronged. First of all, it was to make available all of the texts that we could from the concordance. Secondly, I feel that it is important to provide an English translation, and especially since we have here someone of the learning of Dr. Wacholder, who is very rare in this field—he truly understands this material at a level that most of us will never attain to, knows English well and knows Hebrew well, and knows these texts well and I think we should put together an English translation of the materials so that we can all use it. The third thing, of course, is to put the concordance into a form, not just the unpublished material but the published material also that we can all use, all scholars can get access to these texts, which is very important. A concordance really is the key to studying these materials and there just isn’t the tool that is necessary at this point. That probably will take the form of a printed concordance but in this day and age, the electronic concordance will certainly turn out to be the more important. Lastly, probably the most important thing that has happened this Fall and this, this affects not just the Dead Sea Scrolls but any finds of this nature, be it now or in the future, is the fact that the Society of Biblical Literature basically picked up our torch and carried it to its logical conclusion and issued a statement of access in which you can see before you here and probably already read 63  Shanks began advocating for the release of the scrolls after the 1985 conference at New York University in Memory of Yigael Yadin. See Hershel Shanks, “BARview: Failure to Publish Dead Sea Scrolls is Leitmotif of New York University Scroll Conference,” BAR 11/6 (Sept./Oct. 1985): 4, 6, 66–72; and, idem., Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls, 125–26. 64  Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, eds., A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991). The publication was announced on 19 November 1991 [John Noble Wilford, “Dead Sea Scrolls to be Published,” New York Times (20 November 1991): A7.]

From “ The War Scroll ”

43

through the page, but let me just point out a couple of things that that are so important.65 When I first saw this, I could hardly believe it. I don’t think that if I were asked to write this statement that I would have worded it so strongly. It says [Reading from Transparency 7] “The Society of Biblical Literature wishes to encourage prompt publication of ancient written materials and ready access to unpublished textual materials. In order to achieve these ends, the Society adopts the following guidelines” and basically, there are two. The first is “Recommendation to those who own or control ancient written materials”, that they must make them available to all scholars. If the material is in a state that it is not available to pass around, a facsimile must be made. That anyone that desires to see it and study it can do so. And also the fact that publication is not guaranteed to one scholar or any group of scholars, but anyone who sees the material, desires to use it for his own work, can therefore publish it. Amazing really that the Freedom of Information Act, which we’ve heard so much about in public events has now worked down to biblical literature also and the—We’re a little slower, I think, but it’s wonderful actually and it will certainly light a fire under any of us who would have access to texts in the future to publish. And just quickly, I would like to show what I couldn’t have shown you just two months ago and that is some plates from the Dead Sea Scrolls. These pictures are also on display out in the hall. [Transparency 8 presents 4QDa (4Q266) / PAM 43.278] David Gilner [HUC-JIR Klau Librarian] . . . has threatened to publish a whole series of books using plates . . . such as this one here labeled “Where’s Waldo in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” You can see that there are literally hundreds of little fragments and there are hundreds of plates just like this one, which gives you some idea of the importance of publication of texts to be able to make some sense out of these plates. Some, some pictures have up to ten manuscripts all grouped together on one plate. Some manuscripts are spread across 50 to 60 pictures or more. So you can see what a difficult task it would be if we had no guide to this material. So our publication and the cataloguing work of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center . . . is a must. The next picture is probably a little more useful. 65  The SBL “Statement on Access to Ancient Written Materials” was approved and disseminated at the 1991 Society Meeting in Kansas City.

44

Kalman

[Transparency 9 presents 4Q266/PAM 43.271] This is one of the texts from the Damascus Covenant, the B manuscript, . . . one of the texts that we published and . . . checking this against our publication, we were pleased to find that the original transcribers did a good job.66 They recorded their material well and we were able to restore it in like fashion and our . . . reconstructions are better than 98%, which is a lot better than we had expected, actually. And the final picture is one that I must show because—oops, it’s a newspaper article! Okay I won’t show that one. There is not another plate there? Ah, that’s the one. That’s the one. [Transparency 10 presents 4Q266/PAM 43.277] This one I have to show because my wife is from . . . Washington State and she says that this looks like Washington to her. This is one of the larger fragments of the Damascus Document, the B manuscript. It’s a brand-new text, we’ve never even seen this before, athough some of the rest of the Damascus Document is available.67 I’ll introduce Dr. Wacholder now . . . Dr. Wacholder has become very special to me. He, in a very real sense, is my academic father and I have appreciated studying with him these last four years. And more than anything, I’m sure that many of you are aware of the fact that much work that is done by graduate students goes unrecognised by the public because the professor publishes it under his own name. Dr. Wacholder was insistent on the fact that my name be attached to this material because I was cooperating with him in it and I thank him for that. A couple of months ago, I wasn’t sure I was going to thank him for that as the . . .  the . . . until the public, you people, came behind us and made it certain that these materials were going to be received in good spirit. And with that, I would like to introduce Dr. Wacholder and he will explain something about what these materials will mean to us and what we will find out about this group that lived down by the Dead Sea . . . Dr. Wacholder.

66  The primary fragments are identified as Db Fragment 6 in Fascicle 1, pp. 9–11. 67  Abegg’s implication is not that the text was unknown, but that the content could not be confirmed before the photographic negative became available. The reconstructed text is identified as Db Fragment 18 Column V in Fascicle 1, 21–22.

From “ The War Scroll ”

2

45

Concluding Comments

Few scholars can look back at their younger, newly-minted Ph.D. selves and confirm that they correctly predicted their academic trajectory. In this early talk, Abegg noted that his project consisted of three parts: providing transcriptions of the unpublished Dead Sea Scroll texts, offering a comprehensive English translation of the material, and presenting the concordance in a more user-friendly format. Abegg has successfully accomplished all three and more.68 As a result, virtually no type of Dead Sea Scrolls research can be accomplished without engaging his work.69 From the remarkable risk he took before his career even began and his ongoing contributions, we have all reaped numerous rewards.

68  The texts are found in the four fascicles of A Preliminary Edition. The English translations are published as Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996; revised and updated 2005) and Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scroll Bible (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999). The concordance has appeared as Martin G. Abegg, Jr. with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook in consultation with Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume 1 (Parts 1 and 2): The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Martin G. Abegg, Jr., James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume 3 (Parts 1 and 2): The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2009). In addition Abegg has contributed transcriptions and concordances to several volumes of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. 69  A survey of the places his work is referenced in Devorah Dimant, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research shows his influence on work on the sectarian material, the biblical scrolls, Hebrew language and its evolution, the use of sobriquets, the significance of the scrolls for understanding early Christianity, and many others.

The War Scroll

∵

CHAPTER 4

Text, Timing, and Terror: Thematic Thoughts on the War Scroll in Conversation with the Writings of Martin G. Abegg, Jr. George J. Brooke Let me have war, say I; it exceeds peace as far as day does night; it’s spritely, waking, audible, and full of vent.1 1 Introduction My purpose in this short essay in honour of Marty Abegg is to take a look at some aspects of the War Scroll through the lens of some of his various writings.2 Marty Abegg’s doctoral dissertation was entitled “The War Scroll from Qumran Caves 1 and 4: A Critical Edition”; it was submitted to the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in 1992.3 If my own experience is anything to go by, then I suspect that directly and indirectly the topics of their 1  William Shakespeare, Coriolanus, Act IV, Scene 5 (First Servingman). 2  By War Scroll, I refer primarily to the Cave 1 version of the composition, but several of the points in this study depend upon recalling that the composition had a complicated transmission history and was available in several versions. 3  Martin G. Abegg Jr., “The War Scroll from Qumran Caves 1 and 4: A Critical Edition, Parts I & II” (Ph.D. diss., HUC-JIR Cincinnati, 1992). The readers for the dissertation were Ben Zion Wacholder and Lawrence H. Schiffman. I am very grateful to Jason Kalman for facilitating access to this dissertation. Sadly, this work is too often omitted from both popular and technical works referring to the War Scroll. For its absence from popular works see, e.g., Jean Duhaime, “War Scroll (1QM),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. J.J. Collins and D. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 1329–30. For its absence from technical works see, e.g., Giovanni Ibba, Il “Rotolo della Guerra”: Edizione critica (Quaderni di Henoch 10; Torino: Silvio Zamorani editore, 1998); and also Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings Volume One (Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi Press, 2010). Though already present in some places (see n. 4 below) it is to be hoped that some more of the insights in Abegg’s dissertation, suitably adjusted in light of more recent scholarship, will nevertheless feature explicitly in his commentary on the War Scroll yet to appear as volume 12 in Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, forthcoming).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_005

50

Brooke

d­ issertations stay with scholars throughout their careers, even if other subjects are more immediately in the forefront of their minds. Given the extensive achievement in Marty Abegg’s dissertation, I am inclined to think that this is all the more likely to have been the case for him. So, whether it is the production of concordances4 and tagged computer texts or the writing of learned articles for journals and books, his initial work on the War Scroll seems to lie in or behind much of what he has thought about subsequently. 2 Text As the topic of his doctoral dissertation Marty Abegg presented a critical text of the Cave 1 version of the War Scroll based on the “re-examination of all the known textual witnesses.”5 Chapters 1 to 6 of the dissertation present the evidence of the Cave 4 versions of the War Scroll and discuss their relationship with 1QM. There is then discussion of four additional manuscripts: (a) 4QTohorot Ba (4Q276), which Abegg suggests is a remnant of the same work as 4QMc (4Q493); (b) 4QSM (4Q285); (c) 4QWar Scroll-like Text B (4Q471); and (d) 4QWar Scroll-like Text A (4Q497). Several of Abegg’s insights into the character of the text and textual development of the War Scroll and closely related compositions have become available in Abegg’s publications, sometimes as direct developments of his textual work,6 and some as indirect developments of the insights of his reflection on that same textual analysis.7 4  See, e.g., Martin G. Abegg, Jr., with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Srolls Concordance, Volume One: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (in two parts; Leiden: Brill, 2003). 5  Abegg, “The War Scroll,” iv. 6  See especially from 2002 onwards his contribution to Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts (Altamonte Springs: Oaktree Software [database for the Accordance computer software]). See also for the use and reuse of the Hebrew texts and their component parts: Martin G. Abegg, Jr., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume One: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Martin G. Abegg, Jr. [with others], “War Rules,” in Texts Concerned with Religious Law (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Tov; Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Part 1; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 208–91; reprinted as “War Rules,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded: Volume 1: Texts Concerned with Religious Law, Exegetical Texts and Parabiblical Texts (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Tov in association with G.I. Clements; 2d ed. revised and expanded; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 240–313. 7  See especially Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “4Q471: A Case of Mistaken Identity,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 136–47;

Text, Timing and Terror

51

This is not the place to discuss the editions of the War Scroll that are in the dissertation. However, it is important to draw attention to the number and variable texts of the manuscripts that Abegg considered. The implications of both the number and the variation of the manuscript evidence for the War Scroll is that this was not an obscure text, produced for esoteric purposes by some marginal element in a sectarian movement. This composition had a long and lively transmission history, in part or as a whole, and should be imagined to be as much a part of sectarian ideology as any other work in the collections in the caves at and near Qumran. This is not a new point, and it has been made clearly and well at the end of a summary appreciation of all the various versions of the War Scroll by Devorah Dimant: In any event, like 1QS and 1QHa, 1QM also certainly enjoyed special status in the Qumran community since it too is a copy executed with particular care, written on a large, well-prepared scroll, and hidden carefully in a jar in cave 1 . . . the well-developed versions of 1QS, 1QHa, and 1QM were not fortuitous, nor were they necessarily the final outcome of their editorial processes. They seem to have originated in the early stages of the group. Later copies appear to be abbreviations, often made for personal use. By virtue of their ancient and full versions, these cave 1 specimens appear to have been manuscripts of special importance, perhaps the venerated copies of earlier authoritative models of the major sectarian works.8 The point is that the numerous versions of compositions like the War Scroll and the special character of the Cave 1 version in particular, allow scholars to see the significance and longevity of these literary works. They were indeed important as texts. Something of that importance as text can be seen in a remarkable tour de force by the contemporary historian Simon Scharma of Columbia University. He has recently offered a survey of various forms of classical Judaism, all the while challenging the very category itself. In a section questioningly entitled idem, “The War Scroll. 1QM, 4Q491–496,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (ed. M.O. Wise, M.G. Abegg, Jr., and E.M. Cook; San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1996; 2d ed., 2005), 150–72 (2d edn, 146–70); idem, “Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteousness,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C.A. Evans and P.W. Flint; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 61–73. 8  Devorah Dimant, “The Composite Character of the Qumran Sectarian Literature as an Indication of Its Date and Provenance,” in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 183.

52

Brooke

“The End of Days?” he describes the scrolls found in the eleven caves at and near Qumran, remarking eloquently about how they bring into the central frame what had seemed like marginal issues in the Judaism of the two centuries before the fall of the temple.9 Perhaps surprisingly struck by the amount of text that has survived, Scharma has noted how the tone of the sectarian compositions amongst the collection is towards wordiness. In fact for him, Some of it is mesmerisingly, crazily, wordy. The War Scroll, for example, would not have helped much as a manual of arms against the Romans since it spends an inordinate amount of space detailing exactly what must be inscribed on trumpets, banners and even weapons in the battle array of the Sons of Light. ‘On the point of their javelins they shall write “Shining Javelin of the Power of God” . . . and on the darts of the second division they shall write “Bloody Spikes to Bring Down the Slain by the Wrath of God”.’ We are going to write the enemy into capitulation! Surrender to our verbosity or else! Precise measurements are issued for the size of the polished bronze shields, and the spike of the spear ‘made of brilliant white iron, the work of a craftsman, in its centre, pointing towards the tip shall be the ears of corn in pure gold’.10 If the Ultimate Battle could only be decided by literary excess and sumptuous schmeckerei it would be a cakewalk for the Sons of Light.11 This is an insightful approach to the War Scroll. It offers an appreciation of how the text might have been perceived by its authors as a forceful speech act, which, even if it was not effective for defeating the opposition physically, was at least able to create a sense of anticipated victory involving God and his angels, a victory far more powerful than any likely or imminent defeat. The enemy will be written into capitulation, texted into defeat.12 9  Simon Schama, The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words 1000 BCE–1492 CE (London: The Bodley Head, 2013), 161–70. 10  Translations are cited from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 170. 11  Scharma, The Story of the Jews, 165–66. 12  With respect to the different slogans written on the banners something of this is anticipated by Russell C.D. Arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community (STDJ 60; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 198, n. 32: “This description shows the importance of writing as a means of bringing into reality the situation they desire. It is difficult, however, to imagine the banner carrier, or more likely the priest for that tribe, taking out a marker and re-inscribing the banner at each stage in the battle. It may have been a way of informing the troops what they were to do. Perhaps they were not being written at that

Text, Timing and Terror

53

And it is here that the work of Abegg on the texts of the War Scroll comes in to its own, because it shows attention to the multiple versions of the composition that indicate that its verbosity mattered in multiple ways. Fresh versions of the text were the means to re-equipping the forces of light. The latest text was a new weapon in the arsenal of those who appeared marginalised in the circumstances in which they found themselves. The very creation of new editions of compositions is a security system, a set of reassurances that all will be well in the end. Though many of the sectarian compositions appear to go through somewhat similar rewriting processes over the decades that they seem to belong to, it is only in the case of the War Scroll that such textual developments can be so clearly construed as an aid to a sense of security. Alongside the multiple studies of the techniques of rewriting processes evident for so many authoritative compositions, both scriptural and sectarian, there is room for students of the Dead Sea Scrolls to consider the psychological and emotional benefits of rewriting practices and how those might be discernible to modern readers. Such benefits might be discernible in minutiae. For example, it could even be the case that there are particular, relatively small linguistic preferences in the War Scroll that indicate some of these psychological benefits. One can recall the concluding remarks by Søren Holst: “In a few cases . . . the accumulation of subject-first clauses also seem to have the function of marking a discourse ‘peak’, creating ‘dramatic pause’ by employing an inordinate number of clauses with a word order different from what might otherwise be expected.”13 Such benefits might be discernible in much larger matters such as the compilers’ selection of major themes for the work14 or the adjustment of the composition in major ways, as lies at the heart of the debates moment but that a new banner is raised.” Writing about the writing, text about text, is what is important. 13  Søren Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25; Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2008), 144. In most respects the Hebrew of the War Scroll manuscripts straightforwardly reflects what is also discernible in other texts; see Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam; 2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1998–99), 1:325–58. The War Scroll is also fully integrated into the study of the palaeography, orthography, phonology, morphology and syntax of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More Than (Initially) Meets the Eye,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M.L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 48–68. 14  The emotional significance of such themes might be assessed in terms not unlike those applied to disgust, empathy, fear, and a sense of justice by Thomas Kazen, Emotions in

54

Brooke

about the redactional processes that might explain the present configuration of the Cave 1 version of the War Scroll.15 The problematic textual character of the War Scroll is also reflected in the multiple proposals concerning its genre.16 Two observations are worth making here. The first concerns the insights to be derived about the profile of the War Scroll, at least in its Cave 1 form, from the research project carried out in recent years at the University of Manchester under the leadership of Alexander Samely.17 That project seeks to identify in the form of an inventory the principal aspects of several texts from the Jewish literature of antiquity. Most of the compositions evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls are omitted from the inventory because they are simply too fragmentary to bear the weight of descriptive analysis that would make them valuable comparative contributors to the project. However, the Cave 1 form of the War Scroll is included and many pertinent observations made, mostly by Samely himself, concerning the voice Biblical Law: A Cognitive Science Approach (Hebrew Bible Monographs 36; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011). 15  These are most readily discernible in the writings of Johannes P.M. van der Ploeg, Le rouleau de la guerre: traduit et annoté, avec une introduction (STDJ 2; Leiden: Brill, 1959); Philip R. Davies, 1QM: The War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977); Giovanni Ibba, Le ideologie del Rotolo della Guerra (1QM): Studio sulla genesi e la datazione dell’opera (Associazione Italiana per lo studio del Giudaismo Testi e Studi 17; Firenze: Giuntina, 2005 [he sees four redactional layers]); and Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009); idem, “Compositional Layers in the War Scroll (1QM),” 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. D.K. Falk et al.; STDJ 91; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 153–64. Care needs to be taken in the inclusion of col. 19 in this debate, since it might not be integral to the Cave 1 copy of the War Scroll: see Rony Yishay, “Column 19 of the War Scroll (1QM),” Meghillot 8–9 (2010): 175–92 [Hebrew]. 16  The inventory described in this paragraph suggests at its point 12.1 a sampling of genre labels: “rule”; rule book; apocalypse; liturgy; allegorical-dramatic-liturgical composition; script for celebration of the covenant; (tactical or military) manual; (utopian) tactical treatise. Suitable reference is made to the survey and discussion of genre in Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 53–60. Cf. the title in Num 21:14: “Book of the Wars of the Lord.” 17  The overall character of the project is described in detail in Alexander Samely in collaboration with Philip Alexander, Rocco Bernasconi and Robert Hayward, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); part of the project was also undertaken through the auspices of the University of Durham (in the person of Robert Hayward), but the inventory website, which is the most enduring legacy of the project, is located on a server at the University of Manchester.

Text, Timing and Terror

55

of the text, its narrative pace, its progression from topic to topic, its temporal order, thematic correspondences. Those can be consulted online and should be taken into account by all those who work on the War Scroll in the future, even if only to act as a control over what might fairly be said.18 A second matter concerning the genre of the War Scroll is worth mentioning explicitly. Most genre labels seem to be derived from the comparative analysis of the form and content of texts. For the War Scroll such analysis has usually begun with the discussion of the opening words of the Cave 1 form of the composition, words that sadly have to be partially reconstructed.19 Whether ‫( ספר‬book) or ‫( סרך‬rule) is read at the start of the composition, there can be immediate discussion about what such terms might mean for the composer or compiler of this distinctive work. If ‫ סרך‬is reconstructed and read, then, as Giovanni Ibba has concluded, echoing the thoughts of many, “non è una ‘regola’ in senso stretto.”20 To my mind this surely indicates an impasse, if only form and content are taken into account. So where might scholars look for assistance in understanding and defining the genre of this composition? In addition to form and content, some texts require a consideration of function in order to be suitably understood. Indeed, in some cases function might be the determining factor for the best understanding of a text, whether that is, for example, a “sentence” in a court of law or a “command” on a parade ground. Functional understandings of texts are intimately associated with the way words work and so they concern, sometimes in complex ways, those matters that make speech effective for particular audiences.21 The text of the War Scroll appears to be about more than just the way words work in themselves, perhaps as a means of forcing surrender by verbosity. The War Scroll seems to 18  See http://literarydatabase.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/SearchMultiPoints.aspx?Book Id=21&OrganonId=13. To the list there can be added the idea that because of its eschatological-apocalyptic perspective the War Scroll might be expected to be pseudepigraphic: Moshe J. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the [Second] International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (ed. E.G. Chazon and M.E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 25. 19  In his edition and commentary on the text Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 3–4, noted that “we do not know the name of the author of this scroll, or what its readers called it. One may assume that its title comprised its opening word or words, as was the custom.” 20  Ibba, Il “Rotolo della Guerra”: Edizione critica, 51 (“It is not a ‘Rule’ in the strict sense.”) 21  Some of this approach is attached to reflections on the work of John L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2d ed., 1975).

56

Brooke

be encouraging or reflecting the ritual enactment of what it portrays. Its overall priestly perspective encourages an understanding of the text as concerned with the liturgical deployment of troops.22 On the one hand, exegetically, the text is a neat harmonised realisation in one literary form of the parallelism between the kinds of purity required in the cult and in military activity. On the other hand, the ritual enactment indicates that performance criticism might have much to offer for the better understanding of the text and its purpose.23 The text realises a theatre of war; it encourages a performance whose participants and observers might cathartically cope with the conceived crisis of their situation.24 It is not simply a spiritualisation of war, the depiction of the combat between good and evil as an internal spiritual struggle; it is a ritual campaign manual for those who have to fight an external enemy other.

22  Despite paying attention to the fixed liturgical speech of scripture, including the address of the priest who was anointed for battle when he spoke before the troops (Deut 20:2–7), somewhat surprisingly Abegg does not include the War Scroll in any of its forms within the taxonomy he offers of liturgical texts from the Qumran caves: see Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Liturgy: Qumran,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 648–50. This is all the more surprising since he has made some astute observations on the possible significance of the formula, “And they shall answer and say,” as part of an enduring sequence of ritual practice with particular linguistic significance running from scripture (Deut 27:14) through to m. Sotah 7:1 and including 1QM 13:1; 15:4–9; 16:13–16; 18:6–7; 19:13; 4Q491 10 ii 13–15: Martin G. Abegg Jr., “ ‘And He Shall Answer and Say . . .’—A Little Backlighting,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P.W. Flint, E. Tov and J.C. VanderKam; VTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 203–11. 23  On performance criticism see, e.g., the introductory survey articles by David Rhoads, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies— Part I,” BTB 36 (2006): 118–33; idem, “Part ii,” BTB 36 (2006): 164–84; idem, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Biblical Studies,” http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/ pdfs/rhoads_performance.pdf. It should be noted that Rhoads pays little explicit attention to liturgical texts, perhaps because his focus is mostly on the New Testament; he portrays performance criticism as emerging from various aspects of other standard critical approaches, such as rhetorical criticism and audience/reader response approaches. For a wider perspective see the overview by Marvin Carson, Performance: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2d ed., 2004). 24  Despite its concerns with liturgy and ritual, the most extensive recent discussion of the War Scroll from such a perspective is concerned only with the political implications of the authority of the priesthood in the text: see Arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy, 197–99.

Text, Timing and Terror

57

3 Timing Readers of the scholarly literature on the Dead Sea Scrolls soon come to appreciate the dry wit of the titles of some of Marty Abegg’s several contributions. One such item is entitled “Does Anybody Really Know What Time it Is? A Reexamination of 4Q503 in Light of 4Q317.”25 In some other studies he has also been concerned with calendrical time, whether this is organised in annual, triennial, six year, forty-nine year, or two hundred and ninety-four year cycles.26 But he has also been concerned with eschatological time, a periodisation of history that creates an end-time. Two aspects of this eschatological time have featured in Abegg’s work. The first is the demarcation of the eschatological period itself; the second concerns some of the figures who populate eschatological time, especially messiahs. For thinking about eschatological time, Abegg has drawn attention to the way in which the War Scroll speaks of the return from the wilderness. For him at the time of the war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, “the Sons of Light return from the wilderness of the peoples to camp in the wilderness of Jerusalem” (1QM 1:2–3). As an adaptation of the thought of Ezek 20:35, as identified by Yadin,27 the War Scroll understands the beginning of the eschatological campaign as the re-occupation of Jerusalem and the temple, the time when the movement actually comes out of exile in the wilderness.28 This indicates that, despite all the problems in trying to understand it correctly, the War Scroll attests to a spatial transition out of liminality that is temporally marked. The start of the campaign is the start of a new period of community identity and self-understanding. That is the period at the end of the age, when “Israel would finally become coincident with the sectarian community,”29 when the 25  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Does Anybody Really Know What Time it Is? A Reexamination of 4Q503 in Light of 4Q317,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E.C. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 396–406. 26  See, e.g., Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “The Calendar at Qumran,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 5. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. A.J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B.D. Chilton; HOS I Near and Middle East 56; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:145–71. 27  Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, 257. The idea was elaborated by Shemaryahu Talmon, “Between the Bible and the Mishna,” in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989), 42. 28  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. J.M. Scott; JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 124. 29  1QSa and 1QM are the eschatological compositions that make explicit the exclusive identification of the movement as Israel; for that observation see Martin G. Abegg, Jr.,

58

Brooke

movement could call itself Israel without any qualification. Abegg has understood one feature of that period of coming out of exile as a looking forward to a time of salvation and all its blessings.30 This has led him, for example, to wonder whether 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a) might fit more closely with sectarian understanding informed by the War Scroll than some scholars might be willing to admit.31 Many scholars have been able to summarise the significance of the War Scroll and related texts in a general way, such as can be seen in the following: Many of the sect’s writings are characterized by a dualistic apocalypticism according to which the end of days was near. Divinely inspired leaders (or messiahs) would soon appear to lead the final battle between the Sons of Light (the Qumran sectaries) and the Sons of Darkness (their enemies), and the righteous remnant would be restored. The sectarians read the prophetic books of the Bible as coded references to these historical events, as predictions that the dawning of the Last Day was imminent.32 However, Abegg’s contributions in various studies that have similarly integrated the War Scroll with other sectarian compositions have been able to highlight some key aspects of the composition that indicate more precisely what the work stands for, notably the movement as Israel in the eschatological period. Abegg’s concern with who might be the leading figures that might populate the eschatological period has resulted in some astute observations, some of which are worth reflecting on further. In his review of the evidence for Messiah figures in the scrolls from Qumran, Abegg has concluded that it is possible to “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. S.E. Porter and J.C.R. de Roo; JSJSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 97; Schulz, Conquering the World, 363–65. 30  Whether consideration of the good outcome of the battles should be considered in the light of just war theory to help understand what the War Scroll signifies has yet to be asked; on recent uses of the theory and its priorities in Christian tradition see Joseph E. Capizzi, “War and International Order,” Comm 31 (2004): 280–301. 31  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “The Time of Righteousness (4Q215A): A Time of War or a Time of Peace?” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday (ed. J. Penner, K.M. Penner and C. Wassen; STDJ 98; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 11. 32  Christine Hayes, The Emergence of Judaism: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 86.

Text, Timing and Terror

59

read many compositions as describing only one Messiah, a kingly or Davidic Messiah along the lines of Gen 49 or Isa 11. He is prepared to admit that messianic hopes in the Qumran literature were not always or only singular; a significant priest could stand alongside an anointed prince or Davidic king and possibly be understood as providing messianic priestly balance.33 In the War Scroll the presence of a high priest (1QM 2:1; 7:12; 10:2; 15:4, 6; 16:13; 18:5) but the absence of an obvious leading eschatological priestly Messiah is his preferred reading strategy. The absence of a leading messianic priest from the War Scroll is all the more noteworthy since, as Abegg himself has observed, “the covenant of the ‘eternal priesthood’ is mentioned at least once in the Qumran corpus. The authority of the priesthood is rehearsed in the War Scroll in one of the high priestly prayers during the final battle of the clash between the sons of light and the sons of darkness.”34 The War Scroll is clearly written from a priestly perspective but that perspective is an attempt to realise the military roles of priests, even the high priest, as discernible in scripture, rather than the assertion of distinctive priestly agency in the last battles. The playing down of human agency is also at least part of the explanation for why there is little attention in the War Scroll to the kingly Messiah. In 1QM there is indeed mention of the “Prince of the Congregation” (1QM 5:1),35 but nothing much is made of his activity or role. There is no sense that the Prince is a hero of high mimetic mode.36 In 4Q285 the depiction of the Prince of the Congregation is based largely on Isa 11; he slays someone in a battle involving the Kittim. The virtual absence of a leading lay figure seems to indicate that human leadership roles are somewhat redundant. The implication of those observations is that while the various forms of the War Scroll do indeed mention priestly and lay leaders, the thrust of the dramatic presentation of the composition is to stress divine competence for the defeat of darkness. As Raija

33  Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?” DSD 2 (1995): 125–44. In a further study Abegg considers that only 4Q541 frg 9 clearly refers to a Priest Messiah: see Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “A Messianic High Priest in the Scrolls?” Mishkan: A Forum on the Gospel and the Jewish People 44 (2005): 43–51. 34  Abegg, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians,” 83, referring to the allusion to Num 25:1–13 in 1QM 17:2–3. 35  Abegg translates this as “the Leader of the whole nation” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 155, but as “The Prince of the Whole Congregation” in the 2005 revised edition of the same book (152). 36  To use the category from the first essay on a theory of modes in Northrop Frye, The Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).

60

Brooke

Sollamo has concluded, “[t]he supreme leader and hero of the eschatological war is Yahweh himself (1QM XII,7–12).”37 Two other points need to be made. It is all too easy for modern Western readers of the War Scroll to assess the composition as an eschatological text and to assert that it might form the very heart of the construction of the Essene movement’s eschatology. Perhaps in that respect it is no accident that amongst those who have written short studies of the eschatology of the sectarian compositions found in the caves at and near Qumran should be Philip Davies whose doctoral work on the War Scroll has certainly influenced some aspects of his own long-term interests in history. However, a composition such as the War Scroll demands more sophisticated attention from its readers than might be restricted to a temporal analysis alone. Any worldview is constructed from attitudes towards space as well as time, as well as towards energy and matter, and all four dimensions are worth considering. So, alongside a temporal reading of the composition there is certainly room for a spatial analysis, not least because of the cosmic symmetry reflected in the texts and because priestly compositions very commonly are marked by very clear spatial demarcations: where the various troops are located matters, if purity is to be maintained and the hoped for outcome achieved satisfactorily.38 Liturgical performance requires attention to the dynamics of sacred space. Furthermore, the cosmic mirroring that is apparent in the text is suggestive of the divine energy that the text seeks to tap into and re-present somehow. In addition the inscribed marking of the weapons, for example, is a material indication of how such divine energy is visible in an object as described. There is more going on in the War Scroll than eschatology alone. Another aspect of the War Scroll that too much attention to eschatology might distort concerns the actual political circumstances, particularly of the later forms of the composition that can be dated to the Roman period, perhaps after 63 BCE. Here it is important to reckon with the problem of stereotypes. The eschatological rhetoric of the War Scroll barely leaves room for any nuance in the way the ancient reader or enactor of the text might have understood the political or military identification of the Kittim. Providing nuance 37  Raija Sollamo, “War and Violence in the Ideology of the Qumran Community,” in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen (ed. H. Juusola, J. Laulainen and H. Palva; StudOr 99; Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 351. 38  This is reflected in the dualism of the composition: see Philip R. Davies, “Dualism in the Qumran War Texts,” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G.G. Xeravits; LSTS 76; London: T&T Clark International, 2010), 8–19.

Text, Timing and Terror

61

in the d­ iscussion of Rome in the variety of depictions in the New Testament and other early Christian writings has become important in New Testament studies.39 It is time for such nuance to be introduced into the study of the War Scroll, so that sobriquets are not reduced to eschatological slogans, but appreciated as carrying some political resonance and weight.40 4 Terror That there should be a composition in the sectarian collection from the eleven caves at and near Qumran as militaristic as the War Scroll has been recognised as intriguing, even problematic, from the outset. Scholars who have identified those responsible for the sectarian compositions as Essenes of some sort have had to offer some kind of explanation for the apparent discrepancy, and resulting cognitive dissonance, between the depiction of the Essenes as pacifists in Philo (Every Good Man is Free, 87) and the presence of the militaristic War Scroll in Caves 1 and 4 in particular.41 After all, the composition was not given and has not earned the title of Defence Scroll, permitting a non-violent approach to the end times unless an attack should be initiated by others.42

39  See, e.g., the nuances in the studies in Jeffrey Brodd and Jonathan L. Reed, eds., Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult (SBLWGRW 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). For violence in particular see Pieter G.R. de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten, eds., Coping with Violence in the New Testament (Studies in Theology and Religion 16; Leiden: Brill, 2012), especially the study by Jeremy Punt, “Violence in the New Testament and the Roman Empire: Ambivalence, Othering, Agency,” 23–42. 40  On sobriquets in the sectarian scrolls see Matthew A. Collins, The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls (LSTS 67; London: T&T Clark International, 2009). For some reason Collins does not engage with the use of sobriquets in the War Scroll. 41  This enigma of this kind of cognitive dissonance is all the more striking in some sections of Buddhism; the Shaolin monastery’s monks have been perfecting their fighting skills for centuries, not always just for mental self-discipline, despite the Buddhist proscription of violence; see Meir Shahar, The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008). 42  Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts (JSPSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 106–35, esp. 129–34 on “The Essenes: Pacifistic or Militaristic?” I know of no attempt at locating the War Scroll in the context of debates in antiquity about vengeance and anger in the face of aggression; as an introduction to such topics see Petra von Gemünden, “Anger and Aggression as Dealt with in Classical Antiquity and in the Sermon on the Mount,” AJBI 32 (2006): 127–96, who also discusses Ben Sira.

62

Brooke

From the perspective of the modern liberal West, violence in religion is an embarrassment.43 Some attempts have been made to consider the character of the War Scroll in the light of recent thinking on violence and war, especially violence and war as those seem to be motivated and justified by arrogant religious traditions. For example, Alex Jassen has wondered whether “scarce resources” theory and other more general sociological approaches to sectarianism might lead to a better understanding of the sectarian imagination.44 While we await Abegg’s comments on war and peace,45 for the War Scroll it is possible that two other recent theological reflections on violence in biblical texts can contribute something to the parameters that might enable a better appreciation of the violent sentiments that the text reflects. In his Presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2002 John Collins considered questions, highly pertinent to the time of his writing, about the Bible and the legitimation of violence.46 For any reader of the War Scroll it is worth keeping in mind his suggestion that “the line between actual killing and verbal, symbolic, or imaginary violence is thin and permeable. The threat of violence is a method of forceful coercion, even if no blood is actually shed.”47 Perhaps the thinness of the line enabled some members of the movement associated with the site of Qumran to turn to actual violence in

43  Against such liberal romanticism it might be necessary, however, to assert what some have identified as the underlying “ontology of violence” in the created order; it may be perhaps that such violence is what is reflected in the War Scroll. See the perceptive comments and analysis by J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 152–55. 44  Alex P. Jassen, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination,” BibInt 17 (2009): 12–44. Perhaps some aspects of social psychology, such as Terror Management Theory, might yield similarly fruitful results for the better understanding of the War Scroll in particular. 45  Abegg, “The Time of Righteousness (4Q215A): A Time of War or a Time of Peace?” 1–12, offers some aspects of his thinking in the area. 46  John J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phineas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence,” JBL 122 (2003): 3–21; reprinted in a revised form as Does the Bible Justify Violence? (Facet Books; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). 47  Collins, Does the Bible Justify Violence? 3. It seems to me that this a more realistic approach than the proposal offered by Reginald Askew that “the Way to deal with what is atrocious and unthinkable (like the messengers bringing Job news of the death of his children) is to put it in the religious library, which also contains awe and holiness”; Reginald J.A. Askew, Muskets and Altars: Jeremy Taylor and the Last of the Anglicans (London: Mowbray, 1997), 121.

Text, Timing and Terror

63

association with some zealots in the first century CE or most likely during the First Jewish War (66–74 CE). In discussing eschatological vengeance Collins has this to say of the War Scroll. “The War Scroll from Qumran is written in anticipation of human participation in the final conflict, but this is compatible with the pledge to avoid conflict with ‘the men of the pit’ until the Day of Vengeance (1QS 10:19).”48 In this way Collins differentiates the War Scroll from other similar apocalyptic literature in which he sees the dominant tendency as “quietistic, encouraging endurance and even martyrdom in the present era.” For Collins it seems as if the ethos of the War Scroll lies in a different trajectory in the Second Temple period and beyond; it seems to belong with those who have taken up arms to bring about the particular understanding of earlier authoritative texts that they wish to endorse. In this respect the War Scroll is a delaying tactic, allowing in its immediate present the view of a strict and somewhat literal adherence to particular scriptural promulgations of destruction, violence and the ban (which might even encourage a kind of human sacrifice in the total destructive offering of the enemy),49 but putting the moment of violence and vengeance in God’s hands and at God’s time. In an equally accessible form, Thomas Römer has considered the biblical depictions of God as a militaristic despot and as violent and vengeful.50 Römer is an expert on the Deuteronomistic writings and sees those writings as the location of the overwhelming majority of the biblical statements concerning military violence.51 In the light of such an insight immediately a question arises in relation to the sectarian manuscripts found in the eleven caves at and near Qumran. In those sectarian compositions Deuteronomy is used as a t­ heological

48  Collins, Does the Bible Justify Violence? 23. 49  “There shall be no survivors of the Sons of Darkness” (1QM 1:6–7). 50  Thomas Römer, Dieu obscur: Cruauté, sexe et violence dans l’Ancien Testament (Essais bibliques; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2009); published in English as Dark God, Cruelty, Sex, and Violence in the Old Testament (trans. Sean O’Neill; New York: Paulist Press, 2013). 51  Cf. Walter Brueggemann, Divine Presence Amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009), who similarly engages in seeing how the much more explicit violence of the sources of Joshua, especially Josh 11, are tempered and extensively qualified by its context in the book as a whole. The adjustment of the Joshua traditions in a priestly direction has been proposed in the detailed analysis of all the relevant fragmentary compositions by Ariel Feldman, The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations, and Commentary (BZAW 438; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 194–201, esp. 199–200.

64

Brooke

underpinning of much of the theological approach of the movement.52 This can be discerned in such quasi-sectarian compositions as the Temple Scroll in which a large section (cols 51–66) is a rewritten form of extensive parts of Deut 12–23, or in the opening of the Cave 1 version of the Rule of the Community which resonates with Deut 6:4–5: that they may seek God with a whole heart and soul, and do what is good and right before Him as He commanded by the hand of Moses and all his servants the prophets; that the may love all that he has chosen and hate all that He has rejected; that they may abstain from all evil and hold fast to all good.53 Römer understands the militarism of Deuteronomy and the subsequent Deuteronomistic writings as in part a reaction to the military might of Assyria.54 It is not surprising then that the War Scroll rehearses such militarism in its opening columns: Assyria is the type of the arch-enemy. It is intriguing to note that the technical term that sums up the approach of Deuteronomy, ‫( ברית‬covenant), occurs in the Cave 1 version of the War Scroll in col. 1 and cols 10–18. Just as the Deuteronomistic writings adapt the Assyrian vassal-treaty in order to provide a counter-history, so such material is taken forward within the sectarian movement of which the Qumran group was a part in order to provide a counter-history to the apparent impending brutalisation by the Romans and their Jewish collaborators. Römer continues his analysis by suggesting that the warrior God depicted in some texts for polemical reasons is nevertheless “counterbalanced by other passages that modify or critique it.”55 For Römer the text of Josh 1:8 (“This book of the Law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day and night”) turns Joshua from a military leader into “a conscientious rabbi” and “it is respect for the Torah, and no longer for military exploits, that is the deciding factor in the lives of the people in the land.”56 Such a transformation seems 52  It has often been noted that of the five books of the Torah Deuteronomy is the most represented in the Qumran collection: there are 30 copies according to James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 3. 53  G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 98. 54  The most recent analysis of the topic in the Assyrian period is Carly L. Crouch, War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History (BZAW 407; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009). 55  Römer, Dark God, 80–81. 56  Römer, Dark God, 81.

Text, Timing and Terror

65

to indicate a concern in the Deuteronomistic writings to disarm the people, a tendency that is taken forward elsewhere in 1 and 2 Chronicles from which all the references to the conquest of the land are omitted. “When Judah is threatened by her neighbors, a prophet exhorts King Jehoshaphat and the people saying: ‘Do not fear or be dismayed . . . for the battle is not yours but God’s. This battle is not for you to fight; take your position, stand still, and see the victory of the Lord on your behalf’ (2 Chron 20:15–17).”57 For Römer “this concept will be taken up again by the community of Qumran in a writing that is called the ‘scroll of war’; it will also influence the New Testament.”58 There might indeed be a way of reading the War Scroll that puts it on a literary trajectory that actually disarms the people in the sense that they might never be deployed in actual combat. Nevertheless the depictions in the War Scroll of actual weaponry and the imitation of actual military tactics indicate the identification of the movement with the standard military means of expressing power and control over others. Furthermore, the attitude towards the enemy is in line with the kind of overall defeat of other nations that is depicted in texts such as Deut 7:1–6, a text probably alluded to in the designation “seven nations of vanity” (1QM 11:8–9). If performance criticism might be of help in the better understanding of the genre and purpose of the composition, then this acknowledgement of the antagonism of the text towards all outsiders might be understood as a way of expressing sentiments that could never be put into practice, but which through being expressed could give a renewed sense of confidence to those who felt beleaguered. Römer concludes his consideration of the divine warlike despot by noting how universalism characterises both the opening of the Torah and the end of 2 Chronicles; in the latter there is invocation of “the same universal God who is God of both the Persian kings and the Jewish people (2 Chron 36:21), a God who promises a future of peace around the building of the temple.”59 However, no such universalism is present in the War Scroll or its related texts: the presence of God in his holy temple (Hab 2:20) can only be interpreted so that “on the Day of Judgement, God will destroy from the earth all idolatrous and wicked men” (1QpHab 13:2–3).60 By juxtaposing the War Scroll with some reflections on the violence of certain biblical traditions, it becomes possible to value the War Scroll as a repeated expression over several decades for the need for delay. Its Deuteronomistic 57  Römer, Dark God, 84–85. 58  Römer, Dark God, 85. 59  Römer, Dark God, 92. 60  Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 516.

66

Brooke

flavour, indeed its overall use of scripture, has yet to be analysed in depth to discover whether the tendency in the War Scroll is towards rigorous exclusivist destruction or qualified disarming through putting all in the hands of God. The application of some recent theories from the social sciences might also assist in raising suitable questions that need to be asked of this perplexing composition. 5 Conclusion Yigael Yadin, in his principal edition of the Cave 1 version of the War Scroll, defined the composition’s purpose as consisting in “supplying the members of the sect with a detailed set of regulations and plans in accordance with which they were to act on the day of destiny appointed ‘from of old for a battle of annihilation of the Sons of Darkness’ (i, 10).”61 That is a very straightforward descriptive statement. Several scholars have wrestled with this strange composition since and this collection of essays in honour of Marty Abegg contains some further instances of such wrestling. In this essay I have tried to indicate that Abegg’s work on the War Scroll has prompted me to think in three directions. First, his work on the text of the various versions of the War Scroll and related compositions has highlighted for me the very fact of the composition’s textuality. Some significance needs to be given to its detailed verbosity, the ways in which its words might work emotionally and performatively, to endorse and control all manner of destructive aspirations. Second, Abegg’s work on eschatological time and messianic figures leads to consideration of what it is to come out of exile, retake Jerusalem, and live with God alone as hero. Third, as we await Abegg’s definitive commentary on the War Scroll, I have looked for some help amongst those who have recently written on war and violence in the Hebrew Bible to see whether anything can be learnt from them about how best to approach this difficult but fascinating composition. It cannot be explained away as catharsis for quietists. Nevertheless, it is a text that permits the delay of divine vengeance and provides some kind of compensation in the immediate present of its performance for those who take a more literal view of authoritative tradition, those who insist on the introduction of the prescriptions of Deuteronomy for the purification of the land, those who are destructive particularists.

61  Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, 4.

CHAPTER 5

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the Syntax and Semantics of the War Scroll (1QM): The Noun Phrase as Proof of Concept Robert D. Holmstedt and John Screnock 1 Introduction In the relatively short history of scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the grammar of the Qumran texts has received focused attention on matters of orthography, phonology, and morphology, but less so in the area of syntax and semantics, even though it is the combination of words from which meaning emerges.1 To be sure, there have been a few studies of a particular grammatical issue in one text2 and many more that describe some feature across the whole corpus.3 These studies have contributed significantly to our understanding of

* Authors’ Note: We are grateful to Marty Abegg for his friendship and collaboration, as a ­colleague and co-designer of a Hebrew syntactic database (RDH) and as a teacher and ­mentor (JS). ** Editors’ Note: We would like to thank Marty’s friend and collaborator Dr. Ed Cook for his feedback as a guest editor on this essay. 1  For example, in E. Qimron’s seminal grammar, only seventeen out of 118 pages are given to syntactic description, within which some issues discussed are more semantic than syntactic (Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 70–86). Similarly, the latest volume on the language of Qumran consists of more than three hundred pages on orthography, phonology, and morphology (Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology [Resources for Biblical Study 76; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014]). 2  E.g., T. Leahy, “Studies in the Syntax of 1QS,” Biblica 41 (1960): 135–57; John Screnock, “Word Order in the War Scroll (1QM) and Its Implications for Interpretation,” DSD 18 (2011): 29–44. 3  E.g., Jackie A. Naudé, “Qumran Hebrew as a Null Subject Language,” South African Journal of Linguistics 9/4 (1991): 119–25; idem, “Qumran Hebrew Syntax in the Perspective of a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion,” JNSL 26/1 (2000): 105–32; idem, “The Distribution of Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew,” JNSL 27/2 (2001): 91–112; and most of the published papers from the seven international symposiums on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_006

68

Holmstedt and Screnock

Qumran Hebrew (QH) syntax and semantics.4 However, the investigation of isolated syntactic or semantic issues across all the QH texts, useful though it is, risks losing the forest for the trees. We should not assume that some syntactic or semantic feature functions the same way in all the texts in which the feature appears. Treating QH texts as a grammatically homogeneous linguistic corpus is deeply questionable.5 Isolating one feature across the texts sidesteps the fact that each text represents a grammatical system (the idiolect of its author) in and of itself. Thus, the distinctive grammars of each text are the forest that can be, and arguably often are, missed. In this study, we reposition the study of 1QM so that its forest is in view even as we study the trees. Our goals are twofold. First, we present this study of a significant component of grammar—the noun phrase (NP)—as a large step towards a full description of the syntax and semantics of the idiolect represented in this specific text. Second, we offer a pattern that others may follow to describe fully the grammar of each text, thereby laying a much better foundation for future comparative studies, such as comparing QH grammars to other stages of Hebrew or different Semitic languages, or across-the-board studies within QH grammars as a dialect group. Insofar as this paper meets these two 4  The first symposium was held in 1995 (published as The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University 11–14 December 1995 [ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 26; Leiden: Brill, 1997), the second in 1997 (published as Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University 15–17 December 1997 [ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999]), the third in 1999 (published as Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira [ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000]), the fourth in 2006 (published as Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. [ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; STDJ 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008]), the fifth in 2008 (published as Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Fifth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, jointly sponsored by the Eliezer Ben-Yehuda Center for the Study of the History of the Hebrew Language, 29–31 December, 2008 [ed. Steven E. Fassberg, Moshe Bar-Asher, and Ruth A. Clements; STDJ 108; Leiden: Brill, 2013]), the sixth in 2011 (the proceedings are forthcoming, and the seventh symposium occurred in the summer 2014 (the proceedings are being prepared for publication). 5  E.Y. Kutscher was ahead of his time in describing the grammar of one text, 1QIsaa; even though the full range of Qumran texts have now been available for twenty years, Kutscher’s lead has not been followed.

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

69

goals, we are taking the first step in addressing the challenge articulated by J. Naudé, that “[e]ach grammar of QH must be looked at separately.”6 2

Previous Scholarship on QH Grammar, with Special Focus on Syntax

With respect to all elements of QH grammar, E.Y. Kutscher’s seminal study of the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa)7 holds pride of place. Though this study covered all aspects of language, Kutscher’s notes on syntax set the agenda for much of the future study of QH syntax. Another early study, by T. Leahy,8 investigated several important features found in the Scrolls, the most significant of which is the so-called “predicative” use of the infinitive. Short discussions of QH syntax are included in both E. Qimron’s The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls9 and the edition of 4QMMT in DJD 10.10 And among T. Muraoka’s numerous publications on Qumran studies are some focused more narrowly on syntax and verbal semantics.11 Many of the same syntactical issues are highlighted by Qimron’s Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Muraoka’s “Morphosyntax” (owing in part to their dependence on Kutscher), such as the predicative use of the infinitive absolute and the changes to the verbal system between Biblical and Qumran

6  Naudé, “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 189–214 (207); see also idem, “A Perspective on the Chronological Framework of Biblical Hebrew,” JNSL 30/1 (2004); Robert D. Holmstedt, “Issues in the Linguistic Analysis of a Dead Language, with Particular Reference to Ancient Hebrew,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6/11 (2006), 14–18. 7  E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974). 8  Leahy, “Studies in the Syntax of 1QS.” 9  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, based on his 1976 doctoral thesis directed in part by Kutscher (“‫[ ”דקדוק הלשׁון העברית שׁל מגילות מדבר יהודה‬unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976]). 10  Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma’aśe Ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), esp. 65–108. 11  Muraoka, “Verb Complementation in Qumran Hebrew,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, 92–149; idem, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., Diggers at the Well, 193–214; idem, “The Morphosyntax of the Construct Phrase in Qumran Hebrew,” in Joosten and Rey, eds., Conservatism and Innovation, 125–32.

70

Holmstedt and Screnock

Hebrew. M. Smith’s study of the development of the wayyiqtol form12 includes a significant section on QH, touching on 1QM in particular; elsewhere Smith considers QH participles13 and the use of the infinitive absolute in QH.14 The QH scholarship of M.G. Abegg also deserves special notice, since his work was the first to investigate QH using a digital database. Working with (indeed, creating the QH databases for)15 existing Bible software has allowed Abegg to consider orthographic, phonological and morphological trends across all the texts. For example, in his work on the biblical manuscripts,16 all 256 manuscripts—over 90,000 words—are taken into account.17 As such, Abegg has greatly increased our knowledge and rectified longstanding inaccuracies passed down by previous scholars.18 However, even Abegg only touches on syntax at a few points, such as the distribution of verbs,19 the use of ‫ את‬with clitic pronoun verb complements20 and various changes to the infinitive.21 Critically, Abegg recently observed that the study of QH syntax “is

12  Mark Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991). 13  Smith, “Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main Verb of Clauses (Predicative Participle) in Direct Discourse and Narrative in Pre-Mishnaic Hebrew,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages, 278–332. 14  Smith, “The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey,” in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., Diggers at the Well, 256–68. 15  Abegg is responsible for the digital Dead Sea Scroll texts, including the lexical and morphological tagging, in the Accordance Bible software. He is also leading the syntactic tagging of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira for the Holmstedt-Abegg Hebrew Syntax Database, distributed within the Accordance Bible software. 16  E.g., Martin Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (ed. Peter Flint and James C. Vanderkam; 2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1998–99), 1: 325–58. 17  Martin Abegg, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll: Where are We Now?” (paper presented at the International Organization of Qumran Studies Congress, Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 17, 2007). 18  See particularly Abegg, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll.” 19  Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls”; idem, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll”; idem, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More Than (Initially) Meets the Eye,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Maxine L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 48–68; idem, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” in Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants (ed. Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint; DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 25–42. 20  Abegg, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll.” 21  Abegg, “Kutscher and the Great Isaiah Scroll”; idem, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls.”

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

71

still in its infancy,”22 a state of affairs which no doubt figured prominently in his co-creation of an ancient Hebrew syntactic database project in 2008.23 Finally, the proceedings from five of the seven international symposia include a number of recent studies that address some aspect of syntax or semantics. This is especially true for syntax in the last two published symposia volumes.24 As valuable as these studies are, they also represent “losing the forest”—the various grammars of Qumran are taken as a whole, even though current DSS scholarship generally acknowledges the heterogeneous origins of both the biblical and the non-biblical texts. 3

Previous Scholarship on 1QM, with Special Focus on Grammar

The current state of grammatical description in DSS scholarship is typified by the amount of attention given in previous study to 1QM. Though the War Scroll was one of the first seven scrolls found, and is also one of the larger texts, only three studies have so far been dedicated to this text’s language. S. Holst’s Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scrolls,25 which is based on his 2004 doctoral thesis, is the first work to focus on the syntax of 1QM. Though the title of Holst’s work indicates a study of the verbal system, he—rightly, in our view—connects verbal semantics to word order and so discusses syntax a great deal. Holst analyzes the 22  Abegg, “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 68. 23  See note 15. 24  E.g., Mat Eskhult on the ‫ה‬-relative (“Relative ha-: A Late Biblical Hebrew Phenomenon?” in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 47–56); Steven Fassberg on word-order shifts (“Shifts in Word Order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 57–72); Pierre Van Hecke on ‫ אין‬and ‫ ישׁ‬clauses (“Constituent Order in Existential Clauses,” in Joosten and Rey, eds., Conservatism and Innovation, 61–78) and ‫ היה‬copular clauses (“Constituent Order in ‫היה‬-Clauses in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 83–104); Bo Isaksson on adjunct clauses (“Circumstantial Qualifiers in Qumran Hebrew: Reflections on Adjunct Expressions in The Manual of Discipline (1QS),” in Joosten and Rey, eds., Conservatism and Innovation, 79–92); Jan Joosten on the word order of imperatival clauses (“Imperative Clauses Containing a Temporal Phrase and the Study of Diachronic Syntax in Ancient Hebrew,” in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 117–32); and Tamar Zewi on the syntax of “content” clauses (“Content Clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period, 289–98). 25  Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25; Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2008.

72

Holmstedt and Screnock

verbal system primarily through the lens of discourse analysis, loosely following the frameworks developed by R. Longacre26 and A. Niccacci.27 Although Holst’s study is comprehensive in scope, it fails to make many firm and clear claims about the verbal system in 1QM. For example, with respect to the socalled “predicative” use of the infinitive, Holst states blandly that the infinitive is “gradual[ly] encroach[ing] . . . upon the function of the yiqtol.”28 The second published study to focus exclusively on an issue of syntax or semantics in 1QM is J. Screnock’s “Word Order in the War Scroll (1QM) and Its Implications for Interpretation.”29 In this study, Screnock surveys all the data in 1QM and concludes that the “basic” word order is subject-verb, which accords with the word order arguments that have been advanced for Biblical Hebrew by R. Holmstedt.30 Furthermore, Screnock observes that verbal valency may contribute to the movement of constituents. The third and final study on some syntactic aspect of 1QM is R. Medina’s “The Syntax of Dependent Clauses in the War Scroll (1QMilḥamah) in Comparison with other Hebrew Corpora.”31 In this study, Medina moves in a positive direction by describing a syntactic issue with full examples and concise comparative comments that do not err by drawing any presumptive diachronic conclusions. 4

On Writing a Descriptive Grammar

Describing the grammar of a language is a daunting task. Even in this case, when the focus of this article is the grammar of the NP, the challenges begin even before the phenomena are described, for how a grammar is organised and how the data are presented critically affect the usability of the resulting 26  See, for example, Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003). 27  See, for example, Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSup 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). 28  Holst, Verbs and War Scroll, 2008: 128; see Andrew R. Jones, review of Søren Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll, DSD 18 (2011): 378–80, for an incisive review. 29  This work was based on J. Screnock’s MA thesis (2010), which was researched and written under the guidance of Marty Abegg at Trinity Western University. 30  Holmstedt, “Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah: A GenerativeTypological Analysis,” JSS 54 (2009): 111–39; idem, “The Typological Classification of the Hebrew of Genesis: Subject-Verb or Verb-Subject?,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11/14 (2011). 31  Orientalia 82/3 (2013).

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

73

d­ escription. For organisation, presentation, and general methodological and theoretical orientation, we have followed many of the proposals expressed by the various linguists and grammar authors in T. Payne and D. Weber’s Perspectives on Grammar Writing (2007). Among the principles that have been formative in our approach are these (with reference to authors’ studies within Payne and Weber 2007 in square brackets): 1.

2.

3.

4.

All grammatical description entails theoretical assumptions about the nature of language (e.g., whether the lexical category of “noun” or the syntactic category “subject” are universal is debated).32 Thus, it is highly preferable to make one’s theoretical assumptions explicit (which assumes, of course, an awareness of linguistic theory). [Payne: 3; Rice: 153] Descriptive terminology should be drawn from common usage within contemporary linguistics. Creating or perpetuating idiosyncratic terminology significantly reduces the readability and usability of the description. [Mithun: 50; Noonan: 116] The likelihood of descriptive accuracy increases if a good, dedicated dictionary has been completed, especially for topics that involve the intersection of syntax and semantics, such as verbal valency. [Mithun: 72; Noonan: 122; Rice: 147] A detailed table of contents, clear organisation (including multiple outline levels), copious data examples, and index increase usability. [Noonan: 116–17; Rice: 152–53]

First, our theoretical orientation is at its core generative in that we find the minimalist approach to syntax, phrase structure, and relationship of syntax to other components of grammar (phonology, morphology, semantics and lexicon) compelling, as well as Chomsky’s general approach to human language and the brain.33 However, we see advantages in combining generative syntax 32  See M. Dryer, “Are Grammatical Relations Universal?” in Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón (ed. J. Bybee, J. Haiman, and S. Thompson; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997), 115–43; M. Haspelmath, “Pre-established Categories Don’t Exist: Consequences for Language Description and Typology,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007): 119–32; F. Newmeyer, “Linguistic Typology Requires Crosslinguistic Formal Categories,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007), 133–58. 33  N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995); idem, Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

74

Holmstedt and Screnock

and the cross-linguistic comparisons of linguistic typology in that we draw on the descriptive strengths of typology but within the conceptual framework of the unifying abstraction of generative theory (see Newmeyer 1998 for extensive discussion of this topic).34 Second, for our descriptive terminology, we draw heavily on two widely used reference resources: the well-known A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.; 2008) by D. Crystal and the monumental The World Atlas of Language Structures, edited by M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie (2005). Third, there is currently no published dictionary dedicated to the texts of Qumran, though this body of literature was included in the scope of The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, edited by D. Clines. The lack of a focused QH lexical reference, however, hamstrings accurate grammatical description of QH texts before their features are compared to other stages, dialects, and corpora of ancient Hebrew. To that end, we will include in our full grammar a valency lexicon of all verbs in 1QM. Fourth, for our organisation, we follow the discussions in Payne and Weber 2007 and well as the example of Payne’s Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists (1997). This current study is only one piece of our larger project, which covers both syntax and semantics; below we provide only the outline of the Noun Phrase. II.

Noun Phrase A. Determination 1. Inherent 2. Articular 3. Pronominal 4. Cliticisation B. Modification 1. By adjectives and demonstratives 2. By NP-Internal Prepositional Phrase 3. By relative clause 4. By appositive

34  As Baker and McClosky suggest, such a combination: “could thus form a kind of conduit for the best results of typology to flow into formal syntactic theory and vice versa. . . . This could provide an escape from those sterile debates between ‘functionalist’ (typological) and ‘formal’ approaches to language that have too long hindered dialogue and deepening of understanding.” (Mark C. Baker and Jim McCloskey, “On the Relationship of Typology to Theoretical Syntax,” Linguistic Typology 11 [2007]: 285–96 [295])

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

75

C. Quantification 1. ‫כול‬ 2. Cardinal numerals D. Coordination 1. Simple 2. Distributive 5

The Noun Phrase in 1QM35

The NP minimally consists of a bare noun, which is structurally simple, consisting only of itself (i.e., no modifiers). However, if a noun is associated with elements that directly contribute to the noun’s semantic features, the phrase structure of the noun must be able to accommodate the greater complexity of the resulting constituent, that is, the noun and its associated elements. These elements range from grammatical function words, such as a definite article, to complex phrasal constituents, such as relative clauses. 5.1 Determination In QH, determination is a binary grammatical category that is mostly manifested morphologically or morphosyntactically. Nouns are determined if they co-occur with a determiner, such as the article, the quantifier ‫כל‬, numerals, an enclitic pronoun, or are bound to another noun. This grammatical co-occurrence relates to, though is not coextensive with, the notion of definiteness.36 Definiteness is related but not identical to the pragmatic notion of identifiability, which refers to a listener/reader’s ability to process the referent of the noun.37 Typically, identifiable nouns are definite and unidentifiable nouns are indefinite. A second, semantic feature that cross-cuts definiteness marking is specificity.38 Specific nouns are often definite, but there are cases where a s­ pecific entity is 35  We thank Marty Abegg for giving us privileged access to the latest version of his syntactically tagged text of 1QM. The text we present, along with its morphological and lexical analysis, is also dependent on Abegg’s digital text. 36  For excellent introductions to the complex issue of definiteness in ancient Hebrew, see Peter J. Bekins, “Non-Prototypical Uses of the Definite Article in Biblical Hebrew,” JSS 58/2 (2013): 225–40, and references therein. For a theoretical and typological investigation of definiteness, see Christopher Lyons, Definiteness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 37  Lyons, Definiteness, 2–7. 38  Lyons, Definiteness, 165–78.

76

Holmstedt and Screnock

indefinite (e.g., I bought a car). It is plausible that many, if not all, the indefinite quantified NPs in 1QM are indefinite and specific: e.g., 7:6 ‫—שלושה סדרים‬the “three orders” are specific but not identifiable, and so indefinite.39 Indefinite nouns with the universal quantifier ‫ כול‬are generics and thus non-specific and unidentifiable: e.g., 7:3 ‫כול נער‬, “any youth.”40 Aside from numerical quantification or the use of ‫כול‬, BH allows definite nouns to have a non-specific, generic interpretation (e.g., ‫הארי‬, ‫הדוב‬, and ‫הנחשׁ‬ in Amos 5:19 are definite and non-specific generics).41 In 1QM, however, only indefinite nouns are used as generics: e.g., ‫ פה‬in 14:6 ‫לפתוח פה לנאלמים לרנן‬, “to open a mouth so that those who are dumb might sing for joy”, and eight cases of ‫חללים‬, “slain” (3:8b; 6:3 [2x], 5; 8:11; 12:11; 17:16; 19:10; compare the definite occurrences in 3:1, 8a; 4:7; 6:17; 7:2; 8:9; 9:2, 7, 8; 14:2, 3; 16:7, 8, 9, 11, 15; 17:13; see the “substantival adjective” chart below in §V.B.1). 5.1.1 Inherent There are 125 inherently definite nouns in 1QM, all but one of which are proper nouns (PNs): e.g., 1:6 ‫אשור‬, “Assyria.” The lone exception is the noun ‫אדני‬, which is definite either by its 1cs clitic pronoun or, more likely, by its conventional usage (as an epithet for ‫)יהוה‬. The 17 gentilic nouns (GNs) almost always appear with the article (e.g., 11:1 ‫גולית הגתי‬, “Goliath the Gittite”), thus these are not inherently definite.42 In one case, another determiner (a cardinal numeral) is 39  The reconstructions in 1QM are relatively secure due to the parallel 4Q manuscripts (4QMa–e, 4QpapMf) and parallels between 1QM cols 12 and 19. However, since it is conceivable that the language differed in slight and subtle ways between the two whole texts (1QM and the 4Q texts) and also that the parallel columns within 1QM contained subtle rhetorical differences, we do not base any descriptive summary or analytical conclusion on any whole word reconstructions or 4Q evidence in this work. 40  Lyons succinctly defines generic nouns as “those in which reference is made to an entire class, or, perhaps more accurately, which are used to express generalisations about class as a whole—the class in question being that consisting of all the entities satisfying the description inherent in the noun or nominal” (Definiteness, 179). 41  Bekins, “Non-Prototypical Uses,” 235–36. 42  A reviewer has asserted that the gentilics were not nouns, but adjectives, based on the notion that adjectives are content words without inherent gender. Neither issue, content or inherent gender, is a useful criterion for distinguishing nouns and adjectives in Hebrew. Both nouns and adjectives exhibit gender distinctions, and the issue of “inherent” gender conveniently ignores those nouns which appear as both masculine and feminine (as indicated by the agreement features of the adjectives that modify them). More to the point, gentilics often occur “substantivally” (that is, without a head noun), which warrants asking whether they are they nouns (appositional when following another noun) or

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

77

used—7:14 ‫שבעה לויים‬, “seven Levites”; this phrase is specific, but non-­definite (‫ שבעת הלויים‬would be the definite form). Proper Nouns ‫( אביהוא‬17:2); ‫( אדום‬1:1); ‫( אדני‬12:8, 18); ‫( אהרן‬3:14; 5:1; 7:10; 17:2); ‫( איתמר‬17:3); ‫( אלעזר‬17:2); ‫( ארם‬2:10, 11); ‫( ארפכשד‬2: 11); ‫( אשור‬1:2, 6; 2:12; 11:11; 18:2; 19:10); ‫( בליעל‬1:1, 5, 13, 15; 4:2; 11:8; 13:2, 4, 11; 14:9; 15:3, 17; 16:11; 18:1, 3); ‫( בנימן‬1:2); ‫( גבריאל‬9:15, 16); ‫( גוג‬11:16); ‫( גלית‬11:1); ‫( דוד‬11:2); ‫( חול‬2:11); ‫( חם‬2:13); ‫יהודה‬ (1:2; 12:13; 19:5); ‫( יעקב‬9:6, 7); ‫( יפת‬1:6; 2:14; 18:2); ‫( ירוׁשלם‬1:3; 3:11; 7:4; 12:13, 17); ‫( יׂשראל‬1:5, 10; 2:7, 9; 3:13, 14; 5:1 [2x]; 6:6; 10:3, 8, 9; 11:6, 7; 12:16; 13:1, 2, 13; 14:4 [2x]; 15:1, 13, 16; 16:1; 17:5, 7, 8; 18:3, 6; 19:8, 13); ‫( יׁשמעאל‬2:13); ‫( כתיים‬1:2, 3, 6, 9, 12; 11:11; 15:2; 16:3, 6, 8, 9; 17:12, 14, 15; 18:2, 4; 19:10, 13); ‫( לוד‬2:10); ‫( לוי‬1:2; 5:1); ‫( מואב‬1:1; 11:6); ‫( מיכאל‬9:15, 16; 17:6, 7); ‫( מצרים‬1:4; 14:1); ‫( מררי‬4:1 [2x]); ‫( מׁשא‬2:11); ‫( מׁשה‬10:6); ‫( נדב‬17:2); ‫( נהרים‬2:10); ‫( עוץ‬2:11); ‫( עילם‬2:13); ‫( עמון‬1:1); ‫( פלׁשת‬1:2); ‫( פרס‬2:12); ‫( פרעה‬9:9); ‫( פרת‬2:11); ‫( ציון‬12:13; 19:5); ‫( קטורה‬2:13); ‫( רפאל‬9:15, 16); ‫( ׂשריאל‬9:15, 16); ‫( ׁשת‬11:6); ‫( תוגר‬2:11).

Gentilic Nouns ‫(‏גתי‬11:1); ‫( לוי‬1:20 [2x]; 2:2; 7:14 [2x], 15, 16; 8:9, 15; 13:1; 15:4; 16:7; 17:13; 18:5; 19:12); ‫( פלׁשתי‬11:3).

5.1.2 Articular There are 308 nouns in 1QM marked as grammatically definite by the attachment of the article ‑‫ה‬, e.g.: 1:1 ‫המלחמה‬, “the war.” 5.1.3 Pronominal There are 326 inherently definite pronouns in 1QM. Forty-two of these are free form pronouns: e.g., 7:2 ‫הם‬, “they.” The other 284 are clitic pronouns: e.g., 1:12 ‫צרותמה‬, “their distress” (see below, on cliticisation). Indefinite pronouns of the type “anybody, anything,” “somebody, something,” or “nobody, nothing,” that is, pronouns referring to non-specific entities, are not used in QH, which uses constructions with ‫ כל‬instead. Hebrew ‫ מי‬and ‫ מה‬in ancient Hebrew used as “who(m)ever” and “whatever” are not the same as stand-alone indefinite

adjectives. Based on typological descriptions of adjectives, we take gentilics to be nouns. For further discussion of adjectives, see below §V.B.1. By Adjective.

78

Holmstedt and Screnock

­ ronouns, but are always the bound indefinite pronominal heads of “free relap tives” (e.g., “whatever you did is ok with us”); no such uses appear in 1QM. 5.1.4 Cliticisation We take the “construct state” to represent the cliticisation of nouns; that is, construct nouns are best understood as unaccented bound variants of stressed free-form words, which are “leaning” on a free form word or phrase (Holmstedt and Dresher 2013). We thus use “bound” and “cliticised” interchangeably. In 1QM bound nouns are definite or indefinite depending on their clitic host, that is, the constituent to which they are bound: if the host constituent is definite, the bound constituent is definite; if indefinite, the bound constituent is indefinite. Examples exist with nouns definite by virtue of being cliticised to a PN (e.g., 1:2 ‫בני לוי‬, “the sons of Levi”) or to an articulated noun (e.g., 2:3 ‫אבות העדה‬, “the fathers of the congregation”). Additionally, a noun hosting a clitic pronoun is definite: e.g., 1:8 ‫גורלו‬, “his lot.” The bound chain can be complex, with a sequence of bound nouns all inheriting definiteness from the clitic host (which may be a free-form word with the article or the host of a clitic pronoun): e.g., 15:5 ‫ס]פר סרך עתו‬, “[the b]ook of the rule of his time”). There are hundreds of nouns in 1QM made definite by means of cliticisation. 5.2 Modification Attributes of nouns are provided by nominal modifiers existing on a cline from simple adjectives to more complex structures like relative clauses. These modifiers provide information about their nominal head, ranging from features such as colour, quality, size, direction, location and states of being, to events that involve the noun. The internal syntax of the modifier depends on the complexity it demands; that is, a bare adjective requires much less phrasal complexity than a relative clause, which has its own predication. Apart from the internal syntax, nominal modifiers may relate to their head in two ways—as a constituent located within the NP (the “attributive” relationship) or as a constituent linked to the head by a copula (the “predicative” relationship). 5.2.1 By Adjective Adjectives are content words that do not refer to entities, as nouns do, but properties. In typological studies, the defining feature of adjectives is ­neither

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

79

­ orphological (e.g., nouns and adjectives often share the same agreement m affixes) nor syntactic (nouns and adjectives are often found in the same ­syntactic p ­ ositions), but semantics—adjectives express properties of the nouns that they modify (e.g., “tall,” “green”); moreover, adjectives are often gradable (e.g., “less X” or “more X”).43 In 1QM there are 124 occurrences of adjectives: forty-one attributive, eight predicative and seventy-five substantival (i.e., used as a noun).44 See the charts below, in which the adjectives are categorised by one of these three relationships to a nominal head. The 1QM data clearly indicate that attributive adjectives follow the nouns they modify (i.e., adjectival modification is head-initial) and agree with the gender, number, and definiteness features of the head. In contrast, predicative adjectives always follow the head and the lexical copula (7:5b, 6; 9:12) and may follow the head and null copula45 (10:3), but more often precede the head and null copula (9:8b; 12:8b; 14:14; 19:1b). Substantival adjectives fill all the same kinds of syntactic roles that nouns fill (subject, verbal complement, prepositional complement, clitic host to a bound noun, bound to a free form noun, or attached to a possessive pronoun). Additionally, adjectives used substantivally may be quantified by ‫כול‬. Regardless of the relationship to the head, the internal structure of adjectives in 1QM is generally either bare or definite. However, the existence of internal prepositional phrases (PPs) modifying the adjective (5:1; 6:1; 7:6) as well as bound-form adjectives cliticised to nouns indicate that the adjective phrase structure can accommodate considerable internal complexity. Note that, in the chart below (which omits numeral apposition), italics indicate the nominal head or subject (in the predicate examples) and boldface indicates the adjective.

43  See R. Pustet, “Adjectives,” in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2d ed.: ed. Keith Brown; 14 vols; Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006), 1:60–63. 44  Alternatively, substantival adjectives may be analyzed as attributive adjectives modifying a null (i.e., phonologicall unexpressed) noun. 45  In Hebrew, the verbal copula is ‫היה‬. The verbal copula is often omitted in favor of a null copula (i.e., a phonologically unexpressed copula). Null copula clauses are sometimes referred to as “nominal clauses” or “verbless clauses.”

80

Holmstedt and Screnock

TABLE 5.1

Attributive adjectives

2:12b 3:13 5:10 5:10b 5:11 5:12a 6:12a 6:12b 6:12c 6:12d 7:7 7:9 7:10 8:9b 8:10 8:12 8:16 10:1a 10:1b 10:8 10:9 11:1

great wrath great panic horrible carnage great carnage with the roar of a great multitude the great hand of God shall overcome a great [r]oar the men of renown, those called of the Congregation up to the Great Desert the grand banner white iron pure gold iron, refined, pure by the furnace pure gold stallions swift of foot (stallions) weak of mouth (stallions) long of spirit (stallions) full in the measure of their days any nakedness of a wicked manner from the middle opening fine white linen garments a sharp staccato note a great battle alarm a sharp staccato note a great alarm from any shameful nakedness a great and awesome God according to Your great works according to Your strong might indeed, Goliath the Gittite, a man mighty of valor,

11:2 11:3a 11:3b 11:5 14:6 16:7b

in Your great name many times many times by the strength of Your great valor feeble [hands] a sharp staccato note

1:4 1:5–6 ‫נחשיר חזק‬‎ 1:9 ‫נחשיר גדול‬‎ 1:10 ‫ בקול המון גדול‬1:11 ‫ יד אל הגדולה מכנעת‬1:14 ‫[ה]מון גדול‬ ֯ 1:17 ‫ אנשי השם קריאי המועד‬2:6–7 ‫בחמה גדולה‬

‫מהומה ג[דולה‬

‫המדבר הגדול‬ ‫האות הגדולה‬ ‫ברזל לבן‬ ‫זהב טהור‬

‫ברזל ברור טהור בכור‬ ‫זהב טהור‬ ‫זכרים קלי רגל‬ ‫רכי פה‬ ‫ארוכי רוח‬ ‫מלאים בתכון ימיהם‬ ‫כול ערות דבר רע‬ ‫מן השער התיכון‬ ‫בגדי שש לבן‬ ‫קול חד טרוד‬ ‫תרועת מלחמה גדולה‬ ‫קול חד טרוד‬ ‫קול תרועה גדולה‬ ‫מכול ערות דבר רע‬ ‫אל גדול ונורא‬ ‫כמעשיכה הגדולים‬ ‫כגבורתכה החזקה‬ ‫את גולית הגתי איש גבור‬ ‫חיל‬ ‫בשמכה הגדול‬ ‫֗פעמים רבות‬ ‫פעמים רבות‬ ‫בעוז חילכה הגדול‬ ‫ידים] רפות‬ ‫קול חד טרוד‬

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll ‫ב]קול גדול‬ ‫מערכה אחרת‬ ‫כול גוי רשע‬

‎‫יד אל הגדולה‬ ֯ ‎ ‫פעמים רבות‬

16:8a 16:12 17:2 18:1 18:7

81

a loud noise another battle line every wicked nation the great hand of God many times

TABLE 5.2 Predicative adjectives

‫ תמימי רוח ובשר‬. . . ‫כולם יהיו‬ ‫כול איש אשר לוא יהיה טהור ממקורו‬ ‫קדושים המה‬ ‫מגני המגדלות יהיו ארוכים‬

‫אתמה קרבים היום למלחמה‬ ‫קדוש אדוני‬ ‫גדולה ֯מ[חשבת כבו]דכה‬ ‫קדוש אדירנו‬

10:3 12:8b 14:14 19:1b

all of them will be . . . pure of spirit and flesh any man who is not ritually clean in respect to his genitals for they are holy the shields of the tower-soldiers will be long you are approaching the battle the Lord is holy Your [glorio]us p[urpose] is great our Majestic One is holy

1:16 2:12a 3:1 3:2 3:5 3:8a 3:8b 4:4 4:7 4:10 6:3a

the holy ones the easterners the trumpets for the signal of the slain those called of God in the camps of His holy ones the trumpets of the slain all the slain of unfaithfulness the stand of the wicked the slain of God those called of God the slain

7:5b 7:6 9:8b 9:12

TABLE 5.3 Substantival adjectives ‫קדושים‬ ‫הקדמוני‬

46‫וחצוצרות תרועות החללים‬ ‫קריאי אל‬

‫במחני קדושיו‬ ‫חצוצרות החללים‬

‫כול חללי מעל‬ ‫מעמד רשעים‬ ‫חללי אל‬ ‫קריאי אל‬ ‫חללים‬

46  A reviewer asserted that while “slain” is an adjective in English, it is a noun in Hebrew (so DCH, but contra BDB). However, using the typical distinction between nouns as words

82

Holmstedt and Screnock

TABLE 5.3 Substantival adjectives (cont.)

‫חללי און‬ ‫חללים‬ ‫בקדושי עמו‬ ‫חללי אשמתם‬ ‫החללים‬ ‫כול פסח או עור או חגר‬ ‫החללים‬

‫חללים‬ ‫הח]ללים‬

‎‫בחללים‬

‫חצוצרות החללים‬

‎ ‫החללי‬ ‫ם‬

‫מרחוק‬

‫תוך החללים‬

‫נדיבי לב‬ ‫כול מסי לבב‬ ‫בכול גבורי חיל‬ ‫עם קדושי ברית‬ ‫שומעי עמוקות‬ ‫ממשלת קדושים‬

‫פדותכ ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫ביד אביוני‬ ‫נכאי רוח‬ ‫ביד אביונים‬

‫גבורי עמים‬ ‫גמול רשעים‬ ‫רוב קדושים‬

the slain of wickedness the slain by the holy ones of His people the slain of their guilt the slain any crippled, blind or lame the slain the slain the sl]ain the slain trumpets of the slain the slain from afar the midst of the slain those willing of heart all melting of heart all the mighty men of valor the people of the holy ones of the covenant 10:11 Hearers of deep things 10:12 the dominion of holy ones 11:9 at the hand of the oppressed of Your redeeming 11:10 the humble of spirit 11:13a into the hand of the oppressed 11:13b the mighty men of the peoples 11:14 recompense of the wicked 12:1 a multitude of holy ones 6:3b 6:5 6:6 6:17a 7:2 7:4abc 8:9a 8:11 8:19 9:1 9:2 9:7a 9:7b 9:8a 10:5 10:6a 10:6b 10:10

that refers to entities and adjectives describing properties, and noting that the nominal pattern qatal is used for adjectives that describe states of being (e.g., ‎‫ ָח ָדשׁ‬, ‎‫ ָח ָלק‬, ‎‫ ָח ָכם‬, ‎‫יָ ָשׁר‬, ‎‫ ָק ָטן‬, and ‫ ; ָר ָשׁע‬see J. Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns (HSS 52; Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 162, we see no reason to take ‫ חלל‬as a noun, but good reason to categorise it as an adjective. Indeed, to illustrate the general confusion on this issue, which no doubt arises from categorising words according to whether they happen to modify a noun (as most adjectives do) rather than their semantic features (as we here advocate), the word ‫ ָענָ ו‬is listed as an adjective in DCH but a noun in BDB—just the opposite of ‫ ! ַָח ָלל‬Finally, we note that one occurrence in the Hebrew Bible arguably shows ‫ חלל‬in an attributive position (Prov 7.26).

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll ‫עם קדושיכה‬ ‫עדת קדושיכה‬ ‫לגבור֗ ים‬ ‫עם קדושים‬

‫גבוׄ [רים‬ ]‫המלח[מה‬ ֗ ‫גבור‬ ‫קומה גבור‬ ‫במותי חלל‬ ‫גבורי המלחמה‬ ‫כול זקני הסרך עמו‬ ‫ועם אביונים‬ ‫מעל החללים‬

‫חללי האויב‬ ‫רוח‬ ֗ ‫בענוי‬ ‫בתמימי דרך‬ ‫לכול גבוריהם‬ ‎ ‫לכול גבוריה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫לקליהם‬ ‫ג]בורי אלים‬ ‫]סדר[י קד]ושים‬ ‫בקדושי עמו‬ ‫בח]צוצרות החללים‬ ‫בחללי כתיים‬ ‫בחצוצרות החללים‬ ‫חללי הבינים‬ ‫ח֯ לליכם‬‎ ‫בגבורת מלאך האדיר‬

ׁ‫בחצוצרות החלל ֗ים‬ ‎‫בחלליהם‬ ‫חללים‬ ‫ותרועת קדושים‬ ‫לב גבורים‬

‎ ‫לג]ב֗ ורי‬ ‫ם‬

‎‫ג]ב֯ ורי כתיים‬

‫ר]ו֯ ֯ב חללים‬ ‫ע]ל[ ח]ללי ֗כתי֗ [ים‬

12:4 12:7 12:8a 12:8c 12:8d 12:9 12:10 12:11 12:17 12: 1 13:13– 14 14:2 14:3 14:7a 14:7b 14:8 14:11a 14:11b 15:14a 15:14b 16:1 16:7a 16:8b 16:9 16:11 16:15 17:6

with Your holy ones the company of Your holy ones at mighty men with the holy ones migh[ty men the Hero of the Wa[r] rise up, O Hero upon the backs of the slain the mighty men of the war all the elders of the army with him with the oppressed

from the slain the slain of the enemy among the poor in spirit by those pure of way for all their mighty men for all their mighty men for their swift ones the m]ighty ones of the gods the formation[s of the] h[o]ly ones by the holy ones of His people on the tr]umpets of the slain the slain of the Kittim on the trumpets of the slain the slain of the infantry your slain by the power of the angel of the mighty one 17:13 on the trumpets of the slain 17:14 their slain 17:16 the slain 18:2 the shout of the holy ones 18:13 the heart of mighty men 19:1a at mi]ghty men 19:10a the mi]ghty men of the Kittim 19:10b [the mu]ltitude of the slain 19:13 before the s]lain of the Kitt[im

83

84

Holmstedt and Screnock

Finally, two adjectives are used to modify an event and are thus verbal adjuncts rather than noun adjuncts. In 5:12, for example, the adjective ‫ ישר‬does not indicate that the ‫ ספות‬are straight, but that they progress in a straight manner to the head of the sword. Similarly, the ‫ מעט‬in 9:11 indicates a manner of movement. TABLE 5.4 Adverbial adjectives

‫ספות ישר אל הראוש‬ ‫על דרוך מעט‬

5:12b 9:11

the edges will be straight to the head as it draws slowly forward

5.2.2 By NP-Internal PP In Hebrew, PPs overwhelmingly modify an event and thus, depending on the verb’s valency requirements, are verbal complements or adjuncts. However, some PPs modify nominal heads and thus stand within the phrase structure headed by a noun. These “NP-internal” PPs stand between adjectives and relatives clauses in terms of complexity—they are phrasally more complex than most adjectives (excepting only the few adjectives that have their own internal modifiers) and less complex than the full clausal structure of relatives. Semantically, all NP-internal PPs in ancient Hebrew appear to be restrictive, providing necessary information for the identification of the relative head; this is certainly so for the few cases in 1QM. TABLE 5.5 NP-Internal PP ‫למלחמת כלה לבני חושך‬

1:10

‫ביום מלחמתם בכתיים‬

1:12a 1:12b

‫כלת אל בכול גוי הבל‬

4:12

‫מזה ומזה לצמיד סביב‬

5:8–9

‫לוא נהיתה כמוה‬

a battle of annihilation for the sons of darkness any (thing) like it has not existed On the day of their battle against the Kittim The Annihilation by God of all the ­vainglorious nations both sides to the band all around

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

85

5.2.3 By Relative Clause Relative clauses consist of a head or pivot constituent, which has a syntactic role in a higher clause, a relative word (whether overt or covert), and the r­ elative clause proper. Relative clauses modify nouns in similar fashion to adjectives, but include a full clausal structure, which allows for greater complexity within the noun modifier. The discussion below is organised by the type of relative word used in 1QM: ‫אשׁר‬, the relative use of the article ‫ ה‬and a null relative word (i.e., “unmarked” or “bare” relatives). There are sixteen relative clauses in 1QM introduced by ‫אשׁר‬. Six of the relative clauses employ a null copula and the word order is always subject—nullcopula—complement (2:11, 13; 3:13, 14; 7:4–5; 18:5). Three clauses contain a yiqtol verb (5:17–18; 7:5–6; 10:8–9) and seven contain a qatal verb (10:1, 6, 9; 11:4, 5–7; 14:3; 17:2). For participial relatives, see below. In the clauses with finite verbs, the word order reflects verb-subject-complement order that is common in subordinate clauses. Moreover, as is common in BH, a “light” complement or adjunct (e.g., ‫ ׁשם‬or ‫ )לנו‬moves with the verb47 to a position in front of the subject (5:17–18). Most of the ‫ אשׁר‬relatives exhibit null resumption of the relative head within the relative clause;48 the cases of overt resumption are when the resumptive is a locative adverb (‫ׁשם‬‎; 5:17–18; 14:3) or in NP-internal position (e.g., a clitic pronoun; 7:4–5; 17:2). When resumption is null, it occurs at the subject position (2:11, 13; 3:13, 14; 7:5–6; 10:8–9; 18:5) and complement position (10:1, 6, 9; 11:4; 11:5–7). There are three examples where the relative head is null: ‫אשר הגיד‬ “(the thing) that he told” (10:1), and ‫אשר ד[ברת]ה‬, “(the word) that you spoke” (10:6), and ‫“ כאשר הגדתה‬like (the thing) that you told” (11:5–7). There is one extraposed relative clause, where the relative is separated from its relative head (10:8–9). Seven of the relative clauses are semantically restrictive (that is, they define the head and are thus necessary for the accurate identification of the referents): 2:13; 3:14; 7:4–5, 5–6; 11:4, 5–7; 18:5. 10:1 and 6 are also possibly restrictive, if they are null head relatives (see below). The relative in 3:13 may be restrictive, but it is not entirely clear (if there were more than one “great banner,” then the relative is restrictive; if there was only one, then the relative is non-restrictive). Six are semantically non-restrictive: 2:11; 5:17–18; 10:8–9, 9; 14:3; 17:2. The ‫אשׁר‬ clause in 10:16 is too fragmentary for analysis. 47  That is, the change from basic subject-verb order to verb-subject order entails movement (or “raising”) of the verb to the front of the clause; the “light” constituent follows the verb to a position before the subject. 48  See Robert D. Holmstedt, “Relative Clause: Biblical Hebrew,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (ed. Geoffrey Khan; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 350–57.

86

Holmstedt and Screnock

TABLE 5.6 Semantically restrictive relative clause ‫בעוץ וחול תוגר ומשא אשר‬

‫בעבר פורת‬ ‫ר‬‎ ‫‏ובעשר השנים אש‬ ‫אחריהם תחלק המלחמה‬ ‫על כול בני חם‬ ‫ר‬‎ ‫‏על האות הגדולה אש‬ ‫בראש כול העם יכתובו עם‬ . . . ‫אל‬ ‎ ‫‏על אותות ראשי המחנו‬ ‫ת‬ ‫אשר לשלושת השבטים‬ ‫ר‬‎ ‫‏ו֯ ֯רו֗ח֗ [ ש]לושים באמה אש‬ ]‫יעמודו שם אנ֗ ש[י‬

2:11 2:13

3:13

3:14 5:17–18

‫ו‬‎ ‫וכול פסח או עור או חגר א‬ ‫איש אשר מום עולם בבשרו‬ ‫או איש מנוגע בטמאת‬

7:4–5

‎‫‏וכול איש אשר לוא יהיה‬

7:5–6

‫טהור ממקורו ביום המלג‬ ‫חמה לוא ירד אתם כיא‬ ‫מלאכי קודש עם צבאותם‬ ‫יחד‬ ‎‫‏ואשר הגיד לנו כיא אתה‬ ‫בקרבנו אל גדול ונורא‬ ‫לשול את כול‬ ‎‫‏ואשר ד[ברת]ה ביד מושה‬ ‫לאמור כיא תבוא מלחמה‬

‎‫‏מיא כמוכה אל ישראל‬

‫בש[מי]ם ובארץ אשר יעשה‬ ‫כמעשיכה הגדולים וכגבורג‬ ‫תכה החזקה‬ ‎‫‏ומיא כעמכה ישראל אשר‬ ‫בחרתה לכה מכול עמי‬ ‫הארצות‬ ‫◦[◦[ ]◦ה אלה ידענו מבי�נ‬‎ ◦◦◦] [ ‫תכה אשר‬

10:1

10:6

10:8–9

10:9

10:16

Against Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who ___(they) are beyond the Euphrates. And in the ten years that ___(they) are after them the war shall be divided against all the sons of Ham On the great banner that ___(it) is at the head of all the people they shall write, ‘People of God,’ . . . . On the banners of the heads of the camps that ___(they) belonged to the three tribes and (they shall arrange) a space . . . of t]hirty cubits, which the infan[try] shall [. . .] stand there [. . . .] As for any crippled, blind or lame, or a man who a permanent blemish is on his skin, or a man affected with ritual uncleanness of his flesh—none of these shall go with them to battle. And any man who ___(he) is not ritually clean in respect to his genitals on the day of battle will not go down with them into battle, for holy angels are present with their army. (it is the word) that he told us __(it), that You are in our midst, a great and awesome God, plundering all of (it is the word) that You s[poke] __(it) by the hand of Moses, saying: ‘And when there is a war . . . Who is like You, O God of Israel, in he[av]en and on earth, who __(he) can do like Your great works and Your great strength? Who is like Your people Israel, whom You have chosen __(him) for Yourself from all the peoples of the lands. [. . .] these we know from Your understanding which [. . .]

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll ‎‫‏ולוא כמעשינו אשר הרעונו‬ ‫ועלילות פשעינו‬

‎‫‏כא[ש] ֯ר הגדתה לנו מאז‬

‫לאמור דרך כוכב מיעקוב‬ ‫קם שבט מישראל ומחץ‬ ‫פאתי מואב ו{{מ}}קרקר‬ ‫כול בני שית‬ ‫ר‬‎ ‫‏ושבו אל מקום עומדם אש‬ ‫סדרו שם המערכה לפני‬ ‫נפול חללי האויב‬ ‎ ‫משפט[ נד‬ ‫ב‬ ֯ ‫‏ואתמה זכורו‬

11:4

11:5–7

14:3

17:2

‫ואבי]הוא בני אהרון אשר‬ ֗

‫התקדש אל במשפטם לעיני‬ ‫[כול העם‬ ‎ ‫וב]אוץ השמש לבוא ביו‬ ‫ם‬ ֗ [‫‏‬ ‫ההואה יעמוד כוהן הרואש‬ ‫ם אשר‬ ֯ ]‫והכוהנים והלוי[י‬ ‫אתו‬

18:5

87

And not according to our works that we did __(them) wickedly, nor for the acts of our rebelliousness. The battle is Yours, the strength is from You, Like (the thing) that You told us ___(it) in time past, saying: ‘There shall come forth a star from Jacob, a scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall crush the forehead of Moab and tear down all sons of Sheth, . . . and return to the place of their standing, which they had formed there the battle line before the slain of the enemy fell. But, as for you, remember the judgment [of Nadab and Abi]hu, the sons of Aaron, who God showed Himself holy by their judgment before [all the people. But Eleazar] [And] when the sun hastens to set on that day, the Chief Priest will stand, and the priests and the [Levites] who __(they) are with him, . . .

There are fifteen participial relative clauses introduced by ‫ ה‬in 1QM. Of these, three do not follow an overt constituent, indicating that the relative head is null head, e.g., ‫(“ הרוכבים‬they) who ride” (6:13). Of the remaining twelve, all but one modify determined heads—three are determined by the article ‫ה‬ ‎ ‎ (9:4; 10:7; 15:6), four are bound to articular NPs (2:14; 6:11–12; 14:8; 19:10), one is bound to an NP which itself is bound to an articular NP (2:6), one is bound to an NP determined by a clitic possessive pronoun (11:16) and two are bound to PNs (14:4–5; 15:3). The determination of one (2:10) is not explicit on the relative head, which is a numeral, but by analogy to the two other numerals modified by relatives (2:6, 14) it can be assumed to be definite. There is no question of word order in ‫ ה‬participial relatives, since the relative ‫ ה‬is attached as a clitic to the participle thereby prohibiting overt subjects. And yet, the head of ‫ ה‬participial relatives always and only corresponds to the subject position within the relative. Since all subjects within these relatives are null, there is no resumption of the head in this type of relative pattern. Semantically, twelve of the fifteen are restrictive, providing necessary information for the identification of the relative head. Two occurrences are clearly

88

Holmstedt and Screnock

non-restrictive (14:4–5, 8)—since the head is referential and identifiable by itself, the ‫ ה‬relative provides additional, non-identificational (and therefore optional) information. The restrictiveness of ‫ הבורא‬in 10:12 is unclear—if the head is null, the relative is necessarily restrictive (as is true of all null head relatives); but, if the head is “You” or a vocative “O God,” then the relative is nonrestrictive. Unfortunately, the likely location of an overt head has been lost in the lacuna of that line. TABLE 5.7 ‫ ה‬relative clause

‫שלוש ושלושים שני המלחמה‬ ‫הנותרות‬ ‫{{ע}}תש>ע< ועשרים הנותרות‬ ‫עשר השנים הנותרות‬

‫כול הרכב היוצאים למלחמה עם‬ ‫אנש[י] הבנים‬ ֯ ‫‏הרוכבים עליהם‬ ‫הדגל המתקרב‬

‫הרוכבים ששת אלפים‬ ‫הצר הצורר אתכמה‬ ‫הבורא ארץ וחוקי מפלגיה‬

] ‫כול קהלו הנק[ה]ל[ים ע]ל[ינו‬ ‫אל ישראל השומר חסד לבריתו‬ ‫ותעודות ישועה לעם פדותו‬

‫אל החסדים השומר ברית לאבותינו‬ ‫כול חיל בליעל הנועדים עמו ליום‬ ‫[נקם] בחרב אל‬ ‫הכוהן החרוץ למועד נקם על פי כול‬ ‫אחיו‬ ‫וחיל כול הגוים ה֯ נקהלים‬

the thirty-three years of the war that remain 2:10 the twenty-nine (years) that remain 2:14 the ten years that remain 6:11–12 all the cavalry that go out to battle with the infantry 6:13 (The men) who ride upon them 9:4 the division that is engaging in battle 9:5 and six thousand horsemen [=(those) who ride] 10:7 the adversary who attacks you 10:12 (You/He/God) who creates the earth and the limits of her divisions 11:16 all his company that as[semb]le [abou] t [us . . .] 14:4–5 the God of Israel, who guards ­lovingkindness for His covenant and appointed times of salvation for the people of his redemption. 14:8 O God of lovingkindness, who keeps the covenant for the sake of our forefathers. 15:3 all the forces of Belial that assemble with him for a day [of vengeance] by the sword of God. 15:6 the priest that is appointed for the time of vengeance all his brothers 19:10 the forces of all the nations that ­assemble (alt: forces . . . that assemble) 2:6

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

89

Finally, there are twenty-three unmarked relative clauses, seventeen of which are clear participles. In 1:10 the verb appears to be a yiqtol: ‫( יעוד‬a Qal 3ms yiqtol √‫ ;?יעד‬alternatively, a ms passive participle with which the ‫ל‬-PP indicates the agent). And in the second and third relatives in 7:10–11, the verb is a null copula and the only overt constituents of the relatives are NPs (the compound ‫תכלת‬ ‫ וארגמן ותולעת שׁני‬and the complex ‫)צורת רוקמה‬. While fifteen examples consist only of the bare participle (5:4, 11ab, 14; 7:10– 11a; 8:5, 14ab; 10:10b; 11:1, 9; 14:6; 15:10; 17:5ab), the other nine (1:10; 5:7–8, 11bc; 6:3; 7:4, 10–11bc; 8:14; 10:10a) include internal (non-subject) arguments for the verb (yiqtol, participle, or null copula), which demands a full relative clause analysis (versus the “adjectival” analysis so common in Hebrew grammatical description).49 With regard to word order and resumption, the unmarked participial relatives pattern with the ‫ ה‬relatives; the non-participial relatives theoretically have some freedom concerning word order and resumption, though they do not manifest it in 1QM. Semantically, the unmarked relatives are restrictive (which corresponds to a firm grammatical principle of BH relatives; see Holmstedt 2013). Adjectives could be included in this discussion of relative clauses. That is, adjectives and relative clauses are two ends of a single cline of noun modification, with adjectives typically simpler in structure, (verbal) relatives more complex, and participles taking a position between the two. However, we have separated out adjectival modification for description in its own subsection (see above). TABLE 5.8 Unmarked relative clause

‫יום יעוד לו מאז למלחמת כלה לבני‬ ‫חושך‬

‫מגני נחושת מרוקה‬

‫שלושה צ֗ מידים מפותחים כמעשי‬ ‫גדיל שפה בזהב וכסף ונחושת‬ ‫ממוזזים כמעשי צורת מחשבת‬

1:10

5:4 5:7–8

a day (that) He has appointed for Himself from ancient times as a battle of annihilation for the Sons of Darkness shields of bronze (that) (is) polished (= polished bronze) three bands (that) (are) engraved as a border of plaited work, with gold, silver and copper bound together like an artistically designed work

49  For extended discussion of this issue, see R. Holmstedt, The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).

90

Holmstedt and Screnock

TABLE 5.8 Unmarked relative clause (cont.) ‫ברזל ברור טהור בכור ומלובן‬

‫כמראת פנים‬ ‫קרן ברורה‬

‫שלהובת חרב אוכלת חללי און‬ ‫במשפט אל‬ ‫איש מנוגע בטמאת בשרו‬ ‫אבנט בד שש משוזר תכלת וארגמן‬ ‫ותולעת שני וצורת רוקמה‬

‫קול מרודד‬ ‫קול נוח מרודד סמוך‬ ‫שומעי קול נכבד‬

‫ובכוח ידכה רוטשו פגריהם לאין‬ ‫קובר‬

‫לב נמס‬ ‫לב נמס‬ ‫עשן נמלח‬ ‫כול הוי֗ה ונהיה‬

5:11 (3x) iron (that) (is) refined, (that) (is) purified in the furnace and (that) (is) polished like a face mirror 5:14 horn (that) (is) refined 6:3 ‘The blade of a sword (that) (is) devouring the slain of wickedness by the judgment of God’. 7:4 a man (who) is afflicted with ritual uncleanness of his flesh 7:10–11 a sash of line, of fine linen (that) (is) (3x) twined, (that) (is) violet, purple and crimson, and (that) (is) a varicolored design 8:5 a note (that) (is) subdued 8:14 (2x) a note of rest (that) (is) subdued and sustained 10:10 (those) who hear the voice (that) (is) (2x) glorious 11:1 and by the strength of Your hand their corpses have been dashed to pieces so that (a man) (who) buries (them) is not (needed) 11:9 a heart (that) melts 14:6 a heart (that) melts 15:10 smoke (that) vanishes 17:5 (2x) all (that) is and (that) will be

5.2.4 By Appositive Apposition, which occurs ninety-six times in 1QM, is the modification of a constituent (the head) by a constituent of the same (or very similar) lexical category (the appositive). Apposition may be used as a modification strategy with nouns, PPs, verbs, and even entire clauses, though in 1QM apposition is limited to numerals, NPs, and PPs. PP-PP apposition occurs five times: 1:1 (3x), 3; 2:11. In 1:1 two PP appositives modify a single PP head (the sequence of modifiers on a single head is often referred to as “stacking”). Apposition with numerals, both

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

91

NP-NUM and NUM-NP, occurs sixty-one items: 1:13; 2:1, 2, 4, 6, 9 (2x), 13, 14; 3:14; 4:15 (2x), 16 (4x), 17; 5:1, 2, 3 (2x), 7 (2x), 13 (3x), 14, 16, 17; 6:1 (2x), 2, 4, 8, 8–9 (3x), 10, 14 (2x); 7:1 (2x), 2, 3, 10, 14 (2x), 15, 16; 8:2, 4, 6, 8, 13; 9:4 (2x), 4–5 (2x), 12 (2x), 13. For analysis of numeral apposition, see below §V.C.2. NP-NP apposition, where both NPs are common nouns, occurs twenty times: 1:2; 3:4; 5:6, 9, 16; 7:11 (3x); 8:5, 7, 10; 10:9–10; 11:8b; 12:11; 13:1, 12; 15:4; 16:12; 17:9, 11. In 7:11, three NP appositives are stacked and modify a single NP head. Apposition where the head is an NP and the appositive is a PN occurs once, in 10:9; where the head is a PN and the appositive an NP occurs three times, in 11:1; 13:11; 17:2. There is one example of a PN head with a GN appositive in 11:1. There are two cases were the head is an independent pronoun, with an NP appositive, in 14:12; 17:8. Interestingly, in 17:8, the pronoun is vocative (the verb is an imperative), and accordingly, its appositive is also vocative. Finally, the noun involved in the appositive may be null—an NP head is modified by a null head and participle appositive in 11:8a, and in 10:5 both the head and the appositive are null, with the head modified by a participle and the appositive by an adjective. Semantically, appositives may modify the anchor restrictively (i.e., the appositive identifies its head) or non-restrictively (i.e., the appositive provides non-identification, non-obligatory information). Restrictive apposition in 1QM occurs with all cases of numeral apposition. Only one case of nominal apposition could be restrictive, ‫ עמכה ישראל‬in 10:9. If this were the first time that ‫ עמכה‬was introduced in the discourse, then ‫ ישראל‬would be a necessary identifier. However, the “people of God” is discussed as early as col. 1, and, in any case, the concept was quite familiar with the conceptual world outside the text. Thus, this example must be non-restrictive, as are all cases of nominal apposition. Similarly, the PP appositions are non-restrictive. Note that, as with adjective chart above, in the apposition chart below (which omits numeral apposition), italics indicates the head (whether NP or PP, etc.) and boldface indicates the appositive. TABLE 5.9 Apositive ‫בגורל בני חושך בחיל בליעל‬

1:1a

‫בחיל בליעל בגדוד אדום ומואב‬

1:1b

‫ובני עמון וח֗ י֯[ל יושבי] פלשת‬

against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, (that is) against the army of Belial against the army of Belial: (more specifically), against the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, and the ar[my of the inhabitants of] Philistia

92

Holmstedt and Screnock

TABLE 5.9 Apositive (cont.)

against the army of Belial: (more specifically), against the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, and the ar[my of the inhabitants of] Philistia and against the troops of the Kittim of Assyria ‫ בני לוי ובני יהודה ובני בנימין גולת‬1:2 The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, (namely), the exile of ‫המדבר‬ the wilderness ‫ בם ב֯ [ ] לכול גדודיהם‬1:3 against them, against [. . .] concerning all their troops ‫ בשאר בני ארם בעוץ וחול תוגר‬2:11 against the rest of the sons of Aram: against Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who ‫ומשא אשר בעבר פורת‬ are beyond the Euphrates. ‫ אנשי השם {{יכתובו}} ראשי אבות‬3:4 the men of renown {they shall write}, the heads of the congregation’s clans ‫העדה‬ ‫ אבני חפץ אבדני ריקמה‬5:6 jewels, a multicolored brocade ‫ אבני חפץ בדני ריקמה‬5:9 precious stones, a multicolored brocade ‫ אבנט בד שש משוזר‬7:11a a sash of linen — twined fine linen ‫ אבנט בד שש משוזר תכלת וארגמן‬7:11b a sash of linen — twined fine linen, violet, purple and crimson ‫ותולעת שני וצורת ריקמה‬ ‫ אבנט בד שש משוזר תכלת וארגמן‬7:11c a sash of linen — twined fine linen, violet, purple and crimson, and a varicolored ‫ותולעת שני וצורת ריקמה‬ design ‫קול מרודד ידי סדר מלחמה‬‎ 8:5 a level note, signals for the order of battle ‫שלושה סדרים‬‎ 8:6 three formations ‫קול נוח וסמוך ידי מפשע‬‎ 8:7 a low legato note, signals for advance ‫ קול אחד תרועת מלחמה גדולה‬8:10 a single note, a great battle alarm ‎‫ כול עתודי המלחמה נדיבי לב‬10:5 all (those) prepared for battle, (those) willing of heart ‫עמכה ישראל‬‎ 10:9 Your people Israel, ‫עם קדושי ברית ומלומדי‬‎. . . ‫עמכה‬‎ 10:9–10 Your people, . . . the people of the holy ones of the covenant, and those learned ‫חוק משכילי בינ֯[ה ]◦[ ] ◦ושומעי‬ in statutes, understanding insight . . . ‫קול נכבד ורואי‬ those who hear the glorious voice and see ‫ גולית הגתי‬11:1a Goliath the Gittite ‫גולית הגתי איש גבור חיל‬‎ 11:1b Goliath the Gittite, a mighty warrior ‫ דויד עבדכה‬11:2 David, Your servant ‫בחיל בליעל בגדוד אדום ומואב‬ ‫וחי֯ [ל יושבי] פלשת‬ ֗ ‫ובני עמון‬ ‫ובגדודי כתיי אשור‬

1:1c

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll ‫משיחיכה חוזי תעודות‬‎

11:8a

‫גדודי בליעל שבעת גוי הבל‬

11:8b

‫גוים צריכה‬‎

12:11 13:1

‫[כו]הנים והלויים וכול זקני‬ ֗ ‫אחיו ֗ה‬ ‫הסרך‬

13:11 ‫כול רוחי גורלו מלאכי חבל‬‎ 13:12

‫בליעל לשחת מלאך משטמה‬‎

‫אנו עם קודשכה‬‎ ‫אחיו הכ֯ [והנים] והלויים וכול אנשי‬

14:12 15:4

‫הסרך‬

16:12 17:2 ‫אתם בני בריתו‬‎ 17:8 ‫מצרפיו רזיו למעמדכם‬‎ 17:9

‫מערכה אחרת חליפה למלחמה‬‎ ‫ואבי]הוא בני אהרון‬ ֗ ‫[ נדב‬‎

‫תרועה שנית יידי התקרב‬‎

17:11

93

Your anointed ones, seers of things appointed the hordes of Belial, the seven vainglorious nations the nations, Your adversaries his brothers, the [pr]iests, the Levites and all the elders of the army Belial for the pit, an angel of malevolence All the spirits of his lot, the angels of destruction we, Your holy people his brothers, the p[riests,] the Levites, and all the men of the army another battle line, a reserve for battle Nadab and Abi]hu, the sons of Aaron you, O children of His covenant His fiery trials, His mysteries concerning your existence A second blast, signs for confrontation

5.3 Quantification We use quantification to refer broadly to both the presence of the universal quantifier ‫“ כול‬each, every, all” and the modification of countable nouns by numerals. 5.3.1 ‫כול‬ In 1QM the universal quantifier ‫ כול‬always precedes the noun or constituent that it quantifies (that is, 1QM does not exhibit “quantifier float”; see Naudé 2011): e.g., 13:6 ‫כול בני חושך‬. The structure of ‫ כול‬NPs is ambiguous in the sense that 1QM does not distinguish orthographically between cliticised (or bound) and free forms of ‫ ;כול‬however, it is reasonable to assume that the same structure is used as in earlier Hebrew texts, that is, ‫ כול‬is cliticised to the noun it quantifies. Unlike numerals, ‫ כול‬shows no gender agreement. NPs headed by ‫ כול‬can take a variety of syntactical roles in the clause, much like any NP. In 1QM, ‫ כול‬NPs are found as the complement of a preposition50

50  1:3, 5 (2x), 7, 8 (2x), 9, 12 (2x), 15; 2:4, 5, 7 (2x), 12, 13, 14, 16; 3:6; 4:2, 3, 8, 11, 12; 6: 6, 10, 13; 7:7, 17; 9:6, 14; 10:1, 5, 6, 9; 11:14, 16; 12:3, 10; 13:2, 5, 8, 16; 14:8, 9, 11, 18; 15:1, 2 (2x), 5, 13 (2x), 14; 16:1; 17:5, 8; 18:1, 3, 4; 19:2; frg. 3 2.

94

Holmstedt and Screnock

(e.g., 1:3, ‫ם‬ ‫)לכול גדודיה ‏‬, the clitic host of a preceding cliticised word51 (e.g., 3:13 ‫)סרך אותות כול העדה‏‬, the subject of a clause52 (e.g., 7:3, ‫א‬ ‫וכול נער זעטוט ואשה לו ‏‬ ‫)יבואו‬, or a dislocated constituent (e.g., 7:2–3 ‫וכול מפשיטי החללים ושוללי השל ‏ל‬ ‫ם ועורך הצידה כולם יהיו מבן‬ ‫)ומטהרי הארץ ושומרי הכלי ‏‬. In 1QM, ‫ כול‬NPs are never the complement of a verb or copula (null or overt). Within the ‫ כול‬NP, ‫ כול‬most often quantifies and is bound to a clitic host— whether noun53 (e.g., 1:5, ‫ )לכול אנשי גורל‏ו‬or pronoun54 (e.g., 5:4 ‫ם‬ ‫)וכול ‏‬. The quantifier does rarely stand alone (6:10; frg. 3 2), in which case it could be taken as the free form used substantivally (or perhaps quantifying a null noun): e.g., 6:10, ‫הכול‬, “everything,” “the total.” In 1QM ‫ כול‬also quantifies the null head of a relative clause: e.g., 12:14 ‫כול מעניך‬.55 Interestingly, such relatives are always unmarked, never introduced by the overt relative words ‫ אשׁר‬or ‫( ה‬in participial relatives). The constituent quantified by ‫ כול‬can be definite56 (88x; e.g., ‫כול אנשי גורלו‬, “all the men of his lot”) or indefinite57 (30x; e.g., ‫כול בני חושך‬, “all sons of darkness”). Moreover, in 1QM ‫ כול‬is used to quantify both grammatically singular58 (44x) and grammatically plural59 constituents (89x).60

51  3:13 (2x); 4:15; 5:1; 7:7, 12; 11:13; 12:2; 15:7; 17:2; 19:10. 52  1:8; 2:9; 5:4; 6:11, 16; 7:3 (2x), 5 (2x), 7; 9:1, 3, 4, 5, 13; 10:5; 12:14; 13:3, 4, 10 (2x), 11; 14:2, 4, 7, 12, 17; 15:9, 10, 11; 16:1, 8; 17:8, 14; 18:4; 19:6. 53  1:3, 5 (2x), 7, 8 (3x), 9, 12 (2x), 15 (2x); 2:4, 5, 6, 7 (3x), 12, 13, 14, 16; 3:6, 8, 9; 4:2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 (2x); 6:4, 6, 10, 13; 7:5, 7 (3x), 12; 8: 9, 15; 9:3, 5, 14; 10:1, 6, 9, 13; 11:6, 14; 12:2, 3, 10, 13; 13:1 (2x), 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 (2x), 11, 16 (2x); 14:7, 8, 9 (2x), 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19; 15:2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14; 16:1, 7; 17:1, 8 (2x), 13; 18:1, 3, 4 (2x); 19:2, 5. 54  2:6; 5:4; 6:4, 16; 7:3, 5 (2x); 9:4, 5, 13; 14:2, 4. 55  3:5; 7:2; 10:5; 12:14; 13:3; 15:2; 16:11; 17:5 (2x); 19:6. 56  1:3, 5, 12, 15; 2:4, 5, 6, 7 (3x), 9, 12, 13, 14, 16; 3:13; 4:2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12–13, 15; 5:1, 4; 6:4, 10, 11, 16; 7:3, 5 (2x), 7 (2x), 12, 17; 8:9; 9:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14; 10:9, 13; 11:6, 13, 16; 12:2, 10, 13; 13.1 (2x), 2 (2x), 4, 5, 8, 11; 14:2, 4, 8, 9 (2x), 11; 15:1, 2–3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10–11, 11, 13; 16:1, 3, 7–8; 17:8, 13, 14; 18:1, 3, 4; 19:5, 10, 12. 57  1:5, 8 (2x), 8–9, 9, 12; 3:6, 8, 9; 4:3, 12; 6:6, 13; 7:3, 4, 7, 17; 10:1, 6; 11:14; 12:3; 13:10, 16; 14:7, 17, 18; 15:2, 13, 14; 17:8. 58  1:5, 12; 2:5, 9, 16; 3:13; 4:3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15; 5:1; 6:11; 7:3, 4, 7, 17 (2x); 8:9, 15; 9:1, 6; 10:1; 11:16; 12:2; 13:2, 5; 14:12, 19; 15:2, 10, 11, 13; 16:1, 3, 7; 17:5, 8, 13, 14; 18:1, 3. 59  1:3, 5, 8 (3x), 9, 12, 15 (2x); 2:4, 6, 7 (3x), 12, 13, 14; 3:5, 6, 8, 9; 4:2, 12; 5:4; 6:4, 6, 10, 13, 16; 7:2, 3, 5 (2x), 7 (2x), 12; 9:3, 4, 5, 14; 10:5, 6, 9, 13; 11:6, 13, 14; 12:3, 10, 13, 14; 13:1 (2x), 2, 3, 4, 8, 10–11, 16; 14:2, 4, 7, 8, 9 (2x), 11, 13, 17, 18; 15:1, 2 (2x), 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14; 16:1, 11; 17:5, 8; 18:4 (2x); 19:2, 5, 10, 12. 60  Note that the figures in the preceding footnotes do not add up, but the reasons are logical: often a lacuna will permit grammatical number to be known but definiteness to be unknown, or vice versa; moreover, cases where the quantified constituent is a null con-

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

95

‫ כול‬is used together with distributive apposition once in 1QM (7:17 ‫כול מערכה‬ ‫ומערכה‬, “every battle line”). This use of ‫ כול‬is redundant, since ‫ כול‬and distribu-

tive apposition both communicate “every.”

5.3.2 Cardinal Numerals 1QM contains numerals involved in four types of syntactical constructions: (1) number phrases—NPs containing a numeral and the noun that it quantifies ( for example, ‫שׁבע אמות‬, “seven cubits”); (2) additive complex ­numerals— complex numerals in which two or more numerals are added together to make a number (e.g., ‫שׁשׁה ועשׂרים‬, “six and twenty,” that is, “twenty-six”); (3) teen constructions—a subset of additive complex numeral with its own particular structure (e.g., ‫שׁתים עשׂרה‬, “twelve”); (4) multiplicative complex ­numerals— complex numerals in which two numerals are multiplied to make a number (e.g., ‫שׁבע מאות‬, “seven hundred”). In 1QM, there are 123 number phrases, 10 normal61 additive complex numerals, 9 teen constructions, and 10 multiplicative complex numerals. In number phrases, the numeral and quantified noun are the only members. Additive complex numerals have multiple members, one (or zero) for each digit up to the 10,000s place (i.e., 1s, 10s, 100s, 1,000s, and 10,000s). Multiplicative complex numerals contain two members: a lower member—consisting either of a 1s numeral or an additive complex numeral made of 1s and 10s numerals—and a higher member—a 100s or 1,000s numeral.62 Teen constructions also contain two members—a 1s numeral and ‫עשׂר‬, “teen.” Two features distinguish teen constructions from normal additive complex numerals: first, the two members of the complex numeral are not coordinated by -‫ו‬‎‎; second, the word ‫ עשׂר‬is inflected to agree with the gender of the quantified noun, rather than using chiastic concord. 5.3.3 Order, Agreement, and Structure The syntactical features of these four constructions relate to the order of members, agreement features between members, and the structure of the phrase.63

stituent, modified by a headless relative, are not included, since definiteness is difficult to determine. 61  That is, additive complex numerals not including teen constructions. 62  The purpose of multiplicatives is to allow for numbers in the 100s and 1,000s beside those for which ‫ מאה‬and ‫ אלף‬are capable—100 (‫מאה‬‎), 200 (dual ‫מאתים‬‎; 1QM uses dual ‫מאתים‬ in 6:9), 1,000 (‫)אלף‬, and 2,000 (dual ‫)אלפים‬. 63  For full evidence on order, agreement, and structure in all three types of complex numeral, see the charts that follow this discussion.

96

Holmstedt and Screnock

The order of cardinal number phrases in 1QM is nearly always numbernoun.64 In additive complex numerals, the order is almost always increasing; that is, the digits are ordered from lowest to highest, as in 6:14 ‫חמש וארבעים‬, “five and forty” (i.e., “forty-five”).65 The order of the members in teen constructions is increasing, that is, 1s-‫עשׂר‬, for example, ‫שׁנים עשׂר‬, “twelve.” The order of multiplicative complex numerals is lower member followed by higher member (e.g., ‫שׁשׁת אלפים‬, “six thousand”). Agreement between the members of number phrases is somewhat complex, but well known from earlier Hebrew. The numerals 1–10, as well as ‫עשׂר‬ used in teen compounds, show agreement with the quantified noun. The numerals 20, 30, 40, etc., can only take the formally masculine ending ‫ים‬-, and as such do not show agreement with the quantified noun. ‫“( מאה‬hundred”), ‫“( אלף‬thousand”), and ‫“( רבוא‬ten-thousand”) have their own gender ( feminine, masculine, and feminine, respectively) and thus cannot be inflected to agree with the gender of the quantified noun. For the numerals inflected to agree with the quantified noun, we find the typical pattern of ancient Hebrew, where 1, 2, and ‫עשׂר‬, “teen,” have the same gender as the quantified noun, and 3–10 take the opposite gender of the quantified noun (“chiastic concord”). Of 53 cases where the gender of the quantified noun is clear (whether because the noun is overt or because the presumed null noun is clear from context) and where a numeral is included that can be inflected to show gender, 1QM follows these rules entirely.66 64  1:13; 2:1, 2, 4, 6, 9 (2), 13, 14; 3:14 (2); 4:5, 15 (2), 16 (2), 17; 5:1, 2, 3 (2), 7 (2), 12, 13 (3), 14, 16; 6:1 (2), 2, 4 (3), 8, 8–9, 9 (2), 10, 14 (2); 7:1 (2), 2, 3, 9–10, 14 (3), 15 (2), 16, 18; 8:1–2, 4, 6, 8–9, 13, 14; 9:4 (2), 4–5, 11, 12 (2), 13 (2); 11:8–9; 16:7. Most of the possible exceptions, which at first appear to have noun-number order, are better understood with the noun standing alone or quantifying a null constituent (see 2:1, 2; 9:5, 14 [2]); only two cases are best interpreted with noun-number order, ‫“( ראשים שנים עשר‏‬twelve chiefs”) in 2:1, and ‫ת‬ ‫ראשי המשמרו ‏‬ ‫“( ששה ועשרים‬the twenty-six chiefs of the courses”) in 2:2. In contrast to these two— which may be remnants of older syntax, where complex numerals can follow the noun they quantify—there are well over 60 with the order number-noun. 65  This is the case in 9 of 10 cases. The decreasing order of ‫ ואלף וארבע מאות‬in 6:10 is thus the only exception; it may be a remnant of older syntax, where decreasing order is typical. 6:11 ‫ ששת אלפים חמש מאות‬is better understood as two distinct number phrases, given the structure and near context of the phrase; thus it does not constitute an additive complex numeral. 66  1:13 (2); 2:2, 6, 9 (2), 10; 3:14; 4:5, 16, 17 (2); 5:3, 7 (2), 12, 13 (3), 14, 16; 6:1 (2), 2, 4 (3), 8, 14; 7:3, 9–10, 12, 14 (3), 15, 18; 8:1–2, 4, 6, 8–9, 13, 14; 9:4 (2), 11, 12 (2), 13, 14 (4); 11:8–9. The one possible exception is 5:13’s ‫ארבע גודלים‬, where, if DCH is correct that ‫ גודל‬is a masculine noun, chiastic concord appears not to be followed; from this one example in QH, we should more simply conclude that ‫ גודל‬is considered feminine in 1QM.

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

97

In additive complex numerals, there are no agreement features: the members are not inflected to agree with each other in any way. Numbers that can be inflected for gender are inflected according to the noun quantified in the number phrase. Multiplicative complex numerals, in contrast to additives, do show agreement features: 1s members 3–10 are in chiastic concord with the larger member, either ‫ ( מאה‬feminine) or ‫( אלף‬masculine). This is clearly the case, for example, in the phrase ‫ת פרשים‬ ‫( שבע מאו ‏‬‎6:8–9): ‫ שׁבע‬is in chiastic concord with ‫ ( מאה‬feminine) but not the quantified noun ‫( פרשים‬masculine). Finally, agreement features of teen constructions could be the same as that of additive complex numerals or multiplicative complex numerals; 1s members 3–9 take the opposite gender of both the quantified noun and higher member ‫עשׂר‬, “teen,” and 1s members 1–2 take the same gender as both the quantified noun and ‫עשׂר‬, “teen.”67 The structure of number phrases is either appositional (e.g., ‫שלושה גורלות‬, “three lots”) or cliticised (e.g., ‫שני עבריו‬, “its two sides”). The use of either of these two structures is dependent on whether the NP is indefinite or definite (respectively). Appositional ‫ שבעה לויים‬is thus “seven Levites,” distinct from “the seven Levites,” which would use the bound structure ‫שבעת הלויים‬.68 Of the thirty-three unambiguous number phrases in 1QM, 6:4’s indefinite ‫שני דגלי‬ ‫ בינים‬is the only number phrase that does not follow this rule;69 it may be a remnant of an older option (bound structure) for indefinite numeral phrases, which has been displaced but not entirely eliminated in 1QM’s Hebrew. The following chart lists all of the number phrases in 1QM where the structure can be determined with certainty, showing the correspondence between definiteness and use of appositional or bound structure.

67  All of the data is ambiguous because ‫עשׂר‬, “teen,” always agrees in gender with the quantified noun, and as such the lower members 1–9 related in the same way to both the higher member and the quantified noun. 68  Note that ‫שבעת שופרות היובל‬, for example, is not “seven of the rams horns” (i.e., seven out of many) but “the seven rams horns” (i.e., the only seven). Because a numeral cannot take an article unless used as a substantive, appositional *‫*“( השבעה שופרות היובל‬the seven rams horns,” lit. “*the seven, the rams horns”) is impossible, and thus the bound construction must be used, imbuing the entire phrase with definiteness. 69  Note also that 16:7 has a bound numeral, but the following noun is not extant, and thus its definiteness is uncertain.

98

Holmstedt and Screnock

TABLE 5.10 Structure of cardinal number phrases

1:13 3:14 4:5 4:15 4:15 4:16 4:17 5:3 5:7 5:12 5:14 6:1 6:2 6:4 6:4 6:8 6:9 7:9–10 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:15 7:18 8:4 8:6 8:14 9:4 9:11 9:12 9:13 9:13 11:8–9 16:7

‫שלושה גורלות‬ ‫‏לשלושת השבטים‬ ‫תשעת אנשי תעודתו‬ ‫ארבע עשרה אמה‬ ‫]עשרה אמה‬ ֯ ‫‏שלוש‬ ‫] ֗שתים עשרה אמה‬ ‫שמ]ו֯ נ֯ ֯ה אמות‬ ‫‏ושבעה סדרי‬ ‫שלושה ֗צמידים‬ ‫‏לשני עבריו‬ ‫חמשה טפחים‬ ‫שלושה דגלי בינים‬ ‫שבעה זרקות מלחמה‬ ‫שני דגלי בינים‬ ‫שתי המערכות‬ ‫‏ושבעה סדרי פרשים‬ ‫מאתים פרשים‬ ‫‏שבעה‏ כוהנים‬ ‫שבעה לויים‬ ‫שבעת שופרות היובל‬ ‫‏ושלושה שוטרים‬ ‫המק ֯ר[א‬ ֗ ‫‏בשתי חצוצרות‬ ‫המ ֯ע ֯ר ֯כו֯ ֗ת‬ ֗ ‫שתי‬ ‫שלושה דגלי בינים‬ ‫שלושה סדרים‬ ‫‏לשלושת הדגלים‬ ‫ששה דגלים‬ ‫‏ ֯מ[ש]נ֯ י֗ עברי המערכה‬ ‫שמונה אמות‬ ‫מאה מגן‬ ‫‏לשלושת רוחות הפנים‬ ‫‏שבעת‏ גוי הבל‬ ‫‏וששת [הכוהנים‬

Structure

Definiteness of Quantified Noun

apposition bound bound apposition apposition apposition apposition apposition apposition bound apposition apposition apposition bound bound apposition apposition apposition apposition bound apposition bound bound apposition apposition bound apposition bound apposition apposition bound bound bound

indefinite definite definite indefinite indefinite indefinite indefinite indefinite indefinite definite indefinite indefinite indefinite indefinite definite indefinite indefinite indefinite indefinite definite indefinite definite definite indefinite indefinite definite indefinite definite indefinite indefinite definite definite definite?

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

99

The structure of additive complex numerals is compound: members are coordinated using the coordinating particle -‫ו‬.70 Teen constructions, although similarly using coordination, do not use -‫ ;ו‬the two members are coordinated only by their placement next to each other.71 Finally, multiplicative numerals use a bound structure.72 The evidence for additive complex numerals, teen constructions, and multiplicative complex numerals, is summarised in the following charts. TABLE 5.11 Order and structure of additive complex numerals

2:1 2:2 2:6 2:9

‫‏שנים וחמשים‬ ‫‏ראשי המשמרות ששה ועשרים‬

‫‏ובשלוש ושלושים שני המלחמה‬ ‫‏בחמש ושלושים שני העבודה‬

Order

Structure

1s–10s 1s–10s 1s–10s 1s–10s

Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬

70  The one possible exception is 6:11 ‫ששת אלפים חמש מאות‬, which taken as a single additive complex numeral would have the members (‫[ ששת אלפים‬‎1,000s member] and ‫חמש‬ ‫[ מאות‬‎100s member]) coordinated without -‫ו‬. As noted above, ‫ששת אלפים חמש מאות‬ is better understood in context as two distinct number phrases; we would expect ‫ששת‬ ‫ אלפים וחמש מאות‬if this were one complex numeral. 71  In 4:16, it is uncertain whether the less common word ‫ עשׂתי‬is bound or free. Where ‫עשׂתי‬ occurs—here, in the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the Hebrew Bible—it is always in teen constructions with ‫עשׂר‬, together meaning “eleven.” Since ‫ עשׂתי‬only appears in teen constructions, there are no other contexts in which to analyze its form. It is related to Akkadian išten (“one”) and Ugaritic ‛šty (“one”). Since it is unlikely that a word meaning “one” would ever appear in a dual or plural form (with ‫ים‬- ending), we conclude that this is probably not the bound form of the word but the free form, coordinated with ‫עשׂר‬, “teen,” as is the case in all the other teen constructions. 72  In 7 of the 10 cases of multiplicative complex numerals in 1QM, the lower (1s/10s) member is formally ambiguous (e.g., ‫)שבע מאות‬, such that the relationship between the two numbers could be appositional, coordination, or a bound structure. In three cases, however, there is a clear bound structure, with the lower member bound to the higher member. 6:10’s ‫ארבעת אלפים‬, ‎6:11’s ‫ששת אלפים‬, and 9:5’s ‫ ששת אלפים‬are not ambiguous because ‫ אלף‬is involved, necessitating the feminine form of the 1s member, which shows a difference between bound (ending ‫ת‬-) and free (ending ‫ה‬-) in the consonants. This suggests that the other 7 cases use the same bound structure. In 9:4–5 ‫שמונה ועשרים אלף‬, the uninflect-able 10s member of the additive complex numeral ‫ שמונה ועשרים‬stands before the 1000s member, such that the relationship between the members of the multiplicative complex numeral is formally ambiguous.

100

Holmstedt and Screnock

TABLE 5.11 Order and structure of additive complex numerals (cont.) Order

2:10 6:10 6:10 6:11 6:14 7:3 9:4–5

‫‏ב{{ע}}תש ועשרים הנותרות‬

1s–10s ‫ ‏שש מאות וארבעת אלפים‬100s–1,000s ‫ ‏ואלף וארבע מאות רכב‬1,000s–100s ‫ ששת אלפים חמש מאות‬1,000s–100s? ‫ ‏עד בן חמש וארבעים‬1s–10s ‫ ‏מבן חמש ועשרים שנה‬1s–10s ‫ ‏שמונה ועשרים אלף‏ אנשי מלחמה‬1s–10s

Structure

Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination without ‫?ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬ Coordination with ‫ו‬

TABLE 5.12 Order, structure, and gender agreement of teen constructions Order

Structure

Gender Agreement

2 agrees w/ ‫ עשׂר‬and quantified 2 agrees w/ ‫ עשׂר‬and quantified 2 agrees w/ ‫ עשׂר‬and quantified 4 chiastic w/ ‫ עשׂר‬and quantified unknown 2 agrees w/ ‫ עשׂר‬and quantified unknown 2 agrees w/ ‫ עשׂר‬and quantified 2 agrees w/ ‫ עשׂר‬and quantified

2:1

‫‏ראשים שנים עשר‬

1s-‫עשׂר‬

coordination without ‫ו‬

2:2

‫‏שנים עשר‬

1s- ‫עשׂר‬

coordination without ‫ו‬

1s- ‫עשׂר‬

coordination without ‫ו‬

4:15

‫שב[טי‬ ֯ ‫שנים עשר‬ ‫ישר]אל‬ ֯ ‫ארבע עשרה אמה‬

1s- ‫עשׂר‬

coordination without ‫ו‬

4:15 4:16

‫]עשרה אמה‬ ֯ ‫‏שלוש‬ ‫[שתים עשרה אמה‬ ׄ

1s- ‫עשׂר‬ 1s- ‫עשׂר‬

Unknown coordination without ‫ו‬

4:16 5:1

‫‏עשתי עש[רה אמה‬ ‫שנים עשר שבטי‬ ‫ישראל‬ ‫שנים עשר שרי‬ ‫שבטיהם‬

1s- ‫עשׂר‬ 1s- ‫עשׂר‬

coordination without ‫ו‬ coordination without ‫ו‬

1s- ‫עשׂר‬

coordination without ‫ו‬

3:14

5:2

101

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll TABLE 5.13 Order, structure, and gender agreement of multiplicative complex numerals

6:8–9 6:9 6:10 6:10

‫‏שבע מאות‏ פרשים‬ ‫ושבע מאות‬ ‫‏שש מאות וארבעת‬ ‫אלפים‬ ‫‏שש מאות וארבעת‬

Order (in Multiplicative)

Structure

lower (1s)-higher (100s) lower (1s)-higher (100s) lower (1s)-higher (100s)

ambiguous 7 chiastic w/ ‫מאה‬ ambiguous 7 chiastic w/ ‫מאה‬ ambiguous 6 chiastic w/ ‫מאה‬

lower (1s)-higher (1,000s) bound

Gender Agreement

4 chiastic w/ ‫אלף‬

‫אלפים‬

6:10

‫ ‏ואלף וארבע מאות‬lower (1s)-higher (100s)

‫רכב‬

6:11 ‫ ששת אלפים‬lower (1s)-higher (1,000s) 6:11 ‫ חמש מאות‬lower (1s)-higher (100s) 9:4–5 ‫ ‏שמונה ועשרים אלף‏‬lower (1s-10s)-higher ‫( אנשי מלחמה‬1,000s) 9:5 ‫ והרוכבים ששת‬lower (1s)-higher (1,000s) 9:14

‫אלפים‬ ‫ מגנים שלוש מאות‬lower (1s)-higher (100s)

ambiguous 4 chiastic w/ ‫מאה‬ bound 6 chiastic w/ ‫אלף‬ ambiguous 5 chiastic w/ ‫מאה‬ ambiguous 8 chiastic w/ ‫אלף‬ 20 not inflected bound 6 chiastic w/ ‫אלף‬ ambiguous 3 chiastic w/ ‫מאה‬

5.3.3.1 Other Aspects of Numeral Syntax In numerous instances, a cardinal numeral will stand alone but will quantify a null (covert) noun.73 In such cases, the speaker/author assumes that the listener/reader can easily reconstruct the quantified entity from either the discourse context or some obvious item in the shared real world. Examples include 2:10’s ‫ב{{ע}}תש ועשרים הנותרות‬, “in the twenty-nine that remain,” where “twenty-nine” clearly indicates a number of “years” (cf. the near context, and especially 2:14, ‫ת‬ ‫)ובעשר השנים הנותרו ‏‬. In other words, the numeral quantifies a null constituent understood to be “years”: ‫בתשע ועשרים [השנים] הנותרות‬. The construction numeral-‫ב‬-noun occurs twice in 1QM: ‫כש]לושים באמה‬ (“according to thirty in cubits”) in 5:17, and ‫“( כאלפים באמה‬according to 1,000 in cubits”) in 7:7. In context, the phrases can be understood to have essentially the same meaning as a typical number phrase.74 Although there must be some semantic nuance, it is not readily apparent. Another question is whether this 73  1:13; 2:10; 6:9, 10, 11 (3), 14 (2), 15; 7:1 (2), 2, 3, 12; 9:13. 74  For example, in ‫ה בין כול מחניהמה למקום היד כאלפים באמה‏‬ ‫“( ורוח יהי ‏‬the space between all their camps and the ‘place of the hand’ shall be according to 1,000 in cubits”) it seems possible to substitute ‫ אלפים אמה‬for ‫אלפים באמה‬.

102

Holmstedt and Screnock

construction (e.g., ‫ )אלפים באמה‬should be understood as one number phrase75 or as something else.76 The words ‫שנה‬, “year,” and ‫אמה‬, “cubit,” appear sometimes in the singular, as collective singulars (e.g., ‫חמשים שנה‬, “fifty years”), and sometimes in the plural (e.g., ‫שש שנים‬, “six years”). In 1QM, ‫ שׁנה‬and ‫ אמה‬are plural with numerals 2–10, but with numerals over 10 they are singular.77 When an additive complex numeral, with a value over 10, contains a numeral 2–10 as one member, ‫ שׁנה‬is sometimes singular (7:3) and sometimes plural (2:6, 9). In the latter cases, ‫שׁנה‬ is bound to a following definite noun; perhaps collective singular ‫ שנה‬is not possible in bound construction and/or when definite. In 1QM, ‫“( מאה‬hundred”) and ‫“( אלף‬thousand”) are plural when used in multiplicative complex numerals. Complex cardinal numerals are never used in place of ordinals in 1QM. 5.3.3.2 Summary of Cardinal Numerals The numeral syntax found in 1QM is highly regular, in contrast to other Hebrew texts that utilise a large amount of numerals. The following chart summarises the order, structure, and gender agreement found in number phrases, additive complex numerals, teen constructions, and multiplicative complex numerals. TABLE 5.14 Summary of order, structure, and gender agreement in all numeral syntax

Number Phrase

Order

Structure

Gender Agreement

number-noun

appositional for indefinite NPs

1–2 agree w/ quantified 3–10 chiastic w/ quantified 20+ not inflected

bound for definite NPs

Additive Complex members coordination with ‫ו‬ Numeral increasing in value

no internal agreement; 3–9 chiastic w/ quantified

75  That is, with the numeral at the head of the phrase modified by an NP internal ‫ב‬-PP. 76  Either the ‫ב‬-PP modifying the predicate and thus parallel to the ‫ כ‬PP, or the numeral understood as a substantival use which happens to have an NP internal PP (i.e., the NP is not quantified by the numeral). 77  2:4, 6, 9 (2x), 13, 14; 4:15 (2x), 16 (2x), 17 (2x); 5:7, 17; 6:14 (2x); 7:1 (2x), 2, 3, 7; 9:12 (2x).

103

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll Order

Structure

Gender Agreement

Teen Construction 1s-‫עשׂר‬

coordination without ‫ו‬

no internal agreement OR 3–9 chiastic w/

Multiplicative lower memberComplex Numeral higher member

bound

‫עשׂר‬

3–9 chiastic w/ higher member

5.4 Coordination 5.4.1 Simple The main coordinating particle (i.e., “conjunction”) in ancient Hebrew is the clitic -‫ ו‬affixed to the beginning of a word (e.g., 1:1, ‫אדום ומואב‬, “Edom and Moab”); the other coordinating particle is ‫או‬, “or.” Both are found in 1QM. Ancient Hebrew did not have coordinating particles to distinguish between contrastive and non-contrastive coordination (e.g., English “and” versus “but”), nor did it contain coordinating particles that indicated negation (e.g., English “nor”). The sole distinction available was between normal coordination (-‫)ו‬ and alternative coordination (‫)או‬. The coordinating particle ‫ או‬occurs only in 7:4–5, ‫וכול פסח או עור או חגר או‬ ‫איש אשר מום עולם בבשרו או איש מנוגע בטמאת בשרו‬. All other coordination uses either -‫ ו‬or no coordinating particle. Coordination may occur without these particles, for example in 1:9’s ‫“( לשלום וברכה כבוד ושמחה ואורך ימים‏‬for peace and blessing, glory and joy, and length of days”), where the noun ‫ כבוד‬is coordinated without -‫ו‬. Moreover, -‫ ו‬is often used as a phrase-edge marker, where no coordination is involved, as for example at the beginning of many clauses (e.g., 1:3, ‫ואחר‬ ‫)המלחמה יעלו משם‬, or in the middle of a clause after a temporal predicate adjunct (e.g., 7:9 ‫ ויצאו‬and 10:7 ‫והריעות[מה‬ ֗ ). In such cases, the constituent preceded by -‫ ו‬is not conjoined to another constituent, and as such there is no coordination. Coordination can occur at every level of syntax in ancient Hebrew. In 1QM, we see coordination of NPs (e.g., 1:2 ‫)בני לוי ובני יהודה ובני בנימין‏‬, PPs (e.g., 2:5 ‫על‏‬ ‫)העולות ועל הזבחים‬, clitic hosts (e.g., 7:5 ‫)תמימי רוח ובש ‏ר‬, adverbial infinitives (e.g., 1:8 ‫)הלוך ואור‏‬, cardinal numerals (e.g., 2:1 ‫ שנים וחמשים‬with -‫ו‬, and 5:2 ‫שנים‬ ‫ עשר‬without -‫)ו‬, infinitive clauses (e.g., 6:5–6 ‫להפיל חללים במשפט אל ולהכניע‬ ‫)מ^ער^כת אויב בגבורת אל לשלם גמול רעתם לכול גוי הבל‬, relative clauses (e.g., 17:5 ‫ )כול הוי֗ ה ונהיה‬and motive clauses (e.g., 9:2 ‫כיא בטח בשמכה הגדול ולוא בחרב‬ ‫)וחנית‬. Verbs are never coordinated in 1QM.

104

Holmstedt and Screnock

Compound constituents—that is, constituents consisting of two or more coordinated constituents—occur in many syntactical roles: subject (e.g., 1:10– 11 ‫)בו יתקרבו לנחשיר גדול עדת אלים וקהלת אנשים‬, verb complement (e.g., 1:1–2 ‫וחי֯ [ל יושבי] פלשת וב�ג‏‬ ֗ ‫להח ל בגורל בני חושך בחיל בליעל בגדוד אדום ומואב ובני עמו‏ן‬ ‫)דודי כתיי אשור‬, preposition complement (e.g., infinitive complements of ‫ ל‬in 3:5–6 ‫)להפיץ אויב ולהניס כול משנאי צדק ומשוב חסדים במשנאי אל‬, NP adjunct (e.g., 1:11 ‫ )תרועת אלים ואנשים‬and verb adjunct (e.g., 1:8 ‫)הלוך ואו ‏ר‬. Compound constituents can also be embedded within a larger compound constituent (e.g., 5:1 ‫)שם ישראל ולוי ואהרון ושמות שנים עשר שבטי ישראל‬. When three or more constituents are coordinated, two different structures can be used. The coordinating particle can be placed before all of the coordinated constituents, with the exception of the first, or alternatively the coordinating particle can be placed only before the very last coordinated constituent. In 1QM, the following pattern emerges: the first structure is used normally (e.g., 5:5 ‫)זהב וכסף ונחושת‬, and the second when the compound contains one or more compounds embedded within it (e.g., 9:10–11 ‫)גליל כפים ומגדלות וקשת ומגדלות‬. It appears that the embedded structure is used in order to indicate the break between the larger members; in other words, the outer/larger compound uses the embedded structure, while the inner/smaller compounds use the normal structure. Take, for example, 1QM 1:9: outer structure inner structures

Ø-Ø-w Ø-w & Ø-w

˻‫ל˼שלום וברכה˻ ˼כבוד ושמחה˻ ˼ואורך ימים‬ ˻‫˼שלום˻ ˼וברכה˻ ˼כבוד˻ ˼ושמחה‬

Other structural complexity and length of compound members does not play a role in the use of either structure (c.f. the extended compound in 2:20–3:2, which contains no embedded compounds and uses the normal structure). One instance with embedded compounding appears not to abide by this rule: 9:10–11 ‫גליל כפים‬ ‫ומגדלות וקשת ומגדלות‬, which uses the normal structure. The following chart is representative of compounds containing three or more members in 1QM. TABLE 5.15 Simple coordination Use of coordinating particle

1:1–2 1:2 1:9

‫להחל בגורל בני חושך בחיל בליעל בגדוד אדום ומואב‬ ׄ ‫ובני עמון‬ ‫וחי֯ [ל יושבי] פלשת ובגדודי כתיי אשור‬ ‫בני לוי ובני יהודה ובני בנימין‬ ‫לשלום וברכה כבוד ושמחה ואורך ימים‬

Ø-Ø-Ø-w (embedded Ø-Ø-Ø[Ø-w-w-w]-w) Ø-w-w Ø-Ø-w (embedded Ø[Ø-w]-Ø[Ø-w]-w)

Writing a Descriptive Grammar of the War Scroll

105

Use of coordinating particle

2:20– 3:2

5:1 5:5 5:8 6:16 7:4–5 7:10–11 9:10–11 10:5–6 12:12– 13 13:15 14:5–6

‫‏חצוצרות]‏ {{סדרי המלחמה וחצוצרות}} ^סדרי‬ ‫המלחמ ה וחצוצרות^ מקראם בהפתח שערי המ�ל‬ ‫חמה לצאת אנשי הבנים וחצוצרות תרועות החללים‬ ‫וחצוצרות‏ המארב וחצוצרות המרדף בהנגף אויב‬ ‫וחצו^צ^רות המאסף בשוב המלחמה‬ ‫ישראל ולוי ואהרון‬ ‫זהב וכסף ונחושת‬ ‫בזהב וכסף ונחושת‬ ] -- [‫וקשת וחצים וזרקות מלחמה‬ ‫וכול פסח או עור או חגר או איש אשר מום עולם‬ ‫בבשרו או איש מנוגע בטמאת‏ בשרו‬ ‫תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני‬ ‫גליל כפים ומגדלות וקשת ומגדלות‬ ‫להחזיק בגבורת אל ולשוב כול מסי לבב ולחזיק יחד‬ ‫בכול גבורי חיל‬ ^‫כסף^ וזהב ואבני חפץ‬ ‫ל[עז]ו֯ר באמת ולהשמיד באשמה להשפיל חושך‬ ‫ולהגביר אור ול[־‬ ‫לכלה אין שארית ולהרים במשפט לב נמס ולפתוח פה‬ ׄ ‫לנאלמים לרנן‬ ‫בגבור[ת אל וידים] רפות ללמד מלחמה‬

Ø-w-w-w-w-w

Ø-w-w Ø-w-w Ø-w-w ??]-w-w-w Ø-or-or-or-or Ø-w-w Ø[Ø-w]-w-w (embedded [Ø-w]-w-w) Ø-w-w Ø-w-w Ø-Ø-w (embedded Ø[Ø-w]-Ø[Ø-w]-w[?]) Ø-w-w-w78

5.4.2 Distributive In 1QM there is one case of distributive apposition: 1QM 7:17 ‫כול מערכה ומערכה‬. See above, §V.C.1, at the end of the discussion of ‫כול‬. 6 Conclusions Our this study we have offered a comprehensive and exhaustive description of the various features of NP syntax in 1QM, including features that have not been discussed adequately in previous grammatical descriptions of QH (or even of BH), such as NP-internal PPs, apposition, and numeral syntax. We contextualised our descriptive grammar within a larger argument for how a descriptive 78  Note that the infinitives are compounded with an NP complement of ‫ל‬.

106

Holmstedt and Screnock

grammar ought to be written, especially now that the careful, detailed text editions of all the Qumran texts are available. The study of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran is entering a stage of maturity. This is clear from the numerous introductions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the establishment of a second scholarly journal (Dead Sea Discoveries) to join the Revue de Qumran, and the plethora of theses and monographs situating the Scrolls in their late Second Temple historical, textual, and theological milieu with increasing sophistication. Why should the study of the language be left behind? Is it well enough understood that the study of QH should be considered complete? We do not think so. Indeed, we do not consider the language of any ancient Hebrew text to have been adequately investigated, though the field of Hebrew studies has also reached a point of maturity. It is now ready for the next task of describing the grammar of each text in preparation for a new type of reference grammar and a new stage of diachrony and dialectal analysis. So, too, Qumran studies must not neglect the language of the texts, and we offer this study as a beginning, an initial salvo in what we hope will be a new wave of properly carried out grammatical descriptions and analyses of ancient Hebrew texts as a whole.

CHAPTER 6

The “Mysteries of God” in the Qumran War Scroll Anthony R. Meyer 1 Introduction What role do the mysteries of God play in the eschatological battle of the War Scroll (1QM)? Mystery language is prominent in both Aramaic and Hebrew writings known at Qumran, but certain phrases appear to have more specific, even technical functions.1 After a brief discussion of the word ‫“( רז‬mystery, secret”) and a review of secondary scholarship that addresses the so-called “semantic range” of ‫רז‬, this essay examines the particular portrayal of mystery in the War Scroll (e.g., the meaning of 1QM 3:8-9: “On the trumpets of ambush they shall write, ‘Mysteries of God [‫ ]רזי אל‬to wipe out wickedness’”). I conclude with a reflection on how mystery in the War Scroll may be compared to mystery in other early Jewish texts, in particular the Birth of Noah pericope (1 En. 106:1-107:3).2 2

‫ רז‬in Second Temple Jewish Literature

During the late Second Temple period there was a rapid increase in the use of ‫רז‬. This proliferation reflects the significance of ‫ רז‬as a late development. In the Tanakh, ‫ רז‬occurs nine times, but only in the Aramaic portions of

1  An evident problem in scholarship on ‫ רז‬has been the equation of the word ‫ רז‬with the idea mystery and the assumption that a catalogue of the occurrences of ‫ רז‬will provide the semantic range of this word. Note Samuel Thomas’ introductory remarks in The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (SBLEJL 25; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 15–17. The idea of mystery in early Judaism does not always include the term ‫רז‬, nor does ‫ רז‬always refer to mystery (e.g., in Ben Sira). For further discussion, see n. 9 below. 2  As demonstrated below, the mysteries of God is the most prominent idea depicted by ‫ רז‬in the War Scroll.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_007

108

Meyer

Daniel (chs. 2 and 4).3 We find two more occurrences of ‫ רז‬in Ben Sira MS. A, a medieval copy from the Cairo Geniza.4 Apart from Daniel and Ben Sira, our remaining evidence comes from the Aramaic and Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).5 In the DSS, ‫ רז‬occurs at least 135 times, with an additional 40 plausible reconstructions.6 Several issues have been prominent in scholarship on ‫ רז‬and provide an important starting point for the current study: (1) Because raz occurs in the Avesta, the sacred scriptures of the Persian Zoroastrians, which presumably predates the use of ‫ רז‬in early Jewish texts, many scholars assert that ‫ רז‬is a Persian loanword.7 However, our earliest extant evidence for ‫ רז‬is found in the Aramaic DSS, including copies of previously known works, such as 1 Enoch (4Q201–212) and Daniel (4Q112 and 4Q115), as well as copies of previously unknown works, such as Visions of Amran (4Q543–547) and the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20). As most of the Aramaic texts are pre-sectarian or at least non-sectarian, scholars have supposed that ‫ רז‬circulated first in Aramaic, and then later became prominent in Hebrew. At any rate, the historical-etymological development from Persian to Aramaic to Hebrew is complex.8 3  Note also Isa 24:16. For discussion, see Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 106. 4  Cf. Sir A 3r:26 (8:18) and Sir A 5r:10 (12:11). In Ben Sira, ‫ רז‬is best translated as secret, and can be summarised by two wisdom instructions: (1) beware what you tell strangers, and (2) never trust an enemy. Other non-esoteric instances are found in the Scrolls, for example, 4QDe (4Q270) 2 ii 13, 4QInstructionb (4Q416) 2 ii 8 and 1QHa 16:7. 5  An examination of μυστήριον, the Greek equivalent of ‫רז‬, would increase the scope of evidence for the idea mystery. However, such an analysis is beyond the focus of the current study. For an example of the importance of studying Greek mystery language in relation to Qumran literature see John J. Collins, “The Mysteries of God. Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. F. García Martínez; Dudley, Mass.: Peeters, 2003), 287–305. 6  These numbers reflect searches using Accordance Bible Software. Cf. Martin G. Abegg, Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts (Electronic Publication, Version 3.3; Altamonte Springs, Fla.: OakTree Software, 2009). In the post-Second Temple period, ‫ רז‬becomes the standard translation for mystery words in the Targums; it apparently functioned as a catch-all translation for words such as ‫חרש‬, ‫לאט‬, ‫ תרמה‬and ‫סוד‬. 7  According to scholarly hypothesis the Avesta originated in the sixth-fifth century BCE but was not codified/written down until the Sasanian period, fourth century CE. For a discussion on the “Persian Etymology of Raz”, see Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 245–51. 8  Whereas most linguists do not consider “loanword” to be an accurate technical term (primarily because a borrowed word is never actually returned), the case may be different for ‫רז‬.

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll

109

(2) If Ben Sira MS. A is an accurate witness to the early form of the Hebrew text, then its two extant occurrences of ‫ רז‬suggest that, in some circles, ‫ רז‬may have been used in Hebrew as early as the late third or early second century BCE. Thus the use of ‫ רז‬in Hebrew may have been coterminous with its use in Aramaic. Regardless of the earliest uses of ‫רז‬, either in the non-esoteric/nonsectarian context of Ben Sira, or in the role of ‫ רז‬to mediate esoteric knowledge (a common theme in the Aramaic texts) we find that in the Hebrew Qumran Scrolls ‫ רז‬denotes a still wider range of phenomena. (3) In the Qumran Scrolls, ‫ רז‬often refers to various aspects of a hidden reality that may be revealed only to certain people under the special circumstances.9 These various aspects of mystery have been identified by a range of adjectives, such as eschatological mysteries, sapiential mysteries and cosmological mysteries to name a few.10 There is a growing trend in scholarship to argue that early Jewish and Christian traditions have influenced Zoroastrianism. This suggests that raz may be of Persian origin, but experienced a different colouring in Aramaic Jewish tradition, and then was “returned” before the Avesta was codified around the fourth century CE. See Thomas for bibliography, as well as Geoffrey Herman, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians: Religious Dynamics in a Sasanian Context (Judaism in Context 17; Gorgias Press, 2014). Such a scenario urges considerable caution when discussing the alleged meaning of raz in its original Persian context (i.e., before it entered the Aramaic lexicon). 9  Lorenzo DiTommaso has suggested that ‫ רז‬becomes part of a crystallised epistemological proposition that, from the standpoint of human awareness, the divine will is essentially a mystery. He qualifies this “divine constant” by suggesting that depending on the text, ‫רז‬ might refer to specific aspects of that mystery. Cf. Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Apocalypticism and the Aramaic Texts from Qumran,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence, 30 June–2 July 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot, D.S. Ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 465. In general, one must be careful not to project the English notion of mystery onto the ancient Jewish notion(s) of mystery, as the latter are closely associated with esotericism and apocalypticism. Cf. Benjamin Gladd’s distinction between our English locution mystery, i.e., “something beyond comprehension,” versus the biblical concept of mystery, i.e., “wisdom previously hidden, but subsequently revealed.” Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism With Its Bearing On First Corinthians (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 1. 10  Other adjectives include esoteric, soteriological, prophetic, apocalyptic or mantic. More than a dozen adjectives could be used to describe ‫ רז‬in the Aramaic and Hebrew DSS, and some descriptions tend toward an ever increasing level of idiosyncrasy. For example, note Wolfson’s “onto-theosophic” adjective, which is his attempt to merge the cosmological and eschatological nuances of ‫רז‬. Cf. E.R. Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered,” In Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of

110

Meyer

(4) By comparing and contrasting the various aspects of mystery in early Jewish literature it is possible to discern networks of shared meanings, which can then be used to contextualise the role of mystery in individual texts. By way of demonstrating this last point, I raise the following question: what aspects of mystery are at play in the War Scroll? Scholarship on ‫ רז‬began almost immediately after the discovery of the Cave 1 Scrolls, but the overall significance of ‫רז‬, and mystery language in general, did not become a focus of scholarship until recently.11 Using the Scrolls and other early Jewish compositions, scholars have mined words like ‫ רז‬for the background that they provide for mystery language in the New Testament, especially pertaining to μυστήριον. This is evident in the work of Brown (1968), Bockmuehl (1990), Gladd (2008) and Rowland and Morray-Jones (2009).12 While these monographs provide well researched dicussions of mystery in early Judaism, Samuel Thomas (2009) was the first to provide a full scale analysis of mystery in Qumran literature. Of the scholars above, Raymond Brown was the first to address the topic of mystery. He elaborated on the suppositions of E. Vogt (1956) that mystery terms in the DSS contain background for mystery terms in the New Testament.13 After discussing mystery in the Old Testament and Apocrypha, Brown gives a cursory assessment of 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra and the Qumran literature, utilizing the sources available to him at the time. From this evidence, he derives a total of six categories intended to illustrate the variety of mysteries in Second Temple literature: (1) evil mysteries, (2) cosmic mysteries, (3) mysteries of God’s will and human actions, (4) mysteries of the last times, (5) mysteries of divine providence and (6) mysteries of the sect’s interpretation of law. For Brown,

James L. Kugel (ed. H. Najman and J.H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 177–213. I will not add to the growing number of adjectives, but attempt to discuss the ideas denoted by ‫רז‬. 11  For a complete bibliography see Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion; Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran. 12  Cf. Raymond Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); Markus Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990); Christopher Rowland and Christopher R.A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery Of God: Early Jewish Mysticism And The New Testament (CRINT 12; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 13  E. Vogt, “Mysteria in Textibus Qumrân,” Bib 37 (1956): 247–57.

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll

111

these categories are important for understanding “The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of Mystery.”14 One problematic issue, of special importance for the War Scroll, pertains to categories (1) evil mysteries and (5) mysteries of divine providence. First of all, Brown subsumes several distinct uses of ‫ רז‬under the category of evil mysteries. For example, he refers to both the secrets revealed by the Watchers in 1 En. 6–11 and the mysteries related to the ultimate destruction of wickedness (i.e., 1QM 3:8–9) as evil mysteries.15 He understands the remaining uses of ‫ רז‬in 1QM to denote mysteries of divine providence. While some aspects of ‫ רז‬may involve divine providence, I will suggest that in 1QM the idea of providence does not capture the majority or even the most significant connotations of ‫רז‬. Markus Bockmuehl (1990) explores the broader theological context of revelation and mystery in ancient Judaism with a concluding focus on Pauline Christianity. Bockmuehl adopts Brown’s typology for the Qumran literature but modifies it in various places.16 This, however, gives Bockmuehl’s study a slightly scattered feel and creates uncertainty as to how he understands the relationship between various uses of ‫רז‬. For example, in his chapter on “Apocalyptic Literature,” he discusses (1) cosmological mysteries, (2) eschatological mysteries and (3) illicitly revealed mysteries.17 The third category, illicitly revealed mysteries (which Brown calls evil mysteries), refers specifically to the use of ‫ רז‬in 1 En. 6–11.18 Here, Bockmuehl does not distinguish between the illicit mysteries of the

14  Brown, The Semitic Background, 1–29. Although Brown gives necessary attention to ‫רז‬, particularly in his treatment of the Qumran material, he is more concerned with the semantic relationship between ‫סוד‬, ‫ רז‬and μυστήριον, thus focusing more generally on the “concept” of mystery. In terms of methodology, several lexicographic problems are evident in his work but need not be the focus of critique. We may simply note that these categories more accurately denote the variety of contexts in which ‫ רז‬may be used, and do not constitute a variety of semantic meanings. For the most recent study on the semantics of ‫ רז‬, see Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 127–86. 15  Brown also refers to 1QM 14:9 as an evil mystery; cf. ibid. Brown, The Semitic Background, 13, 28. 16  Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 31–36, 40, 53–56. 17  Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 31–40. 18  Bockmuehl’s reference to illicit mysteries is an improvement on Brown’s category. Whereas Brown dubbed the Watcher mysteries evil because they consequently led humanity to engage in evil practices, Bockmuehl attempts to depict the nature of the mysteries themselves, not their consequences.

112

Meyer

Book of Watchers and the so-called evil mysteries of Qumran literature.19 What further complicates this picture is that Bockmuehl refers to Brown’s mysteries of divine providence as soteriological mysteries.20 In so doing he minimises the eschatological connotations of ‫ רז‬that are important for Brown’s assessment. Instead, Bockmuehl includes mysteries of knowledge (1QS 4:6) and mysteries of understanding (1QS 4:18) in this “soteriological” category. Even more surprising is that Bockmuehl does not refer to a single occurrence of ‫ רז‬in 1QM that denotes a soteriological mystery (i.e., Brown’s mystery of divine providence). Benjamin Gladd, in Revealing the Mysterion (2008), argues that Brown’s typology, adopted and modified by Bockmuehl, is flawed. In a programatic statement, he writes: “Though very helpful in many regards, these works remain flawed in that they fail to take seriously the immediate context of each occurrence of mystery.”21 While the sentiment of Gladd’s statement is legitimate, it is a bit puzzling why, on the very same page, he proposes a (sweeping) catego­ risation of his own, suggesting that every occurrence of ‫ רז‬can be placed in two categories: (1) redemptive-historical/eschatological and (2) less-eschatological or secular. He then states that all occurrences are eschatological, except three.22 For Gladd, while there are indeed nuances to the meaning of ‫רז‬, these are subordinate to the governing paradigm of eschatology. Perhaps Gladd is content with this overarching paradigm because it fits well with his understanding of μυστήριον and the “eschatological events” that he considers “. . . a sine qua non of the term [i.e., of μυστήριον].”23 Moreover, Gladd does not address the relationship between Brown’s evil mysteries and mysteries of divine providence and Bockmuehl’s illicit mysteries and soteriological mysteries. For Gladd, ‫ רז‬primarily denotes an eschatological phenomenon.

19  It appears that the illicit mysteries revealed by the Watchers and the mysteries of evil are unrelated in Bockmuehl’s discussion. 20  Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 54. 21  Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion, 52. 22  Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion, 52: 4Q270 2 ii, 12–13; 4Q416 2 ii, 8; 1QHa 16:5–6 [correct to line 7]. Even within Gladd’s all encompassing eschatological category, however, he points to several trends in the use of ‫רז‬, for example, in “. . . the rehearsal of eschatological judgment expressed in cosmic, corporate, or personal contexts” (83). 23  See Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion, 128. One wonders if Gladd’s attention to a redemptivehistorical paradigm does not introduce a bit of reductionism to his treatment ‫רז‬.

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll

113

Samuel Thomas (2009) has already been introduced as the first to have provided a comprehensive study of mystery language in Qumran literature.24 Yet, while Thomas provides a clear systematic treatment of ‫רז‬, he does not directly evaluate the terminology of Brown and Bockmuehl. Thus, it is not always clear how Thomas’ use of terms should be understood in relation to their use of terms. Under the heading, “The Mysteries of Evil,” for example, Thomas discusses ‫“( רזי בליעל‬mysteries of Belial”) and ‫“( רזי פשע‬mysteries of iniquity”), the types of mysteries that were also the focus of Bockmuehl’s study.25 But how does this categorisation compare to the illicit mysteries of the Enochic type and the evil mysteries of Qumran literature? In this regard, Thomas does not resolve the imprecise labeling of these mysteries.26 Furthermore, he interprets part of the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS 3:20–23) in a way that links illicit mysteries to the mysteries of God. The connection between the illicit Enochic mysteries (which involve the revelation of occult secrets) and the mysteries of God, as found in Qumran sectarian literature (discussed more fully below), is questionable.27 The Treatise simply does not address illicitly revealed secrets. In summary of the secondary literature, the following chart shows how scholars have understood the various types of mysteries allegedly denoted by ‫רז‬. (A few other texts are included for comparative purposes).

24  In the pre-Yaḥad literature, Thomas notes that ‫ רז‬is affiliated with “prophetic, sapiential, and priestly kinds of texts . . .,” as well as “. . . texts that reflect esoteric practices such as astronomy and astrology, divination, and exorcism.” Regarding the Qumran Scrolls, he argues that ‫“ רז‬typically denotes something that falls within the domain of esoteric knowledge . . . and reflects the dynamic interaction of revelation, knowledge, and concealment.” Cf. Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 126, 186. 25  Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 175. 26  Furthermore, Thomas cites (perhaps by mistake?) Brown’s discussion on the Book of Watchers as evidence for the Qumran evil mysteries. In Brown’s study, the evil mysteries of 1 En. 6–11 are discussed on pp. 13–14, whereas the evil mysteries in Qumran literature are discussed on pp. 28–29. Cf. Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 181–82. 27  It may be that Thomas conflates the consequences of the “illicit” Enochic mysteries (i.e., the corruption of humanity, broadly construed) with the Qumranic notions of eschatological suffering expressed by the phrase mysteries of God. This is not to say that Thomas does not adequately discuss the mysteries of God, only that he includes more notions under the phrase than may belong.

114

Meyer evil mysteries mysteries of divine or mysteries providence or of evil soteriological mysteries

Raymond Brown

1QM 3:9; 14:9 1 En. 6–11 1QHa 5:3628 1Q27 1:2

Markus Bockmuehl

1QM 14:9 1QMysteries (1Q27) 1:2 1QM 14:9, 14 1QS 3:23

Samuel Thomas

mysteries of God

1QM 14:14; 16:11, 16; 17:9 1QS 3:23; 4:18; 11:3–4 1QHa frg. 3 7; 9 23 1QpHab 7:5, 8, 13–14 1QpHab 7:5, 8, 13–14 1QS 4:18

cosmological mysteries

1QM 14:14

1QM 3:9 1QS 3:23; 1QpHab 7:8

Even with the various modifications to Brown’s original categories, the use of ‫ רז‬in 1QM has not been clearly addressed. Regarding 1QM 14:14 (see above) for example, there is disagreement about the specific type of mystery that ‫ רז‬denotes. The analysis below aims to clear up these issues and provide a better understanding of mystery in the War Scroll and in particular the role of the mysteries of God. 3

‫ רז‬in the War Scroll

In 1QM ‫ רז‬occurs six times,29 and is always rendered as a construct plural:

28  Brown’s references to the Hodayot are according to Sukenik’s edition. The conversions to the reconstructed scroll published in DJD 40 are as follows: 1QHa 5:36 = col. 13:38; 1QHa frg. 3 7 = col. 21:27; 1QHa 9 23 = col. 17:23. The conversion table is found in Hartmut Stegemann and Eileen Schuller, 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f (DJD 40; Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), 49–53. For easier access, see Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa (SBLEJL; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 4–9. 29  Apart from the use of ‫רז‬, there appears to be no other mystery language present in 1QM; although ‫ סוד‬occurs in 4QMa (4Q491) 10 ii 17. Also, ‫ רז‬occurs three times in the 4Q491 ­fragments. Two of these are paralleled in 1QM, for example, 4Q491 8–10 i 12 (1QM 14:14) and 4Q491 11 ii 13 (1QM 16:16). In the controversial text 4Q491 frg. 11 (not paralleled in 1QM) we find the phrase ‫“ רזי ערמתו‬mysteries of his [God’s] cunning (or prudence/­discernment).” This phrase also occurs in 1QpHab 7:14. See Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 174.

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll Reference

Phrase

1QM 3:9 1QM 14:9 1QM 14:4

‫רזי אל‬ ‫רזי שטמתו‬ ‫רזי נפלאותיכה‬

1QM 16:11 1QM 16:16 1QM 17:9

‫ברזי אל‬ ‫֗ב ֗רזי אל‬ ‫רזיו‬

115

Translation

mysteries of God mysteries of his [Belial’s] hatred the mysteries of your [God’s] miraculous acts in the mysteries of God in the mysteries of God his [God’s] mysteries

The first occurrence of ‫ רז‬is found in 1QM 3:9, in the context of the thirteen groups of trumpets to be used in battle. Each trumpet contains an inscription. On the tenth group of trumpets, used to signal an ambush, we find the following: ‫ רזי אל לשחת רשעה‬3:9 ‫ועל חצוצרות המארב יכתובו‬

On the trumpets of ambush they shall write ‘Mysteries of God to wipe out wickedness.’30 (1QM 3:9) Several scholars have commented on the relationship between the notion of ambush and the phrase ‫( רזי אל‬mysteries of God). Gladd suggests that mystery is inscribed on the “trumpets of ambush” because an ambush alludes to a sudden and surprising martial event.31 This would assume, however, that a surprise is equivalent to a mystery. If we accept that the notion of ambush is important for understanding ‫רז‬, we should interpret ‫ רז‬in light of the outcome of the ambush, not the tactic itself. The purpose infinitive ‫לשחת רשעה‬ 30  The text edition of 1QM follows Martin G. Abegg Jr., et al. QUMRAN, Accordance Bible Software (Electronic Publication, Version 3.3; Altamonte Springs, Fla.: OakTree Software, 2009). I have also consulted Jean Duhaime’s edition “War Scroll,” in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 80–203; and Elisha Qimron’s edition, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Volume 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2010), 109–36 [Hebrew]. In this essay, variant reconstructions are footnoted. The translation, unless otherwise noted, is from Martin Abegg, in Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 146–70. 31  Gladd’s suggestion is an extension of T. Gaster’s, who remarks that “the ambush gave rise to the use of mysteries on this particular trumpet.” Cf. Theodor H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (New York: Anchor, 1956), 316; Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion, 70 n. 87.

116

Meyer

(to wipe out [or destroy] wickedness), points in this direction, i.e., the ambush is intended for the consummate destruction of evil during the eschatological war. The ambush represents an unexpected reversal of fortunes, which in this case means that the Sons of Light will be victorious, even as their travails suggest otherwise. The hidden processes that lead to the destruction of evil is a mystery. The phrase mysteries of God occurs again in 1QM 16:11–12, ‫ ובהתאזר [בליעל] ֗לעז֯ ֗רת בני ֗חו֗ שך וחללי הבינים יחלו לנפול ברזי אל ולבחון‬16:11 ‫[צו]צ ֗רות המקרא לצאת מערכה‬ ֯ ‫]ב ֗ח‬ ֯ ‫יתק[עו‬ ֯ ‫ והכ[ו]הנים‬12 ‫בם כול חרוצי המלחמה‬  . . . ‫אחרת‬

When [Belial]32 prepares himself to assist the Sons of Darkness, and the slain of the infantry begin to fall by the mysteries of God, and all those appointed for battle (are)33 tested by them [i.e., the mysteries] / the priests shall blow the trumpets of assembly so that another battle line might go forth . . . (1QM 16:11–12) The slain among the infantry (‫ )חללי הבינים‬are the deceased Sons of Light, while those appointed for battle (‫ )חרוצי המלחמה‬are presumably the Sons of Light still alive. Although this text is not without its syntactic ambiguity (see n. 33), the author claims that the fortitude of the latter group is tested in/by the mysteries of God. These mysteries seem to provide a context, or rationale, for understanding the suffering and death of the slain Sons of Light. This idea is also reflected in 1QM 16:15–16, the third occurrence of the phrase mysteries of God, ‫מ]חלליכ ם] כיא מאז‬ ֯ ‫במ ֯צ ֯ר ֯ף ו֗ לוא‬ ֯ ‫ואמר [ברוך אל ו]ל[ב]ב עמו יבחן‬ ֗ ‫ וענה‬16:15 ֗ [ ‫ ֗ב ֗רזי אל‬16 ‫שמעתם‬

32  Qimron: [‫( ]בליעל‬128); Duhaime leaves this blank (130). 33  For translation of the qal infinitive as a passive see Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition Vol. 1 (2d ed. Leiden; Brill, 1999), 139. Such a translation understands ‫ לבחון‬as a predicative infinitive (i.e., taking the infinitive as a verbal copula), a decision prompted by the ambiguity of both the subject and the antecedent of the pronoun “them.” Abegg translates: “and the slain among the infantry begin to fall by God’s mysteries and to test by the mysteries all those appointed for battle . . .” While this translation closely reflects the Hebrew, it is not clear how the “slain . . . begin . . . to test by them [‫ ]בהם‬all those appointed for battle,” if in fact the slain are dead.

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll

117

And he shall say in response: [Blessed is God, for]34 he tests the he[ar]t of his people in the crucible. And not [ ] have your slain [ ]. For from long ago you have heard35 /the mysteries of God. (1QM 16:15–16) In the crucible of the ultimate battle, the testing of the Sons of Light is again associated with the mysteries of God. The root ‫( בחן‬to test) occurs with ‫ רזי אל‬in both 1QM 16:11 and 15. Such mysteries are the clearest window into the author’s notion of theodicy, namely, that God ordains suffering as a test, which is part of ultimate vindication.36 The meaning of the phrase ‫ רזי אל‬in 1QM is consistent with its meaning in other sectarian compositions. Thomas provides a fitting explanation of this phrase with reference to Belial as the personification of evil: The activities of personified evil and all its functionaries thus find their rightful place within the broader economy of salvation as it was conceived by the members of the Yaḥad. This broader economy is referred to as the “mysteries of God” . . . Elsewhere God’s “mysteries” regulate the behavior of the Angel of Darkness whose “guilt and offensive deeds” are “in compliance with the mysteries of God” (1QS 3:23), a statement that is reminiscent of the general theodicy of the Qumran Scrolls.37 Previous attempts to understand the ‫ רזי אל‬in 1QM 3:9, 16:11, and 16 as denoting mysteries of evil, mysteries of divine providence, or soteriological mysteries do not account for the consistent way that ‫ רז‬invokes the idea of God ordained testing/suffering as part of the eventual vindication. Given this relatively narrow and consistent meaning, it is most helpful to refer to this idea by the phrase

34  Qimron reconstructs: ‫ו]ל[ב]ב‬ ֗ ‫ואמר [חוקר לב אל‬ ֗ ‫( וענה‬128). 35  Abegg translates: “For you have obeyed from of old the mysteries of God.” The translation of ‫ שמעתם‬as “you have heard” may fit the context better; how is one to “obey” the “mysteries of God”? Cf. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The DSS Study Edition, 139. 36  Here, we may note a bit of irony. In 1QM 16:11, the Sons of Light fall (i.e., die) by the mysteries of God (‫)ברזי אל‬. In 1QM 3:8–9, the mysteries of God are intended to “destroy wickedness.” In both instances, the mysteries of God bring destruction, but those being destroyed are both good and evil. This seems to reflect a starkly deterministic sectarian ideology (e.g., 1QM 11:11–16). 37  Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 182, 184. Also see Devorah Dimant’s observations in “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2.2.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 483–550, 536.

118

Meyer

itself, as Thomas does in his monograph under the section heading “Mysteries of God.” We find the fourth occurrence of ‫ רז‬in 1QM 14:8–10, ‫לשאר[ית עמכה] בממשלת בליעל ובכול‬ ֯ ‫ כול דורותינו הפלתה חסדיכה‬14:9 ‫ועם‬ .‫ מבריתכה‬10 ]‫רזי שטמתו לוא הדיחונ[ו‬

Throughout 9 all our generations you have made your mercies wondrous for the rem[nant of the people] during the dominion of Belial. And with all the mysteries of his hatred they have not led us astray 10 from your covenant. The phrase mysteries of his hatred (‫ )רזי שטמתו‬may refer to the incoherent and unintelligible reasons for Belial’s inimical affect on God’s righteous remnant. As Belial is the personification of evil, and as the construct relationship suggests a close association with evil (mysteries of his hatred), it is understandable why Brown, Bockmuehl and Thomas suggest that ‫ רז‬here denotes mysteries of evil. By way of describing the meaning of such mysteries, F. Nötscher states: “Evidently what is meant here is that one does not, or does not rightly, see through the power, essence, and activity of evil, through which man can be brought low.”38 By using the term “mystery” in this context, the author of 1QM is certainly equivocal. Perhaps he does not “rightly see” through the power of Belial and so prevaricates, simply using mystery language to mask his apparent lack of perception. This notion of ‫ רז‬also appears to be distinct when compared to the mysteries of God, so distinct infact that one may even detect an antithesis between the two, at least on the surface. Understanding the mysteries of evil in light of the larger role of mystery in 1QM, however, may point in a different direction. In the next few columns of 1QM, we find hints that the author may hold these seemingly antithetical ideas together in such a way that the mysteries of evil fit within the larger scheme of the mysteries of God. The fifth example of ‫ רז‬is found in 1QM 14:13–15, and has been interpreted in several ways, ‫תפ[ארתכה בכול] עתים ומועדי תעודות עולמים עם‬ ֯ ‫ ובגבורותיכה נרוממה‬14:13 ‫ ומוצאי ערב ובוקר כיא גדולה ֯מ[חשבת כבו]דכה ורזי‬14 ‫מ[בו]א יומם ולילה‬ ֗ ]‫נפלאותיכה במרומי֗ [כה‬ ]] [[ ‫ ולהשפיל מאלים‬15 ‫ל[הרי]ם לכה מעפר‬ 38  Friedrich Nötscher, Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texte (Bonn: Hanstein, 1956), 75.

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll

119

Because of your mighty deeds we shall exalt [your] sp[lendor in all] epochs and appointed times of eternity, at the beginning of day and at night / and the exit of evening and morning. For great (is) your [glorio]us p[lan], and the mysteries of your miraculous acts39 (are) in [your] high heavens to [raise u]p40 for yourself (those) from the dust/and to humble (those) from the gods. (vacat) Thomas proposes that ‫ רזי נפלאותיכה‬should be interpreted in the context of a “worship scenario,” as the remnant will “enact the true cosmically ordained order of the temple according to the ‘eternal edicts’ (‫)תעודות עולמים‬.”41 This proposal is creative, but it can only be supported to the extent that one is confident in the meaning of these terms as explicit cultic indicators.42 While we can identify certain phrases that allude to sectarian worship, the phrase ‫רזי‬ ‫ נפלאותיכה‬does not fit well with idea of proper temple worship. Bockmuehl interprets ‫ רזי נפלאותיכה‬as denoting cosmological dimensions, containing a description of the “contents of heaven.”43 In yet another interpretation (likely a misreading of the text), G.K. Beale suggests that “[t]he mystery 39  This translation follows HALOT in rendering ‫ נפלאות־‬as miraculous acts, (3:927). The focus on “acts/deeds” is paralleled in line 13 by ‫גבורותיכה‬. For other translations, see Abegg, wonderous mysteries; F. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, marvelous mysteries. 40  Duhaime notes that ‫ להרים‬is restored on the basis of 4QMa (4Q491) frgs 8–10 i 12 (Duhaime’s “4QM1”). 41  Furthermore, Thomas states: “The ‘mysteries’ of God’s wonders in this case pertain to a different realm in which the covenanters may participate in proper worship according to the correct reckoning of time.” Thomas argues for a cultic frame of reference and considers proper worship to be the background issue. He suggests that “it might be the case that the phrase ‘mysteries of Belial’ is an allusion to the improper application of cultic regulations of an oppositional priestly group, i.e., the Jerusalem temple, whereas the members of the (renewed) covenant participate in ‘mysteries’ that are a legitimate expression of the cosmically-ordained order of worship” (149). Cf. Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 180–81. 42  For example, how certain can we be that ”‫“עם מ[בו]א יומם ולילה ומוצאי ערב ובוקר‬ refers to “Tamid services” as Thomas suggests? He also proposes that the phrase “plan of your glory” (‫ )מחשבת כבודכה‬could refer to an imagined temple setting. He makes this observation in the context of supposing that ‫“ רז פלא‬may refer to the ‘wondrous’ aspects of a kind of mystical temple setting whose architecture accords with the structures of the created order.” While this may be true for Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (his corroborating example), and even to some extent the language of the Self-Glorificaton hymn (4Q491 frg. 11 i) it seems tenuous when applied to 1QM. Cf. Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 180–81. 43  Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, 55.

120

Meyer

of line 14 refers to God’s destruction of cosmic evil.”44 Beale’s suggestion is odd for two reasons: (1) the destruction of evil is not mentioned in this text and (2) the terms in line 14 are positive, in the context of praising God. Nothing “cosmic” is being destroyed. So what do the ‫ רזי נפלאותיכה‬denote? Are these mysteries really about the cosmos? The interpretation of 1QM 14:14 depends, in part, on how much weight is given to the presumable location of these mysteries compared to their function. Thomas and Gladd emphasise location, i.e., “in [your] heights.” This makes sense, at least syntactically, as the prepositional phrase is the complement of the verbless clause. If we focus on the function these mysteries, however, then the purpose infinitives are instructive: ‫ל[הרי]ם‬ ֗ (to [raise u]p) and ‫( ולהשפיל‬and to bring low). These infinitives refer to a type of eschatological reversal, a time when the righteous oppressed will be vindicated. This would be an act of God that, from the perspective of the author, is miraculous, furthermore, a mystery. Because these mysteries address the condition of the righteous remnant in the eschaton, and because the pronoun “your” refers to “God,” the meaning of ‫רזי‬ ‫ נפלאותיכה‬is much closer to the meaning of mysteries of God as found in 1QM 3:9; 16:11, 16. The “cosmological” notion of these mysteries is peripheral. Brown is close in understanding the ‫ רזי נפלאותיכה‬as a mystery of divine providence, depicting the protective care that the remnant will receive (e.g., God will “raise up those from the dust”). Yet, taking the ‫ רזי נפלאותיכה‬to denote “providence” eclipses one important aspect: the righteous will suffer before they are vindicated. In other words, “providence” does not account for the entire experience of the Sons of Light. In the second engagement of the final battle, we find the sixth occurrence of ‫רז‬. In 1QM 17:8–9, the priests encourage the Sons of Light, ‫  ישמח צדק ֯במרומים וכול בני אמתו יגילו בדעת עולמים ואתם בני‬. . . 17:8 ]] [[ ‫התחזקו במצרף אל עד יניף י֗ דו ו֯ מלא מצרפיו רזיו למעמדכם‬9 ‫בריתו‬

. . . Righteousness shall rejoice on high, and all the sons of his truth shall rejoice in eternal knowledge. But as for you, O sons of his covenant take courage in God’s crucible, until he shall wave his hand and complete his fiery trials: his mysteries concerning your existence. (vacat)

44  G.K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham: University Press, 1984), 30.

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll

121

In this final reference to mysteries, the author does not down play the severity of suffering. Instead, he defines its true nature. Suffering is God’s “crucible” or refining test, which is fully disclosed as a mystery concerning the predicament (‫ )מעמד‬of the Sons of Light.45 In 1QM 16:15 and 17:9 the root ‫( מצרף‬to test) is associated with both phrases, mysteries of God and his mysteries. While some have translated ‫ רזיו למעמדכם‬as a subordinate clause, it seems more plausible that his mysteries is in apposition to his fiery trials (‫)מצרפיו‬.46 If so, this text clearly states that the mysteries of God involve God ordained testing/suffering. The author provides a rationale for the experience of suffering. It is not unpredictable, incoherent, or even in the end detrimental. It is not in the hands of malevolent forces. It is no longer part of Belial’s arsenal, but rather part of the divine plan. Through this reorientation to suffering, the author offers hope and encouragement amidst fear and despair. In reflection on the uses of ‫ רז‬in 1QM, just what type of mysteries have we encountered? God appears in five out of six of the plural construct phrases “mysteries of . . . ” The one example that does not refer to God refers to Belial (i.e., 1QM 14:9 mysteries of his hatred [i.e., Belial’s]). It appears, then, that ‫רז‬ denotes at least two ideas in the War Scroll, ideas that seem to be mutually reinforcing. While the mysteries of his hatred and the mysteries of God both result in the suffering of the Sons of Light, the former is intended for their demise, while the latter is intended for their purification, refinement, and ultimate vindication. It is important to note, however, that the mysteries of God eclipse the mysteries of Belial in that suffering is ultimately from God, not Belial. Indeed, Belial’s mysteries have a time and place in God’s overarching plan.

45  Given the context, we might translate ‫ למעמדכם‬as for your vindication. 46  Duhaime translates 1QM 17:9 as “. . . until he waves his hand and fills up his crucibles (according to) his mysteries so that you may stand.” While this translation is sufficient, it is syntactically less precise. For earlier approaches to the translation of this line see J. Strugnell, “Notes on 1QS 1, 17–18; 8, 3–4 and 1QM 17, 8–9,” CBQ 29 (1967): 580–82, who suggests that instead of rzyw, this text reads rwyw or rwyy, thus “the letter read as z projects at the top to the left rather than to the right and should thus be rather a w . . .” He translates “and perform/brings to an end His trials which are designated/predestined to make you stand.” As far as I am aware no one has followed Strugnell in this reading, and when compared to the other forms of ‫ רזי־‬in 1QM, the zayin letters appear to be identical.  Yadin translates 1QM 17:9 as “. . . until He shall lift up His hand and shall complete His testings through His mysteries with regard to your existence” (emphasis original). Cf. Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B. and C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University, 1962), 340.

122 4

Meyer

Conclusion: The Mysteries of God in 1QM

In order to further contextualise the mysteries of God in the War Scroll, it would be important to see if other early Jewish texts convey the idea of God-ordained suffering as a mystery, especially as a necessary step in divine vindication. There is, in particular, thematic and conceptual affinity between the War Scroll and the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–108).47 For one, the War Scroll and the Epistle engage in deep reflection on divine theodicy. Note the use of ‫ רז‬in the Aramaic Birth of Noah pericope, 1 En. 106:19–107:1 (4QEnc[4Q204] 5 ii 25–29),48 ]‫יא]תה ֯ר ֗ש[ע] ֯תקיף [מן דן די ישתלם‬ ֯ ‫וב]א ֯ת[רהון‬ ֗ 25 . . .           ]‫ בי[ו]מי֯ [הון בד]י֯ ידע אנה ברז֯ י֯ [מריא די] קדישין אחויוני ואחזיוני [ודי בלוחת‬26 ]‫להוא [עד די יקומון‬ ֯ ‫בכדן ובאש‬ ֗ ‫[ד]ר מן דר יבאש‬ ֯ ‫קרית וחזית כתיב בהון די‬ ֯ ‫ שמי֯ א‬27 ]‫קוש ֗טא ובאישתה ורשעה יסוף וחמסא יכלא מן ארעא ֗וע[ד די טבן יאתן בארעא‬ ֯ ‫ דרי‬28 vacat ‫ עליהון‬29

106:19[And a]fte[r them (i.e., Noah’s days) shall] come stronger wicked[ness (than that which will be consummated) in [their] d[a]ys (i.e., of Noah and his sons), [ fo]r I know the myster[ies of the Lord which] the Holy Ones have told me and shown me, [and which in the tablets of ] heaven I have read. 107:1 And I saw written in them that [gen]eration after generation will do evil in thus, and evil would be (more and more) [until there arose] generations of righteousness, and evil and wickedness should come to an end, and violence should cease from the earth, and un[til good should come on the earth], upon them (men). Although this text is fragmentary, it is clear that the notion of mystery in the Birth of Noah is set within a larger framework of salvific revelation.49 This text 47  For further discussion of Qumran texts that may share traditions with Enochic material see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “4QInstruction And The Possible Influence Of Early Enochic Traditions: An Evaluation,” in Wisdom texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought: Studies in Wisdom at Qumran and Its Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; Leuven: University Press, 2002), 245–61. 48  This text edition follows J.T. Milik and M. Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 209–10. The translation follows Milik, with slight modifications in light of Stuckenbruck’s text critical notes. Cf. Loren Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL; Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2007), 679. 49  Regarding the fragmentary nature of this text, a close analysis of the manuscript and a comparison of the different text versions make a strong case for Milik’s reconstruction

The “ Mysteries of God ” in the Qumran War Scroll

123

f­ unctions to encourage the readership of 1 Enoch. As the diluvial era depicted in 1 Enoch prefigures the suffering and violence that will take place in the eschaton, Noah prefigures the salvation and vindication of the righteous remnant.50 Nickelsburg states that the author of 1 Enoch, “has created a conclusion that interprets the corpus as a revelation of eschatological import that is intended to console and exhort.”51 Thus the War Scroll and the Birth of Noah share several features pertaining to the use of mystery. They both reflect on the nature of suffering at the hands of the wicked, provide encouragement, promise vindication, and articulate theodicy as a mystery. While these individual features are not exclusive to the War Scroll or the Birth of Noah, they congeal around the notion of mystery in a unique way. Returning to the problematic issue of terminology, we may recall that Brown categorises both the secrets revealed by the Watchers and the mysteries of 1QM 3:8–9 as evil mysteries. Here, I agree with Bockmuehl and Thomas that of the Aramaic. The missing portion of text is about six to nine letters wide: ] [ ֯‫ברז֯ י‬ ‫קדישין‬. Alternatively, Black reconstructs this to read “the sec[rets of the heavens]” (‫)ברזיהון דשמיא‬. Cf. Matthew Black and J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Enoch, or I Enoch: A New English Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 323. Also note Micheal A. Knibb and Edward Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in The Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 248. The Ethiopic and Greek read, “. . . mysteries of the Holy Ones, for the Lord has shown (them) to me and has made (them) known to me.” Because there is a lacuna in the Aramaic, however, it is very unlikely that the Aramaic read “mysteries of the Holy Ones . . .” Stuckenbruck comments that “[d]uring the course of transmission, then, it is possible that the position of ‘the Lord’ and ‘holy ones’ was transposed and that, accordingly, the following verbs were rewritten in the singular.” Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 679, 681. He suggests that the Greek and Ethiopic attribute the revelation more directly to the “the Lord” and thus have “God—and not the ‘holy ones’—as the source of Enoch’s revelation.”  The important point is that the Epistle provides an additional context for understanding the idea of the mysteries of God, an idea that involves, but is not limited to, the use of the term ‫רז‬. In other words, we do not need to find the exact wording ‫ רזי אל‬or ‫רזי‬ ‫ מריא‬for the idea mysteries of God to be present. For very similar notions, of which the Aramaic is not preserved, see 1 En. 103:1–3, 104:10, and 12. Furthermore, the function of this passage to encourage the implied reader is explicit in the Epistle. See G. Nickelsburg, “The Apocalyptic Construction of Reality in 1 Enoch,” in Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium (ed. J.J. Collins and J.H. Charlesworth; JSOT 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 62. Nickelsburg refers to 1 En. 96:1–3; 97:1–2; 102:4–5; 104:2–6. Cf. also G. Nickelsburg, K. Baltzer, and J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A Commentary On the Book of 1 Enoch (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001), 539–52. 50  Note Stuckenbruck’s comments, 1 Enoch 91–108, 4, 12, 606–8. 51  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 552.

124

Meyer

illicit mysteries is a better description of the mysteries in the Watcher tradition. Furthermore, as the mysteries of the War Scroll touch the very core of theodicy they cannot be understood as mysteries of divine providence, as Brown has suggested. The author of the War Scroll uses ‫רז‬, and in particular ‫רזי אל‬, to denote a specific idea that involves both the suffering and ultimate vindication. Such mysteries do not simply involve God’s protective care (i.e., providence), but promote an understanding of the world in its momentary absence. Instead of succumbing to the belief that persecution is a mark of defeat, the author of the War Scroll attempts to articulate a dynamic view of God’s sovereignty, providing a nuanced orientation to the meaning of suffering, clearly expressed in 1QM 17:8–9. By affirming the painful reality of suffering as a test, the author encourages the Sons of Light to look beyond the debilitating consequences of suffering, trusting that distress, pain, and affliction are all part of the divine plan, albeit one steeped in mystery.

CHAPTER 7

“There and Back Again”: Reconstruction and Reconciliation of the War Text 4QMilḥamaa (4Q491a–c) Kipp Davis 1 Introduction The title-page of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien’s 1937 fantasy classic included the alternative title, There and Back Again, which rather effectively encapsulated the meaning behind his tale of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins. Upon the successful completion of an epic quest to slay the fearsome dragon Smaug, and to help restore the dwarf lord Thorin Oakenshield to his rightful place as the King under the Mountain, Bilbo realises that he has no means to return home with the total of earthly riches that he has acquired. Instead, he must be content with a more modest plunder and the fantastic experience of an adventure gained in the journey itself. The title with no shortage of irony could express the modern academic enterprise of biblical studies: we are scholars engaged in a lifetime of research that sees interpretative movement in texts and traditions, often treading “there and back again” ’ in the footsteps of our giant predecessors, all for the purpose to further scholarship, and for little more reward than the enrichment of the experience itself. It nicely describes my own encounter with the Dead Sea Scrolls; most recently retracing the steps of Marty Abegg, my mentor and friend, who over twenty-years ago refined our own collective understanding of the fascinating war text, 4QMilḥamaa (4Q491). As this paper will seek to show, his argument for the division of this scroll into three separate manuscripts made for a good “first leg” of what appears to be a longer journey, but one from which we return with better tools and improved technology to measure the accuracy of his instincts. My purpose here will be twofold: first, I will thoroughly re-evaluate the physical evidence for the situation of 4Q491 frgs 11 i + 12–11 ii using state-of-the-art tools and technology in order to determine the validity of Abegg’s three-document theory. Second, through the inspiration of contemporary models that prioritise the “materiality” of individual manuscripts and their features, I will proceed from the physical evidence to propose a tentative interpretation of the text in 4Q491 that makes some literary sense. The state of the relationship between © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_008

126

Davis

frgs 11 i + 12 and 11 ii carries with it significant implications for the nature and meaning not only of this important war text, but also potentially for the other copies of the War Scroll itself. 2

The Identification of the “Self-Glorification Hymn,” and the Separation of 4Q491 frgs. 11 I and 11 II

Maurice Baillet published 4Q491 along with the other five Cave 4 copies of the War Scroll (4Q492–4Q496) in DJD 7 in 1982.1 Seventy fragments were originally assigned to the manuscript, several of which he managed to join to form three large groups comprised of 12 fragments, and resulting in a new total of 37 fragments. The three groups now consisted of frgs. 1–3 (comprised of 11 pieces), frgs 8–10 i–ii (7 pieces) and frgs 11 i–ii, 12 (18 pieces). He numbered and placed these in order based on how they compared with the Cave 1 copy of the War Scroll, where there were (1) occasionally close parallels (such as in frgs 8–10), (2) overlapping but substantively different text ( frg. 11 ii), (3) instances of only limited relation ( frgs 1–3), and (4) in one place an anomalous text that appeared to have no counterpart in any of the other M witnesses (frgs 11 i, 12). This last fragment he titled “cantique de Michel et cantique des justes”2—the “Canticle of Michael” and the “Canticle of the Just.” He seemingly did so based on its relation to the following column, which preserved overlaps with 1QM cols 16–17, where the archangel Michael is mentioned twice in an account of angelic intervention in the war between the righteous and the wicked Kittim. Martin G. Abegg was among the first to take significant notice of the odd conflation of material within 4Q491 and dedicated a sizable portion of his Ph.D. dissertation to unravelling the mystery of this manuscript. He found Baillet’s arrangement especially troubling, since Baillet seemed to have ignored clear palaeographical differences. This resulted in what Abegg believed to be an erroneous attachment of frg. 11 i to frg. 11 ii. These issues prompted Abegg to posit three separate compositions in three different manuscripts from among those Baillet had published under the rubric 4Q491.3

1  Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4 III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982). 2  Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4 III, 26. 3  Martin G. Abegg, “The War Scroll from Qumran Caves 1 and 4” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1992), 1–11.

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

127

Based on Abegg’s work, the fragment groups are now often distinguished between mss 4Q491a, 4Q491b and 4Q491c.4 The first and the third contain portions of the original frg. 11, which will feature prominently in the following discussion.5 4Q491a consists of frgs 11 ii in part, and 4Q491c of 11 i + 12. Abegg’s divison was based on his observations of differing scripts, letter-height and line-separation between them, and that the larger pieces of frgs 11 i + 12 and 11 ii never appeared together on any of the plates.6 According to Abegg, “My first impression upon seeing the plates of 4Q491 suggested that, on overall appearance, the fragments should be divided into two groups: One group belonging to a manuscript that was copied elegantly, and another group belonging to a manuscript that was copied roughly.”7 Abegg’s separation of compositions received some added confirmation from Esther Eshel, who noted that 4Q491c contains an inordinate amount of “unique vocabulary” that does not appear to parallel any of the other copies of Milḥama.8

4  Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS6; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 25, shows Abegg’s division of fragments more precisely, based upon published summary in Martin G. Abegg Jr., “Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteousness,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. M.G. Abegg Jr. and P.W. Flint; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), 61–73. Abegg assigns catalogue numbers 4Q491, 4Q491a and 4Q491b to the 4Q491 group. I prefer Duhaime’s more detailed designation of sigla, 4QMa/a (4Q491a) = frgs 8–10, 11 ii, 13–15, 18, 22, 24–28, 31–33, 35; 4QMa/b (4Q491b) = frgs 1–3, 4, 5–6, 7, 16, 17, 19–21, 23; 4QMa/c (4Q491c) = frgs 11 i, 12; Duhaime, The War Texts, 25. Cf. also “Table 3: 4Q491 Fragments,” in Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 21. 5  The relationship between frgs 11 i and 11 ii have substantial implications for all of the fragments assigned to 4Q491 that go beyond the purpose of the present study, which is to assess the physical compatibility of the join between them, and some possible literary reflections drawn from it. For this reason, those fragments assigned to ms 4Q491b as well as the remaining fragments from ms 4Q491a will not feature into my presentation below, but will be treated in future studies. 6  Abegg, “Who Ascended to Heaven?” All references drawn from the electronic edition in Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (DSS Studies). Version 1.5. 1997, 1999, 2000, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2005. 7  Abegg, “Who Ascended to Heaven?” The differences in appearance between the two scribal hands seem to have been explained by the original editor, Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, as a product of shrinkage among some of the fragmnents; cf. Hunzinger, “Fragmente einer älteren Fassung des Buches Milhamā,” ZAW 69 (1957): 132. 8  Esther Eshel, “4Q471B: A Self-Glorification Hymn,” RevQ 17 (1996): 176; cf. also Eshel’s discussion of the distinctiveness of 4Q491c compared to other copies of the so-called “SelfGlorification Hymn” in 1QHa col. 26, 4QHa (4Q427) 7 i, and 4Q471b on pp. 189–91.

128

Davis

Abegg’s inventory of three texts that he managed to produce by sifting through and re-arranging the fragments according to shared features in script and style has been almost universally adopted within the wider scholarly community.9 His fine deductive work notwithstanding, he performed his analysis based on photographs of all the individual pieces of 4Q491 still mostly separated from one another. His rejection of Baillet’s join proposed between frg. 11 i–ii is understandable, since it appears largely based on the marginal published plate in DJD 7,10 which fails to show a variety of important physical features that likely had convinced Baillet of the join in the first place. While Abegg’s evaluation of script and compositional features remains convincing on literary grounds, its validity stands or falls on the results of thorough material analysis. The remainder of this paper is dedicated to just such an undertaking, in which I will consider the plausibility of Baillet’s join between 4Q491 frg. 11 i–ii, and its implications for the interpretation of this fascinating war text. 3

Physical Evidence for Re-Joining 4Q491A and 4Q491C

Baillet commented with regards to the join between the columns in frgs 11 i and 11 ii that it “est seulement probable.”11 Baillet credits the original proposal for the join to Claus-Hunno Hunzinger,12 whose first published notes on the text indicated that the pieces of frg. 11 i–ii belonged together.13 Baillet’s reconstruction of the fragments is presented on Plate VI in DJD 7, but compared to the PAM photographs, the image is very poor, and in several instances only 9  Florentino García Martínez, “Old Texts and Modern Mirages: The ‘I’ of Two Qumran Hymns,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (ed. Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105–25, has accepted Abegg’s separation between MSS A and B, but believes that the extremely small differences between script features in MSS B and C do not warrant their division. Cf. more recently Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2010), 110 [Hebrew]. 10  Abegg, “The War Scroll from Qumran Caves 1 and 4,” 1, says of Baillet’s publication that “[t]he poor quality of his plates (V–VI) and lack of consistent reference in the text serve to render an accurate study of the individual fragments impossible.” 11  Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4 III, 27. 12  In Baillet’s preliminary report, he does not comment further on the join proposed by Hunzinger between frgs. 11 i–ii; idem, “Le travail d’édition de fragments manuscrits de Qumrân,” RB 63 (1956): 47–67. 13  Hunzinger, “Fragmente einer älteren Fassung,” 132; cf. also the general summary by Baillet, “Les Manuscrits de la Règle de la Guerre de la Grotte 4 de Qumran,” RB 79 (1972): 217–26, esp. 226.

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

129

presents partial pieces of the fragments that appear much better preserved in the PAM images themselves.14 The marginal quality of Plate VI requires careful review, in order to evaluate Abegg’s theory of separation for frgs 11 i and ii. We proceed by re-constructing Baillet’s arrangement of the individual pieces of the fragments using the best available digitised images and sophisticated photo-editing tools. By working within a digital environment, one is able to take exacting measurements of the fragments with unparalleled precision to factors in hundredths of millimetres. It is now also possible to “map” physical features and damage patterns in levels of unprecedented detail. The first step in this process is to survey the PAM photographs in order to locate those in which the pieces of frgs 11 i and 11 ii are pictured most intact. For my own reconstruction, I have assembled these pieces from various plates, and relabelled them according to their placement in Baillet’s arrangement from right-to-left and top-to-bottom.15 TABLE 7.1

Images of 4Q491 frgs. 11 i–ii, 12, renumbered and aligned to Abegg’s fragment numbers

Frg. 11α i

Abegg MS C frg. 3

11β i 11γ i 11δ i

MS C frg. 1 MS C frg. 2 MS C frg. 4

PAM 42.474 (IAA image B-283964, photographed Jan 1955)16 PAM 41.847 (B-280289, Jan 1955) PAM 41.847 (B-280289, Jan 1955) PAM 41.846 (B-280288, Jan 1955)

14  Cf. for example those pieces that I have designated 11ζ–η ii, and the largest piece at the bottom of frg. 11 ii that I have labelled frg. 11δ ii on PAMs 41.847 and 42.473. It must be noted that the 2001 printing of DJD 7 has corrected the problem in Baillet’s plates, and has published a reconstruction of 4Q491 frgs 11 i–ii + 12 that closely resembles my own. 15  Abegg renumbered the individual pieces that comprise 4Q491 frgs. 11 i–ii + 12 in “The War Scroll from Caves 1 and 4,” 12–62. Cf. Jean Duhaime, “War Scroll (1QM; 1Q33; 4Q491–496 = 4QM1–6; 4Q497),” The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Volume 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 153; idem, The War Texts, 6–7; see also the discussion in Schultz, Conquering the World, 17–20. 16  All images were produced from plates appearing at the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Library (http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/4Q491-1), accessed 17–21 May 2013. On 4 February 2014, the IAA released 10,000 new photographs to the public, which included all the fragments of 4Q491 and with the individual pieces of frg. 11 i–ii in precisely the same arrangement. These new images follow Baillet, and also virtually confirm the placement of the pieces in my own reconstruction. Cf. B-370892 (http://www .deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-370892, consulted 5 February 2013).

130 TABLE 7.1

11ε i 11ζ i 11η i 11θ i 11κ i *Frg. 11α ii 11β ii 11γ ii 11δ ii 11ε ii 11ζ ii 11η ii 11θ ii Frg. 12

Davis Images of 4Q491 frgs. 11 i–ii, 12, (cont.)

MS C frg. 7 MS C frg. 8 MS C frg. 5 MS C frg. 8 MS C frg. 6 MS A frg. 17 MS A frg. 14 MS A frg. 16 MS A frg. 18 MS A frg. 12 MS A frg. 15 MS A frg. 19 MS A frg. 13 MS C frg. 9

PAM 41.846 (B-280288, Jan 1955) PAM 41.846 (B-280288, Jan 1955) PAM 42.474 (B-283964, Jan 1955) PAM 41.846 (B-280288, Jan 1955) PAM 41.846 (B-280288, Jan 1955) PAM 41.847 (B-280289, Jan 1955) PAM 42.473 (B-283962, Oct 1957) PAM 41.847 (B-280289, Jan 1955) PAM 42.473 (B-283962, Oct 1957) PAM 42.473 (B-283962, Oct 1957) PAM 42.473 (B-283962, Oct 1957) PAM 42.473 (B-283962, Oct 1957) PAM 42.473 (B-283962, Oct 1957) PAM 41.846 (B-280288, Jan 1955)

If Baillet’s arrangement is correct, then we should be able to locate overlaps in patterns of damage between the fragments that indicates their placement one-atop-the-other in “layers.” In his seminal study on the reconstruction of scrolls from fragments, Hartmut Stegemann observed that beyond correspondences in the appearance, colour and quality of the writing surface, and matching scribal hands, fragments from the same manuscript will tend to bear resemblances in damage patterns that produce similar shapes and sizes. The closer in relationship these shapes are to one another, the closer together these pieces were to be located in the scroll. Thus, these corresponding pieces represent “layers” according to how the scroll survived in its rolled state.17 From my own reconstruction of Baillet’s assemblage of the fragments in Figure 7.2, I was able to detect some similarities in shape and sizes of various larger * The piece that I have designated “Frg. 11α ii” contains some text from col. 2 and the intercolumnar margin between frgs. 11 i and 11 ii. It forms the join between the two that Baillet said was only probable. 17   Hartmut Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments,” 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; JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; Hapog Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies at New York University; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 189–220.

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

FIGURE 7.1 Qumrân Grotte 4 III, Planche VI, 4Q491 frg. 11 i–ii + 12

FIGURE 7.2. 4Q491 frg. 11 i–ii + 12 arranged to scale; Based on Qumrân Grotte 4 III, Planche VI

131

132

Davis

pieces, namely, frgs 11α, δ i and 11β–δ, ζ ii (cf. Figure 7.3. below). By assuming these pieces as parts of corresponding layers, the remaining fragments are then assigned to one or the other on the basis of similar overlaps in shape and size, and by calculating the dimensions of the collective groups. The results of this preliminary analysis suggests two groups: “layer 1” consists of frgs 11α—θ i + 12, and “layer 2” contains frgs 11κ i + 11α—η ii.18 According to Stegemann’s method, if both groups represent layers within the same scroll, then we should expect layer 1 to have laid underneath layer 2 in the original roll.19 Scrolls were commonly rolled from the end of the composition on the left-side to the beginning on the right, leaving the beginning of the scroll on the outside, and the end on the innermost side. In Baillet’s arrangement, since layer 1 directly precedes layer 2, it would have appeared exterior to layer 2. Stegemann observes about the preservation of scrolls that were handled according to this standard practice for deposit: the outside portions of manuscripts will often suffer greater deterioration than those layers closer to the centre of the roll: [L]arge scrolls survived, damaged more or less only at their edges or at their outer and innermost surfaces (or both). What lay in between was protected by the sheer bulk of these scrolls, a factor that sometimes even prevented damage to the innermost layers—the ‘walls’ of the hollow shaft—as well.20 If the join between frgs 11κ i and 11α ii that Baillet and Hunzinger proposed is correct, then we should expect that in addition to their correspondence in shape, layer 1 as the exterior layer should exhibit more extensive damage than layer 2 which survived on its interior. The resulting horizontal measure across the widest point—from the vertical breaks at either end of frgs 11η i and 11α i between lines 6–7—is approximately 8.9 cm for layer 1, and 8.85 cm for layer 2. The height of the largest piece in layer 1, frg. 11δ i, is about 6.6 cm, and for layer 18  We would naturally expect the break between the layers to appear at the widest point of separation between the fragments, but this is not necessarily the case here. Instead of appearing between frgs 11α ii and 11κ i, the break between the layers actually occurs on the right-side of frg. 11κ i, and this piece is otherwise included as part of layer 2, rather than layer 1. 19  Stegemann, “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls,” 194–95; idem, “How to Connect Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments,” in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review (ed. Hershel Shanks; New York: Random House, 1992), 245–55. 20  Stegemann, “Methods for Reconstruction,” 193.

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

133

2, 7.6 cm high on the vertical axis from the top of frg. 11β ii to the bottom of frg. 11δ ii. When the two groups are measured along another horizontal axis at the bottom, we discover a complementary parallel between vertical breaks appearing at frg. 11α i 12–13 and frg. 11θ i for layer 1, and similar breaks in frgs 11α ii–11η ii for layer 2. At this point, layer 1 measures approximately 7.9 cm, and layer 2 is 8.0 cm. What is especially convincing for these close correspondences is that for each layer, the situation of the right-vertical breaks along the lower axis appear 12.3 and 12.8 mm to the left of the breaks on the higher axis; a miniscule variance of only 0.5 mm. This rather forcefully suggests nearly identical patterns of deterioration. When the join is made between the two groups at the bottom-edge of frg. 11κ i in the margin and the top edge of frg. 11α ii, following Hunzinger and Baillet, a clearly visible pattern of damage that runs the entire width of both adjoined groups is revealed. Beginning right-to-left, a horizontal break that appears between frgs 11α—β + γ i continues in the form of a crack across the centre of frg. 11δ i, then into a break between frgs 11η—θ i and another horizontal crack on frg. 11κ i; all on a descending angle of –18˚ degrees. This break continues on precisely the same angle through layer 2, at the top-edge of frg. 11α ii and the matching crack in frg. 11δ ii. Furthermore, there is another diagonal break on precisely the same angle on layer 2, separating frgs 11β, ζ ii from frgs 11γ–δ ii below them. This second crease is significant because it appears on the same horizontal plane as the diagonal break in layer 1, and matches precisely with this break when the layers are overlapped (cf. Figure 7.5 below). This corresponding damage pattern produces a high probability that the join proposed by Hunzinger and Baillet between the two groups of fragments is correct. In addition to this primary example, there are several other pointsof-contact in the various damage patterns observed between the two groups. These appear most prominently in two overlapping vertical sections from right-to-left, and illustrated in the enclosed Figures 7.3. and 7.4. Figure 7.3. Frg. 11γ–δ i and Frg. 11β—δ, ζ ii: These largest fragments from both groups provide the most extensive and convincing evidence for the proposed join between frgs 11 i and 11 ii. They are aligned to overlap at the intersection between horizontal and vertical breaks at the left-side of frg. 11δ i 4 in layer 1 and frg. 11β, ζ ii 10–11 in layer 2. One will notice at the outset a precise angular correspondence of the breaks at this point, and a continuation of the angular break in layer 1 on the same angle through layer 2 in the break between frgs 11γ–δ ii and 11ζ ii across lines 13–15. One will also see a nearly identical placement of the bottom-edge of frg. 11δ i and frg. 11δ ii. There are also several points-of-contact in the surface-damage. In layer 1, on the left-edge of frg. 11δ i between lines 2–4, just above the aforementioned intersecting breaks, there is

134

Davis

FIGURE 7.3 4Q491a, c frgs 11 i–ii Layers 1 & 2 in vertical alignment II = 11γ–δ i: 11β—δ, ζ ii

FIGURE 7.4 4Q491a, c frgs 11 i–ii Layers 1 & 2 in vertical alignment III = 11ε–ζ, θ i: 11η ii

an abrasion on the leather approximately 1.7 mm wide. This abrasion precisely matches the width of a “bite” in layer 2 at the left edge of frg. 11β ii 7–9. The break between frg. 11γ i and frg. 11δ i in layer 1 matches very closely the vertical crack in the leather that appears on frg. 11β ii in layer 2. In frg. 11δ i 5–8 in layer 1, both the left-edge and the vertical crack to the immediate right correspond to the right- and left-edges of frg. 11ζ ii 12–14 in layer 2. The right-edge of the bite at frg. 11δ i 8–10 in layer 1 closely corresponds to the break at the right-edge of the join between frg. 11γ–δ ii in layer 2. In layer 1, the intersecting horizontal and vertical cracks at the middle of frg. 11δ i 9 nearly overlap with similar cracking that appears in frg. 11γ–δ ii 16–17 in layer 2. Moreover, the intersection between

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

135

frgs. 11γ–δ, ζ ii in layer 2 at l. 14 matches the cross-shaped intersection of cracks in frg. 11δ i 6–7. Figure 7.4 and Frg. 11η ii: This second grouping of fragments is small, but important in that the pattern established by the alignment of the above group is confirmed even at these finer points-of-contact. One will notice at the outset the very similar shape between the combination of frgs 11ε, ζ, θ i in layer 1 and frg. 11η ii in layer 2. Especially prominent is the elongation of each fragment towards the left-edge, but perhaps most significant is the precise overlap in the placement of the larger break that appears at the top of frg. 11ε i and frg. 11ζ i in layer 1 and at the top-left edge of frg. 11η ii in layer 2. It is of further interest to note that the extent of damage decreases from layer 1 to layer 2 at this point. Locating frg. 12: Fragment 12 was included by Abegg as part of his third manuscript, 4Q491c, along with frg. 11 i on the basis of the palaeographical similarity, and also because of a uniform line height in these two fragments of 4.3 mm.21 Baillet suggested that it belonged to the same column as frg. 11 i, but that its precise location was uncertain, choosing only to situate it more generally at the top-left of the column in Plate vi.22 The scant literary remains of this fragment complicates its placement, having preserved only portions of four-or-five reconstructed words, and two complete words in six lines. With the accumulation of physical evidence derived from the overlaps between the fragment layers, it may be possible to assign a probable placement for frg. 12. We can affirm its location minimally in the same column with frg. 11 i based on its palaeography and line spacing, and its 15 mm width should help to locate it among the vertically aligned sections described above. The small grouping formed by 11ε, ζ, θ i significantly measures 16 mm—only a single millimetre greater than frg. 12, and this suggests the possibility that frg. 12 belongs in fairly close vertical alignment with this group. Furthermore, the size and shape of frg. 12 is reminiscent of frg. 11ε ii from the other group, which may also suggest a possible horizontal alignment of these small pieces. This would in turn see a placement for frg. 12 most likely between lines 1–6 of the same column with frg. 11 i. Unfortunately, in the absence of virtually any additional literary clues in frg. 12, it is not possible to be sure about its placement beyond these tentative observations: frg. 12 most likely belongs to the same column with frg. 11 i, and most likely in alignment vertically with the group formed by frg. 11ε, ζ, θ i, and horizontally with frg. 11ε ii from the ­second layer. 21  Abegg, “Who Ascended to Heaven?” 22  Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4 III, 30. Cf. also Duhaime, The War Texts, 35–36.

136

Davis

Despite our inability to locate frg. 12 with confidence, its uncertain placement in no way detracts from the above alignment of the two layers in frg. 11 i– ii. To emphasise the point, I have reproduced an image in Figure 7.5 that shows how precisely the overlaps between the two layers appear when they are situated one-atop-the-other as they were upon deposit after the last time this scroll was used. Moreover, using Stegemann’s method for calculating the dimensions of scrolls, the several corresponding points of damage illustrated here may be used to estimate the general location of these fragments within the scroll, and to conjecture with regards to the overall document length. According to Eibert Tigchelaar, the distance between damage patterns suggests the placement of fragments on the inside, middle or end of a scroll: “If a damage pattern repeats after 4 cm, the fragment will be from the inside of the scroll, while a repetition of the damage pattern after 10 cm indicates that the fragment stemmed from the middle of a large scroll, or the outside of a smaller one.”23 The distance between the corresponding breaks on the right edges of frgs 11α i and 11κ i, the left edges of 11δ i and 11β, ζ ii, and the bottom-left edges of 11δ i and 11δ ii is between 9–9.1 cm. This would situate these fragments close to either the middle of a large scroll, or to the beginning of a smaller one. However, because the transition between frgs 11 i–ii appears to preserve a change from one text to another, and from a first scribe to a second, it seems more likely that this fragment appeared closer to the centre of the roll. The accumulation of the physical evidence rather soundly affirms the join proposed by Hunzinger and Baillet between frgs. 11 i–ii, and as a result dramatically shifts our understanding of this manuscript: one scroll consisting of two, distinct literary compositions—a recension of the so-called “Self-Glorification Hymn” in frg. 11 i,24 and a version of Milḥama in frg. 11 ii—and both penned by 23   Eibert Tigchelaar, “Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a Study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman),” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches (ed. Maxine Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 40. 24  Eshel, “4Q471B,” 201, argued that 4Q491c contains a later recension of the Self-Glorification Hymn that appears in the Hodayot and in 4Q471b that she has designated “Recension B.” In her assessment of several distinct phrases belonging to one or the other text, and by noting the absence of some of the especially glorified language from 4Q491c that appears in the Hodayot version, she has argued that Recension B “seems to have undergone editing,” that included the addition of two important themes: “the difference between the speaker and ordinary human beings and the establishment of the horn of the Messiah” (cf. Eshel’s problematic reconstruction ‫מש[יחו‬ ֯ ‫ להקים קרן‬in 4Q491 11 i 15, p. 184); also Devorah Dimant, “A Synoptic Comparison of Parallel Sections in 4Q427 7, 4Q491 11 and 4Q471B,” JQR 85 (1994): 157–61. Contra Eshel, Michael O. Wise, “‫מי כמוני באלים‬: A Study of

137

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

Layer 1: bottom Layer 2: top

FIGURE 7.5 4Q491a, c frgs 11 i–ii in layers

different scribes. The challenge now because of this join is to provide an explanation for what this scroll is and why it was written. 4

Exhortation, Liturgy and the War against the Kittim

Annette Steudel has suggested that the performance of rigorous material analyses and physical reconstruction of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments will often bring about a renewed “grasp of the structure and meaning of texts in

4Q491c, 4Q471b, 4Q427 7 and 1QHa 25:25–26:10,” DSD 7 (2000): 213–15, argued that 4Q491 frg. 11 i represented the older version, and that the Hodayot recension expanded the two older psalms, and conflated them into a single hymn in large part by way of repetition. Hunzinger, “Fragmente einer älteren Fassung,” had already argued in 1957 that 4Q491 represented an older version of Milḥama.

138

Davis

unexpected ways.”25 The re-joining of 4Q491 frg. 11 i–ii in the previous section has perhaps produced something unexpected that should also provide for an renewed grasp of the structure and meaning of this text. While Abegg’s study of 4Q491 was well informed by some of the material differences between the fragments, he also concedes that these differences are most pronounced in terms of their literary relationship to one another and to 1QM.26 Abegg summarises this distinction between the 4Q491 fragments as follows: Manuscript I of 4Q491 (including frg. 11 ii) contains material that is paralleled in 1QM as well as an expanded description of the final skirmishes in the war against the Kitians recounted in 1QM 15–18. In contrast, manuscript ii of 4Q491 shares no common text with 1QM, but instead echoes material that is scattered throughout 1QM. Manuscript iii of 4Q491 ( frgs. 11 i + 12), the misnamed “Song of Michael,” shows no contextual connection at all with 1QM. It is best understood as an independent hymnic work containing the bold declarations of one who claims to sit in the council of heavenly beings . . . this composition has a clear generic relationship to the Thanksgiving Hymns.27 Likewise for Brian Schultz, his own extensive literary and structural analysis of the War Scroll texts that included 4Q491 confirmed Abegg’s arrangement, but only on the plane of compositional coherence.28 If Baillet’s reconstruction of 4Q491 keeping frgs 11 i–ii together is accurate, then this would mean that the “independent hymnic work” containing lofty, practically deific, self-reflection would appear in a column subsequently followed by “an expanded description of the final skirmishes in the war against the Kitians.” How are we to make sense of this new relationship? Recent discussions about the presuppositions employed to manuscript reconstructions—stemming particularly from medieval manuscript studies— may offer a fresh outlook for our interpretative efforts through the incorporation of various innovations in editorial theory. Some of these are commonly referred to as “new philology,” or more descriptively as “material philology,” but some Dead Sea Scrolls scholars have also been exploring the use of new ­models 25  Annette Steudel, “Basic Research, Methods and Approaches in the Qumran Scrolls in German-Speaking Countries,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective (ed. Devorah Dimant; STDJ 99; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 590–91. 26  Abegg, “Who Ascended to Heaven?” 27  Abegg, “Who Ascended to Heaven?” 28  Schultz, Conquering the World, 374–78.

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

139

for analysing manuscripts that employ metaphors and insights drawn from the digital age.29 These new approaches have all begun to argue persuasively for a re-evaluation of texts with a greater sensitivity to scribal cultures which appear to have prioritised “instability” or “variance.”30 On a macro-level, this means looking beyond the function of “manuscripts” as witnesses to “texts,” and taking greater care to assess them in their own right as compositions or “works.”31 Each one is to be treated as a physical object that reflects its own

29  Cf. Eva Mroczek, “Thinking Digitally About the Dead Sea Scrolls: Book History Before and Beyond the Book,” Book History, 14 (2011): 241–69; Francis Borchardt, “Daniel’s Court Tales as Source Code: What Daniel Can Teach Us about Biblical Development,” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 17 Nov., 2012). These two studies are summarised in an excellent presentation about the application of new editorial theories and methods in Jutta Jokiranta and Hanna Vanonen, “Multiple Copies of Rule Texts or Multiple Rule Texts? Boundaries of S and M Documents,” in Crossing Imaginary Boundaries: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Context of Second Temple Judaism (ed. Mika Pajunen and Hanna Tervanotko; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2015), esp. 13–16. My thanks to Prof. Jokiranta and Ms. Vanonen for providing me with an adance copy of their essay. 30  For a general discussion of the application of this idea applied to Second Temple Judaism generally, and more specifically to the writers and collectors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, cf. Kipp Davis, “The Social Milieu of 4QJera (4Q70) in A Second Temple Jewish Manuscript Culture: Fragments, Manuscripts, Variance, and Meaning,” in Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Munich (ed. Samuel I. Thomas et al.; STDJ. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). I have proposed employing Martin S. Jaffee’s definition of “Second Temple Jewish manuscript culture” as an effective description for analysing the purpose, function and meaning of individual scrolls in Second Temple Judaism. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE–400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 28 argues for interpreting manuscripts and texts within a complex convergence between “[t]he malleability of the physical copy of the book as it passed through a series of scribal copyists, the performative conventions that rendered the aurally received book available and interpretive traditions that lodged in multiple memories and enabled common understandings of the written text’s meaning.” 31  My use of these terms reflects Liv Ingeborg Lied’s definitions for each more or less: a “text” is “ ‘a series of words in a particular order,’ and more precisely [defined] as ‘the words on the page.’ ‘Manuscript’ I understand as ‘the text-bearing object.’ This textual artefact is seen as a culturally produced material artefact, as the object that contains the text-onpage. A ‘work’ is a conceived compositional unit. It is a textual entity that is conceived of as a more or less consistent and coherent entity, having a more or less established identity, and which is circulating as an identifiable unit.” Lied, “Response to Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Non-Canonical Scriptures” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, 25 November, 2013).

140

Davis

very p ­ articular purposes, places, and circumstances of production.32 In other words, an evaluation of texts that prioritises the actual manuscript—the physical object of delivery—as an essential component of its meaning. Liv Ingeborg Lied has been exploring the application of material philology in biblical studies in her own work with the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. In a recent paper, she has put the matter succinctly as follows: [U]nlike scholars of Early Christian and Early Jewish studies, who discuss what can in fact be said about the ancient texts and contexts based on the material we actually have, the aim of the medievalists have rather been to upgrade and value the material we actually have in the ways we actually have it! To put it bluntly: this is a celebration of “the copy,” and not of “the original.”33 The point that is particularly apt for our purposes here is that the material matters in such a way that it will also have substantial implications for our understanding of the text it contains. In the case of 4Q491, this insight helps us in part to avoid being overrun by our own literary expectations by making a more concerted attempt to assess the physical object ahead of its contents. To put it into terms that reflect what Lied is emphasising, it encourages the celebration of this copy, and invites a fresh consideration of its contents that flows from the physical evidence.34 In what follows, I will argue that the physical evidence for this manuscript that was presented above suggests treating 4Q491 as an intriguing conflation of liturgies and eschatological descriptions of war that

32  M.J. Driscoll, “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New,” in Creating the Medieval Saga: Version, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature (ed. Judy Quinn and Emily Lethbridge; Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2010), 88–89. Cf. Bernard Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology (trans. Betsy Wing from Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie; Parallax; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989) esp. 33–45. 33  Liv Ingeborg Lied, “Media Culture, New Philology, and the Pseudepigrapha: A Note on Method” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 19 Nov, 2012); available at academia.edu (https://www.academia.edu/4131828/Lied._Media_Culture_New_ Philology_and_the_Pseudepigrapha._SBL_2012), 3. Cf. also idem, “Nachleben and Textual Identity: Variants and Variance in the Reception History of 2 Baruch,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall (ed. Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini; JSJSup 164; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 403–28. 34  Cf. also Kipp Davis, “The Social Milieu of 4QJera (4Q70),” in which I argue this point in greater depth for another Qumran manuscript, 4QJera (4Q70).

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

141

appear in common under a thematic rubric of angelic and anthropological cooperation. The place to begin is probably to assess the hymn in 4Q491 frg. 11 i in company with overlapping examples of the other recension of this text discovered in three manuscripts of the Hodayot, 4Q427, 4Q431, and 1QHa col. 26. The Hodayot version is an expanded conflation of the two hymns in 4Q491 supplying valuable information for filling the lacunae in the earlier recension. Wise, in his thorough study of all the witnesses to the Self-Glorification Hymn, concluded that this first edition actually contained as many as three separate hymns, based on his supposition that frg. 12 most likely did not belong to either one of Baillet’s “cantique de Michel” or the “cantique des justes.”35 The first promotes the speaker’s elevated distinction as a member of the heavenly council and in the company of angels, but it also reflects on his own poor treatment. The second is more difficult to interpret, owing to its spotty preservation of four lines. However, based on overlaps with 4Q427 7 i 13–18 (1QHa 26:9–14), it appears to form part of a song of jubilant praise set in the mouth of the righteous ones (‫;צדיקים‬‎4Q491 11 i 20). Most commentators have spent less time focusing on the content of the individual hymns, and more on the status and identity of the speaker in the first.36 Wise effectively argued that the voice in the first hymn belonged to the leader of the chorus, which was taken up by the call to praise in the second, and directed to the “righteous ones” in the congregation.37 In the first, the speaker quite likely addresses a group that included the righteous ones in company with the divine council in frg. 11 i 9–10. Baillet reconstructed l. 9 to read ‫]צ ֯ד[יקי]ם ויגילו קדושים‬ ֯ ‫בכו]ח גבורתו ירננ֗ [ו‬ ֯ ,38 “[in the pow]er of His might let 35  Wise, “A Study of 4Q491c, 4Q471b, 4Q427 7,” 215. Frg. 12 is possibly included as part of the first hymn, but seems more likely to represent a prior third hymn, based on the deterioration patterns observed in the previous section. 36  Baillet’s designation of this hymn belonging to the Archangel Michael has been universally challenged, and the scholarly consensus is that the speaker is mortal, engaged in a sort of ecstatic ritual similar to Paul’s ascent to the “seventh heaven” (as per Smith) or symbolically as representative of the group in a communal liturgical performance (as per Schuller, Abegg, Wise and John J. Collins, The Sceptre and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature [2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010], 155–63). Cf. Morton Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and the Deification in 4QMa,” in Schiffman, ed., Archaeology and History, 189–220. 37  Wise, “A Study of 4Q491c, 4Q471b, 4Q427 7,” 216–18. 38  Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4 III, 26; Cf. also Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Vol. 1, 103, who designatess 4Q491 frg. 11 i as a copy of the Hodayot; cf. also an alternative reading in Wise, “A Study of 4Q491c, 4Q471b, 4Q427 7,” 182, ‫]א[ל]ו֯ [הי]ם‬ ֯ ‫ירננ֗ [ו‬.

142

Davis

the a[ng]e[l]s rejoice and the holy ones shout in exaltation.”39 But the whole line is better restored with ‫מ[ל]א[כי]ם‬ ֯ in place of ‫ ֯צ ֯ד[יקי]ם‬from the traces, “By the power of his might the angels shout for joy . . .” This invocation is then followed in line 11 by the reference ‫דת עולמים‬ ֯ ‫לע‬ ̇ ‫ועצת אביונים‬, “the company of the oppressed shall become an eternal congregation.” This second clause that very reasonably stands in apposition to the former group of angels pictured together with the “righteous ones.” The remaining lines constitute the body of the leader’s self-confession, delivered on behalf of the chorus: those belonging to the “council of the poor” in the “eternal congregation,” the “righteous ones” in the company of the “angels,” and the “holy ones”: I am reckoned with the angels, my residence is in the holy council . . . who is esteemed contemptible like me? Who compares to me in my glory? . . . Who[ has suffered ]afflictions like me? Who[ for want ]of wickedness compares to me? I have never received instruction, and no teaching compares [to my teaching . . .]who would dare assault me when [I ]op[en my mouth? ]Utterances from my lips, who can contain them? Who would challenge me and compare to my judgement? [. . . S]o then I have been reckoned with the divine council . . . The gravitation between claims of suffering and confessions of exaltation brings to mind the song of the suffering servant from Isa 53.40 The emphasis appears to be on the elevated status of the speaker for the community who perseveres in the face of earthly struggles. Its theme is one of anticipated victory that will be realised for the group—the righteous ones, who stand among the angels. This is carried through in a more deliberate communal declaration in the second hymn: “Sing,] righteous ones, among the angels [on high, those who dwell] in the holy habitation. . . . [ Pr]oclaim with expressions of gladness, [burst forth in] eternal joy without cea[sing . . .]”41 How might the pairing of these two hymns fit within the context of the description of war that intriguingly follows in a different hand? The ­subsequent column preserved in frg. 11 ii contains parallels with 1QM 16:3–14 and 17:14–20, 39  Translation by Martin G. Abegg, in Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (2d ed.; New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 169. 40  Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 152–53. 41  The reconstruction is based in part on Wise, “A Study of 4Q491c, 4Q471b, 4Q427 7,” 182–83. Where I have suggested ‫ באלוהי [רום יושבים ]במעון הקודש‬for the first clause in line 20, Wise reads ‫באלוהי [ישועה הללו ]במעון הקודש‬, and translates “sing out,] you righteous among the angels [of deliverance. Give praise] in the holy habitation.”

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

143

which forms part of what is generally described by scholars as the “War of the Kittim” (1QM 14–19+).42 1QM 16:3 begins a new sub-section, which contains overlaps with 4Q491 11 ii 2–12, but with some intriguing differences.43 The first part describes the engagement, which is directed by the priests. The battle begins well and the combatants quell their enemies for a time until “[Belial] girds himself to assist the sons of darkness, and the slain of the infantry will begin to fall in accordance with the mysteries of God” (‫ברזי אל‬,‎1QM 16:11). A reserve force is summoned (lines 12–13), and the company temporarily withdraws to hear words of inspiration delivered by the high priest: “Blessed be God! For he tests the heart of his people in the crucible . . . since from times past you have paid heed to the mysteries of God (‫)כיא מאז שמעתם ברזי אל‬.44 You have surely remained steadfast; standing in the breach.” Unfortunately, the remainder of this column is missing from 1QM, and the five lines that follow in 4Q491 11 ii 14–18 are also poorly preserved. The priest’s speech continues in 1QM 17:1–9, speaking of hardships endured by priests from ages past, and then concludes in a stirring call to arms: Today is his appointed time to subdue and to humiliate the prince of the realm of wickedness. He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael (‫)בגבורת מלאך האדיר למשרת מיכאל‬. By eternal light he shall joyfully light up the covenant of Israel; peace and blessing for the lot of God, to exalt the authority of Michael among the gods (‫ )להרים באלים משרת מיכאל‬and the dominion of Israel among all flesh. Righteousness shall rejoice on high (‫)ישמח צדק במרומים‬, and all the children of his truth shall rejoice in eternal knowledge. But as for you, O children of his covenant, take ­courage in God’s crucible, until he shall wave his hand and complete his

42  For a general, brief description of the “War of the Kittim” and the sequence of 1QM cf. Duhaime, The War Texts, 18–20; cf. Schultz, Conquering the World, 241–44. It is universally recognised that col. 19 could not have been the final column in 1QM, and thus the War of the Kittim continued beyond this and included an unknown amount of text. 43  Jean Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56, 47–51, argues convincingly for an exchange of “cosmic or ethical dualism” in 1QM 17:4–8 for the “metaphysical dualism” evident in 4Q491 11 ii 13–18. 44  Cf. ‫אמ ֯תו ורזי ערמתו‬ ֗ ‫ מאז‬in 4Q491 11 i 10, “he has established ([a covenant for I]srael) from times past; his truth and the mysteries of his prudence.” This combination of the adverbial qualifier ‫ מאז‬followed presently by ‫ רז‬is elsewhere unattested in the Qumran Scrolls and the Hebrew Bible.

144

Davis

fiery trials; his mysteries concerning your existence (‫רזיו למעמדכם‬, lines 5–9).45 While there is no overlapping text with 1QM in 4Q491 11 ii, there does seem to be a clear relationship between the two nonetheless. In 4Q491 11 ii 14 there is mention of help for his redeemed (‫ועזר פדותו‬, cf. 1QM 17:6), the sons of truth in line 15 (‫בני אמת‬,‎1QM 17:8), his humiliation (‫יכניענו‬, cf. 1QM 17:5) and the covenant of God, peace for Israel in line 18 (‫וברית אל שלום לישראל‬, cf. 1QM 17:7–8). The final five, largely extant lines 19–23 quite closely follow the concluding half of 1QM 17, which goes on to describe the defeat of Belial and the Kittim. The two hymns in 4Q491 frg. 11 i extol the speaker and the recipients as members of the divine council amid a period of adversity. The combination forms a declaration of divinely wrought victory and celebration in times of naturally manifest human distress. The description of the War of the Kittim in col. ii speaks of the affliction suffered in battle by the combatants, but all in accordance with the mysteries of God. At the point in battle when they appear to be overwhelmed, their fortunes are turned by way of reminder of their lofty distinction, the surety of the enemy’s defeat by God and the help they receive from supernatural forces. In the company of the angelic hosts, victory is snatched from the gaping jaws of defeat. Baillet made the mistake of aligning frg. 11 ii with the mention of Michael in 1QM 17 and on the posited connection this formed with the self-glorification hymns in the preceding column.46 It is important to note that there is no mention of Michael at any point in 4Q491, and no reason to expect his appearance in any of the lacunae between either column. Baillet’s title, cantique du Michel, was at best anachronistic, nevertheless it was partially correct by way of this allusion: The hymns of adversity and exultation in frg. 11 i quite nicely complement the description of military struggle and victory in col. ii, and both are comparatively constructed around the theme of cooperation between mortal pietists and the heavenly hosts.

45  Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 163. 46  Cf. Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens,” 181: “[Baillet] seems to have put the largest fragments in the sequence in which their closest parallels occur in the 1Q version, and to have inserted the larger unparalleled passages into this sequence at places where he thought they would be suitable. . . . [He] identified fragment 11, column 1 as a ‘canticle of Michael and (following) canticle of the just’, and he put it near the place where, in the 1QM text, Michael is said to be sent to aid the just.”

Reconstruction and Reconciliation of 4Q491

145

Scholars have suggested that 4Q491a preserves a more ancient version of one of the sources for the War of the Kittim in 1QM.47 This text is also significantly distinguished from the other sources by its higher concentration of liturgy.48 So, it should come as little surprise to find an inspired connection here in 4Q491 frg. 11 i–ii between liturgical hymns of praise and thanksgiving for victory and deliverance, attached to an account of the most trying and triumphant stages of eschatological battle. The physical evidence indicates that 4Q491 probably first consisted of a collection of hymns that reflected on the theme of mortal/divine cooperation and the exaltation of the community amid apparent earthly troubles, in frg. 11 i. At a point likely later in time, a second scribe elected to add to this collection an ancient, corresponding description of the eschatological War of the Kittim in frg. 11 ii, which also emphasised the presence of angels in the crucible of the fight. 5 Conclusion My purpose in this paper has been primarily twofold: first, to provide a thorough re-evaluation of the physical evidence for the situation of 4Q491 frgs 11 i + 12–11 ii using state-of-the-art tools and technology, which clearly shows that Baillet’s join between these fragments was in fact correct, but which brings into jeopardy Abegg’s three-document theory. Second, it is to suggest a possible interpretation of this physical evidence that makes some literary sense.49 The result of this presentation is that 4Q491 frgs 11 i + 12–11 ii represents a single 47  Cf. Brian Schultz, “Compositional Layers in the War Scroll (1QM),” 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. Falk et al.; STDJ 91; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 153–64; Hunzinger, “Fragmente einer älteren Fassung”; Florentino García Martínez, “Estudios qumranicos 1975–1985: panoramacritico (III),” EstBib 46 (1988): 351–54; Jean Duhaime, “Étude comparative de 4QMa fgg. 1–3 et 1QM,” RevQ 14/3 (1990): 467; idem, “Dualistic Reworking,” 49–51. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4, III, 12 was more sceptical about dating 4QMa anterior to 1QM. 48  Cf. summary by Schultz, Conquering the World, 377–78. 49  It is not my intention here to provide a comprehensive literary assessment of the text in 4Q491 frgs 11 i + 12–11 ii that has been re-joined according to Baillet’s situation of the fragments. Such an undertaking requires more careful and elaborate research to be reserved for future publication of this text, which is also to have major implications for the assignment, placement and interpretation for the other fragment groups, 4Q491 frgs 1–3, and frgs 8–10.

146

Davis

document that contains a collection of liturgies penned by one scribe, and a description of eschatological battle by a another, who was likely influenced by the theme of cooperation between the divine and mortal realms, especially in difficult times. Marty Abegg’s keen attention to the differences in script between the fragments has helped to point the way forward to seeing 4Q491 as a complex and intriguing composite text. However, this study demonstrates that his work comprised only half of the journey. I would hope that the above discussion forms a fitting tribute to the efforts of this “giant” in the field of Qumran scholarship, and inspires more thorough study of this manuscript and its relationship to the War Scroll in an endeavour to retrace his steps back again.

CHAPTER 8

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSb Dongshin D. Chang 1 Introduction ָ ‫ ְּב ִרית ְּכ ֻהּנַ ת‬, In Num 25, God promises a covenant of perpetual priesthood (‫עֹולם‬ Num 25:13). Intriguingly, the promise is not given to Levi or Aaron, who might occupy the pinnacle of the list of priestly nominees.1 No one else but Phinehas received the promise, which was offered as a reward for his zeal for the Lord. Phinehas’ zeal and the subsequent reward seem to have become significant motifs for priestly covenant accounts in some of the late Second Temple period’s Jewish texts.2 In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the combination of the three words, ‫( ברית‬covenant), ‫( כהן‬priest) and ‫( עולם‬perpetual [adj.] or eternity [n.]) is found in one or two places.3 One is attested in the Rule of Blessings (1QSb) and the other is plausibly reconstructed in the War Scroll (1QM).4 This set of words prompts our interest for a further discussion about the expression in these two texts and the relationship between the two. In this short paper, first, I will review the reconstructions in 1QM 17:3 and 1QSb 3:26 where this particular phrase occurs. Second, the immediate literary context and their broader intertextuality will be considered in order to * It is a privilege for me to contribute to this volume honouring Prof. Marty G. Abegg. The invitation to submit a paper for this volume has reminded me of a desire I had while writing my M.A. thesis under his supervision, namely that if the opportunity ever presented itself to contribute to his Festschrift, I would gladly support a volume dedicated to his honour. 1  Jeremiah presupposes that God made a covenant “with the Levitical priests” (‫ת־ה ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬ ַ ‫וְ ֵא‬ ֵ ‫יתי ֵא‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ִר‬, ‫ ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים‬, Jer 33:21). Malachi presupposes that God made a covenant “with Levi” (‫ת־לוִ י‬ Mal 2:4, 5, 8). 2  Among them are 1 Macc 2:15–28, Ben Sira (Sir 45:6–25), Jub. 30–32. 3  Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls follow Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls-Revised Edition: A New Translation (2d ed.; New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). 4  For the text of the Rules of Blessings (1QSb) see D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). For the text of the War Scroll (1QM) see James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations: Volume 2 (Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents) (PTSDSSP; vol 2; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80–203.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_009

148

Chang

e­ valuate the significance of the expression in their individual contexts. Third, I will offer an explanation for what kind of relationship might exist between the two texts (1QM and 1QSb) in light of their common use of this particular priestly related covenantal expression. On the one hand, the phrase in 1QSb seems to share a priestly covenantal ideology in Ben Sira and seems to support Aaronic-Zadokite priestly ideology by blessing the sons of Zadok with the renewal of the covenant of perpetual priesthood. On the other hand, the same expression in the War Scroll seems not to be related to any claim of priestly covenantal ideologies in favour of a particular priestly group. 2

“Covenant of Perpetual Priesthood” in 1QM and 1QSB

2.1 1QSb 3:26 In the Rule of Blessings there is a construct chain, ‫כהונת‬ ֗ ‫( וברית‬covenant of the priesthood), which is followed by a gap (1QSb 3:26). The first editors of 1QSb, Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef T. Milik, reconstruct the line (1QSb 3:26) as follows:5 ]‫מקומ ֗כה [במעון‬ ֗ ‫כהונת [עולם יח]דש כלה ויתנכה‬ ֗ ‫קדושים וברית‬

The Holy Ones; [may He re]new for you the [eternal] covenant of the priesthood. May He make a place for you in the holy [habitation]. Barthélemy and Milik note that their reconstruction to include ‫עולם‬, perpetual, in this phrase was based on similar constructions in Num 25:13, ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ְּב ִרית ְּכ ֻהּנַ ת‬ (covenant of the eternal priesthood), Exod 40:15, ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫לכ ֻהּנַ ת‬ ְ (“eternal priesthood”), Neh 13:29, ‫“( ְּוב ִרית ַה ְּכ ֻהּנָ ה וְ ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬and the covenant of the priests and Levites”), Sir 45:15, διαθήκην ἀιῶνος (eternal covenant), and Sir 45:24, διαθήκη εἰρήνης ἱερωσύνης μεγαλεῖον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (“eternal covenant, dignity of priesthood for the eternity”).6 The first editors’ reconstruction of the gap in this line is plausible because the critical words such as ‫ברית‬, ‫כהונת‬, and ‫( יח]דש‬renew) are extant in the text. The presence of these words in the larger context, which concerns the blessing upon the sons of Zadok (1QSb 3:22–5:19), supports their suggestion, and is 5  Barthélemy and Milik, DJD 1, 124–25. 6  See Barthélemy and Milik, DJD 1, 124–25. The appearance of ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ ֻהּנַ ת‬with ‫ ְּב ִרית‬in the Hebrew Bible occurs in only Num 25:13.

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSB

149

judged to be the most probable reconstruction for the line. Their reconstruction has received further support from most scholars, including Geza Vermes,7 Florentio García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar,8 Elisha Qimron9 and Martin Abegg.10 2.2 1QM 17:3 In the only appearance of the expression in M, only two words have survived, ‫ לברית‬and ‫ ֯עולמים‬, with a gap between them where the leather has deteriorated (1QM 17:3). None of the Qumran Cave 4 War Scroll manuscripts (4Q491–6) are helpful for the reconstruction of this particular line.11 Jean Duhaime’s reconstruction of the text is cautiously minimalistic;12 he neither attempts to suggest a word for the lacuna nor provides any comment on his reconstruction of the line. However, other scholars do make suggestions. Their various reconstructions of 1QM 17:3 appear as follows: Duhaime

Yadin

Abegg

García Martínez and Tigchelaar Vermes Qimron

vacat ‫]עולמים‬ ֯ [ ‫ואיתמר החזיק לו לברית‬ and Ithamar, he has bound them to him for a covenant [. . .] forever vacat ‫מועדי‬ vacat ‫ע]ולמים‬ [ ‫ואיתמר החזיק לו לברית‬ and Ithamar He preserved for Himself for a covenant [of the appointed times of et]ernity vacat ‫]עולמים‬ ֯ ‫ואיתמר החזיק לו לברית [כהונת‬ and Ithamar He preserved for Himself for an eternal covenant [of priesthood. ] (vacat) ‫]עולמים‬ ֯ ‫ואיתמר החזיק לו לברית [כהונת‬ and Ithamar he confirmed in his everlasting covenant blank and Ithamar He confirmed in an everlasting [priestly] Covenant ‫]עולמים‬ ֯ ‫ואיתמר החזיק לו לברית [כהונת‬

7  Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 388. 8  Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 106. 9  Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings: Volume One: Between Bible and Mishnah (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2010), 129 [Hebrew]. 10  Martin G. Abegg, “Qumran Non-biblical Manuscripts: Qumran Text and Grammatical Tags,” Ver. 3.2. Accordance 10: Bible Software, 1999–2009. 11  M. Baillet, Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982). 12  Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls vol 2, 80–203, esp. 132–33.

150

Chang

As it is shown in the table, two words have been suggested to fill the gap between ‫ לברית‬and ‫ ֯עולמים‬. In an earlier study of the War Scroll, Yadin reconstructed ‫( מועדי‬the appointed times of ) in the gap between the two words. He notes that his restoration of the term follows after appearances of the combination of these words, ‫מועדי עולמים‬, in 1QM 12:3 and 1QM 13:8.13 Yadin’s suggestion employs an idiomatic expression that means eternal or perpetual (“throughout eternal ages” or “throughout the time of eternity”). While Yadin’s reconstruction is based directly on the text of 1QM, its suggested correspondence to 1QM 12:3 and 13:8 would suffer by the fact that the word ‫ עולמים‬does not clearly link to the word ‫ ברית‬as it does in 1QM 17:3. Vermes,14 García Martínez and Tigchelaar,15 Qimron16 and Abegg17 filled in the gap with the term ‫ כהונת‬in order to reconstruct the phrase ] ‫לברית [כהונת‬ ‫ ֯עולמים‬. Abegg and García Martínez and Tigchelaar reconstructed the immediate context as follows: ‫ואבי]הוא בני אהרון אשר התקדש אל במשפטם‬ ֗ ‫משפט[ נדב‬ ֯ ‫ ואתמה זכורו‬17:2 vacat ‫]עולמים‬ ֯ ‫ ואיתמר החזיק לו לברית [כהונת‬3 ]‫לעיני [כול העם ואלעזר‬

2 But, as for you, remember the judgment [of Nadab and Abi]hu, the sons of Aaron, by whose judgment God showed Himself holy before [all the people. But Eleazar] 3and Ithamar He preserved for Himself for an eternal covenant [of priesthood.] (vacat) In a private email conversation in January 2014, Abegg remarks that the reconstruction of [‫ ] כהונת‬in 1QM 17:3 is based on Num 25:13 and 1QSb 3:26. Abegg’s reconstruction implies a relationship between the two texts (1QM col. 17 and 1QSb col. 3). This presupposition seems less helpful for the present attempt to examine the relationship between the two texts (1QM col. 17 and 1QSb col. 3) based on the reconstruction of the individual lines (1QM 17:3 and 1QSb 3:26). Therefore, the reconstruction of 1QM 17:3 should be considered independent of 1QSb 3: 26 at least for now. However, the immediate context clearly shows that the covenant in 1QM 17: 3 is a priestly covenant or priestly related covenant 13  Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin; London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 315, 322. According to Yadin the same phrase is also attested 1QSb 1:1–3. 14  Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 183. 15  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 140. 16  Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, 129. 17  Abegg, “Qumran Non-biblical Manuscripts,” Accordance 10, 1999–2009.

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSB

151

no matter what the reconstruction of the gap is, based on the reference to Eleazar and Ithamar, the two sons of Aaron (lines 2–3), who are the recipients of the covenant. The story of Nadab and Abihu is found in Lev 10:1–7 and Num 3:4. The Numbers account comments on the death of Nadab and Abihu as follows: ‫א־היּו‬ ָ ֹ ‫ּובנִ ים ל‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיָ ָמת נָ ָדב וַ ֲא ִביהּוא ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ְּב ַה ְק ִר ָבם ֵאׁש זָ ָרה ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ְּב ִמ ְד ַּבר ִסינַ י‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַא ֲהר ֹן ֲא ִב‬ ְ ‫ית ָמר ַע‬ ָ ‫ָל ֶהם וַ יְ ַכ ֵהן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר וְ ִא‬

Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord when they offered illicit fire before the LORD in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children. Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests in the lifetime of their father Aaron. If 1QM 17:2–3 alludes to Num 3:4 as well as Lev 10:1–7, which most probably seems to be the case, the word ‫ כהונת‬is doubtlessly one of the strongest possibilities for the gap between ‫ לברית‬and ‫ עולמים‬in 1QM 17:3. If one considers the obvious priestly context (priestly office of Eleazar and Ithamar) in which the words ‫ לברית‬and ‫ עולמים‬occur in 1QM 17:3, then ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ְּב ִרית ְּכ ֻהּנַ ת‬, a unique (particular?) priestly covenantal phrase in Num 25:13 is a strong possibility for the reconstruction of 1QM 17:3. While the reconstruction of the gap between the two significant words ‫ לברית‬and ‫ עולמים‬in 1QM 17:3 remains inconclusive due to the lack of any direct physical and textual evidence, I am more inclined to agree with the majority of scholars who reconstruct ‫ כהונת‬in the lacuna because the literary context clearly supports it. 3

Priestly Covenant and Priestly Identity in 1QSB and 1QM

3.1 “Covenant of Perpetual Priesthood” in 1QSb In this section, I want to make a case for how significant the priestly covenant in 1QSb is in relation to the development of an Aaronic-Zadokite priestly covenantal ideology in the Yaḥad movement.18 In order to support this position, 18  By mentioning “Yaḥad movement,” I refer to the sectarian movement after the death of the Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE. My position is based on the traditional view that D (Damascus) material is earlier than S (Serek) material. cf. Philip Davies, The Damascus Covenant: And Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 1–47; Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 101, 150. However, see Alison Schofield and Reinhard G. Kratz who have argued more recently that S is prior to

152

Chang

I will argue for a relationship between 1QSb and Ben Sira19 in connection to similar notions they share about an Aaronic-Zadokite priestly ideology. Ben Sira seems to emphasise the Aaronic-Zadokite priestly ideology by attributing explicitly the perpetual covenant for a priestly position to Aaron by using Phinehas’ priestly covenant tradition in Num 25:13. It follows from this that Ben Sira’s view on the Aaronic-Zadokite priestly ideology may work as a lens for the author or the editor of 1QSb through which to read the priestly covenant traditions of Aaron (Exodus) and Phinehas (Numbers). The phrase ‫כהונת [עולם‬ ֗ ‫( ברית‬1QSb 3:26) is found in the second of the three blessings of the instructor (‫למשכיל‬, 1QSb 1:1; 3:22; 5:20).20 The second blessing is given to ‫( בני צדוק הכוהנים‬the “sons of Zadok, the priests,” 1QSb 3:22–23). The instructor is prescribed to bless the sons of Zadok by reciting: “[may He (God) re]new for you (the sons of Zadok) the [eternal] covenant of the priesthood. May He make a place for you in the holy [habitation].” In 1QSb the sons of Zadok are described as those who ‫“( ולב]צון כול משפטיו בתוך עמו‬prove His precepts/judgment among His people”) and ‫“( ולהורותם כאשר צוה‬teach them as He commanded,” 1QSb 3:23). Their priestly identity is emphasised by the renewal of the perpetual priestly covenant in the immediate context.21 D. Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009); Reinhard G Kratz, “Der Penal Code und das Verhältnis von Serekh ha-Yachad (S) und Damaskusschrift (D),” RevQ 25/2 (2011): 199–227. See also John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: the Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 52–79, 209–14. 19  Reinhard Kratz recently suggests that Ben Sira is influential to 1QS. See Reinhard G. Kratz, “Laws of Wisdom: Sapiential Traits in the Rule of the Community (1QS 5–7),” in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources (ed. Steven E. Fassberg, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 1–15. The Blessings (1QSb) and the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa) are closely related to the Rule of the Community (1QS). They are in the same scroll (1QS-1QSa-1QSb), same date and handwriting with shared subject. For a discussion of their relationship, cf. Barthélemy and Milik, DJD 1, 107–18. See also Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls vol 2, 1–2, 108–109, and 119–20. 20  The first blessing is given for the members of the community (1QSb 1:1b—2). The addressee of the third blessing is the prince of the congregation (‫נשיא העדה‬, 5:20). Abegg suggests six blessings in 1QSb (1:1–20; 1:21–2:20?; 2:21?–3:21; 3:22–4:19; 4:20–5:19; 5:20–6:20?). In any case 1QSb 3:26 belongs to the blessing on the sons of Zadok. For a detailed discussion on the literary structure of 1QSb, cf. Martin G. Abegg, “1QSb and the Elusive High Priest,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 5–8. 21  Concerning the emphasis on the sons of Zadok in Cave 1Q Serekhtexts, Charlotte Hempel observes that “it is striking how much of the relatively meagre ‘sons of Zadok harvest’ in the corpus of the Scrolls is found in this one scroll: six out of eleven occurrences of the designation ‘sons of Zadok’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls are found in 1QS-1QSa-1QSb.” See

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSB

153

The strong emphasis on the sons of Zadok in 1QSb with the attribution of the covenant of perpetual priesthood seems to recall similar emphasis on the sons of Aaron and the sons of Zadok in some parts of other Cave 1Q Serekh texts, 1QS and 1QSa. In 1QS col. 9, the sons of Aaron are described in a similar way as the sons of Zadok in respect to their authority and role in the community (1QS 9:7 cf. 5:2–3). Their authority is aligned to their voluntary commitment to all the regulations (5:21–22). The authority of the sons of Aaron extends over matter of judgment, possessions and the rank of the members of the community (9:7). This appears very similar to the purview of the sons of Zadok, who also are charged with “all decisions on matters of law, money, and judgment,” in 5:2–3. As Charlotte Hempel correctly recognises, the role of the sons of Aaron in 1QS is exercised within the community rather than expressed within a national frame of reference as it is in the Damascus Document.22 Similar to 1QS, an emphasis on the sons of Zadok in line with the sons of Aaron is also detected in 1QSa (1QSa 1:2, 24; 2:3).23 Although there is no reference to the sons of Aaron in 1QSb, the prominence of the sons of Zadok in this text seems to align with two other Cave 1Q Serekh texts, where their significance as a particular leadership group in the community is emphasised on the basis of a shared Aaronic priestly ideology.24 3.2 Reading 1QSb 3:26 in Light of Priestly Ideology of Dead Sea Scrolls As mentioned in the earlier section, the first editors of 1QSb (Barthélemy and Milik) reconstructed the expression, ‫כהונת [עולם‬ ֗ ‫ וברית‬based on Num 25:13, Exod 40:15, Neh 13:29, Sir 45:15 and Sir 45:25. Among them Sir 45:15 and 25 are worth noting because Ben Sira employs the three terms διαθήκη (covenant), αἰών (perpetual) and ἱερατεία (priesthood) together. The combined use of these Charlotte Hempel, “Do the Scrolls Suggest Rivalry Between the Sons of Aaron and the Sons of Zadok and If So was it Mutual?,” RevQ 24/1 (2009): 135–93, esp. 161–62. 22  Charlotte Hempel, “The Sons of Aaron in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. Anthony Hilhorst, et al.; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 207–24, esp. 214. 23  Hempel, “The Sons of Aaron in the DSS,” 217. 24  When Cave 4 Serekh texts are considered, the relationship between sons of Zadok and sons of Aaron is more complicated due to the lack of reference to the sons of Zadok in some of 4QS materials (4Q255–4Q258, 4Q261–4Q264). For a discussion on the issue of the sons of Zadok in 1QS and 4QS, cf. Philip S. Alexander, “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yahad: A Proposal,” RevQ 17/1–4 (1996–97): 437–56; A.I. Baumgarten, “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration,” DSD 4 (1997): 137–56; Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Priests at Qumran—A Reassessment,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (ed. Charlotte Hempel; STDJ 90; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 243–62; Hempel, “Do the Scrolls Suggest Rivalry?” 135–93.

154

Chang

three words appears in the account of Aaron and Phinehas (Sir 45:6–25, esp. vv. 7, 15) in the so-called “praise of the fathers” section (Sir 44:1–50:21). The “praise of fathers” section is a series of hymnic accounts praising various figures in the history of Israelites from Enoch to Simon, the son of Onias (Σιμων Ονιου υἱὸς, Sir 50:1).25 Simon is considered as the accumulative climax of all praises.26 In this section Ben Sira seems to develop a foundation for a biblical priestly covenant tradition for Simon, particularly in the Aaron and Phinehas accounts (Sir 45:6–25).27 Aaron’s account (Sir 45:6–22) significantly echoes the content and language of three biblical texts: Exod 28–29 and 40 (Sir 45:6–16), Ezek 44:23–24 (Sir 45:17) and Num 16–18 (Sir 45:18–22). These biblical allusions show that Ben Sira sought to emphasise the Aaronic priesthood28 (Sir 45:6–16 // Exod 28–29) by distinguishing it from other non-priestly Levites (Sir 45:18–22 // Num 16–18). The didactic and judiciary roles appear to be emphasised as Aaronic priestly functions (Sir 45:17 // Ezek 44:23–24).29 More significantly, the Aaron-Phinehas account (Sir 45:6–25) seems to develop an explicit priestly covenant tradition for Aaron by attributing the perpetual covenant for the appointment of priesthood to him (Sir 45:7 and 15). Aaron is never attributed with a priestly covenant explicitly in any of the 25  For a detailed introduction and discussion on the “praise of the fathers” section (Sir 44–50), cf. Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 449. See also Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50 (SBLDS 75; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 3–22. 26  Otto Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel (JSJSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 25–29. See also Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50 (SBLDS 75; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 82. 27  Concerning the covenantal ideology in Ben Sira, Burton Mack notes that “the idea of covenant is certainly at work, and it is very important as an indication of the essentially priestly theological frame within which Ben Sira stands.” See Burton L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (ed. Jacob Neusner CSHJ; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985), 76. 28  Consider also the length of the account. The praise of Aaron, consisting of 17 verses, is far longer than any other praise except Simon in the Greek translation of Ben Sira. The next longest account consists of 11 verses belonging to praises of David, Solomon, and Elijah. According to Mulder, Aaron occupies the longest line as many as 32 lines in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira. This is even longer than 29 lines of Simon account. Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 32. 29  For a detailed discussion on the allusions of each section, cf. Dongshin D. Chang, “Phinehas, the Sons of Zadok, and Melchizedek: An Analysis of Some Understandings of Priestly Covenant in the Late Second Temple Period” (Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester, 2013), 78–88.

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSB

155

biblical Aaronic traditions. The subsequent Phinehas account (vv. 23–25) depends upon the story of Phinehas’ zeal in Numbers with this modification (v. 24).30 Ben Sira has removed the covenant of eternal priesthood from Phinehas and attributed it to Aaron.31 As a result, Phinehas and his descendants’ priestly office are considered the κληρονομία Ααρων (“heritage of Aaron,” Sir 45:25; ‫נחלת‬ ‫אהרן‬, MS B 15:6). This adjustment is all the more significant because the everlasting (priestly) covenant is attributed to Aaron twice in the preceding Aaron account (vv. 7 and 15).32 The primary reason that Ben Sira has emphasised the covenant of Aaronic priesthood is most probably because the author wanted to highlight the status of the high priesthood of Simon, son of Onias (Sir 50:1). Simon was considered to be the legitimate Zadokite high priest by Ben Sira.33 This shows that he understands the Zadokite priests to extend from the Aaronic priestly lineage. Ben Sira’s development of an Aaronic priestly covenant ideology may work well for the author or editor of 1QSb if he wanted to build a similar priestly covenant ideology for a particular priestly group, namely the sons of Zadok (1QSb 3:26). Reading 1QSb 3:26 from another angle could reinforce this idea. As the first editors note, 1QSb 3:26 strongly alludes to Num 25:13, yet the text does not develop an ideology of priesthood based on the zeal motif in Phinehas’ account. Furthermore, none of priestly traditions in Serekh materials are based on the zeal motif associated with Phinehas. This treatment is distinguishable from some other late Second Temple period compositions such as Jub. 30:18 and T. Levi 6:3–5, where the priestly covenantal ideology for the Levitical priesthood is significantly developed based on Phinehas’ zeal motif. According to Dorothy M. Peters and Esther Eshel in their study of the Shechem episode depicted in the Rylands Genizah fragment of Aramaic Levi Document also published in this volume, the appearance of the word ‫( מקנא‬zealous, Rylands Genizah Fragment P1185–2 Verso line 9) is most probably in relation to Levi.34

30  Saul M. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86, esp. 270. 31  The covenant of peace remains attributable to Phinehas in the section Sir 45:23–25. 32  In Sir 45:7, the Greek translation διαθήκην αἰῶνος (“perpetual covenant,” Sir 45:7) reflects the Hebrew ‫“( לחק עולם‬perpetual ordinance,” MS B 14:4). The translator seems to depend on parallels between ‫ חק‬and ‫ ברית עולם‬in Ps 105:10. Olyan notes that the use of this particular phrase, ‫ חק עולם‬is a significant characteristic that Ben Sira shares with many priestly sources. See Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 272. 33  Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 550. 34  Dorothy M. Peters and Esther Eshel, “Cutting Off and Cutting Down Shechem: Levi and His Sword in the Rylands Genizah Fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document,” 245 below. The author wishes to thank the authors for sharing a pre-publication copy of the essay.

156

Chang

So a similar treatment of the zeal motif is possibly expected in ALD 1–2.35 The absence of the zeal motif in the development of the priestly ideology for Aaronic-Zadokite priestly group in 1QSb and other cave 1 Serekh texts possibly show their response to the Maccabean adoption of Phinehas-like zeal in 1 Macc 2:15–28 in order to claim Hasmonaean high priesthood.36 There is another possible literary link between 1QSb and Ben Sira, namely in their use of priestly traditions. In the introduction to the sons of Zadok (1QSb 3:22–25a), 1QSb distinguishes this group as those chosen by God (1QSb 3:25a) to confirm his (God’s) covenant (‫לחזק בריתו‬, line 23), to prove all of his (God’s) judgment in the midst of his (God’s) people (‫ולב]חון כול משפטיו בתוך עמו‬, line 23) and to teach them (God’s people) as he (God) commanded (‫ולהורותם כאשר‬ ‫צוה‬, line 23–24). The description of the priestly roles belonging to the sons of Zadok here reminds us of what Ben Sira suggests that the Aaronic priestly function should be, namely serving a didactic and judiciary role based on Ezek 44:23–24 (Sir 45:17).37 Furthermore, some of the words, such as ἐξουσίαν 35  According to Marinus de Jonge, the Shechem Episode of the Aramaic Levi Document corresponds to the Testament of Levi (T. Levi 6:1–7:4). For the textual relationship between ALD and T. Levi, see de Jonge and Johannes Tromp, “Jacob’s Son Levi and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and Related Literature,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. Michael Stone and Theodore Bergren; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998), 214, and de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 89. The numbering of ALD depends on Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, and Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1–5. For the location of the Rylands Genizah Fragment in between ALD 1 and 2, see 239 n. 6 in Peters and Eshel, “Cutting Off and Cutting Down Shechem.” 36  Jonathan A. Goldstein correctly notes that the use of the zeal motif in 1 Macc 2 helps the reader to think the subsequent reward: “as Phinehas was rewarded by being made the founder of the high priestly line (Num 25:13), so will Mattathias be rewarded.” See Jonathan A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 6–7. 37  Roland de Vaux earlier noted multiple functions of priests besides the temple sacrifices in the biblical traditions. Cf. Roland de Vaux, Les institutions de l’Ancien Testament: Institutions militaires. Institutions religieuses (2 vols; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961), 2:195– 221. For a similar observation, see also M. Haran, “Priest and Priesthood,” EncJud 13:1069–86. García Martínez summarises five functions of priests in the DSS community: the oracular function, priests as teachers, priests as judges, for pronouncing priestly blessings, and for priest as separating the sacred from the profane and the pure from the impure. See Florentino García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple,” in

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSB

157

(authority), φωτίσαι (enlighten), ἐντολαῖς (commandments) and νόμω (law) in Sir 45:17 are collectively strongly reminiscent of the description of the role of the Teacher of Righteousness and priests in some sectarian documents such as the Damascus Document and Serekh materials. 3.3 “Covenant of Perpetual (Priesthood)” in 1QM As mentioned above, I have aligned myself with the scholarly consensus and have adopted the following reconstruction of 1QM 17:2–3:38 ‫ואבי]הוא בני אהרון אשר התקדש אל במשפטם לעיני [כול‬ ֗ ‫משפט[ נדב‬ ֯ ‫ ואתמה זכורו‬17:2 vacat ‫]עולמים‬ ֯ ‫ ואיתמר החזיק לו לברית [כהונת‬3 ]‫העם ואלעזר‬

2 But, as for you, remember the judgment [of Nadab and Abi]hu, the sons of Aaron, by whose judgment God showed Himself holy before [all the people. But Eleazar] 3and Ithamar He preserved for Himself for an eternal covenant [of priesthood. ] (vacat) The context for this passage extends from 1QM 16:11 to 17:9 and concerns the role of priests in battle. Brian Schultz helpfully encapsulated the main idea of the passage with the subtitle, “High-priest encourages the army when they suffer losses” (16:13–14).39 The subsequent lines contain the high priest’s speech of encouragement for the beleaguered forces (16:15–17:9). This speech begins with a phrase that “He (God) tests the heart of His people in crucible” (]‫ו]ל[ב‬ ‫במ ֯צ ֯ר ֯ף‬ ֯ ‫ב עמו יבחן‬, 1QM 16:15).40 Then the high priest further speaks, “as for you, take courage and stand in the gap, do not fear” (line 16). The theme of the passage is emphasised once again in the last sentence of the pericope, which says, “As for you, O Children of His covenant, take courage in God’s crucible (‫)התחזקו במצרף אל‬, until He shall wave His hand and complete His fiery trials (‫ ;)מצרפיו‬His mysteries (‫ )רזיו‬concerning your existence” (1QM 17:8–9).41 Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar; STDJ 64; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 77–93. 38  Text is from Abegg, “Qumran Non-biblical Manuscripts,” Accordance 10, 1999–2009. The translation is from Wise, Abegg, and Cook, A New Translation, 163. 39  Schultz, Conquering the World, 318. 40  The term ‫ מצרק‬translated here by “crucible,” is used in a sense of “severe test or trial.” See also 1QM 17:1, 9. According to Yadin, “crucible” is often used symbolically referring to the test of the Sons of Light in the “epoch of Belial.” See Yadin, Scroll of the War, 339. 41  The emphasis is mine.

158

Chang

Surprisingly, the phrase ‫]עולמים‬ ֯ ‫ לברית [כהונת‬seems not to be highlighted in the immediate context. The death of Nadab and Abihu is probably given as an example of the mysteries of God (‫ ֗ב ֗רזי אל‬, 16:16) in light of 16:11, “when the slain among the foot-soldiers begin to fall by the mysteries of God” (‫וחללי‬ ‫)הבינים יחלו לנפול ברזי אל‬. The death of the solders as ‫“( ברזי אל‬the mysteries of God”) is considered as a test or ordeal (‫ולבחון‬, 1QM 16:11) by the author. The primary theme of the section is about enduring testing and suffering, even to the point that many lives would be lost in battle in 16:14–17:9. García Martínez renders ‫משפט‬ ֯ in 17:2 as trial rather than as judgment. By doing so he seems to clarify the purpose behind mention of the deaths of Nadab and Abihu in the passage as an example of the test or trial.42 The following sentence, “He (God) preserved for himself for an eternal covenant [of priesthood. ]” (line 3) means that Eleazar and Ithamar retained the priesthood, which Nadab and Abihu lost when they died. It is significant to recognise that God’s confirmation of the priestly covenant with Eleazar and Ithamar is not the main theme of the passage.43 The sentence seems to be an addendum to the preceding remarks of the judgment (or the trial according to García Martínez) of Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron (line 2). The concept of the covenant appears in 1QM 17:6, 7, and 8. These lines refer to the patriarchal or ancestral covenant that God has made with the sons of Israelites. The phrase covenant of perpetual priesthood in 1QM has not received sufficient attention by most scholars up to this point in time, even when writing about the priesthood and its role in 1QM.44 The low scholarly interest may be partly due to the need for reconstruction and whether the phrase really mentions the covenant of perpetual priesthood or not. Whatever the case, it is significant to know that the immediate and larger literary contexts do not develop any particular priestly related ideology based on the phrase, “covenant of (. . . ?) of eternity.” 42  Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 112. 43  In Yadin’s analysis on this passage, Eleazar and Ithamar are never mentioned. Yadin, Scroll of the War, 220–21. Eleazar and Ithamar are also ignored in Davies’ commentary on the section. See Philip R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 79–81. 44  None of Yadin, Davies, Duhaime, or Schultz pay attention on this phrase in their works. See Yadin, Scroll of the War, 220–21, 338–40; Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 68–90, esp. 79–81; Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 16–17; Schultz, Conquering the World, 340–53.

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSB

159

Reading 1QM 17:2–3 in Light of Priestly Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls Schultz correctly recognises the significance of the priestly aspect of the War Scroll. He claims that the war texts (M) as a whole concern the interests of the religious authorities45 and he identifies the 1QM as a “war manual for priests.”46 Schultz’s discussion about priests and Levites in 1QM and 1QSa is of particularly special interest to the present study. He categorises Levites’ roles in 1QM into three aspects: cultic (1QM 2:2–3), non-cultic responsibility during the war (12:14–16) and “other roles,” which include the performance of blessings and curses before the battle (13:1; 15:4; 17:5) and sounding horns on the battlefield (8:9; 14:7; 17:3).47 In his discussion, Schultz focuses on the fact that 1QM is relatively indifferent in describing Levites’ roles in war, whereas 1QSa has specific instruction for Levites.48 Based on this, Schultz concludes that, on the one hand in general, Levites in 1QM are treated similarly to those in 1QSa in the sense that they play a significant role under the authority of priests. However on the other hand, the absence of any description of specific roles for Levites in 1QM indicates a de-emphasis of sorts compared to 1QSa. I differ from Schultz with regards to the Levites and their role in 1QM compared to the Serekh texts. On the one hand, I agree that, generally, the Levites’ roles are distinctive from the roles of the priests, as commonly expressed in 1QSa and 1QM. For instance, when 1QM mentions blowing trumpets; in fact, priests are always blowing trumpets (‫חצוצרות‬, e.g. 1QM 8:2, 3, 5, 7), whereas horns (‫השופרות‬, line 15) are always sounded by Levites. Although there is no clear sign that trumpets and horns are used as an indicator of hierarchy, the text clearly differentiates the use of trumpets and horns by priests and Levites respectively and never mixes their use of these instruments. This implies the existence of some distinction between priests and Levites in the War Scroll.49 3.4

45  Schultz, Conquering the World, 347. Religious authorities seem to refer to the priests and Levites. 46  Schultz, Conquering the World, 352. In a discussion on the genre of the War Scroll, Duhaime also notes the significance of the priestly aspect of the text by saying that “the people who put it together have adapted and shaped collections of rules, prayers and speeches, into a sort of guide-book for the priests and Levites in charge of leading the eschatological war.” See Duhaime, War Texts, 61. 47  Schultz, Conquering the World, 342–43. 48  Schultz, Conquering the World, 348. 49  Yadin argues that blowing the trumpets and horns echoes the Jericho narrative in Josh 6, where, according to Yadin, “trumpets are not mentioned at all, but it is the priests who sound the horns” (Yadin, Scroll of the War, 109). If the account of blowing trumpets and horns in 1QM alludes to Josh 6 as Yadin argues, 1QM possibly emphasises the Levites role

160

Chang

On the other hand, however, in some places Levites are appear possibly more elevated in 1QM than they are in 1QSa or 1QS. In some cases of reciting blessings and curses in 1QM 13:1–18 and 1QM 18:5–8,50 there seems to be no distinction made between the roles of priests and Levites. The Levites here are presented playing the same role as the priests in the blessings and curses rites in 1QM. This role seems different from an account of blessings and curses in 1QS 1:16–2:18. The rite in 1QS resembles pronouncement of blessings and curses on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal in Deut 27. However, in 1QS the Levites declare curses, which seems especially noteworthy since the tribe of Levi is among the tribes who declares blessings on Mt. Gerizim in the corresponding Deuteronomy passage. Thus, the Levites are an integral part of the priestly covenantal setting in 1QS, but in a negative way. Their purpose is not to pronounce blessings, but to declare curses. In 1QM there is no negative view concerning the Levites in the accounts of blessings and curses, as there seems to be in 1QS. As part of this discussion of the Levites status in 1QM it is worth noting in another part of the text a list of the names that are to be written on the “shield of the prince of the congregation” (1QM 5:1–2). The lines read, “they shall write his (the prince of the whole congregation) name, and (the) name of Israel, Levi, and Aaron, and (the) names of the twelve tribes of Israel according to their order of birth, and the names of the twelve chiefs of their tribes” (lines 1–2). Here the name “Levi” comes before “Aaron,” which could indicate an elevation in the status of the Levites. In sum the blessings and curses account and the list of names prescribed to be written on the shield possibly suggest that 1QM considers Levi and Levites in a more elevated role than do the Cave 1 Serekh texts. The War Scroll’s attitude towards the Levites seems similar to that of the Temple Scroll, where the “sons of Levi” (‫הכוהנים בני לוי‬, 11Q19 63:3) are identified as priests alongside the “sons of Aaron” (22:4–5, 34:13, and 44:5).51 Hempel has made some helpful observations regarding the name ‫אהרן‬ (“Aaron”) in the Dead Sea Scrolls that also pertain to this discussion. In terms of the appearance of ‫ אהרן‬or the title ‫“( בני אהרון‬sons of Aaron”), she aligns the by describing them as the ones who blow the horns, which are to be blown by priests in Josh 6. 50  1QM 18:5–8 has only blessings for the God of Israel generically structured in the form of a prayer. See Schultz, Conquering the World, 59. 51  Consult Hempel’s comments about the priestly roles of the sons of Aaron and the Levites in 1QM. She notes that “the scroll (1QM) allocates a crucial role to the sons of Aaron alongside the Levites in guiding the battle (1QM VII.9–IX.9).” Hempel, “The Sons of Aaron in the DSS,” 218.

Priestly Covenant in 1QM and 1QSB

161

War Scroll with MMT (4QMMT B17 and B79), the legal part of D (4Q266 5 ii 5, 8, 9–10, 12), and 4QS (4QSb, d), where the priests are called the ‫ בני אהרון‬and where ‫“( בני צדוק‬sons of Zadok”) are absent.52 In other words, based on the usage of the term ‫ בני אהרון‬it seems that we hardly find any development of priestly ideology in favour of the sons of Aaron in relation to the sons of Zadok as a particular leadership group in at least these texts. The situation seems distinct from what appears in the Cave 1 Serekh texts, where the sons of Zadok are more prominently described similar to the sons of Aaron in terms of their roles as the sociological and religious authorities. 4

Conclusion: 1QM and 1QSB in Light of the Priestly Covenant

In this short paper, I have attempted to review the reconstruction of a particular combined expression, the covenant of perpetual priesthood, which is attested only in 1QM 17:3 and 1QSb 3:26 among the entire DSS. I also examined the significance of this expression in its various literary contexts. Finally, I have attempted to review how the use of the expression in the two passages ally to the whole texts (1QM and 1QSb) in relation to the development of the priestly ideologies in DSS. The reconstruction of the expression, covenant of perpetual priesthood in both 1QM 17:3 and 1QSb 3:26 can be considered to be fairly certain. Although the reconstruction cannot be assured by physical or textual evidence, the combination of the three words, covenant, perpetual and priesthood together serve as the most probable reconstruction of the lacunae in both texts, especially in light of their shared concern for priestly matters in their immediate literary contexts. I have argued in favour of a general relationship between 1QM and 1QSb, to be found in their eschatological settings and priestly oriented contexts. The appearance of this rare expression, the covenant of perpetual priesthood peculiar to both texts seems surprising. However, a deeper investigation shows that the significance of the phrase in each text differs from one another in their respective literary contexts. On one hand, the renewal of the priestly covenant for the sons of Zadok in 1QSb 3:26 seems to function significantly for developing a priestly covenantal ideology for a particular priestly group, sons of Zadok. 1QSb seems to follow the pattern of Ben Sira’s use of an Aaronic priestly tradition, and the text appears to develop the covenantal ideology and roles attached to the sons of 52  Hempel, “The Sons of Aaron in the DSS,” 218.

162

Chang

Zadok. The emphasis on the sons of Zadok and sons of Aaron as a leadership group, who take charge in both religious and sociological venues in a particular period of the Yaḥad movement, appears most prominently in the Cave 1 Serekh texts (1QS-1QSa-1QSb). On the other hand, the same expression, covenant of perpetual priesthood in 1QM functions less as a priestly technical term than within 1QSb. Neither the immediate context (1QM 17:2–3) nor the larger literary context (16:11–17:9) accords any clear special attention to the particular phrase. The phrase even seems to be an addendum to the primary point of the immediate context, which is meant to use the deaths of Nadab and Abihu as an example of God’s mysterious trial. It is unlikely that any priestly covenantal ideology is intended in relation to a particular individual such as Eleazar or Ithamar or even to Aaron in this passage. This tendency towards non-specification within the priesthood accords with the War Scroll’s overall view on the priestly ideologies, which seems to promote the presence and function of multiple priestly groups, rather than focusing on a particular one, namely the sons of Zadok.

CHAPTER 9

The War Rule Texts and a New Theory of the People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Brief Thought Experiment Robert Kugler 1 Introduction Martin Abegg’s distinguished academic career and extraordinary contributions to our understanding of the Dead Sea Scrolls tell the story well of how good scholarship and fruitful ideas develop from a scholar’s long engagement with selected texts and topics and from repeated probes and explorations of their various aspects. In this essay honouring Marty I offer what I hope is an example of such a scholarly approach worthy of its honouree. It brings an alternative approach to understanding the people of the scrolls, one of my favoured topics, into intersection with one Marty has done much to illuminate, the significance of the War Scroll in understanding the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have argued elsewhere that recent developments in the study of Jewish origins and ongoing work on the general topic of “religion” in antiquity provide significant impetus to completely rethink how we categorise the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We should, I argue, treat them no longer as a Jewish sect, but rather as one expression of Judaean ethnicity among others.1 In this essay I offer a thought experiment on how eschatological texts like the War Scroll and related documents might figure into that alternative understanding of this Judaean group. Do the war rule texts and the alternative theory fit comfortably together, or does the existence of a work like the War Scroll in the Qumran library challenge the alternative theory’s cogency?2 In turn, does consideration of the war texts help refine the theory?

1  Robert Kugler, “Ethnicity: A Fresh Context for Locating the ‘Religion’ of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. G. Brooke and C. Hempel; London: T&T Clark, forthcoming). 2  By “Qumran library” I mean here the collection of texts found in the caves most usually understood to have housed texts related to the community that maintained the Qumran site, including most particularly Caves 1 and 4.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_010

164 2

Kugler

A Sketch of a New Theory of the People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ethnicity, not Religion

Scholarship has long classified the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls in almost exclusively religious terms: the group was one form of early Judaism among others and, because they expressed radical views and voluntarily separated themselves socially and physically from other Jews, they were sectarian.3 This approach, however, has overlooked the simple fact that the human phenomenon we call “religion” and its specific iteration “Judaism” (let alone other “religions”) were categories unavailable to the people of the scrolls as a way of classifying themselves; human imagination had not yet created these taxonomic tools.4 Yet the people of the scrolls and their contemporaries did have a concept for the sort of human grouping they exemplified—like other Judaeans of the era (or Greeks, Persians, Cretans, Scythians, Thracians, Arabs, and others); they were an ethnicity, an ethnic group.5 The classicist Jonathan Hall 3  There are exceptions to this view, although most still resort to language that perpetuates the assumption that the scrolls and their authors and keepers were all about religion; see, for example, the recent work 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). Gillihan persuasively argues that the scrolls community and the texts they produced can be reasonably explained within the context of Graeco-Roman political organisations and philosophical movements—hardly the arena of what contemporary thinkers would call “religion.” 4  Indeed, during the Qumran community’s efflorescence the category “religion” was not yet available as a descriptor of oneself and/or one’s group, let alone as an analytical category, a subject of humanistic and social-scientific study. The literature in the field of religious studies on just what “religion” is and when the category was first recognised as such—either as a descriptor or as an object of critical analysis—is vast and complex and offers few convenient points of entry into it; see, however, the provocative pathway into the debate offered by a scholar of Christian origins, Brent Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 5  Steve Mason compellingly made the basic case for this view in a much-discussed 2007 article, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. His argument has drawn considerable response and criticism, including David Miller, “The Meaning of Ioudaios and its Relationship to Other Group Labels in Ancient ‘Judaism,’ ” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2010): 98–126; idem, “Ethnicity Comes of Age: An Overview of Twentieth-Century Terms for Ioudaios,” Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2012): 293–311 (Miller promises a third article that will “analyse the relationship between ethnicity and religion in scholarship on the meaning of Ioudaios, and evaluate the debate over the term’s English translation” [293]); and Adele Reinhartz, “The Vanishing Jews of Antiquity,” in Marginalia: A Los Angeles Review of Books Channel, June 24, 2014, accessed October 8, 2014,

A Brief Thought Experiment

165

circumscribes the fundamental characteristics of an ethnic group in ancient Greece.6 Its members identified with a specific territory and particular foundational discourses (typically drawn from the Greek mythic tradition). Their identity was not genetically determined, but rather was socially constructed and publicly expressed through interpretation of the foundational discourses. The genetic, linguistic, ritual, economic, social, political and cultural features we think of as intrinsic to ethnicities were, in fact, as open to manipulation and revision for the sake of identity construction as were their foundational discourses. Ethnic identity was not static; rather it was dynamic, fluid, and permeable in response to changing internal and external conditions. Ethnicity never originated and evolved in a vacuum; rather conflict with other groups— inter- and intra-ethnic conflict—engendered it and assured its continued evolution. Because of the unevenness of the give-and-take between competing groups over time, the unpredictability of external pressures and opportunities and the inevitable diversity of views within groups, the processes that engendered new ethnicities and sub-groups within ethnicities were not linear. Nor were such groups wholly united in every one of their views, relying for their unity on core agreements essential to (and often precipitating) their common identity. Consequently we can expect that literary evidence testifying to that process will be highly differentiated and even offer an occasionally selfcontradicting record of the competing groups’ discursive, interpretive accounts of themselves. It is possible to supplement this understanding with the insights of James Scott, the Yale cultural anthropologist and political scientist. Scott’s study of population groups in Upland Southeast Asia (dubbed “Zomia” in the scholarly literature) provides strong support for the view that ethnogenesis is, indeed, the result of conflict within and between groups.7 Scott demonstrates that the http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/vanishing-jews-antiquity-adele-reinhartz/. See also the responses to Reinhartz, published along with her original essay as an ePub, available at the url given above. 6  Jonathan Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997), esp. 1–33. To be sure, Hall’s definition of ethnicity has not gone uncontested. There is, in fact, an increasingly crowded field of contributors to the debate regarding the precise contours of ethnicity and ethnogenesis in Graeco-Roman antiquity; see now especially A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean (ed. Jeremy McInerney; London: Blackwell, 2014); Joseph Skinner, The Invention of Greek Ethnography: From Homer to Herodotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Kostas Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 7  James Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia (Yale: Yale University, 2009), esp. 238–82.

166

Kugler

curiously similar cultural register found in population groups across Southeast Asia’s upland regions—sometimes separated by hundreds of kilometers from one another—is the result of a common strategy for escaping the hegemony of emerging imperial states in the lowland regions over the labour, resources, and very lives of subject peoples: withdrawal from the reach of the emerging states, departure from the valleys to higher ground. In these “zones of refuge” diverse language groups, cultural clusters, and communal units found common cause around the desire to remain outside the reach of the emerging states. Over time these groups developed their own shared culture that provided them unity in their resistance to the lowland bullies, yet also preserved for them space within which they could continue to exhibit and give expression to some of their diverse former cultural traits and ideas. It is not hard to see how the people of the scrolls fit Hall’s basic definition of an ethnic group. They identified themselves with the land of Israel and as descendants of Abraham, and they held as central to their identity foundational Israelite discursive traditions. Moreover, they constructed their identity by interpreting those discourses and developing through that discursive act their unique notions of biological lineage and language, ritual, economic, and social practices, and political and cultural commitments. Notably, the scrolls indicate that, like other emerging ethnicities in antiquity, the intensity with which they differentiated themselves from their “ethnos of origin” did not develop in a linear fashion, but rather seemed to fluctuate relative to internal and external influences and opportunities. The diversity of views evident in the scrolls also indicates that the group was never univocal in its own self-understanding, but rather accommodated simultaneously a range of selfdifferentiating perspectives that could nonetheless find unity in their opposition to temple corruption and the expressions of the Judaean ethnicity that stewarded the debased sanctuary. It is also not difficult to appreciate the value of Scott’s model for understanding how the people of the scrolls may have come to existence. Faced with the emergence of successive powers—Seleucids, Hasmonaeans, and Romans— that sought in various ways to coopt the Judaean identity the people had developed over the years of Persian rule, and that aimed to capture their resources and even their persons in service of building empire or state, we know that many Judaeans of diverse perspectives found common cause in resisting these state powers. It seems certain that among those who resisted were the people we have come to associate with Qumran and the scrolls, who negated the ruling powers’ capacity to usurp them and their resources for service to state interests by removing themselves from the powers’ reach—by physical separation and non-participation in the structures that perpetuated the hegemony of the

A Brief Thought Experiment

167

powers (e.g., the temple and its economy). And like Scott’s people of Zomia, while at first the coalition of people who took this approach to resisting the hegemony of empires and states undoubtedly varied widely in their expression of traits typical of Judaean identity, over time they developed a shared vocabulary, idea world, ritual practices, and so on; they became the “Essenes” we associate with the Dead Sea Scrolls and with the settlement at Qumran.8 3

The War Scroll and Related Texts: A Brief Overview

The War Scroll itself (1QM) is a nearly complete work, consisting of at least nineteen columns, but missing portions mostly on the bottom margin, and dates to the second half of the first century BCE.9 It begins with what appears to be a “double introduction” describing the eschatological war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. Part of it describes the unfolding of the war and another part anticipates the complete annihilation of the Sons of Darkness (1:1–2:14). The main section, 2:15–15:3, gives disparate details regarding the accoutrements and the “how” of waging war (e.g., descriptions of the trumpets, banners and shields; the arming of divisions; the placement of mounted fighters; the recruitment and age of the fighters; the roles of the priests and Levites; the actual movements of the divisions; and the prayers, blessings and speeches to be given by various figures at certain points in the battle). The last section imagines the final battle and closes with the thanksgiving to God for victory and at least the beginning of a ceremony to conclude the

8  For a fuller account of this hypothesis and illustration of it via the example of 4QMMT, see Kugler, “Ethnicity: A Fresh Context for Locating the ‘Religion’ of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Note, however, that the use of Scott’s insights in this account of the hypothesis is not found in that earlier treatment. In fact, the hypothesis remains under development, and the present article is part of the long engagement with the question of identity formation and the people of the scrolls described in the opening paragraph of the earlier treatment. I note in passing the similarities between my project and the one being pursued by Jean Duhaime in a variety of his writings; see, for example, “La Règle de la Guerre (1QM) et la construction de l’identité sectaire,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (ed. Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 131–45. 9  For the major editions, see Yigal Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (trans. Batya and Chaim Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962); Jean Carmignac, La Règle de al Guerre des Fils de Lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1958).

168

Kugler

whole affair (15:4–19:14). Most, though not all, agree that we lack the end of the document.10 That the present form of the 1QM underwent redactional development is widely accepted.11 Setting aside the many small details entailed in fully appreciating 1QM’s complex and still unresolved redactional history, the view taken here accepts the argument that at least cols 15–19 achieved their present form at the hands of Qumran community redactors and effectively convert the eschatological battle envisioned in the earlier form of the document from one fought and won by human agency to a conflict that comes to conclusion only through divine intervention on behalf of the Sons of Light and that results in the annihilation of the Sons of Darkness (see esp. 19:10–11).12 Thus the development of the document in the hands of the people of the scrolls was toward a second edition that is apocalyptic in its outlook and, in any case, dualistic in a way that earlier version(s) was (were) not.13 In addition to the War Scroll, scholars have counted 4QSM (4Q285); 4QWar Scroll-like Text B (4Q471); 4QMa–f (4Q491–96); 4QWar Scroll-like Text A (4Q497); 11QSM (11Q14) either as copies of 1QM or as related documents.14 Together with the War Scroll these constitute the war texts from Qumran. As a 10  See Rony Yishay, “Column 19 of the War Scroll (1QM),” Meghillot 8–9 (2010): 175–92 [Hebrew]; Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 31–35, 11  Foremost among those making the case for a redactional history is Philip R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977); see the recent discussion in Brian Schultz, “Compositional Layers in the War Scroll (1QM),” 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; STDJ 91; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 153–64; see also Duhaime, War Texts, 45–63. 12  See Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, esp. 119–20; see also Jean Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56; idem, “La Règle de la Guerre (1QM) et la construction,” 132–33; Brian Schultz, “Not Greeks but Romans: Changing Expectations for the Eschatological War in the War Texts from Qumran,” in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. Mladen Popović; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 107–27. 13  On this, see Philip R. Davies, “Dualism in the Qumran War Texts,” in Dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Géza Xeravits; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 8–19. Note well that although the outlook of the work is apocalyptic, the text itself lacks key features assigned to the genre apocalypse, chief among them the claim that its contents stem from heavenly revelation. 14  For the editions of these see Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4 III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 12–72; Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, “14. 1QSefer Ha-Milhamah,” in Qumran Cave 11.II: (11Q2–18, 11Q20– 31) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 243–51; Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, “285,

A Brief Thought Experiment

169

group they date no earlier than the first half of the first century BCE (4Q493) and no later than the end of the first half of the first century CE (11Q14). The text collection has drawn an enormous amount of attention over the years. Among other puzzlements these texts provide for students of the scrolls, the precise relationship among them is one of the most vexing. The views on this question can be roughly divided into three.15 One view treats 4Q491–96 (4Q497 being too fragmentary to fully assess) as copies of the same work we see in 1QM that preserve material lost from the bottom edge of 1QM. A second treats all of these manuscripts as completely independent compositions. And a third view occupies the middle ground, assigning 4Q491–96 (and perhaps 4Q497) to the War Scroll as copies and/or recensions of it. This view identifies 4Q285 and 11Q14 as copies of a work thematically related to the War Scroll and sets aside 4Q471 altogether as not relating to War Scroll. Without fully arguing the case, this thought experiment rests on the firm middle ground in this debate. Suffice it to say that I see it as the most plausible assessment of the fragmentary evidence, especially in comparison with other significant “text clusters” in the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus that exhibit a similar range of variation and resemblance among themselves (e.g., 1QS and related 4Q texts; manuscripts related to Aramaic Levi [4Q213–14b; 1Q21]; the Temple Scroll and related texts [11QTa–b; 5Q524; 11Q21]; the Jubilees manuscripts and closely related “pseudoJubilees” texts [1Q17–18; 2Q19–20; 3Q5; 4Q216–24; 11Q12; 4Q176a–b; 4Q225–27]). 4

The War Scroll and Related Texts and the New Theory: A Comfortable Fit?

Given this basic information about the War Scroll and related documents, we turn to the questions this thought experiment is intended to answer, at least provisionally. Do the War Scroll texts and the theory that the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls constituted an ethnic group formed in conflict with other Judaeans fit comfortably together, or does the existence of a work like the War Scroll in the Qumran library challenge the theory’s cogency? In turn, does consideration of the war texts help refine the theory?

4QSefer Ha-Milhamah,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. Stephen Pfann et al., DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 228–46. 15  For the threefold division, and for bibliography relevant to the peculiar issues associated with some of the Cave 4 manuscripts (esp. 4Q491), see Schultz, “Not Greeks but Romans,” 108, n. 2.

170

Kugler

At least with respect to the mildly eschatological form of the War Scroll before its dualistic updating in cols 15–19, the answer to the first question seems to be affirmative. Eschatological imagination in response to disappointment in their circumstances is, in fact, a natural outgrowth of Judaeans interpreting and constructing their identity through discursive engagement with their foundational discourses—a key activity in constructing ethnic identity. The eschatological resources in Judaeans’ constitutive traditions are abundant (e.g., Gen 49:10; Num 24:15–19; Isa 9:2–7; 11:1–9; chs 24–27, etc.) and by the time of the earliest surviving manuscript of the War Scroll (4Q493, the first half of the first century BCE) many Judaeans had long been constructing identities for themselves that were deeply shaped by these traditions (e.g., the authors and communities associated with Third Isaiah, the Enoch traditions, and so many others). Eschatology was integral to the fabric of most expressions of Judaean identity, and that the people of the scrolls produced literature that took up that theme was what one might expect of a Judaean group crafting a new form of Judaean ethnic identity, driven to do so in large part by tensions with other Judaeans. The diverse war texts datable between the early first century BCE and the latter half of the first century CE also provide significant support for an affirmative answer to the first question. As noted above in describing the alternative theory of the people of the scrolls, ethnic groupings formed in opposition to hegemonic power grabs routinely accommodate diversity within themselves. Drawing people of diverse perspectives who, nonetheless, coalesce around their shared resistance to hegemonic power, new ethnic groupings naturally exhibit plural, conflicting views on the precise details of their self-understanding. In the scrolls we see evidence of this peaceful coexistence of competing views on so significant a matter as basic community governance (compare, for instance, 1QS and the Cave 4 manuscripts of the Community Rule)16—and yes, the way they imagine their identity being vindicated over against their shared hegemony-seeking foes. Thus, at least the form of 1QM assigned to the first stage of its redactional history and the variety among war texts fit comfortably with the alternative theory of the people of the scrolls. However, when we are confronted with the later form of 1QM 15–19 that moves more decisively toward an apocalyptic worldview, the war rule tradition does chafe when viewed in light of the 16  And see the recent attempts to explain those and other differences by John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010); Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm for Textual Development of the Community Rule (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

A Brief Thought Experiment

171

alternative theory. Such an apocalyptic view of the future that understands the conflict among proposals for ethnic identity as a “one against all” proposition suggests its proponents have taken a radicalised view of themselves and of the competition for ethnic definition; they have left behind the battle for ethnic differentiation and competition altogether. Addressing the second question—does consideration of the war texts help refine the theory?—resolves this difficulty. Addressing American Indian ethnogenesis in the nineteenth century, Gregory Smoak reminds us that ethnogenesis, though engendered by inter- or intra-ethnic conflict, still aims to establish an identity that permits a group to co-exist passably well with other groups, even with those whose views or practices initiated the conflict.17 On this reading, moving to dualistic hostility relative to all others, such as was the case through the revision or addition of cols 15–19 of the War Scroll, might rightly be taken as evidence of the composing group’s failure to forge a workable ethnic identity. If proven by further analysis to be an accurate assessment of the matter, this suggestion is consequential in two important respects: it points to the plausible conclusion of the story that the alternative theory of the people of the scrolls tells of their attempted ethnogenesis and restores the theory’s cogency even when taking into account the final form of 1QM; and it deepens our understanding of those people and the fate they crafted for themselves. 5

Concluding Reflections and Further Work

To start with the observation that closed the preceding section, one avenue of further exploration worth pursuing is how we might classify the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the later stages of their existence, when they seemed to become increasingly exclusivist, dualistic, and near-apocalyptic in their worldview. A tentative hypothesis is that we see in this evolution a prime example of how, at least in some cases, the human phenomenon that moderns label “religion” emerged as a distinguishable dimension of human experience precisely from the over-narrowing of ethnic identities around ethnicity traits that contribute to what we have come to call religion (e.g., the nature of a group’s sponsoring deity and the character of its deity-related ritual observances and moral codes).

17  Gregory Smoak, Ghost Dances and Identity: Prophetic Religion and American Indian Ethnogenesis in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), esp. 85–112.

172

Kugler

A narrower avenue of further research this thought experiment opens up has to do with the characterisation of the war text manuscript collection. I have suggested that the variety observed among the texts is best explained as a consequence of the acceptable diversity of views within an emerging ethnic group that owes its existence to one or more shared, overarching concerns. This, however, is only a supposition and requires confirmation from a close analysis of the differences among the texts. And should that analysis determine this to be a plausible explanation of the differences, it would then be useful to examine those differences as evidence for the diversity of views within the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. To be sure, other avenues of investigation are suggested by this thought experiment, and pursuing some might overturn its results altogether. But that is the nature of the scholarly enterprise when it is carried out with the sort of humility and wisdom the honouree of this article has demonstrated consistently throughout his career. Would that we had more scholars like him.

War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls

∵

CHAPTER 10

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll Alex P. Jassen 1 Introduction War and violence are pervasive in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Several texts depict the constellation of sectarian communities associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls as victims of violent persecution at the hands of their enemies.1 Other texts describe an endtime battle in which the Sons of Light—led in battle by God and the angels—will annihilate the wicked Sons of Darkness. In several recent studies, I have suggested that violence as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls should be understood as entirely imagined and that depictions of violence in the * I offer this study of the War Scroll as a small token of gratitude to Marty Abegg for all that I have gained over the years from his scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is rarely a research project on the scrolls for which I do not turn to one of the many resources that is available to the community of scholars because of Marty’s great efforts. On a personal note, Marty was the chair of the session in which I delivered my first professional paper. I continue to appreciate the reassuring and encouraging demeanor he displayed that day. 1  My use of the term “constellation of sectarian communities” reflects the assumption that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a collection of writings that represent a shared ideology and set of practices that are distinctive in the broader landscape of Second Temple period Jewish groups. At the same time, these writings do not represent a singular community and thus attempts to outline sectarian beliefs and practices must account for diversity within the sectarian documents. Two primary models have been proposed: (1) The diversity reflects the historical progression of related sectarian communities; (2) The sectarian documents represent the literary output of a broad network of communities spread out through the land of Israel. On these issues, see especially, Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for “The Community Rule” (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009); John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010). Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not reflect a singular approach to issues of war and violence. For an attempt to account for these developments drawing on the “historical progression” approach, see Alex P. Jassen “Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination,” in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. Ra‘anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin J. Roetzel; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 13–45.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_011

176

Jassen

scrolls fulfill a rhetorical role in empowering the disempowered sectarians.2 This approach seeks to move beyond the purely literary and historical emphases that have dominated previous studies of war and violence in order to examine the social, theological, and ideological setting of violence in the Dead Sea Scrolls.3 In so doing, my goal is to determine what such evidence tells us about the rhetorical function of violent language and imagery for the ideological worldview of the sectarians. The present article locates the War Scroll in this broader approach to the rhetorical function of violence for the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarians. The War Scroll represents the sectarians’ highly idealised fantasy of eschatological retribution. Despite its elements of fantasy, however, the War Scroll simultaneously contains many prescriptive details for the eschatological war that the sectarians believed was imminent. Unlike other sectarian depictions of eschatological violence, the War Scroll reflects a tension between imagined and real violence. I draw on the work of social anthropologists in order to characterise the War Scroll as a “violent imaginary.” Violent imaginaries represent a process of thinking about how future violence will unfold. In so doing, the future performer of violence legitimates and justifies the violent action. Building on this conceptualisation of imagined violence, I suggest that the War Scroll should best be understood as a propagandistic tool to prepare the Sons of Light as they inched closer and closer to what they believed was the imminent end of days and the eschatological war. 2  See Jassen, “Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls”; idem, “Prophecy, Power, and Politics in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism,” in Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires (ed. Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl; Ancient Near Eastern Monographs; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 171–98; idem, “War and Violence,” in T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel; London: T & T Clark, forthcoming). 3  Compare, for example, Raija Sollama, “War and Violence in the Ideology of the Qumran Community,” in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen (ed. Hannu Juusola, Juka Laulainen and Heikki Palva; Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 341–52; Mark Adam Elliott, “Retribution and Agency in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Teaching of Jesus,” in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. Harold J. Ellens; Westport; London: Praeger, 2004), 207–31; Philip R. Davies, “The Biblical and Qumranic Concept of War,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One, Scripture and the Scrolls (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 209–32; Florentino García Martínez, “The War Scroll and Related Literature: Visions of War and Tales of Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2010: Visions of Peace and Tales of War (ed. Jan Liesen and Pancratius C. Beentjes; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 303–34.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

2

177

Defining Violence

Scholars from a variety of disciplinary perspectives have long debated the meaning of violence and the precise parameters of its application.4 For purposes of my analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I draw on a restrictive definition of violence developed by social anthropologists that focuses on violence as directly related to physical harm. For example, the National Research Council of the American Academy of Sciences defines violence as “behaviors by individuals that intentionally threaten, attempt, or inflict physical harm on others.”5 This approach, however, does not explore the pre-history of violent acts. In what way does the violent performer plan for the execution of violence? Are there mechanisms by which the violent performer legitimates the violent act before it transpires? Ingo Schröder and Bettina Schmidt take up these questions in a recent analysis of what they identify as “violent imaginaries.”6 For Schröder and Schmidt, violence is the end result of a process of imagining how it will unfold and justifying these actions: Violence needs to be imagined in order to be carried out. Groups do not strike out at random at the next accidental bystander but follow cultural models of appropriate action. War is framed in a code of legitimation that declares the assertion of interests to be related to moral imperatives.7 They outline several mechanisms through which violent imaginaries are inscribed into the violent performer’s consciousness and how these legitimate 4  For useful surveys of these perspectives, see Ingo W. Schröder and Bettina E. Schmidt, “Introduction: Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices,” in Anthropology of Violence and Conflict (ed. Bettina E. Schmidt and Ingo W. Schröder; London: Routledge, 2001), 1–24; Pamela J. Stewart and Andrew Strathern, Violence: Theory and Ethnography (London: Continuum, 2002), esp. 1–51; Willem de Haan, “Violence as an Essentially Contested Concept,” in Violence in Europe: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (ed. Sophie Body-Gendrot and Pieter Spierenburg; New York: Springer, 2008), 27–40. 5  Albert J. Reiss and Jeffrey A. Roth, “Summary,” in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 1 (ed. Albert J. Reiss and Jeffrey A. Roth; Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993), 1–27 (2). This approach draws on the highly influential study of violence by David Riches, “The Phenomenon of Violence,” in The Anthropology of Violence (ed. D. Riches; Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 1–27. 6  Schröder and Schmidt, “Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices,” esp. 9–12. 7  Schröder and Schmidt, “Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices,” 9.

178

Jassen

the resulting violence. The violent performer appeals to a subtly manipulated portrait of past violence: Elements of history are decontextualized and reinterpreted as part of a communal legend of confrontation, creating an imaginary of internal solidarity and outside hostility. Antagonistic discourses are not invented or discontinuous with history, but fragments of memory are shifted in order to constitute new definitions of collective identity.8 Violent imaginaries establish clear distinctions between the “us” and “them” groups. In these distinctions, suggest Schröder and Schmidt, the “us” group regards the survival of every single member as of vital significance and affirms the moral superiority of its cause (even in the face of defeat). For Schröder and Schmidt, the past becomes a powerful rhetorical weapon to arm the present. The violent imaginaries are rarely intended to remain purely imagined. Rather, they function as rhetorical weapons in order to translate the imagined violence into practical violence. Violent imaginaries explain “how violence gets into religious texts” and “how violence gets from religious texts into action.”9 3

The Rhetorical Function of Violence in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Violence as grounded in real or potential physical harm abounds in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have suggested that violence in the Dead Sea Scrolls falls into two categories framed by temporal settings: present-time violence and eschatological violence.10 Several of the Pesharim envision the sectarians as victims of a longstanding campaign of violence perpetrated by other Jews (priests, Hasmonaeans, Pharisees, and Sadducees). For example, the Pesharim describe the Wicked Priest—a cipher for the High Priest in Jerusalem—doggedly pursuing the Teacher of Righteousness in order to harm him:

8  Schröder and Schmidt, “Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices,” 10. 9  Margo Kitts, “Religious Violence from a Literary Perspective,” in Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence (ed. Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 410–23. 10  On this classificatory system and full examination of the relevant texts, see Jassen, “War and Violence.”

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

179

“Woe to the one who gets his friend drunk, pouring out his anger, making him drink, just to get a look at their holy days” (Hab 2:15). This refers to the Wicked Priest, who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to destroy him in the heat of his anger at his place of exile. At the time set aside for the repose of the Day of Atonement he appeared to them to destroy them and to bring them to ruin on the fast day, the Sabbath intended for their repose (1QpHab 11:4–8). “The wicked man observes the righteous man and seeks [to kill him. But the Lo]rd [will not leave him in his power and will not co]ndemn him when he comes to trial” (Ps 37:32–33). This refers to the Wicked [Pri]est who ob[serv]es the [Teach]er of Righteous[ness and seeks] to kill him. (4Q171 1–10 iv 8–10) Other texts further emphasise the threat or execution of violence by the other Jewish groups and their leaders (1QpHab 10:13; 1QHa 10:19–35; 12:9–11; 4Q171 1–10 ii 14–15), with particular attention to the Hasmonaeans (4Q171 1–10 iii 7–8) and the Pharisees and Sadducees (4Q171 1–10 ii 18–19). In addition to fearing other more powerful Jews, the sectarians are keenly aware of the potentially devastating power of the foreign imperial forces. Large portions of Pesher Habakkuk focus on the devastating effect of the war machine of the Kittim/Romans, both as a historical memory and as part of the imagined unfolding drama of the end of days (1QpHab 2:10–4:17; 5:12–6:12). If we take all these passages at face value, the sectarians lived under the constant threat of violence by a wide range of contemporary Jews and foreigners. Scholars often regard the texts describing the threat or execution of violence against the community as recounting real historical details.11 It is more likely, however, that the imagery of the powerful priests in Jerusalem and their leader the Wicked Priest waging a campaign of violence and intimidation against the sectarians is part of a broader attempt by the disempowered and disenfranchised sectarians to craft a narrative of victimhood. The Hasmonaeans, the Pharisaic and Sadducean leadership, the priests and, undoubtedly, the High Priest likely had little interest in the circumstances of a small group that had cast themselves out of the mainstream of Jewish society. The sectarians generated a narrative of victimhood in order to transform the indifference of their enemies into perpetual persecution. The imagined persecution employs 11  On this issue, see especially James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002).

180

Jassen

the threat and execution of violence in order to reinforce the narrative of the sectarians as the true community of God in spite of their minority status and further delegitimise all the other Jewish groups. In the sectarians’ imagined narrative, they represent a clear threat to the power and prestige of the Wicked Priest and other Jewish groups who hold the levers of power in Jerusalem. Violence is also at the forefront of the sectarians’ vision of the end of days. The War Scroll famously outlines an eschatological war that will result in the destruction of the foreign imperial forces and wayward Jews.12 The violent end for the sectarian enemies in the War Scroll finds similar expression in other sectarian texts, especially the Pesharim and the “Treatise on the Two Spirits” section of the Rule of the Community (1QS 3:13–4:26). Many of the relevant passages frame the destruction of the enemies as a reversal of the present reality. For example, in the present time, the “wicked ones of Ephraim and Manasseh” attempt to “lay their hands” on the community. In the future, “God will ransom them (i.e., the sectarians) from their hand” and the wicked ones will be “given into the hand of the ruthless ones among the nations” (4Q171 1–10 ii 18–20). A similar reversal awaits the “last priests of Jerusalem,” who amass their wealth in the present time by plundering the people. In the end of days, they are themselves plundered by the Kittim (1QpHab 9:3–7). So too, the “wicked princes” perish because of their oppression of God’s holy people (4Q171 1–10 iii 7–8). The rhetorical nature of the reversal theme in the Pesharim is underscored by the description of the eschatological suffering of the enemies with language that echoes the nature of their oppression of the righteous sectarians in the present time. The world that the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarians inhabited generated a profound disconnect as they forged their self-identity. On the one hand, the sectarians viewed themselves as the elect of God and their priestly leaders as the only ones knowledgeable of the true application of the divine law.13 In this sense, the sectarians regarded the reigning local power structure as a temporary aberration. Yet, the sectarians simultaneously recognised that they were a disempowered minority relative to the overpowering might of other Jews and the foreign imperial powers. The sectarians possessed little ability to overturn the present power structure and assert their rightful place of leadership and authority. 12  On the eschatological war, see below. 13  On the sectarians’ self-identity as the elect of God, see Alex P. Jassen, “Survival at the End of Days: Aspects of Soteriology in the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesharim,” in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism (ed. Daniel M. Gurtner; LSTS 74; London: T & T Clark, 2011), 193–210.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

181

The depictions of eschatological violence offer insight into how the sectarians responded to their present overmatched position while simultaneously affirming their special status. The portrait of a highly violent eschatological age is balanced by a remarkably nonviolent present time. No sectarian writings envision any present-time violent engagement with their perceived enemies. This approach stands in marked contrast to contemporary Jewish groups who responded very differently to their perceived oppressors. Both the Hasmonaeans and the Zealots, for example, appealed to the “zeal of Phinehas” as part of their advocacy of immediate armed resistance against their enemies.14 While opposition to more powerful Jews and foreigners is pervasive throughout the sectarian writings, all hostile engagement is deferred until the end-time. The violent eschatological vision serves in the present primarily as a rhetorical tool to empower the disempowered sectarians. The sectarians crafted a “fantasy” of retributive violence that reverses the power of the foreigners and other Jews and the powerlessness of the sectarian community.15 4

Imagined and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

As with other sectarian depictions of endtime violence, the War Scroll outlines a fantasy of eschatological retribution against the sectarians’ enemies.16 To take one example, the War Scroll employs military tactics and weaponry associated with the sectarians’ foreign enemies.17 Most scholars have approached this material for its clues to the date, provenance and genre of the War Scroll.18 There is an equally significant rhetorical effect to the nature of the military tactics and weaponry. Whether it reflects Hellenistic or Roman realities, the War Scroll clearly envisions the downfall of its enemies through the very mechanisms in which these enemies reign supreme in the present time. As such, the 14  See 1 Macc 2:24–27; Josephus War 4.155. See especially Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 AD (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 146–77. On the role of the “zeal of Phinehas” in sectarian ideology, see further Jassen, “War and Violence.” 15  On other early Jewish and Christian discourses of imagined resistance, see relevant bibliography in Jassen, “Prophecy, Power, and Politics,” 178–79 n. 23. 16  See, e.g., Davies, “Biblical and Qumranic Concept of War,” 230–32. 17  See Jean Duhaime, “The War Scroll from Qumran and the Greco-Roman Tactical Treatises,” RevQ 13/51 (1988): 133–51; Russel Gmirkin, “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” DSD 3 (1996): 89–129. 18  See summary in Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 83–95.

182

Jassen

War Scroll manifests a form of eschatological retribution far more potent than anything previously encountered in sectarian texts. The War Scroll redeploys the Hellenistic/Roman war machine in crafting its fantasy of retributive justice. In so doing, the imbalance between the empowered and disempowered is dramatically inverted in much the same way as envisioned in the Pesharim and the “Treatise on the Two Spirits.”19 This very example, however, points to a tension in the War Scroll between imagined violence and practical violence. The employment of military tactics and weaponry associated with one’s foreign enemies is not merely about a fantasy of revenge. These features seemingly outline parameters for how an actual war will unfold. While the Pesharim and the “Treatise on the Two Spirits,” for example, merely imagine in generalised terms the downfall of the enemies, the War Scroll sketches in detail how the eschatological war will unfold. Yigael Yadin points to elements in the War Scroll such as the military tactics and weaponry as a basis for arguing that the scroll consists of a “detailed set of regulations and plan” for the eschatological war.20 This question is explored further in Jean Duhaime’s comparison of the War Scroll’s military tactics and weaponry with Graeco-Roman military treatises.21 Duhaime observes several important distinctions between practical war manuals and the War Scroll. The War Scroll does not match the precise prescriptive tactical features of Graeco-Roman war manuals, but rather is exceptionally unrealistic in its outline of the war. For example, the War Scroll envisions that the warring parties will cease fighting every seventh year in observance of the sabbatical year. Moreover, the War Scroll relies far more heavily on “religious” features—e.g., divine intervention in the war, the role of angels, prayer, and other rituals—that are entirely absent in Graeco-Roman war manuals. As such, Duhaime argues that the War Scroll could not have functioned as a prescriptive war manual, but should rather be considered a “utopian tactical treatise” that “mirror[s] the views of a group lacking the possibility of waging war.”22 19  On this feature in apocalyptic texts, see Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011). 20  See Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), esp. 4. More recently, Philip S. Alexander has advocated this approach (“The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in Emanuel; Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov [ed. Shalom M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003], 17–31, esp. 28). 21  Duhaime, “The War Scroll from Qumran.” 22  Jean Duhaime, “The War Scroll from Qumran,” 151. In a more recent work, Duhaime suggests the possibility that the scroll may have functioned as a manual for the priests as they traveled alongside the fighting (War Texts, 59–60).

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

183

Duhaime’s conclusion shifts the conversation back to characterising the War Scroll as a fantasy, albeit interlaced with aspects of real warfare. Steven Weitzman’s recent study on the War Scroll has further complicated this question.23 Weitzman takes as his point of departure the implication of Duhaime’s research that the “religious” aspects of the War Scroll must render it impractical for a real war. By expanding the comparative data to include Graeco-Roman and Jewish writings that refer to the use ritual and religion to manipulate emotions in war, Weitzman argues that the ritual aspects of the War Scroll can be understood as possessing practical elements of warfare.24 As in these Graeco-Roman and Jewish settings, the War Scroll utilises religious rituals in order to manipulate human emotion as a way to bolster troop psychology before and during the war. The quest to find a singular genre marker for the War Scroll seems misguided.25 It is entirely plausible that the scroll incorporates idealised revenge fantasies alongside prescriptive war tactics. Moreover, it is possible that the distinct genres on display in the War Scroll are the result of a composite history.26 Even if this is the case, we must inquire as to how its final redactors (and to some extent its audience) viewed the function of the complete War Scroll within the sectarian communities. In what follows, I suggest another way of thinking about the tension between idealised and practical violence in the War Scroll. Building on the work of Schröder and Schmidt discussed above, I argue that the War Scroll can be understood as an example of what they call a “violent imaginary.” The War Scroll is a document that was read and studied—perhaps even ritually intoned—by the sectarian community in the pre-eschatological age. In this pre-eschatological age, the disempowered sectarians searched for ways to express their hope for an imminent eschatological age in which the empowered Jews and foreigners would meet their ultimate fate. The War Scroll, however, is where imagination meets anticipation. The violent imaginary of the War Scroll serves as a propagandist tool to prepare the sectarians for the imminent war. To be sure, the sectarian texts exude a high degree of confidence in their expected success in the eschatological war. At the same time, they certainly recognised that they would face a powerful group of enemies in the war. Violent imaginaries 23  Steven Weitzman, “Warring against Terror: The War Scroll and the Mobilization of Emotion,” JSJ 40 (2009): 213–41. 24  Weitzman focuses in particular on Xenophon, Onasander, and Julius Caesar and 1 and 2 Maccabees. He argues that the Jewish sources demonstrate evidence of influence from Graeco-Roman war practices. 25  Compare García Martínez, “The War Scroll and Related Literature,” 317. 26  On this question, see the summary of research in Duhaime, War Texts, 45–53.

184

Jassen

function as highly effective propagandistic tools that manipulate emotions in order to ready groups and individuals for war and legitimate the resulting violence. The sectarians did not engage in para-military exercises in preparation for the war. Their preparation consisted in living a life of meticulous study and pious observance of the law. The reading and study of the War Scroll and its balance of imagined and practical violence represented a piece of that larger preparatory program.27 Schröder and Schmidt outline three areas in which violent imaginaries are represented: narratives, performances and inscriptions. As social anthropologists, their scope of inquiry is broad and incorporates a wide range of observable social settings. The study of an ancient social group exclusively through literary remains of course knows no such luxury. In spite of these limitations, the scrolls represent the best opportunity to peer behind the text to understand the social world of the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarians. As in the violent imaginaries discussed by Schröder and Schmidt, the War Scroll utilises narratives, performances, and inscriptions in order to legitimate the impending violence of the eschatological war and frame the “us versus them” battle lines. 5

Violent Imaginaries: Narratives

Violent imaginaries rely heavily on past violent encounters in order to legitimate future violence and prepare individuals and groups for the violent encounter. Narratives represent an especially effective manner to re-awaken the past violence. As outlined by Schröder and Schmidt, narratives function “either by glorifying one’s own group’s achievements and benefits or by the perceived injustices, losses or suffering incurred by one’s own group.”28 These narratives create a social memory that can easily be manipulated. The narration of past victories provides a template and justification for renewing that violence in the present. Narrating past losses is equally effective in legitimating

27  In his most recent treatment of the War Scroll, Duhaime offers a similar understanding: “It might have been composed and used by religious leaders who were convinced that the ultimate struggle against the forces of evil was about to take place and who were trying to get ready for it” (“War Scroll,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture [ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013], 3116–3151 [3116]). See the similar observation in García Martínez, “The War Scroll and Related Literature,” 317. 28  Schröder and Schmidt, “Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices,” 10.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

185

future violence as recompense for the violence and oppression that individuals or groups have suffered. 5.1 Israel’s Enemies in 1QM 1 1QM 1 provides a good example of a narrative violent imaginary. The opening section of the War Scroll outlines an eschatological war between the Sons of Light and a confederation of sectarian enemies all identified as “The Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial” (1QM 1:1). This includes three distinct sets of enemies: (1) The troops of Edom, Moab, Amon, and Philistia;29 (2) The Kittim of Assyria; (3) “violators of the covenant.” The Sons are Light are identified as members of the tribes of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin (1QM 1:2). The War Scroll imagines that God has appointed a specific time for the downfall of the Sons of Darkness. Yet, as the war unfolds, the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness are each successful for three “lots.” Ultimately, however, “the great hand of God” emerges in order to ensure the victory of the Sons of Light (1QM 1:13–14). (1) The Troops of Edom, Moab, Amon, and Philistia: The first set of enemies is a list of regional enemies from Israel’s past, all of whom have ceased to exist by end of the Second Temple period. On the one hand, this list makes good sense. As several commentators note, this list constitutes nations from Israel’s past that pursued its destruction.30 In addition to the generalised characterisation of these nations as enemies of Israel, the triad of Edom, Moab, and Amon appear together in Dan 11:41.31 As we shall see below, 1QM 1 is heavily dependent on Dan 11:40–45. The appearance of these three nations alongside the villainous King of the North (Antiochus IV)—albeit as escaping his wrath— likely rekindled the feelings of past suffering at the hands of these nations. 29  A lacuna in the manuscript allows for likely one additional nation in this list. Suggestions are generally offered based on what commentators think is the main biblical verse that serves as the basis for the list of nations (see below, n. 32): Amalek (Carmignac, Milik, Qimron); Amorites (van der Ploeg); “Peoples of the East” (Dupont-Sommer); “Army of the dwellers of . . .” (Yadin). Based on the rhetorical function of the list, I think Amalek is the most likely suggestion. 30  Jean Carmignac, La Règle de la guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres: Texte restauré, traduit, commenté (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1958), 4; J. van der Ploeg, Le rouleau de la guerre (STDJ 2; Leiden: Brill, 1959), 57; Ted M. Erho, “The Motif of the Eschatological Battle in the War Scroll (1QM),” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Contribution (ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek; EJL 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 359–74 (364–65). 31  For other possible biblical passages from which the War Scroll draws, see Dean O. Wenthe, “The Use of Scripture in 1QM,” DSD 5 (1998): 290–319 (296); Brian R. Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 125–26.

186

Jassen

Yadin further observes that there is a regional quality to the list.32 While the names are ancient, the nations that currently inhabit the corresponding geographic regions in the Second Temple period are similarly hostile toward the Jews in Judea. The use of the names of the ancient enemies is a critical aspect of the rhetorical characteristics of the War Scroll. As part of the sectarians’ fantasy of eschatological retribution, the eschatological war is an opportunity to reverse the present-time oppression of the sectarians at the hands of more powerful Jews and foreigners. At the same time, the sectarians as the reconstituted Israel renew the age-old conflict with Israel’s neighbors. The identification of “Edom, Moab, Amon, and Philistia” as among the armies of Belial rehearses the many times that these nations have oppressed Israel in the past and waged war against Israel. The end-time armies of the Sons of Light therefore have an opportunity to reverse centuries of Israelite/Jewish disempowerment. Narrative violent imaginaries can replay past losses or victories. The War Scroll may in fact be doing both here. Scholars have noted an intriguing correspondence between the list of enemies in the War Scroll and the neighboring foreign nations that Judah Maccabee defeats in 163 BCE as outlined in 1 Macc 5.33 As a historiographical text, 1 Macc 5 utilises the contemporary names of the geographic regions once inhabited by these nations alongside reference to their ancient inhabitants. The author of 1 Maccabees no doubt regarded Judah Maccabee’s victories as appropriate recompense for the oppression of Israel by the ancient inhabitants of these regions. Thus, the introduction of the Idumeans as “the descendants of Esau in Idumaea” (1 Macc 5:3) affirms that Judah’s victories fulfill the ancient predictions of the downfall of the Edomites/ Sons of Esau.34 The memory of the Hasmonaean victory over the regional enemies of Israel was surely a powerful one—even for groups not entirely sympathetic to the Hasmonaean rebellion and dynasty. For example, James C. VanderKam argues that the account of the battle between the sons of Jacob and Esau and his 32  Yadin, Scroll of the War, 21–22. 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, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 140–58 (144); 144; Erho, “Motif,” 365, make a similar observation. 33  See also Josephus, Ant. 12.327–53. For an argument in favor of these historical connections, see especially Russell Gmirkin, “Historical Allusions in the War Scroll,” DSD 5 (1998): 172–214. 34  Jonathan Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation (AB 41; Garden City, N.Y.; Doubleday, 1976), 294, suggests that this features stands behind the “unusual expression” for the Idumaeans.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

187

sons in the book of Jubilees (chs 37–38) reflects the historical situation of the Hasmonaean victories of 163 BCE.35 Jubilees recounts how the Sons of Esau mount a war against Jacob and his sons after he has been granted the birth rights of Esau. The Sons of Esau muster an army from the surrounding nations, in particular Edom, Moab, Amon, and Philistia. In spite of being seemingly overmatched, Jacob and his sons route Esau and his army of foreign mercenaries. The victories of Judah Maccabee over the contemporary nations inhabiting these very regions provided the inspiration for the similar victory of Jacob and his sons. The combined memory of past oppression by Israel’s regional enemies and recent victories over these same nations in their contemporary setting provides a formidable rhetorical tool for the Sons of Light as they contemplated the future violent encounters with the regional armies of Belial. (2) The Kittim of Assyria: The next enemy in 1QM 1 is the detested Kittim. Like the other enemies listed in line two, the Kittim were real historical enemies of Israel. The designation Kittim, however, takes on a much deeper meaning in the literature of the Second Temple period. The term appears several times in the Hebrew Bible in reference to the inhabitants of one of more islands, presumably in the Mediterranean (e.g., Num 24:24; Jer 2:10; Ezek 27:6). Numbers 24:24, the fourth oracle of Balaam, has a decidedly eschatological tone when it describes the Kittim afflicting Israel alongside Assyria and Eber. While these passages surely have in mind a specific national enemy, later Jewish writers employed the term Kittim as a designation for a variety of seafaring enemies from the west—most prominently the Greeks and the Romans.36 Many of these texts combine the eschatological understanding of the might of the Kittim with these newly encountered enemies of Israel. The encounter with the Greeks or Romans was regarded as the fulfillment of the eschatological predictions of Balaam’s oracle. Thus, the inclusion of the Kittim as among the armies of Belial has little to do with the encounter with the historical Kittim. 35  James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 235–38. VanderKam is expanding upon the observation first made by R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 216. 36  This development in Second Temple literature is widely discussed. See especially Yadin, Scroll of the War, 22–26; George J. Brooke, “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim,” in Images of Empire (ed. Loveday Alexander; JSOTSup 122; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 135–59; Hanan Eshel, “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz; STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 29–44; Duhaime, War Texts, 77–81; Brian R. Schultz, “The Kittim of Assyria,” RevQ 23 (2007): 63–77; idem, Conquering the World, 127–57.

188

Jassen

The identification of Kittim as the archenemies in the eschatological war evokes the narrative of oppression suffered at the hands of the many foreign nations identified over time as the Kittim. Closer examination of the Kittim in 1QM 1 yields an even richer portrait of the function of their memory as a violent imaginary. 1QM 1 is unique among the Dead Sea Scrolls because of its inclusion of a geographic designator for the Kittim: line two introduces them as the Kittim of Assyria, while they appear in line four as the Kittim in Egypt. The meaning of these two additional geographic markers has confounded scholars and complicated attempts to identify the Kittim of the War Scroll.37 David Flusser has presented the most cogent explanation for the curious description of the Kittim. Flusser argues that 1QM 1 reflects an adaptation of the oracle predicting the future downfall of the King of the North—Antiochus IV— in Dan 11:40–45.38 In Dan 11:40–43, the King of the North enjoys great success in subduing Egypt and ravaging its treasures. Daniel 11:44 envisions Antiochus IV responding to trouble among the nations of the north and east. While responding to this upheaval, Antiochus IV meets his death: “Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him” (Dan 11:45). The author of Daniel provides no hint as to how Antiochus would die. This omission suggests that the author of Daniel expected Antiochus’ death to transpire through supernatural means. The actual death of Antiochus IV in Persia in 164 BCE ultimately proved this oracle to be incorrect. Flusser argues that the author of 1QM 1 viewed the unfulfilled prophecy of Dan 11:40–45 as an opportunity. The author of Daniel hopes for the imminent demise of the archenemy Antiochus IV. The author of the War Scroll transposes the anticipation of the death of the archenemy from Antiochus IV to the more current enemy—the Kittim of Assyria and their king. Based on the literary dependence with Daniel, Flusser asserts that the King of the Kittim undertakes the actions outlined in 1QM 1:4–5. This correspondence therefore explains the strange designation “Kittim in Egypt” at the beginning of line four. As in Dan 11:40–43, Egypt is the starting point for the wrathful actions of the King of the Kittim as he mimics that pattern of the King of the North. There are

37  See Schultz, Conquering the World, 128–29, for the various theories proposed regarding the identity of the Kittim in 1QM 1. 38  Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements.” Yadin, Scroll of the War, 256, notes the literary correspondence with Dan 11:40–45, though does not assign any great significance to the shared language. See further Wenthe, “Scripture,” 297–98. Flusser’s overall interpretation is adopted in Eshel, “Kittim,” 34–37; Schultz, Conquering the World, 92–102; Erho, “Motif.”

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

189

no “Kittim in Egypt,” asserts Flusser—only “Kittim of Assyria” and their wrathful king who departs Egypt for a campaign of terror.39 The alignment of the King of the North and the King of the Kittim thus explains the identification of the “Kittim of Assyria.” As Flusser observes, there is widespread evidence for equating the ancient empire of Assyria with the Second Temple period empire of Seleucid Syria.40 The identification of the Kittim as “of Assyria,” however, is about more than merely geography. It provides an opportunity to conflate the ancient empire with the present empire— the presumed enemy in the eschatological war. The War Scroll evokes the narratives both of Assyria as the oppressive empire and the many oracles predicting Assyria’s demise. The latter figure prominently in the War Scroll’s outline of the downfall of Assyria/Syria.41 1QM 1:6 conflates the anticipated downfall of the King of the North in Dan 11:45 with the prediction of Assyria’s demise in Isa 31:8:42 1QM 1:6 “Assyria shall fall with no one to come to his aid, and the supremacy of the Kittim shall cease.” Daniel 11:45 “He will meet his doom with no one to help him.” Isaiah 31:8 “Then Assyria shall fall, not by the sword of man; A sword not of humans shall devour him.”

39  Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements,” 155 (cf. 147–48). 40  Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements,” 149–51 (see also Schultz, Conquering the World, 132–32; Erho, “Motif,” 363–64). On the equation of Assyria and Syria, see further Yehoshua M. Grintz, “The People of the Yahad, the Essenes, and Beth (E)ssene,” Sinai 32 (1953): 11–43 (26 n. 34) [Hebrew]; Yadin, Scroll of the War, 25; Menachem Stern, “Jerusalem Which Is in the Land of Assyria in a Fragment from the Work of the Historian Asinius Quadratus,” Zion 42 (1977): 295–97 [Hebrew]. On the question of the linguistic connections between the terms “Assyria” and “Syria” and their conflation, see Richard N. Frye, “Assyria and Syria: Synonyms,” JNES 51 (1992): 281–85; Robert Rollinger, “The Terms ‘Assyria’ and ‘Syria’ Again,” JNES 65 (2006): 284–87. 41  This dynamic is also at play in the book of Daniel’s relocation of Isaiah’s oracles against Assyria to refer to the Seleucid Empire. See Andrew Teeter, “Isaiah and the King of As/ Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision: On the Rhetoric of Inner-Scriptural Allusion and the Hermeneutics of ‘Mantological Exegesis,’ ” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (ed. Eric Mason et al.; JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 169–99. 42  See also 1QM 11:11–12, which cites Isa 31:8 in full as the scriptural basis for the belief that God has appointed a time for the destruction of the Kittim (cf. 1QM 18:2 and 19:10).

190

Jassen

The predicted destruction of Assyria is woven into the fabric of the anticipated end of the Kittim as now articulated in the reworked prophecy of Dan 11:40–45. As noted above, the cryptic language predicting Antiochus’ death in Dan 11:45 likely indicates that the author of the oracle anticipated that Antiochus’ death would be through divine intervention. The reworking of this prophecy in the War Scroll indicates that the author of the War Scroll understood the prophecy in a similar way. The primary function of the conflation of Isa 31:8 and Dan 11:45 in 1QM 1:6 is to connect the fall of Assyria with the fall of Syria. In so doing, Isa 31:8 clarifies the vague language surrounding the death of the King of the North in Dan 11:45. For the War Scroll, this death—now understood as the annihilation of the Seleucids and their king—will be realised through divine intervention. Indeed, the victory of the Sons of Light against the Kittim is only achieved with the aid of divine intervention: In the seventh lot the great hand of God shall overcome [Belial and al]l the angels of his dominion, and all the men of [his forces shall be destroyed forever]. (1QM 1:14–15). The introduction of divine violence provides perhaps the most powerful narrative violent imaginary of the War Scroll.43 1QM 1 evokes the warrior God as the ultimate memory of past violent encounters. As several commentators note, the reference to God’s great and powerful hand in 1QM 1:14–15 evokes God’s military intervention in the destruction of Pharaoh and Egypt.44 Moreover, 1QM 1:9–12 contains five distinct references to destruction happening on a specific “day.” Most prominently, 1QM 1:9 identifies the day of the annihilation of the Kittim as long ago appointed by God. The repeated identification of the fall of the Kittim on a specific day is likely an allusion to the concept of the “Day of the Lord.”45 In several prophetic texts, the “Day of the Lord” represents a future time when God’s wrath will be visited upon the enemies of Israel. If this connection is intended, the War Scroll has located the 43  On divine violence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see especially Årstein Justnes, “Divine Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Encountering Violence in the Bible (ed. Markus Zehnder and Hallvard Hagelia; Bible in the Modern World 55; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 178–93. 44  Yadin, Scroll of the War, 262; Eshel, “Kittim,” 36; Duhaime, “War Scroll,” 3122. See also 1QM 11:9–12, which explicitly recalls the defeat of Pharaoh and his soldiers and the supernatural defeat of the Assyrians. 45  This connection is noted in Schultz, Conquering the World, 156; García Martínez, “The War Scroll and Related Literature,” 308. See also the reference to the “day of vengeance” in 1QM 7:5; 15:3.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

191

prophetic “Day of the Lord” in the eschatological context of the endtime war against the Kittim and their allies. In several places the War Scroll imagines that God will destroy the Kittim and other enemies with a divine sword (1QM 15:2–3; 16:1; 19:11). The identification of the sword of God as the agent of divine violence is related to the conflation of Dan 11:45 and Isa 31:8 in 1QM 1. As observed above, these combined passages imagine the downfall of the Kittim and their king “not by the sword of man.” The imagined death is not merely supernatural. The War Scroll reads Isa 31:8 quite literally to imply that a divine sword will execute divine justice.46 The image of the divine sword executing judgment of the day of vengeance draws on several prophetic passages (see Isa 34:45–48; Jer 46:10; 47:6). Its redeployment in the War Scroll positions the divine warrior of the Hebrew Bible as the agent of destruction in the anticipated eschatological war. (3) The “Violators of the Covenant”: One final enemy appears among the armies of Belial: the “violators of the covenant” (‫)מרשיעי ברית‬. As Yadin observes, the expression “doubtlessly referred to those amongst the Jews whom the sect considered to be traitors and persecutors of the righteous.”47 Variations of this pejorative designation appear in several other texts. Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab 2:6) and Pesher on Psalms (4Q171 1–2 ii 13; 3–4 iii 12) similarly condemn other Jews with an expression that most scholars also translate as “violators of the covenant” (‫)עריצי הברית‬. The Damascus Document denounces together those who break through the wall of the Torah and the “wicked ones in Judah” (‫)מרשיעי יהודה‬.48 The only instance in which the exact parallel expression ‫ מרשיעי ברית‬appears is in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a 5a–b 8; 4Q387 3 6). The key to understanding the use of this unique iteration for condemning the sect’s enemies is its scriptural source. The expression appears in Dan 11:32. “He will flatter with smooth words those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people devoted to their God will stand firm.” In Dan 11:32, the “violators of the covenant” are not merely apostate Jews. Rather, they are Jews whom Antiochus IV has seduced and therefore make common cause with the foreign enemy. Moreover, they are contrasted with the true people of God who 46  Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements,” 150–51. See also his discussion of other possible Second Temple period appearances of the motif of the sword of God. 47  Yadin, Scroll of the War, 26. 48  Although lexically related, it is important to note that the expression in the War Scroll is an objective genitive (i.e., violators toward the covenant), while the related expression in the Damascus Document seems to be a subjective genitive (i.e., those of Judah who are wicked).

192

Jassen

resist the foreign advances. The use of the expression in the War Scroll is about more than merely literary borrowing. It evokes the memory of the circumstances outlined in Dan 11:32. This is the only instance in the War Scroll where fellow Jews are identified among the Sons of Darkness. The War Scroll utilises Dan 11:32 to make a statement regarding their affiliation. Like the Hellenisers who have been seduced by Antiochus IV, the Jewish traitors are now counted alongside the foreigners and thus worthy of the same fate. The use of Dan 11:32 affirms the “us versus them” orientation of the War Scroll. The sectarians are the “people devoted to their God,” while the other Jews are violators of the covenant and thus worthy of the same fate as the other nations with which they conspire. 6

Violence Imaginaries: Performances

Schröder and Schmidt identify the second element in a violent imaginary as performances: Performative representations of violent confrontations are public rituals in which antagonistic relationships are staged and prototypical images of violence enacted.49 These “war ceremonies,” which can occur both before and after war, seek to build public support and valorise violent confrontation. Schröder and Schmidt note that the public appearance of leaders in wartime almost always has a performative quality to it. We should recall as well that violent imaginaries in general draw much of their rhetorical force from the reuse of past violence and the subtle manipulation of history. Performative representations of violence constitute an important framework for thinking about a great deal of material in the War Scroll. As noted above, the mixture of idealised and practical violence in the War Scroll has long perplexed scholars. Duhaime in particular focuses on the many ritualistic elements in the War Scroll as evidence of its impractical nature. Like Weitzman, I contend that these aspects are impractical only if we restrict our point of reference. Many ritualistic aspects of the War Scroll that find no parallel in contemporary Greco-Roman war manuals can be understood as examples of performative representations of violence. Indeed, this conceptualisation incorporates both practical and ritualistic components of the war 49  Schröder and Schmidt, “Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices,” 10.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

193

as outlined in the War Scroll. In what follows, I explore several aspects of the War Scroll that I think are best understood as performative representations of violence. While each has some features that could be classified as prescriptive directions for the war, I suggest that we should reorient our understanding of these aspects in order to grasp the rhetorical function of their appearance in the War Scroll. Violent Stagecraft in 1QM 2 as Performative Representation of Violence The outline of the war in 1QM 2 represents a good example of the staging of antagonistic relationships and the enactment of prototypical violence. As Yadin demonstrates, 1QM 2 imagines that this war will unfold over a forty-year period.50 Unlike in 1QM 1, the enemies in 1QM 2 are no longer the Kittim and Israel’s regional enemies. Rather, 1QM 2 utilises the Table of Nations in Gen 10 to imagine a much broader worldwide battle.51 The ranks of the Sons of Light have also swelled. 1QM 2 imagines the fully reconstituted people of Israel waging war against the many far flung nations. The Sons of Light in 1QM 2 never experience military setbacks and do not need direct divine intervention in order to secure victory. The war in 1QM 2 is fashioned with a high degree of stagecraft. Six years are devoted to preparation for the war (1QM 2:9).52 This is followed by a sabbatical year in which various aspects of the temple ritual are reconstituted (1QM 2:6). In the remaining 33 years, fighting occurs in four blocks of seven years and one block of five years. The fighting ceases every seventh year in observance of the sabbatical year. The war in 1QM 2 is of course extremely idealised; the Sons of Darkness willingly cease fighting every seven years in deference to the religious norms of the Sons of Light! The structuring of the war around the sequence of sabbatical years is about more than merely imagining one’s enemies deferring to Jewish ritual practice. The war follows a carefully crafted script that is familiar to readers of the text. The War Scroll invites its readers to rehearse the eschatological war and imagine its prosecution through the medium of the text. 6.1

50  Yadin, Scroll of the War, 20–21. Yadin and subsequent scholars have different models for calculating the forty-year period of war. See especially the detailed discussion of the chronology of 1QM 1–2 in Schultz, Conquering the World, 171–83. 51  See Schultz, Conquering the World, 184–204. 52  Here I follow those scholars who render ‫ תערך‬in 1QM 2:9 as indicating preparation for the coming war, not the actual waging of the war. See Schultz, Conquering the World, 173–74.

194

Jassen

6.2 The Eschatological War as Reenactment of the Wilderness Period Performative representations of violence draw heavily on past violence. The particulars of the past become the building blocks for the war ceremonies of the future. The forty-year period for the eschatological war is surely an allusion to the forty years in which the Israelites wandered through the desert before ultimately conquering the land of Canaan. Indeed, the War Scroll elsewhere deploys the imagery of Joshua’s conquest of Jericho as prototypical of the violence that will ensue in the eschatological war (e.g., 1QM 18:1–5). The memory of the desert period figures prominently in several implements of the eschatological war. For example, the organisational structure of the armies into “thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens” in 1QM 3:16–18 is patterned after the model of judicial organisation found in Exod 18. The simultaneous use of this organisational structure for military purposes is attested in Num 31 (see vv. 14, 48, 52). Like the Pentateuchal inspiration, the sectarians utilised this organisational structure for both military purposes and other aspects of sectarian life (e.g., CD 12:22–23; 13:1–2). The War Scroll, however, follows other Second Temple period Jewish examples in drawing upon this organisational structure particularly for military purposes.53 The connection with the Israelites in the desert is heightened through the central role of the banners and trumpets in the organisation of the eschatological army. 1QM 2:16–3:11 outlines the “Rule for the Trumpets,” an extensive listing of the various trumpets used in battle and the words that are to be inscribed on each trumpet. The use of trumpets in warfare is based on one of their functions as outlined in Num 10:1–10. Numbers 10:9 specifically instructs the Israelites to blast the trumpets when they are under attack in order for the Israelites “to be remembered” by God and thereby ensure that they will be delivered from their enemies. The War Scroll expands the function of the trumpets to include a range of tactical signals.54 Their sound on the battlefield undoubtedly continued to serve as a clarion call for divine intervention in battle. As with the trumpets, the extensive use of banners in 1QM 3:13–4:17 can be traced to the Israelite experience in the desert. Numbers 2:2 directs the Israelite tribes to “camp each with his standard, under the banners of their ancestral house.” To be sure, this particular directive is not associated with Israelite military procedures. Yet, the

53  See especially 1 Macc 3:55; Josephus War 2.577–78 (see Yadin, Scroll of the War, 59). 54  See Yadin, Scroll of the War, 87–113.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

195

extensive use of banners in Roman armies likely provided the inspiration for ascribing a military function to the expansion of the banners from Num 2.55 The examples cited here are only three of the most prominent connections between the description of the eschatological army of the Sons of Light and the Israelites in the desert.56 The Sons of Light are reflections of the Israelites moving through the desert and vanquishing enemies on their way to the eventual conquest of Canaan. In Numbers, the Israelites first defeat their enemies outside of Canaan and then within Canaan. In the War Scroll, the direction of the war is reversed. The Sons of Light first defeat their local and regional enemies before moving outward to fight the more far-flung nations. Throughout, the memory of the first battle of the fully constituted Israel becomes the template for the final battle of the fully re-constituted Israel. 6.3 War Prayers as Performative Representations of Violence The war prayers in 1QM 10–14 represent another section that scholars often cite when considering the impractical tactical nature of the War Scroll. Here as well, this section of the War Scroll takes on a much different meaning when we examine the rhetorical function of the prayers as performative representations of violence.57 Taken as a whole, the prayers outline the multiple stages of the eschatological war. In each stage, the current violent encounter, to paraphrase Schröder and Schmidt, re-stages past antagonistic relationships and re-enacts prototypical images of violence. The war prayers are introduced by two biblical citations and one modified biblical passage (1QM 10:1–8).58 God is addressed in the second person in the 55  On the Roman use of banners, see Yadin, Scroll of the War, 61–64; Duhaime, “Tactical Treatises,” 140. 56  See further Jean Carmignac, “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans « La Guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres »,” RB 63 (1956): 234–60, 375–90 (385); Yadin, Scroll of the War, 38; Philip R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 28–35; Wenthe, “Scripture,” 299–300, 302–6. 57  Scholarly discussion of the war prayers in 1QM 10–14 has focused primarily on their contribution to our understanding of the composition of the War Scroll. See especially Yadin, Scroll of the War, 208–28; Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditiongeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (SUNT 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 29–115; Davies, 1QM, 91–112; Schultz, Conquering the World, 255–305. Other scholars focus on the poetical and liturgical features of the text. See Bilha Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 201–26; Duhaime, War Texts, 17–18, 104–13. 58  For discussion of the precise literary character of this section, see Davies, 1QM, 92–93.

196

Jassen

non-biblical material, which would suggest that the entire unit forms part of the first prayer. As the opening lines of the first prayer, this cluster of biblical material functions as a preface for the prayers that follow and provides the key to understanding their function. The passage opens by highlighting Mosaic instruction regarding God’s might on behalf of Israel in warfare. This assertion is supported by a citation of Deut 20:3–4: And he (Moses) told us that you are in our midst, a great and awesome God, plundering all of our enemies befo[re u]s. He taught us from of old through all our generations, saying, “When you approach the battle, the priest shall stand and speak unto the people, saying, ‘Hear O Israel, you are approaching the battle against your enemies today. Do not be afraid nor fainthearted. Do not trem[ble, no]r be terrified because of them, for your God goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, and to save you.’ ” (1QM 10:2–5) The passage from Deuteronomy represents the single task assigned to priests on the battlefield. The priest is responsible for motivating the soldiers and assuring them of God’s presence on the battlefield.59 In Deuteronomy, the account of the priest’s speech is followed by a description of the role of the officers (‫)שוטרים‬. They interrogate the troops regarding soldiers eligible for exemption if they have recently built a house, planted a vineyard, married, or if they are merely fainthearted about the upcoming battle (Deut 20:5–9). In the War Scroll, the role of the officers is reimagined. Instead of granting exemptions for life events and faintheartedness, like the priest, they provide an invigorating speech to encourage the soldiers and assure that no soldier is frightened: Our [of ]ficers shall speak to all those prepared for battle, those willing of heart, to strengthen them by the might of God, to encourage all who have lost heart, and to strengthen all the valiant warriors together. They shall recount that which you s[poke] by the hand of Moses, saying: “And when there is a war in your land against the adversary who attacks you, then 59  The expanded role for the priest based on Deut 20 is also found in 1QM 15:4–8, though there assigned specifically to the Chief Priest and accompanying priests and Levites. On the relationship between these two passages, see Schultz, Conquering the World, 266–67. See the similar role assigned to priests in 1QM 7:12; 16:13. In addition to their function in reciting the prayers, the priests play a prominent role in the tactical prosecution of the war in 1QM 7:9–9:9.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

197

yo[u] shall sound an alarm with the trumpets and you will be remembered before your God and be saved from your enemies” (Num 10:9) (1QM 10:5–8). The modification of the biblical source texts in this preface helps explain the function of the prayers. First, the role of the priests is dramatically expanded. In Deuteronomy, the priest provides a pre-war speech of encouragement and invigoration. This function is reworked in the War Scroll so that the priests are now responsible for leading the war prayers.60 The war prayers function in much the same way as the speech of the priest in the Deuteronomy. A prominent public figure appears on the battlefield to remind the soldiers that God’s might always vouchsafes Israel’s victory in battle. In Deuteronomy, a single assertion accomplishes the desired results; in the War Scroll, the sequence of prayers achieves the same effect. As noted above, “war ceremonies” commonly engage the services of public figures. The War Scroll enshrines in its literary representation of the war a prominent place for priests. The priests reciting the prayers engage in a form of what Weitzman calls “emotional mobilization,” similar to the function of pre-battle speeches utilised by both Roman and Jewish military commanders to encourage the army and prevent a drop in troop morale.61 Second, the War Scroll imagines that no soldier will be terrified at the prospect of the coming war. The officers no longer seek exemptions based on fear as in Deuteronomy. Rather than exempting the fearful, they “encourage all who have lost heart.”62 This is accomplished by once again recalling the might of God in warfare, in this case based on the biblical description of the military function of the trumpets in Num 10:9. The appeal to Num 10:9 would have had

60  On the priestly role in leading the prayers, see especially Yadin, Scroll of the War, 228; Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 204. 61  Weitzman, “Warring against Terror,” 226–27. 62  Some scholars render this clause as “to turn back all the faint-hearted” (e.g., Yadin, Scroll of the War, 304; cf. Davies, 1QM, 93). The assumption is that this clause represents the officers acting out the requirement to exempt the fearful soldiers as in Deut 20:8. Schultz, Conquering the World, 262–64 discusses the various issues involved in the interpretation of the expression. He observes that the meaning assumed by Yadin is out of place surrounded by two verbs referring to strengthening the soldiers. Moreover, the War Scroll provides no further instruction on how the fearful soldiers would have been dismissed. In it more likely that the War Scroll inverts the language of Deuteronomy to achieve its desired vision of the officers ensuring that there are no fainthearted soldiers in the war camp.

198

Jassen

a special resonance on account of the abundance of war trumpets utilised by the priests during the war. The prayers that follow are guided by the basic principles outlined in the preface. The priests recite a series of prayers that highlight God’s great might, especially in the context of past military encounters. Three large-scale prayers are articulated. The first prayer in recited as the troops prepare for battle (1QM 10:8–12:end). This prayer is followed by additional prayers to be recited on the day of battle (1QM 12:end–14:1) and following the victory (1QM 14:2–end). These prayers draw on the memory of past divine military strength to assure the soldiers that God will intervene in the current struggle. For example, 1QM 11 opens with a refrain that is repeated several times throughout the prayer: “Truly, the battle is yours” (1QM 11:1, 2, 4). As Duhaime observes, this refrain is based on several biblical accounts of divine intervention in battles. The closest literary parallel is David’s declaration to Goliath in 1 Sam 17:46: “For the battle is the Lord’s, and he will deliver you into our hands.”63 This very divine intervention on behalf of David is offered as one among many examples where God’s assistance secures the military victories of Israel (1QM 11:1–3). This is followed by other similar examples: the victories of the kings of Israel, the destruction of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and the defeat of Sennacherib and the Assyrians.64 The prayer asserts that the prophets have predicted the coming war in their various oracles of destruction against Israel’s past enemies. As we have repeatedly seen, past violent encounters with Israel’s enemies are regarded as prefiguring the current struggle against Israel’s eschatological enemies. The outline of these past violent encounters provides the foundation for the ensuing assertion that God and the angels will vanquish “the enemies of the lands” and will deliver them into the “hands of the oppressed” (1QM 11:13). The performance of these prayers during the actual war surely would contribute to the emotional mobilisation that Weitzman highlights. At the same time, the reading of these prayers prior to the war would have been especially effective in preparing the Sons of the Light for the coming war. It is possible that the sectarians would have recited the prayers in a ritualistic framework in the pre-eschatological age. Indeed, Matthias Krieg has argued that the War Scroll itself is a cultic drama intended to be rehearsed by the sectarians in anticipation of the end of days.65 63  Duhaime, War Texts, 106. 64  See Yadin, Scroll of the War, 212–13. 65  Matthias Krieg, “Mo‘ed Naqam—ein Kultdrama aus Qumran: Beobachtungen an der Kriegsrolle,” TZ 41 (1985): 3–30. See the similar approach advocated in Carmignac, La Règle de la guerre.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

199

I am suggesting, however, the ritual recitation of the prayers in the preeschatological age would have constituted part of the sectarians’ preparation for the actual war that they believed was going to transpire. Bilha Nitzan highlights several important parallels between the prayers in the War Scroll and biblical prophetic songs that appear in visions of future redemption. As she notes, the prophets constructed these songs in the “prophetic past” so that it appears that the prophets are partaking in the celebration of the redemption. She therefore concludes that these songs, even when they are described as intended to be recited “on that day,” were recited in the present as an expression of prophetic hope for the coming redemption.66 The recitation of these songs in the present rehearses the anticipated redemption that they outline. In the case of the prayers in the War Scroll, the public recitation of the prayers by the priests in the pre-eschatological age would have fulfilled a similar function. In the pre-eschatological age, the ritual recitation of the prayers under the guidance of the priests would have provided a setting for the sectarians to imagine the violence that would soon transpire. 7

Violent Imaginaries: Inscriptions

Inscriptions represent the third element of a violent imaginary. Inscriptions are images “inscribed in the cultural landscape.” Schröder and Schmidt highlight specific examples of “visual displays of antagonism” such as banners or murals as well as images broadcast on television.67 The War Scroll contains no precise parallel to this type of non-textual visual imagery. I would suggest, however, that the War Scroll does contain some examples of visual displays of antagonism that have a similar effect as the non-textual examples that Schröder and Schmidt outline. I am thinking in particular of the inscriptions that adorn the trumpets, banners, and weapons. The textual displays on these war implements harness the ontological power of words to become their own objects of violent manipulation. As noted above, Num 2:2 prescribes banners for the Israelites traveling in the desert, though does not stipulate that anything should be inscribed on them. The biblical description of the trumpets in Num 10:1–10 indicates that they should be silver and made of hammered work (v. 2). No further direction is provided regarding the visual layout of the trumpets. The section in the War Scroll on the banners (1QM 3:13–4:17) and trumpets (1QM 2:16–3:11) outlines 66  Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 205–6. 67  Schröder and Schmidt, “Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices,” 10.

200

Jassen

specific inscriptions for each distinct banner and trumpet. Unlike non-textual displays of antagonism, the inscriptions would have zero effect on the enemy who could not understand them. Thus, they can only be intended for the Sons of Light, whether on the battlefield or as they imagine the future prosecution of the war. The inscriptions follow a pattern. Nearly every banner inscription bears the name of God. All of the trumpet inscriptions include God’s name. In nearly every instance, the inscription evokes divine power and violence. This is especially the case when the banners or trumpets are associated with tactical phases of the war. For the banners, the War Scroll introduces banners associated with the whole congregation and the levitical clans.68 The war slogans on the banners change based on the specific tactical phase of the war. In many cases, the names of the soldiers are inscribed alongside the war slogans associated with God. I provide here a few examples:69 Type of Banner

Inscription

On the banner of Merari

“The Offering of God” (1QM 4:1)

On the banner of the tho[us]and “The Anger of God is loosed against Belial and all the men of his forces without remnant” (1QM 4:1–2) When they go to battle

“The truth of God,” “The Righteousness of God,” “The glory of God,” “The justice of God” (1QM 4:6)

When they draw near for battle

“The Battle of God,” “The Recompense of God,” “The Cause of God,” “The Reprisal of God,” “The Power of God,” “The Retribution of God,” “The Might of God,” “The Annihilation by God of all the vainglorious nations” (1QM 4:7)

68  See Duhaime, War Texts, 16. 69  See Yadin, Scroll of the War, 43, for a full chart.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

201

The trumpet inscriptions are of two types corresponding to two general classes of trumpets and their tactical uses in warfare. The trumpets that are utilised for general communal arrangement bear straightforward inscriptions that describe the class of people associated with the call of those trumpets. For example, the trumpets for “the assembly of the congregation” are inscribed with “the called of God” (1QM 3:2). 1QM 3:5–9 outlines the inscriptions for the trumpets employed in battle. In each case, the inscription intones the desired outcome for the enemies in the battle: Tactical Use of Trumpet

Inscription

Trumpets for their campaigns

“The Mighty deeds of God to scatter the enemy and to put all those who hate justice to flight and a withdrawal of mercy from all who hate God” (1QM 3:5–6)

Trumpets for assembling the “A Remembrance of requital at the infantry when the gates of war appointed time of God” (1QM 3:7–8) open that they might go out against the battle line of the enemy On the trumpets of the slain

“The hand of the might of God in battle so as to bring down all the slain because of unfaithfulness” (1QM 3:8)

Trumpets of ambush

“Mysteries of God to wipe out wickedness” (1QM 3:8–9)

Trumpets of pursuit

“God has struck all Sons of Darkness, He shall not abate His anger until they are annihilated” (1QM 3:9)

Some of these inscriptions draw their literary foundation from biblical passages. Yadin suggests that the practice of inscribing the banners is inspired by the tribal inscriptions on the tribal and levitical staffs in Num 17:17–18.70 The 70  Yadin, Scroll of the War, 39.

202

Jassen

language of the inscriptions for the trumpets draws on several biblical formulations, in particular biblical examples of war slogans.71 This approach, however, does not account for the broader question of why this language is visually inscribed on the banners and trumpets in a time of war. The banner and trumpet inscriptions fit well Schröder and Schmidt’s notion of visual displays of antagonism. While Schröder and Schmidt are particularly interested in non-textual examples, the banners and trumpets represent textual examples of the same phenomenon. The inscriptions as visual displays of antagonism would likely be especially potent on the battlefield as a mechanism for emotional mobilisation. I am suggesting that they would have been equally effective for the sectarians as they crafted their fantasy of the eschatological war. Far from the battlefield, the sectarians could imagine their enemies suffering the very fate inscribed on the banners and trumpets when the associated tactical procedures are undertaken. The words of the inscriptions are more than merely the literary representations of the sectarians’ fantasy of eschatological retribution. Words have the capacity to inscribe violence themselves. The inscription of the violent language on the trumpets should be seen as analogous to the ritual function of words in ancient omens, curses, and spells. As in these examples, “a belief in the performative power of words in both their spoken and written forms underlies the production and use of ritually charged texts.”72 The fabrication and utilisation of a banner or a trumpet with a particular inscription on it has two effects. In a practical sense, it mobilises the troops for the particular tactical procedure associated with the banner or trumpets. At the same time, the formation of the banners or trumpets and their utilisation on the battlefield constitute ritual acts of intoning the very words inscribed on the banners and trumpets and thereby transforming them into action. In the same way as the utterance of a curse is an illocutionary act, the banners and trumpets provide a mechanism for ritually enacting the violent words inscribed on the banners and trumpets. The ritualised use of words provides a powerful forum for the sectarians to play out the violence of the eschatological war in the preeschatological age.

71  See Carmignac, “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament,” passim; Yadin, Scroll of the War, 105–6; Davies, 1QM, 30–31. 72  Scott B. Noegel, “The Ritual Use of Linguistic and Textual Violence in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East,” in State, Power, and Violence, vol. 3 of Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual (ed. Margo Kitts et al.; Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 33–46 (34). See also Kitts, “Religion and Violence,” 412–13.

Violent Imaginaries and Practical Violence in the War Scroll

203

8 Conclusions The War Scroll is a complex text that defies simple classification. In this study, I have suggested that we should avoid trying to identify a single genre and function for the text. The War Scroll incorporates apocalyptic features even as the text is not an apocalypse. Similarly, it outlines several prescriptive military directives for the coming eschatological war even as the text as a whole cannot be considered a tactical military treatise. The War Scroll blends together highly idealised depictions of the war with equally realistic features of warfare. The key to understanding the War Scroll is to let all these seemingly competing features speak to one another. The sectarians authors and readers of the text surely looked to the War Scroll for direction as to how the eschatological war would unfold and how the armies of the Sons of Light would prosecute the war against the Sons of Darkness. In spite of the presence of tactical directives in the text, the War Scroll as a whole is about imagining how the war would unfold. Like other sectarian depictions of endtime violence, the War Scroll reflects the sectarian fantasy of eschatological retribution. It empowers the disempowered sectarians by imagining a dramatic reversal of power in the endtime. The War Scroll, however, differs from related sectarian texts, in the level of detail with which it outlines the final battle and the devastation of the enemies. In this sense, the War Scroll is not pure fantasy. Its practical violence is framed by the belief that the Sons of Light would in fact be fighting a battle against the Sons of Darkness in the near feature. I have suggested that the War Scroll functions as a propagandistic tool to prepare the sectarians for this war. My study locates the War Scroll as an example of a “violent imaginary.” The War Scroll represents the imagined violence that must transpire prior to the outpouring of real violence. The sectarians read this text in the preeschatological age—perhaps even in a ritualised context—and prepared themselves for the war and violence that they regarded as imminent. The War Scroll as a violent imaginary legitimates the violence of the eschatological war and clearly frames the “us versus them” orientation of the war. In so doing, the War Scroll prepares the sectarians for the transition from the imagined violence of the pre-eschatological age to the practical violence of the eschaton.

CHAPTER 11

The Naval Battle in the Qumran War Texts Brian Schultz In the small corpus of literature at Qumran that deals with the eschatological war (also known as “the War against the Kittim” or “the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness”), two collections of texts have been identified: Serekh haMilḥamah (1QM, 4Q491–7) and Sefer haMilḥamah (4Q285 and 11Q14). This slight variation in the names was intentional, as a way to preserve the uncertainty as to whether or not these two compositions may in fact be a single one,1 was first suggested by J.T. Milik in 1972.2 I have taken a closer look at the similarities and differences between the two collections and concluded that while they both deal with the same subject matter. Sefer haMilḥamah cannot be the lost ending of Serekh haMilḥamah as had been suggested, but these two texts should be considered as independent, albeit related, compositions.3 Among the evidence I used, three items in particular stood out. First, Serekh haMilḥamah focuses exclusively on the duties of the priests on the battlefield, while Sefer haMilḥamah is very much concerned with the role of the Prince of the Congregation. Second, while the literary formula for the blowing of trumpets is uniform throughout all the copies and recensions of Serekh haMilḥamah, it is different in Sefer haMilḥamah. And lastly, Sefer haMilḥamah’s description of the end of the war includes a going out to the sea with a subsequent return to dry land, a development not found anywhere in Serekh haMilḥamah. In this study, I wish to take a closer look at this last point, as it has received little * An early version of this study was presented at a conference at Bar Ilan University honouring my Ph.D. advisor, mentor, and dear friend, Prof. Hanan Eshel (‫)ז"ל‬, a year after his untimely death. I am delighted to present here a more complete version in honor of Prof. Martin Abegg, who has likewise been a friend and mentor, a North American counterpart to what Prof. Eshel was to me in Israel. 1  Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “Working with Few Data: The Relationship Between 4Q285 and 11Q14,” DSD 7 (2000): 56. 2  J.T. Milik, “Milkî-ṣedeq et Milkî-rešaʿ dans les ancients écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 143. 3  Brian Schultz, “Re-Imagining the Eschatological War—4Q285/11Q14,” 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), 197–212.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_012

The Naval Battle In The Qumran War Texts

205

attention from scholars in spite of its incongruence with what we know of Israelite warfare. The text in question, lines 5–10 of 4Q285 frg. 4, with minimal reconstruction, reads as follows:4 [ ֯‫ה]כתיים ו‬ ֯ 5 ‫ נש]יא העדה עד הים ̇ה[גדול‬6 [‫ההיאה‬ ̊ ‫ וינוס]ו̊ מפני ישראל בעת‬7 [‫ ו]י̇ עמוד עליהם ונעכרו עליהם‬8 ‫בעת ̇ה ̊הי̊ [אה‬ ̇ ‫ ]ו̊ ושבו אל היבשה‬9  . . . ‫ ]ו֯ י֯ ̇בי̇ אוהו̇ ̇ל ֯פנ֯ י֯ נ֯ ̇שיא[ העדה‬. . . 10 5. . . . the ]Kittim and[ . . .  6. . . . prin]ce of the congregation until the [great] sea[ . . .  7. . . . and] they [shall flee] from before Israel5 at that time[ . . .  8. . . . and] he shall stand against them and they shall be troubled against them[ . . .  9. . . . ]w and they shall return to dry land6 at th[at] time[ . . .  10. . . . ]and they will bring him before the Prince [of the congregation . . .  Philip Alexander and Geza Vermes who published 4Q285 suggest that [the] surviving words imply a pursuit towards the sea of an enemy intent on embarking on ships in order to escape. Line 9 seems to imply that Israel pursues the enemy onto the sea, defeats them in a sea battle and returns to dry land.7 Should this be the correct interpretation, it would be a shocking development indeed, considering Israel’s avoidance of anything connected to the sea, not to 4  All translations are my own unless indicated otherwise. Transcription from Philip Alexander and Geza Vermes, “285. 4QSefer Ha-Milḥamah,” in Qumran Cave 4 XXVI—Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. Stephen J. Pfann, et al.; DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 235. 5  The editors put a period at this point: “. . . and] they [shall flee] from before Israel. At that time[ . . .” (Alexander and Vermes, DJD 36, 236). 6  Similarly, the editors include a period here: “. . . ] and they shall return to the dry land. At th[at] time[ . . .” (Alexander and Vermes, DJD 36, 236). 7  Alexander and Vermes, DJD 36, 237. The implication is that the one being brought before the Prince of the Congregation is the king of the Kittim, which they reconstruct in line 5.

206

Schultz

mention its maritime ventures which are more known for their failures (1 Kgs 22:48) or their reliance on foreign help in order to assure their success (1 Kgs 10:22, 2 Chron 8:18). What would therefore motivate an author to include such a military confrontation at sea into his vision of the anticipated eschatological war? Alexander and Vermes do not offer any suggestion, and the matter has likewise been ignored by subsequent scholars. I wish to propose a rational for its inclusion and suggest that it was in fact a prevalent component of early Jewish exegesis from the Roman period in understanding the final eschatological conflict that would bring in the messianic age. At Qumran in particular, the understanding of the final eschatological war became intimately intertwined the Kittim. That the Kittim played a key part in the eschaton was deduced from the last of Balaam son of Beor’s prophecies (Num 24:14–24). The key passage (v. 24) reads as follows:   8 And ships from the side of the Kittim; and they subjugate8 Assyria, and they subjugate Eber. And he too shall perish forever

‫וְ ִצים ִמיַ ד ִכּ ִתּים‬ ‫וְ ִענּוּ ֲאשּׁוּר‬ ‫וְ ִענּוּ ֵע ֶבר‬ ‫וְ גַ ם הוּא ֲע ֵדי א ֵֹבד‬

The verse contains a number of difficulties, but since they are not consequential for the purposes of this study, they can be set aside in order to focus on the Kittim. In v. 14, the broader context of the prophecy is said to be about the “end of days” (‫אַח ִרת ַהיָּ ִמים‬ ֲ ), an expression that originally designated the future,9 but that in time came to mean the eschaton, especially at Qumran.10 Since these were the last utterances of Balaam, they apparently revealed what was to take place at the very end of the eschaton. Consequently, the Kittim of Num 24:24 became one of the key elements in properly understanding the “end of days.” We are told that they would come in ships, subjugate or oppress the Assyrians, then Eber, apparently understood to be the Hebrews and/or their land,11 after which he (or they) would be meet his (or their) end. Thus, the very last event is the Kittim’s demise but it comes during or right after a conflict with Israel. The term “Kittim” is derived from the city of Kition on the eastern coast of Cyprus, near present-day Larnaca.12 In the Bible, the Kittim are said to be the 8  For this translation of ‫ ִעּנּו‬see Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36 (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 206. 9  Levine, Numbers 21–36, 199. 10  Annette Steudel, “‫ אחרית הימים‬In the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16/2 (1993): 225–46. 11  See the LXX and the Targumim; also Levine, Numbers 21–36, 206. 12  David W. Baker, “Kittim,” in ABD, vol. 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 93.

The Naval Battle In The Qumran War Texts

207

sons of Yawan, meaning Greece (see Gen 10:4, also 1 Chron 1:7), but the term is most commonly used not as an eponym, but as an ethno-geographical marker designating any people group emanating from the Mediterranean world and its islands (see Jer 2:10, Ezek 27:6). Similarly in the Second Temple period, Josephus claims that the term refers to all the Mediterranean islands as well as a greater part of the mainland’s coast (Ant. 1.128). Thus we see two separate yet contemporaneous uses of the term Kittim in the late Second Temple period. The first is its non-religious, non-eschatological definition, as a way to talk about any people group from the Eastern Mediterranean world, especially its islands (as in Jer 2:10, Ezek 27:6, and Ant. 1.128). The second is its eschatological dimension (as in Num 24:24), when it is used as a moniker for a specific group that will be Israel’s last enemy that will suffer defeat as part of God’s final redemption of his people. Consequently, it is important to decipher which of these two meanings an author intended when he used the term Kittim. And as we shall see, in the late Second Temple period there was a desire to identify which ethnic group was believed to be these eschatological Kittim. In the Qumran texts, the term Kittim is always used in the second, or eschatological, sense. A survey of its attestations at Qumran reveals that in the earlier compositions the Kittim were identified as the Seleucids, while in later ones they were thought to be the Romans, the watershed between these two identifications being Pompey’s conquest of Judea in 63 BCE.13 Yet in Dan 11:30, a composition known to be from the first half of the second century BCE at the very latest,14 thus well before Pompey’s conquest of Judea, the author of the book of Daniel had already used the term Kittim to refer to the Romans, and not the Seleucids. Since eight copies of the book of Daniel have been found at Qumran,15 one would have expected that at least some of the pre-Roman period compositions would have likewise identified the Kittim as the Romans, even before Pompey’s conquest. But such is not the case.

13  Hanan Eshel, “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz; STDJ 37; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 29–44. 14  James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC 19; New York: Scribner, 1927), 470; Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 253–54; John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 388–89. 15  Eugene Ulrich, “Daniel, Book of,” in EDSS, (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:170–174.

208

Schultz

This contradiction between the identity of the Kittim in Daniel, where they are the Romans, and in those Dead Sea Scrolls composed prior to Pompey’s conquest, where they are the Seleucids, is most obvious in the War Scroll, a composition whose origins date to the second century BCE.16 The contradiction is even more shocking when one takes into account that the author of the War Scroll sought to base his composition on Dan 11 specifically.17 In the War Scroll, the King of the Kittim (Seleucids) is a new moniker for Daniel’s King of the North, even when in Daniel the enemies of the King of the North are the Kittim (Romans). How this came about I detail elsewhere,18 though it bears summarising here. Only after the composition of the book of Daniel did the Jews begin to relate to the term Kittim in its eschatological sense, and consider the identification of these eschatological enemies as being a key component to their understanding of the end of days. Until then, the term Kittim was used only as a geo-political term that could be applied to any nation emanating from the Mediterranean world. Thus, when the author of the prophecy in Dan 11 sought to describe the intervention of the Roman envoy Gaius Popilius Laenas in Egypt against the Seleucid King Antiochus IV in cryptic terms (v. 30), this rather vague, non-eschatological, geo-political term—Kittim—fit his purposes well. He was not trying to identify who were the eschatological Kittim of Num 24:24, but simply needing to find a way to refer to the Romans without using their actual name (such as “Romans”, “Rome,” etc.). The War Scroll, on the other hand, used the word Kittim, being inspired by Num 24:24, as the name of the very last enemies Israel would have to face. Since in Daniel that last enemy was believed to be the King of the North, meaning the Seleucid monarch, in the War Scroll he is called the King of the Kittim, this in spite of the fact that Daniel had used the word Kittim in its geo-political sense to describe the Roman envoy who had successfully opposed the King of the North in Egypt. That Gaius Popilius had previously been involved on the naval front of Rome’s campaign against King Perseus of Macedonia, and that he and his forces had arrived to Egypt from Delos by ships (Livy 45:10) was apparently known to the 16  Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 102, 126–27, 160, and 351 n. 75. 17  David Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll,” in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (ed. A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stern; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & Ministry of Defense, 1980), 434–52 [Hebrew]; David Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll,” in Qumran and Apocalypticism, vol. 1 of Judaism of the Second Temple Period (trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand Rapids Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 140–58. 18  Brian Schultz, “The Kittim of Assyria,” RevQ 23 (2007): 63–77.

The Naval Battle In The Qumran War Texts

209

author of Daniel, as he is careful to mention the Kittim’s (i.e. Roman’s) ships: the ‫ ִציִּ ים ִכּ ִתּים‬. Yet why would the author of Dan 11 choose to use such an obscure noun for the Romans’ ships, rather than the more usual ‫ אניות‬or ‫ ?ספינות‬I have suggested this use of the rare Egyptian loan word ‫צי‬19 was most likely inspired from the book of Isaiah the prophet.20 Indeed, there are several expressions in the Hebrew Bible found only in Isaiah and Dan 11, and this combination of the word Kittim with the Egyptian loan-word for ships (‫ )ציים‬should be counted as one of them: both ‫ ציים‬and ‫ כתים‬are found in Isa 23:12–13.21 It is the influence of Isa 23 on the author of Dan 11 that motivated him to focus on the naval aspects of Gaius Popilius’ campaign and to use an otherwise rare word (‫ )ציים‬for their ships, giving rise to the rare expression ‫ ִציִּ ים ִכּ ִתּים‬in Dan 11:30.22 Accordingly, a few verses later (v. 40), when speaking about the ships of the King of the North and not those of the Kittim, the author uses the more common word ‫ ֳאנִ יּוֹת‬. As we have seen, there is one other place where the ‫ ציים‬and the ‫ כתיים‬appear together in the Bible, Num 24:24, and it is often assumed that the author of Dan 11 was inspired by that verse rather than by Isaiah’s prophecies. But such a line of thinking does not withstand closer scrutiny. In Num 24:24, the Kittim are identified as Israel’s final enemies who will first overcome both Assyria and Eber before being defeated. In Dan 11, however, it is not the Kittim that need to be defeated, but the King of the North, meaning the Seleucids. The Kittim only play an incidental role in stopping the King of the North’s advance into Egypt, and nothing more. They do not subjugate either Assyria or Eber as required by Balaam’s prophecy. That one commentator even goes so far as to call the Kittim in Daniel the “friends of Israel”23 demonstrates how different the role of the Kittim in Daniel is from the one they play in Num 24:24. If there is some connection between Num 24:24 and Dan 11:30, it is not because the author of Dan 11 was trying to show how his Kittim were those who had or would be carrying out what was written about them in Num 24:24. Rather, I suggest that the 19  Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫ ִצי‬,” in HALOT, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1020. 20  Schultz, Conquering the World, 131, n. 142. 21  The Isaiah passage in question is not without significant difficulties for the exegete, as is testified by the diversity in the translation of these verses. Here is not the place to survey the various interpretations, but to affirm that in spite of the ambiguity of the passage, possibly even because of it, the author of Dan 11 had the freedom to come up with his own interpretive exegesis. 22  Schultz, “Kittim of Assyria,” 75. 23  Philip S. Alexander, “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of the Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 18.

210

Schultz

influence was in the reverse direction, from the passage in Daniel back onto the one in Numbers. By this, I am not claiming that Num 24:24 was dependent upon Dan 11, but that Num 24:24 underwent subsequent emendation in order to fit or be harmonised with Dan 11:30. The primary evidence supporting such a claim is the textual data of Num 24:24. The first clause of the verse in which the words ‫ כתיים‬and ‫ ציים‬appear together lacks a verb. This alone suggests that the verse has somehow become corrupted. Particularly noteworthy is that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint have a slightly different reading for that first clause, both of which include a verb, but exclude the noun ‫ציים‬. The Samaritan Pentateuch has ‫יוציאם מיד כתים‬. Various Vorlagen to the Septuagint translation24 can be suggested: ‫וְ יָ ָצא ִמיַּ ד ִכּ ִתּים‬, or ‫וְ יֵ ֵצא ִמיַּ ד ִכּ ִתּים‬.25 It seems therefore that the MT as we have it today is most likely a corrupted reading of Num 24:24, one in which both the words ‫ ציים‬and ‫ כתים‬appear, while the SP and the LXX, both of which trace their origins to the second century BCE,26 preserve a more likely original, one in which there is no mention of the Kittim’s ships but highlighting instead the Kittim’s going out. The second piece of evidence is historical and builds on the first. A survey of how the word Kittim in the biblical corpus came to be translated reveals an interesting fact. Whenever a text is translated prior to Pompey’s conquest, the word Kittim is always transliterated and left as “Kittim.” However, in translations that postdate Pompey’s conquest, there is a tendency to gloss the word Kittim with “Romans” or some other word reminiscent of the Romans,

24  καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ χειρὸς Κιτιαίων. 25  Even the spelling of ‫ צים‬in Num 24:24 supports such a reconstruction of the evolution of the verse. The plural of ‫ צי‬should be ‫ציים‬, with two yods, and not ‫( צים‬cf. Isa 13:21; 23:13; 34:14; Jer 50:39; Ps 72:9; 74:14; Dan 11:30). Ezek 30:9 is the only other exception with the same spelling as in Num 24:24, but interestingly the LXX suggests that the MT of Ezek 30:9 also underwent emendation in the Roman period: from ‫( ָא ִצים‬σπεύδοντες) to ‫ ַבּ ִצּים‬. See below. 26  For the date of the LXX, see Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 1–58; Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 29–99; Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2000), 29–44. For the Samaritan Pentateuch, see Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel, “The Date of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Light of the Biblical Scrolls from Qumran,” in The Samaritans (ed. Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2002), 129–52 [Hebrew]; Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in Paul, et al., eds., Emanuel, 215–40.

The Naval Battle In The Qumran War Texts

211

especially in Num 24:24 but also in Ezek 27:6 and 1 Chron 1:7.27 As we have seen above, the context of Dan 11:30 makes it clear that the term Kittim was a moniker for the Romans whose history the author was alluding to. It is not surprising, therefore, that already the Old Greek, followed by the Theodotius and Vulgate translations, would all gloss the Kittim as Romans.28 What is surprising is that in other passages mentioning the Kittim that up until the Roman period were never understood as referring to the Romans, such as Num 24:24, Ezek 27:6 and 1 Chron 1:7; translators would now gloss them as being the Romans. In other words, it is only after the Seleucids had faded from Judea’s horizon and been replaced with the Romans that exegetes and translators assumed, based on Dan 11:30, that they now knew the identity of the eschatological Kittim. So confident were they with this identification that they felt compelled to include it in their translations, even in passages with the word Kittim that did not pertain to the Romans, or whose contexts were not eschatological. The reason for such boldness on the translators’ part can be easily explained. In texts composed in the pre-Roman era, if there was any attempt at all to pinpoint the identity of the eschatological Kittim, the Kittim of Num 24:24, the sources are clear that they are identified with Alexander the Great and/or his successors. In 1 Maccabees,29 they are the Macedonians (1:1; 8:5) and in the War Scroll, under the influence of Dan 11, they are the Seleucids.30 It would appear, therefore, that it was generally accepted that the demise of Greek rule over Judea would mark the end and bring about God’s final redemption. But this 27  See the Targum and Vulgate of Num 24:24 and Ezek 27:6, as well as the Targum of 1 Chron 1:7. 28  The Old Greek is believed to be from the second century BCE or very beginning of the first century BCE. See Collins, Daniel, 388–89; Montgomery, Daniel, 38; and Hartman and di Lella, Daniel, 78. As such it is the only exception of a translation that glosses Kittim with Romans prior to Pompey’s conquest of Judea. However, as just pointed out above, the historical context warranted it, unlike all the other passages in the Hebrew Bible that use the term Kittim. 29  The book of 1 Maccabees can be confidently dated to second century BCE. See George W.E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. Michael Stone; CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 89; James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511, Scriptores aethiopici 88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989), VI; and Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees—Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 35–40, 319–22. 30  In Jubilees (24:28–29; 37:10) they are simply mighty men of war and in Antiquities (1:128) Josephus only gives us a definition of the term. These are the only other mentions of the Kittim in Second Temple period literature.

212

Schultz

was not to be the case. One can only imagine the crisis this must have surely wrought on those who had assumed that they had correctly deciphered the prophecies and identified the final eschatological enemy, the Kittim, as being the Greeks, and who had worked so hard at defeating them. Instead of redemption came an even more formidable military invader: the Romans. But herein lay the irony: the new oppressor was none other than Daniel’s Kittim. While hitherto the readers of Daniel’s prophecy in ch. 11 had assumed that its author had used the term Kittim in its geo-political sense only, now it became clear that he had in fact rightfully pinpointed the true identity of Israel’s last enemy of Num 24:24 as the Romans, this about a century before anyone could have imagined that the Romans would be the next invading power. For the ancient readers, this was not seen as mere coincidence, but prophetic, a sure sign of divine revelation. It also suggested that references to the Kittim which had been thought as being geo-political in nature only, like Dan 11:30 had been read up until then, could in fact be, according to the new understanding of Dan 11:30, actual references to the eschatological Kittim. Henceforth the word Kittim became so intertwined with the exegesis of Num 24:24 read in light of Dan 11:30 that just a mention of the word Kittim in other contexts, even if not eschatological, evoked a reference to the Romans, as the translations mentioned above testify. What is more, that rare Egyptian loan word for ships, ‫ציים‬, found in association with the Kittim in the books of Isaiah and Daniel, also came to be associated with the Romans after Pompey’s conquest. As in the case of Dan 11:30 whose reference to the geopolitical Kittim turned out in fact to be about the eschatological Kittim, so it was assumed that a mention of their ‫ ציים‬could be likewise be a veiled reference to the eschatological Kittim, even when found in non-eschatological passages. If we accept that in the MT of Num 24:24 the reference to ships is secondary, then no text predating Pompey’s conquest that deal with the Kittim (other than Isa 23:12–13 and Dan 11:30) make any reference to their ships. Neither Jubilees nor 1 Maccabees, both of which mention the Kittim, allude to their ships. Nor does the War Scroll in spite of being based on Dan 11. Even the Old Greek of Daniel fails to mention the ships, though they are explicit in the Hebrew text it was translating. Simply put, prior to the Roman period, the ‫ ציים‬of the Kittim were basically ignored in texts discussing either the geo-political or the eschatological Kittim. This stands in contrast to compositions or translations postdating Pompey’s conquest. From then on, references to these ships, the ‫ציים‬, even when not in passages that also mention the Kittim, were often assumed to be allusions to the Romans’ naval fleet. Thus, for example, in the Targum of Isa 33:21, “mighty

The Naval Battle In The Qumran War Texts

213

ships” (‫אַדּיר‬ ִ ‫ )וְ ִצי‬becomes “great (Li)burnian ships” (‫)ובורני רבתא‬, a term also found in some Targumim of Num 24:24 and believed to be a reference to Lombardian ships from northern Italy.31 Similarly, the Targum of Ezek 30:9 translates “in ships” (‫ ) ַבּ ִצּים‬as “in legions” (‫)בלגיונין‬. Furthermore, the LXX hints that the Hebrew of Ezek 30:9 underwent emendation for the purpose of introducing the Romans’ ships, similarly to what we have seen with Num 24:24. In the MT we read that messengers are to go out from before God in ships (‫ ) ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא יֵ ְצאוּ ַמ ְל ָא ִכים ִמ ְל ָפנַ י ַבּ ִצּים‬while the second century BCE (pre-Roman)32 LXX version betrays no knowledge of it being in ships, but rather states that the messengers will go out “hastening” (σπεύδοντες) to destroy Ethiopia. The assumption is that the Vorlage would have been ‫ ָא ִצים‬rather than ‫ ַבּ ִצּים‬as preserved in the MT.33 What is clear is that the rare word ‫ציים‬, because of its association with the Kittim, came to be associated with the Romans, but only after the middle of the first century BCE. And for this reason, I suggest it was read back onto Num 24:24, corrupting the verb, so to speak, into the word for the Kittim’s ships, the ‫ציים‬. In summary then, we have seen that in the late and post biblical period, the term Kittim had two meanings: one geo-political, meaning any people group from the Mediterranean world and another based on Num 24:24, eschatological in focus, as a designation for a specific nation that would be Israel’s final enemy in the end of days. The author of Dan 11 used the term in the former sense, while the author of the War Scroll used it in the latter even while being dependent upon Dan 11. All compositions predating Pompey’s conquest which sought to identify the eschatological Kittim assumed they were either Alexander the Great or his political descendants, such as King Perseus (1 Macc 8:5) or the Seleucids (War Scroll), even as the term could still be used in its secular meaning as in Jubilees. On the other hand, many compositions and translations post-dating Pompey’s conquest assumed that any reference to the Kittim was in fact eschatological, and therefore meant the Romans, on the basis of the non-eschatological, geo-political designation made Dan 11:30 about 100 years prior to Pompey’s conquest. And since in Dan 11:30, as inspired by Isa 23:12–13, the word ‫ ציים‬was the special designation for the Kittim’s ships, 31  Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers—Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 4; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 142, n. 31; Israel Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Numbers (Hoboken & Denver & s.l.: Ktav Publishing House & Center for Judaic Studies; University of Denver & Society for Targumic Studies, 1998), 255. 32  George A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), xl. 33  Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1—a Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (trans. James D. Martin, Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 124.

214

Schultz

these too came to be believed to play an integral role in scenarios for the end of days. For this reason, I suggest, both Num 24:24 and Ezek 30:9 were edited to include a reference to those ships.34 All this leads us back to 4Q285 frg. 4: 5–10 (Sefer haMilḥamah). Unlike the War Scroll (Serekh haMilḥamah), there is no evidence that this composition predates the Roman period.35 Rather, it would seem that the inclusion of the maritime component was motivated by the same factors that motivated the editing of Num 24:24 and Ezek 30:9: if the eschatological Kittim were indeed the Romans as suggested by Dan 11:30, then certainly this rare Egyptian loan word for ships (‫ )ציים‬associated to them in that verse could not be coincidental but was considered integral to the understanding of the last days. Thus, even if the pre-Roman composition Serekh haMilḥamah did not mention any naval battle, it was necessary, in light of the new exegesis of Num 24:24 of the Roman period that was now being informed by Dan 11:30, to include it in Sefer haMilḥamah. 34  See note 26. 35  The manuscript date of 4Q285 is from the second half of the first century BCE. See Alexander and Vermes, DJD 36, 232. A later copy of Sefer haMilḥamah (11Q14) dates to the first half or middle of the first century CE. See Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, “14. 11QSefer Ha-Milh.amah,” in Qumran Cave 11.II (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 244.

CHAPTER 12

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction John Kampen 1 Introduction In the midst of the controversies about whether the sectarian lifestyles described in the Dead Sea Scrolls were violent or not1—whether they advocated armed resistance in the present or whether they awaited the judgment of God,2 and whether sectarian adherents at Qumran were prompted to or actually did engage in violence—sits Instruction, a significant and influential composition that addresses real-world concerns in a relatively calm and non-confrontational manner. The extent and the scope of the fragmentary evidence of at least eight copies of Instruction have been amply documented.3 This evidence of extensive copying suggests a composition or compositions of some significance among the sectarians who inhabited the site at the end of the first century BCE. The evidence also suggests that this wisdom composition from the same era as Ben Sira,4 the earlier books of Enoch, and perhaps Daniel 1  Alex P. Jassen, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination,” BibInt 17 (2009): 12–44. 2  Årstein Justnes, “Divine Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Encountering Violence in the Bible (ed. M. Zehnder and H. Hagelia; Bible in the Modern World 55; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 217–32; Dorothy M. Peters, “The Sword in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism,” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments (ed. L.L. Brenneman and B.D. Schantz; Studies in Peace and Scriptures 12; Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2014), 125–37. These works are discussed in the conclusion of this essay. 3  J. Strugnell, D.J. Harrington, and T. Elgvin, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: 4QInstruction: 4Q415ff. (DJD 34; Oxford, Clarendon, 1999), 1–19; Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001); Matthew J. Goff, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls (VTSup 116; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 10–12; John I. Kampen, Wisdom Literature (ECDSS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 38–40; Matthew J. Goff, 4QInstruction (Wisdom Literature from the Ancient World 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 1–7. 4  Benjamin G. Wright III, “ ‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 190–223; idem, “Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location in Sirach and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_013

216

Kampen

precedes the sectarian formulations of the Qumran corpus.5 In this case I am using the term “sectarian” to designate those texts which betray evidence of a sectarian social organisation and/or ideology such as is found in the S, D, and H texts.6 Instruction was reproduced and apparently utilised in an era of considerable literary production at Qumran, evident by the number of copies present at the site as well as by traces of apparent ideological and literary influence in other compositions.7 This paper attempts to examine the particular response identifiable in the manuscripts of Instruction to the imperial realities of its social context and to situate that response among its literary contemporaries. Instruction’s calm, practical advice, oriented toward those outside the circles of power and influence, orients the modern reader towards concerns that frequently appear in discussions concerning violence and non-violence. The definition or practices of peacemaking proposed by Glen Stassen and Michael Westmoreland-White have important implications, both methodologically and ideologically, for decisions about the essential components to explore issues of nonviolence: “These peacemaking initiatives actively transform violent conflicts or those that could become violent into relationships of relative justice and relative community well-being.”8 A similar emphasis by Daniel Smith-Christopher suggests 1 Enoch,” in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone (JSJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 105–21; Jean-Sébastian Rey, 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatologie (STDJ 81; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 17–21, 212–26; Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 16–28. 5  Richard A. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, and Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 151–91. 6  John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 7–8. Review of the literature on this topic can be found in Jutta Jokiranta, “Social-Scientific Approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M.L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 246–63; idem, “Sociological Approaches to Qumran Sectarianism,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scolls (ed. T. Lim and J.J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 200–31. This is a literary argument, without direct connection to the sectarian identity of the site of Qumran, even though it does assume some common chronology. 7  Darryl Jefferies, Wisdom at Qumran: A Form-Critical Analysis of the Admonitions in 4QInstruction (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2002); Rey, 4QInstruction, 22–28, 333–36. 8  Glen H. Stassen and Michael L. Westmoreland-White, “Defining Violence and Nonviolence,” in Teaching Peace: Nonviolence and the Liberal Arts (ed. J.D. Weaver and G. Biesecker-Mast; Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 17–36, see 21. Note furthermore: “All contemporary advocates of nonviolence emphasise that it is an active process, not to be confused with passivity, that it requires courage and does not work with cowardice, that it requires discipline and strength of will, and that, just as with war or violent conflict, it entails risks of injury or death to its practitioners” (22).

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

217

that non-violence implies an active commitment to social change that serves to prevent warfare.9 Noteworthy is the emphasis on initiatives and practices as it relates to justice, community well-being, and the prevention of warfare. Within the traditions of the Abrahamic faiths, such initiatives and practices, and particularly their supporting rationales, are usually advanced on the basis of canonical texts; however, it is a worthwhile and necessary historical and literary study to identify such initiatives and practices in other literature as well. The study of violence within religious literature has been the occasion of some recent attention.10 In consort with the widening definitions of non-violence mentioned above, conceptions of violence which are broader than the traditional definitions are being considered in studies of ancient texts.11 These studies also begin with a concern about contemporary issues with many focusing on canonical texts.12 One area identified for scholarly attention has been “structural” violence with its issues of power and control. Overlapping with the studies on violence and non-violence are studies of Jewish and early Christian texts focusing on the context of empire and Jewish responses to the imperial context throughout the Second Temple era and the following centuries.13

9  Daniel Smith-Christopher, ed., Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in Religious Traditions (Cambridge, Mass.: Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, 1998), 10. 10  Hector Avalos, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (Amherst: Prometheus, 2005); David A. Bernat and Jonathan Klawans, eds., Religion and Violence: The Biblical Heritage (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007); Andrew R. Murphy, The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011); Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2011); Markus Zehnder and Hallvard Hagelia, eds., Encountering Violence in the Bible (Bible in the Modern World 55; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013); Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz, eds., Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments (Studies in Peace and Scriptures 12; Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2014). 11  “The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterised by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal liberty.” Oxford English Dictionary (13 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 12:221. 12  Note the survey of this question found in Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 1–8. 13  Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, 1–51; Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 BCE to 640 CE (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 1–99. In this essay, I use both the terms “Judean” and “Jewish” depending upon context. The difficulties of the terminology have been demonstrated by Steve Mason, who argues for the former term (Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009], 141– 84). It would appear to me that his arguments carry more weight with regard to the use of the term “Judaism” in the first century than the term “Jew” or “Jewish” if one assumes the ethnic content of the latter terms. For equal attention to the ambiguities, however

218

Kampen

We will focus on patterns of accommodation and resistance in the texts of Syro-Palestine in the second century BCE.14 The reasons for addressing questions of this nature to Instruction in particular are more apparent when it is compared with its second century BCE contemporaries.15 Through such an examination the unique character of Instruction becomes apparent. 2

Social Location and Early Second Century BCE Texts16

Benjamin Wright in his study of Ben Sira provides a working definition of social location: “the attempt to identify the person, people, groups, or communities (if they were gathered into such coherent social bodies) responsible for a text or to find the place in the social landscape where a text most likely originated.”17 While it might be preferable to be able to identify the people responsible for a text, the anonymity of the text does not permit it. An examination of “the place in the social landscape” is the objective in this paper. The explicit identification of the author of the original composition of Ben Sira in the grandson’s preface facilitates an examination of social context. a resolution for the latter term, see Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 13–105. 14  Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 3–216. 15  The arguments for its date of composition to the second century BCE have been adequately rehearsed in the extensive literature. I am with those who favor an earlier date towards the beginning of that century prior to the Maccabean revolt. One of the implications of this dating is to make Instruction a contemporary of 1 Enoch, Ben Sira and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Daniel. For summaries, see Strugnell and Harrington, DJD 34, 19–31; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 65–67; Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 40–44; Goff, 4QInstruction, 27–29. I do not find Goff’s caution about an early second century BCE date based upon the reappraisal of the chronology of the archeology of the Qumran site very convincing. This argument implicitly acknowledges a direct connection between the composition of the literature and the site, a problem of particular and ongoing significance in the study of the non-biblical non-sectarian works. 16  I have advanced the arguments on social location in “Wisdom in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literatures,” in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals: Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on Deuterocanonical Books (ed. G.G. Xeravits, J. Zsengellér, and X. Szabó; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 89–119. 17  Benjamin G. Wright III, “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism (ed. B.G. Wright III and L.M. Wills; SBLSymS 35; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 89–112, see 89.

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

219

The identification of the author as scribe is clear even though the term γραμματεύς (“scribe”) is found only twice in the Greek text. In Greek, human rule comes about through the hand of God (Ben Sira 10:5), but in the Hebrew text it is through the ‫“( מחוקק‬inscriber, lawgiver”) that God establishes his own majesty or power, a very different reading from the Greek text.18 When the scribe is introduced in Ben Sira 38:24, the description in the Greek text would appear to contrast the scribe with other professions of farmer, artisan, smith and potter. The scribe’s unique role rests upon the opportunity for study created by leisure time.19 Based on the limited fragments of the Hebrew text, a slightly different question appears to be at issue: ‫חכמת סופר הרבה חכמה‬, “the wisdom of the scribe makes wisdom increase”. The question addressed in the Hebrew text is: What is required for wisdom to increase on the earth? Answering this question within the Judean context of the imperial realities of the second century BCE is central for understanding the purpose of the composition, and the consequent role of the scribe. According to Seth Schwartz, the sage was producing an ethic called Torah that was on the one hand, “simplistic-seeming, which rests on the conviction that God’s creation is well-ordered and just,” and on the other, “a hardheaded practicality about social relations that takes for granted a very different view of the world: . . . in which the poor and the suffering are frequently righteous, the rich and powerful are unjust, and very few people can be trusted.”20 In the production of this ethic, the sage was reflecting the social tension of reciprocity and solidarity characteristic of people of the Mediterranean who were negotiating life in the Hellenistic empires. The task of the scribe was to provide a reading of Deuteronomy informed by the Hellenistic environment that 18  MS. A. See Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (VTSup 68; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 34. This same figure is the well-known subject in the well midrash of CD 6:2–11, based on Num 21:18. The establishment of majesty (or power) is similar to the manner in which Moses was to commission Joshua (Num 27:20). 19  Daniel J. Harrington, “The Wisdom of the Scribe According to Ben Sira,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J. Collins; SBLSCS 12; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 181–88. 20  Seth Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 47–48. Note also Wis 2:10. This would also be reflected in the observation of Menahem Kister that in the Praise of the Fathers in the latter portion of Ben Sira, obedience to Torah is central and the identification of wisdom with Torah hardly receives mention (“Wisdom Literature and its Relation to Other Genres: From Ben Sira to Mysteries,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. J.J. Collins, G.E. Sterling, and R.A. Clements; STDJ 51; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 15).

220

Kampen

produced a viable ethic for Jewish life and survival.21 Schwartz characterised this role as “adaptation.”22 Cultural literacy and writing were an integral part of the educational process that prepared persons for the scribal role envisioned therein.23 This process of cultural negotiation and social sanction was carried out by the scribe within the broader context of priesthood and cult in the second century BCE. The importance of both is evident throughout the composition, clearly articulated at various points such as in Ben Sira 7:29–31 where the reader is enjoined “to fear the Lord and revere his priests.” In Ben Sira 34:21–35:12, the observance of the law and commandments is clearly tied to the sacrificial system and offerings, not as a religious mandate but rather as a part of the desired way of life, that of the righteous.24 Often noted is Ben Sira 45:6–22, in which this description of Aaron is longer than that of Moses (45:1–5), and the final glorification of Simon the son of Onias in Ben Sira 50:1–21. The allegiance of this scribe is clear.25 1 Enoch also pays attention to wisdom, precipitating attempts to comprehend the relationship between it and Ben Sira.26 Argall advanced the case that not only did these two compositions deal with the same major topics, but they did so with an awareness of the positions represented in the writings of the other.27 Of some significance is the crucial identification of Enoch as scribe.28 Wright demonstrates that both Ben Sira and 1 Enoch reflect communities that “care about the priesthood primarily because all apparently were priests or were closely connected with them.”29 For example the circles behind the Book 21  Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 225–26. 22  Schwartz, Mediterranean Society, 76–79. 23  David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 201–14. 24  Wright, “Fear the Lord,” 193. 25  See also Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, 53–87. 26  Wright, “Wisdom, Instruction.” 27  Randal Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (SBLEJL 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 28  1 En. 12:4; 15:1; 92:1. There are also references to his task of writing (1 En. 14:7; 82:1; 83:2; 92:1) and throughout the composition to books (1 En. 14:1; 68:1; 72:1; 81:2, 4; 89:68, 70, 71, 76, 77; 90:17; 108:1, 3). See also George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 65–67. This status is least attested in the Book of the Parables (1 En. 37–71), the latest composition in that collection, even though this revelation also is collected in a book (1 En. 68:1). 29  Benjamin G. Wright, III, “ ‘Fear the Lord,” 218; idem, “Putting the Puzzle Together,” 133–49; See also Richard A. Horsley, “Social Relations and Social Conflict in the Epistle of Enoch,” in

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

221

of the Watchers and the Book of the Luminaries “represent groups of priests and scribes that feel marginalised and even disenfranchised vis-à-vis the ruling priests in Jerusalem.”30 Suter argued that the problem of the Watchers is that they have been defiled by contact with women and blood, hence the offspring are of “mixed kind,” like the offspring of the illicit priestly marriages of the Second Temple era.31 For Nickelsburg the “real temple” of the Book of the Watchers is the heavenly palace of the divine king, positioned in relationship to Mount Hermon rather than Mount Zion. He also notes the concern about cultic defilement due to sexual impurity in ch. 14.32 The Second Temple is described as defiled in 1 En. 89:73–74 and seems to be omitted altogether in the Apocalypse of Weeks. But both apocalypses do envisage a glorious eschatological temple. The more explicit indictment of persons and practices associated with the aristocracy, hence the priesthood, is developed in the Epistle of Enoch.33 So throughout 1 Enoch we find a criticism of the existent temple and priesthood from a member (or members) of the scribal class, presumably related in some manner to the priesthood.34 Within the book of Daniel, the ‫ משׂכילים‬are the central figures for the discussion of social location related to the composition.35 In this case the sages or the wise are those who understand the nature of the world, the scope of human history and its inevitable outcome. So that they can survive in the present and For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. R.A. Argall, B.A. Bow, and R.A. Werline; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 2000), 100–15. In a number of these articles Wright also includes in his analysis the Aramaic Levi Document (1Q21; 4Q213, 213a, 213b, 214, 214a, 214b), displaying interests in the temple and priesthood similar to some of those in 1 Enoch. 30  Wright, “Fear the Lord,” 218. 31  David Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35. 32  George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600, see 575–87; idem, 1 Enoch 1, 54–55, 238–47. 33  1 Enoch 92–105; Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, 166–72. 34   George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Social Aspects of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979 (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 641–54; idem, “The Epistle of Enoch and Qumran Literature,” JJS 33 (1982): 333–48; idem, “Revisiting the Rich and Poor in 1 En. 92–105 and the Gospel According to Luke,” SBL Seminar Papers 1998 (SBLSP 37; 2 vols; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 579–605; idem, 1 Enoch 1, 62–67. 35  Daniel 1:4; 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10; John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 66–67.

222

Kampen

in light of projected future developments, the children of Israel are advised to cast in their lot with these sages. John Collins notes that the authors of Daniel are to be found in the circles of the wise and points out the significance of wisdom for the composition.36 Arguing for their high social position, Stefan Beyerle indicates that this points to a highly educated intellectual elite.37 For Philip Davies, the references to the ‫“( רבים‬many”) suggest that these sages see themselves as the elite even among the righteous (Dan 11:33). He notes that the term ‫“( שׁכל‬understanding”) is reserved for the Jewish participants in the initial tales, while the Babylonian wise men are ‫“( חכם‬wise”), the traditional Jewish term for wisdom. The initial tales do suggest scribal training for function in the royal court.38 Given the assumptions related to a scribal class throughout the composition, it is no surprise that they are viewed as the centre of resistance to the activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the defilement of the temple. In Daniel, “The maskilim were thus apparently dissident retainers who came into conflict with the aristocratic faction that controlled the temple-state.”39 Therefore, these three compositions—Ben Sira, 1 Enoch and Daniel (the latter at the conclusion of this era)—from the first half of the second century BCE all reflect the same ethos with remarkable similarities in social location. Knowledge and wisdom are prized by all; the temple and priesthood are significant, even if in very different ways, and none of them actually hold positions of power within the ruling priestly elite. Francis Schmidt indicates the significance of the scribes for this era in the programmatic introduction to his study, How the Temple Thinks: “they form a growing order from the end of the third century BCE, a new elite whose main role is the interpretation and teaching of the Law. In itself, the appearance of this new elite constitutes a revolution.”40 The differences between the three compositions reflect primarily a variety of responses, different approaches to the issues of Israelite life and identity during Hellenistic rule.

36  John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 210–18; Collins, Daniel, 66–70. 37  Stefan Beyerle, “The Book of Daniel and Its Social Setting,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint; 2 vols; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:205–28, see 215–19. 38  Philip R. Davies, “The Scribal School of Daniel,” in Collins and Flint, eds., The Book of Daniel, 1:247–65, see 251–55. 39  Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, 173–74. For an analysis of the program of resistance, see also Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 229–79. 40  Francis Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism (trans. J.E. Crowley; Bible Seminar 78; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 31–32.

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

3

223

Instruction and Social Location

In contrast to Ben Sira, 1 Enoch and Daniel, Instruction suggests a very different and previously unattested social location. The attention given to poverty and its implications for determining social location has received a good deal of attention.41 Included among these addressees is a remarkable assemblage of craftsmen, farmers, women and slaves.42 The fragmentary nature of the material poses problems for interpretation, including the identification of the primary addressee, the ‫“( מבין‬the man of discernment”),43 and his relationship to the other addressees. At present I consider the best reading to include all the other addressees among the circles of the man of discernment, while cognizant of the ambiguity this creates for our understanding of certain columns, particularly those in which the addressee appears to be female.44 The addressee most explicitly receives advice about coming to terms with poverty in 4QInstructionb (4Q416), frg. 2 iii which repeatedly links responsible behavior to personal poverty.45 Practical wisdom for coming to terms with being in need includes caution about going into debt and the importance of 41  As summarised in Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 23–25, 55–59. See Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “The Addressees of 4QInstruction,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998 (ed. D.K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E. Schuller; STDJ 35: Leiden: Brill, 2000), 62–75; Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (STDJ 40; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 163–209; Benjamin G. Wright, III, “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature,” in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J.J. Collins, G.E. Sterling, and R.A. Clements; STDJ 51; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 101–23; Benjamin G. Wold, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions (WUNT 201; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 24–30; Goff, 4QInstruction, 23–27. 42  The multiple addressees included in the 2nd person masculine singular form of address as well as the feminine form and the variety of topics is noted by Tigchelaar (“Addressees of 4QInstruction,” 73) and Goff, 4QInstruction, 23–27. The various addressees are described at greater length in Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 57–59. 43  The latter term is the one employed in my translation (Wisdom Literature, 60–190). 44  The reading of these texts with regard to women is a complex issue. See Cecilia Wassen, Women in the Damascus Document (SBLAB 21; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005); Eileen Schuller, The Dead Sea Scrolls: What Have We Learned? (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 80–104; Maxine L. Grossman, “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. M.L. Grossman; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 229–45. 45  4Q416 2 iii 2, 8, 12, 15, 19.

224

Kampen

quick repayment for the maintenance of personal dignity. A theological underpinning for these ethical injunctions is the providence of God. That this is not a peripheral matter for the man of discernment is evident in the accompanying injunction, repeated three times in the column, that one is to seek the mystery of existence.46 Here, the core of the wisdom that constitutes the central pursuit of the man of discernment, the condition of poverty, can be assumed to be part of that identity.47 This wisdom teaching addressed to some persons in poverty stands in marked contrast to the other compositions from the first half of the second century BCE. In contrast to 1 Enoch, the rich and powerful in Instruction are not held up as the persons responsible for an unjust and immoral society; they are not held up as the cause of the violence and oppression repeatedly mentioned throughout the composition. The only concern with regard to the rich in Instruction is how one relates to them, particularly with regard to debt. The circles of the addressees in Instruction are regarded as the poor in contrast to 1 Enoch, where they are addressed as the righteous and the holy. In contrast to Ben Sira, the apparent poverty of the addressee in Instruction is assumed. In Ben Sira, poverty is known to the author but not experienced by the author of the composition.48 Rather, the scribe is enjoined to take responsibility for the poor and needy and not to grieve the hungry.49 This advice addresses not the powerless but the powerful, proving proper training for those within the circles of power. In Ben Sira, poverty must be dealt with, both for the sake of preserving power but also for fulfilling the mandate that comes from the vision of the particular understanding of Torah that undergirded the native power structure, hence the community. In contrast, the ones in poverty in Instruction are not the object of proposed action but rather the subject. The man of discernment is in poverty and addressed as a morally responsible person. How is this wisdom composition to be read?

46  4Q416 2 iii 9, 14, 18. 47  I do not find convincing the argument that this interest is confined to a few columns advanced by Tigchelaar, “Addressees of 4QInstruction,” 69–71. Note the response of Wright, “Categories of Rich,” 111–13. Nor do I think that this evidence is metaphorical: Benjamin Wold, “Metaphorical Poverty in ‘Musar leMevin’, ” JJS 58 (2007), 140–53. 48  Benjamin G. Wright, III, “The Discourse of Riches and Poverty in Ben Sira,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1998 (SBLSP 37; 2 vols; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 2:559–78. See also Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 24–25. 49  Ben Sira 4:1–3; cf. 4:4–10; 13:4–7, 15–24, 34:25–26; 40:12–17.

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

4

225

A Non-Violent Response to Imperial Rule in Instruction

This distinctive social location for Instruction impels a different stance toward issues of violence and oppression than that found in Ben Sira, 1 Enoch and Daniel. Violence is a major concern in 1 Enoch, beginning with the Book of the Watchers.50 The result of the mating of the watchers with humans is the Nephilim with rapacious appetites that humankind could not satisfy, thus bloodshed and murder.51 After the introduction of advanced weaponry and luxury to humankind, there is much bloodshed upon the earth, godlessness and violence (1 En. 9:1). In the throne scene the Lord describes the time of human civilisation as the era of the watchers when they do violence, make desolate, and attack and wrestle, it is the day of slaughter and destruction and death (cf. 1 En. 15:11–16:1). Violence pervades the Epistle of Enoch, beginning with the introduction.52 In the first discourse on injustice, it is the violent and rich who are the object of condemnation (1 En. 94:6–8); this continues throughout. Responses to this environment are spelled out most clearly in the apocalypses. The Animal Apocalypse suggests an apparent reference to the rise of resistance movements and the revolt led by Judah Maccabee.53 At the conclusion of this scenario, a large sword is given to the sheep and they go out to kill all the beasts who flee before them, a puzzling reference but certainly an indication of violent response. While no clear allusion to Judah Maccabee or even the revolt is apparent in the Apocalypse of Weeks, in the eighth week of this ten week scenario, “a sword will be give to all the righteous, to execute righteous judgment on all the wicked, and they will be delivered into their hands” (1 En. 91:12). These are depictions of violent resistance. An apocalyptic scenario that advances a non-violent response can be found in the book of Daniel. As noted earlier, the authors of this composition in its developed form are identified with the ‫( משכילים‬sages) of the final apocalypse 50  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 63–64. It is for this reason that Nickelsburg dates the Book of the Watchers to the era of the Diadochoi (1 Enoch 1, 25–26). The following summary is a gross oversimplification of multiple texts, each with their own complex history of literary development. 51  1 Enoch 6–8. The term ‫חמס‬, already found in Gen 6:11, describes the violence as the outcome of the mating of the watchers. Note the summary of this evidence by Jackie WyseRhodes, “Sex, Knowledge, and Evil: Violence and Peace in the Book of the Watchers,” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments (ed. L.L. Brenneman and B.D. Schantz; Studies in Peace and Scriptures 12; Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2014), 114–24. 52  1 En. 91:5, 6, 7, 8, 11 (in the Apocalypse of Weeks), 18. 53  1 En. 90:9b–10, 12–16. The history of research on the complicated literary composition and imagery of this section is summarised and evaluated in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 396–401.

226

Kampen

of chs 10–12.54 For example, the reference to “a little help” in Dan 11:34 has frequently been understood to be the Maccabees, based upon Porphyry as related by Jerome.55 The futility of violent resistance to Hellenistic aggression already is noted in Dan 11:14. The victory associated with the sages has to do with being “purified, cleansed, and refined.”56 Despite an understanding of the rapacious nature of the empires and rulers that have held sway over the lives of the Judeans similar to 1 Enoch, this remarkably different response in Daniel is noteworthy. Initially, it would seem that there are significant similarities between Instruction and the judgment scenarios of 1 Enoch and Daniel. The beginning of 4Q416, while fragmentary, describes the cosmological structure of the creation suggesting regularity and order based upon the role of the luminaries and pointing to features such as calendar and political divisions in a manner similar to the Book of the Watchers and the Book of the Luminaries of 1 Enoch.57 Following from and even integrated into these initial lines is the mention of judgment, so significant for 1 Enoch and Daniel as well as some other apocalyptic literature. This topic introduces one or more copies of Instruction and there is no firm evidence of a copy that begins with a different topic. Judgment is also the subject of 4Q418 69 ii; however, in this column the division is described using categories of wisdom. In this case the foolish of heart (line 4) are contrasted with the chosen ones of truth (line 10), who also are described as the pursuers of truth (line 7). The foolish of heart will return to the pit; also called the sons of iniquity (line 8) they will not be found anymore. The chosen ones of truth, on the contrary, will participate in some unknown manner with the sons of heaven or angels (lines 12–13). Presumably they share in great glory and honour.58 At the beginning of Instruction is found the telling term ‫מחסור‬, employed within the description of the cosmos: ‫“( לפי מחסור צבאם‬according to the poverty of their host”) (4Q416 1 6). Just above in line 4 is found ‫לפי צבאם‬ 54  See pp. 221–22 above. 55  Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (trans. G.L. Archer, Jr.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1958), 135; J.J. Collins, Daniel, 386. Alternatively, the Maccabees could be among the “insincere” lot. 56  Dan 12:3, 10. 57  While fragmentary, the wide right margin of the first fragment of 4Q416 at the beginning of the sheet of parchment indicates that this is the beginning of this copy of the composition. 4Q418 1–2 overlap in content with 4Q416 1; however, it is not from the same hand as the majority of the text of 4Q418. Thus the content of 4Q416 1 is attested at least in a second copy of Instruction. 58  Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 127–30; Goff, 4QInstruction, 223–38.

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

227

(“according to their host”). While fragmentary, the context of these lines points to heavenly hosts and some understanding of poverty or need integral to the cosmic structure of the universe. The term occurs regularly and repeatedly throughout the composition, 26 times, and so commands attention right from the opening column.59 The few words present do not permit a good reading of the phrase in context, however the two lines from the first column cited do suggest that the poverty or lack that is basic to the composition is related to some element in the function of the cosmos. Furthermore, 18 of those references are directed to the addressee, ‫“( מחסורכה‬your poverty”).60 The poverty of the circles connected with 4QInstruction already identified above, therefore, is somehow recognised in the functioning of the cosmos. Already noted is 4Q416 2 iii, only two columns later in the same fragment, pointing to the poverty and need of the addressee. In lines 2 and 19 of col. 3, the addressee is referred to as ‫ ראשׁ‬or ‫ ;רשׁ‬in lines 8 and 12 as ‫אביון‬, all synonyms related to poverty and need. In this same column the sage in this situation is to: ‫“( רז נהיה דרוש והתבונן בכל דרכי אמת‬Search the mystery of existence and gain understanding in all the ways of truth”).61 Furthermore, even though he is needy, he is not to say, “I am poor so I will not seek knowledge.”62 Instead, in the state of poverty, the addressee is to look for meaning and direction in the mystery of existence. With this context in mind, we now turn to the issues of violence and nonviolence. Instruction does not clearly identify the source of the poverty and need, nor is there evidence that it results from violence, as attested in sectarian compositions from Qumran.63 It could be inferred that poverty is built into the structure of the cosmos in its present state, only to be relieved in the epoch of truth. The theophanic nature of the initial judgment in both 1 En. 1 and 4Q416 1 points to a similar setting for the two compositions.64 Of course 1 Enoch does identify the issue of violence throughout the composition, particularly in the Book of the Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch as already noted above. There is 59  Goff (4QInstruction, 48) would seem to want to overlook the significance here. He is correct in rejecting the conjecture ‫“( מסחור‬merchandise”) only attested three times throughout the fragments of the composition. 60  One of those is in the plural, your poverties or more likely, your needs. On this term see Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 53; Goff, 4QInstruction, 48, 203–7. 61  4Q416 2 iii 14//4Q418 9+9a–c 8. 62  4Q416 2 iii 12–13//4Q418 9 12–13. 63  E.g., 1QS 10:19; 1QpHab 8:11; 9:8; 12:1–6; 4Q158 (RPa) 1–2 8. Note the concern with regard to ‫( הון‬wealth) in CD 4:17; 6:15, 16; 8:5, 7. 64  See p. 226 above. The revelation of the structured nature of the universe and judgment as an integral feature of that structure characterise both compositions.

228

Kampen

evidence for the same social setting for Instruction, but explicit violence is not identified in the extant text. Instead, the focus is the problem of poverty and indebtedness, issues for societies throughout the ANE, but a significant characteristic particularly of Judaean life during the Hellenistic and Roman eras in Palestine.65 Vast areas of productive agricultural territory in the Galilee and the Jezreel valley appear to have been designated as the “King’s Land” during the Ptolemaic era.66 Most of the Galilee and the Jezreel Valley as well as much of Samaria and northern Judea were in this category. The limited Hellenistic sites such as Tell Keisan and Tel Qiri at the western end of the Jezreel Valley and Philoteria (Beth Yeraḥ) and Kinneret in the Galilee all have no industrial base but appear to have been residential communities for agricultural workers. The nature and extent of this system of crown land became clear from the records of the Zenon papyri.67 For the Ptolemies, the idea that the whole area under their rule was their personal possession was fundamental.68 Such a concept of royal land also was evident in the Seleucid empire. In the Hefzibah inscription from the Jezreel Valley, Ptolemais, military governor and chief priest, requests of Antiochus III that none of the lands assigned to him by Antiochus or those leased to him as hereditary tenure be used for quartering and provisions of troops, a problem concerning which he had petitioned the king.69 Such requirements apparently were a heavy and common burden for these landowners.

65  Matthew J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 145–48. 66  Andrea M. Berlin, “Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period,” BA 60 (1997): 2–57, see 12–14. 67  Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. S. Applebaum; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960), 60–73; Martin Hengel, “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III (333–187 BCE),” CHJ 2:35–78, see 54–58. 68  Robert Houston Smith, “The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period,” Levant 22 (1990): 123–30, see 124, 127–28, n. 19; David A Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine (Studies in Bible and Early Christianity 20; Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 2001), 21–23. 69  Y.H. Landau, “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah,” IEJ 16 (1966): 54–70. When in l. 23 of the inscription we read of “those which you had ordered to be assigned to me,” it is an apparent reference to land under the direct jurisdiction of the King, in this case Seleucus III, who will have assigned them as payment or reward for changing his allegiance and his holdings to Antiochus. See also Jeanne Robert and Louis Robert, “Bulletin épigraphique,” REG 83 (1970): 362–488, see #627, 469–73.

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

229

Coupled with the problems of land ownership and taxation is the issue of enslavement.70 There is good evidence for the widespread use of debt slavery during this period and release from debt was a popular measure if Hellenistic rulers had to curry favor with native populations.71 The evidence for the manner in which this continued during the Seleucid takeover of the area and the nature of their continuing rule is collected by Portier-Young.72 Ownership and control of the land by the aristocracy, sometimes native, coupled with an extensive system of tax farming complete the picture of the fate of the small and tenant farmers in an economy that is largely agricultural. Indebtedness is an ongoing part of this type of existence.73 The continuing ravages of war and its insatiable demands added another layer of exploitation and need to an already stressed populace. Such was the lot of the larger portion of the population of Palestine in the third and second centuries BCE. It is within this context of this documented structural violence that a composition focused on poverty and need emerges. Instruction does not overtly challenge the native aristocracy and religio-political leadership such as in the Epistle of Enoch nor does it address them as though they are at fault. It does not outline the responsibilities of a scribal class that serves this aristocracy and provides the rationale for the maintenance of an identity rooted in their control. Nor does it explicitly identify the imperial rule of the world as seen from a native scribal perspective, and confront its arbitrary nature and power, even if in a non-violent manner, such as Daniel. It rather outlines a way of life, an ethic, for those who want to live a responsible life as children of Israel. We can place this ethic within the context of those “initiatives” and “practices” that are called for in the definition of non-violence (also as resistance to implied violence?) provided at the beginning of this essay. Daniel Smith-Christopher has suggested that wisdom literature should receive more attention for seeking out non-violent responses to the demands of empire.74 By suggesting that the court tales of Daniel be understood in the context of responses to the full impact of the imperial situation in the same 70  Tcherikover notes the extensive import of slaves from Syria into Ptolemaic Egypt (Hellenistic Civilization, 62, 65–66, 68–69). 71  Goff, 4QInstruction, 73–77. See bibliography there. 72  Apocalypse Against Empire, 63–73. 73  Jack Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine (London: Routledge, 1997), 21–52. 74  Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Quiet Words of the Wise: Biblical Developments Towards Non-Violence as a Diaspora Ethic,” in Character Ethics and the Old Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture (ed. M. Daniel Carroll R. and Jacqueline E. Lapsley; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 129–51.

230

Kampen

manner as the apocalypses, he questions the assumption that the benign fictive setting of the tales has some coherence with social reality. He suggests that the tales also emerge from an imperial setting and are not to be read as indicative of a higher or more accommodating social location for Jews in the Persian Empire. Both he and Portier-Young indicate the importance of food, following Mary Douglas, in programs of native resistance to imperial demands. This line of argument also permits questions about the relationship of wisdom literature and economic privilege. He asks whether the biblical wisdom books may be asking questions of survival for members of a minority group. He has previously advanced the case that an ethic of survival for subaltern peoples actually gives rise to a certain kind of nonviolence.75 Following the work of James Scott who has identified the speech and practices that permit subaltern and subcultural peoples to survive, he suggests that Proverbs be read in the same way as some of the biblical trickster stories of Joseph and the diaspora stories of Daniel.76 According to this reading, the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes provide lessons on how to survive.77 He then demonstrates how these wisdom examples present non-violent practices and strategies.78 In contrast, Instruction does not contain hidden transcripts, trickster stories or any obvious types of subversion. Rather, the readers and hearers throughout Instruction are consistently addressed within a “subaltern” social location and are given practical advice for survival as subaltern members of that society. For example, they are advised concerning loans, how to handle family matters and what to do about the vows made by one’s wife. The rhetoric indicating the nature and purpose of the survival ethic advanced in the composition is indicative of the social location of the addressee and, perhaps, of the author. For determining major themes and arguments in Instruction, the four columns of frg. 2 of 4Q416 are of unusual importance because they constitute the longest extant consecutive body of text. The interrelationship of major issues can be seen and we can start our analysis with certainty about the literary sequence of this text and its interconnections. The presence of parallels with

75  Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 137–88. 76  James Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). 77  Smith-Christopher, Biblical Theology, 166–68. I am not arguing for his reading of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes but applying his perspectives to a reading of Instruction. 78  Smith-Christopher, Biblical Theology, 171–88.

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

231

other copies of the composition also aids in the analysis of those texts. We turn now to an examination of 4Q416 2 ii 6–8:79 And in your words do not downplay your own spirit. For any amount of money do not exchange the spirit of your holiness, for there is no price equal [to it. . . . Do not permit any ma]n to turn you aside. With favor eagerly seek his presence and speak according to his language. Then you will find what you desire [ . . . for your reproach you shall not trade him.] Your statutes you shall not abandon, and pay [very careful] attention to your mysteries.80 In the delicate relationships spelled out in this document, the dignity and personhood of the addressee are not to be compromised. This assertion is found in the midst of advice concerning the perils of debt, whether incurred for the sake of a friend or for oneself. The immediate issue appears to be the granting of surety, a pledge given as assurance against the incurring of debt, whether for an acquaintance or oneself.81 This has included material collateral, a bag of valuables in lines 4–5. These guarantees serve to fend off debt enslavement and the obligation to enter into service for a specified period of time. Warnings concerning the dangers of surety are found in the wisdom instruction in the books of Proverbs and Ben Sira.82 However, nowhere in these other materials is the assertion related to dignity and worth. In Instruction, particularly attuned to the situation of those already in economic and material peril, this assertion seems to be integral to the cautious advisory concerning debt. An examination of the term “spirit” and ‫“( רוח קודשכה‬spirit of your holiness” or “your holy spirit”) in the above text places the issue in a cosmic perspective. In 4Q417 1 i 16–18 the people of spirit are contrasted with the spirit of flesh: They shall give it as an inheritance to humankind (in company with) a people of spirit, f[o]r after the pattern of the holy ones he formed it. Yet he did not give this insight to the spirit of flesh, for it could not distinguish between [go]od and evil according to the judgment of his [sp]irit.

79  This translation includes the reconstructions on the basis of parallel passages: 4Q417 2 ii 8–11; 4Q 418 8 6–8. 80  All translations are from Kampen, Wisdom Literature, unless otherwise noted. 81  Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 67–70; Goff, 4QInstruction, 72–80. 82  Prov 17:18; 20:16; 22:26; 27:13; Ben Sira 29:14–20. These texts demonstrate the complexity of the issue.

232

Kampen

This inheritance concerns the ‫“( חזון ההגוי לספר זקרון‬vision of insight for the memorial book”), a difficult phrase to translate. In this context it has to do with the revelation of the ultimate fate of the divisions of humankind. However, this revelation is a development from the injunction earlier in that column to search day and night in the ‫“( רז נהיה‬mystery of existence”) so that “you will know truth and perversity, wisdom and folly.”83 The result of this daily pursuit is that “Then you will know the difference between the [go]od and [evil according] to their deeds.” The student then knows “how to walk in the inclination of their understanding,” thereby included “with those who walk perfectly [in all] his [d]eeds.”84 In other words, the student who enters into this community of study and adopts this ethic based upon the accompanying worldview is orienting life after the pattern of the holy ones or angelic hosts. In another copy of Instruction, this orientation of life is described as: “Among all the godly beings (‫ )אלים‬he has cast your lot and your very great glory and has set you up as a firstborn to him.”85 The spirit of flesh is the characterisation of those outside of this body of persons, the remainder of humankind.86 Instruction describes the opportunity available for these persons caught in the situation of poverty and debt to participate in the life of the angels. What does this mean for the injunctions concerning daily life that comprise the majority of the material in this composition? One of the phrases in a relatively small fragment that has not received adequate attention is found in 4QInstructiond: “not be at peace until wickedness comes to an end. For there is wrath in every a[ge]” (4Q418 3 3). This line suggests that there is conflict in every age between the forces represented in the people of the spirit and the people of the flesh. We would expect to read that there is wickedness in every age; however, here it is wrath that is present

83  4Q417 1 i 6–7. 84  4Q417 1 i 8–12. 85  4Q418 81–81a 4–5. 86  Jörg Frey, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Study Oslo 1998 (ed. D.K. Falk, F. García Martínez, and E.M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 197–226; idem, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage,” in The Wisdom Texts From Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; BETL 159; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002), 189–200; Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 98–101; Goff, 4QInstruction, 17–19, 155–68.

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

233

throughout world history. In other words, the wrath of judgment is present not only at some eschatological event, but is an ongoing part of the human experience. While it is most likely that the reference to the ‫“( קץ החרון‬era of wrath”) in 4Q416 4 1 is to the eschatological judgment, the fragmentary context makes it difficult to be certain. More suggestive is the line in 4QInstructionc: ‫בכול דרכיהם עם פקודתם לכול קצי עולם ופקודת עד‬, “in all their ways with their assignment for all the epochs forever and the assignment for eternity” (4Q417 1 i 7–8). There is an eternal dimension to the assigned periods; however, that assignment is not only eschatological, it is effective throughout history.87 In other words, the conflicts portrayed in the initial columns of Instruction are those present throughout history and those conflicts will only be resolved at the conclusion of human history. This reading coincides with the temporal understanding related to the ‫רז נהיה‬ found at the top of this important column: “and consider [the mystery of existence and the deeds of old, for what was and what will be] [with them . . . for] ever [. . . for what is and for what will be with them.”88 Encompassed within the mystery of existence is the past, the present and the future; that is, the entire scope of human experience.89 That there is an end to human history, perhaps even a goal for human history, can be demonstrated. However that end is consistent with, and finds representation within, the present structure of the universe that encompasses the human experience. What is important with regard to the topic of this paper is that the ethic herein prescribed following these initial columns is not one in which the individual is preparing for an eschatological judgment; it stipulates the manner in which one should live while the conflict is going on. Following this ethic permits the adherent to be among the sons of truth, the people of spirit, who are participating within their lifetime in the way of life of the angels.

87  Goff, 4QInstruction, 190. Having identified this aspect of the question in his reading of the texts, it is not clear to me why Goff persists in an almost exclusive reading of the text as eschatological. 88  4Q417 1 i 3–5. 89  It is this understanding of the term which has led me to translate it as the mystery of existence rather than the mystery to come, the mystery to be/come or the mystery that is to be and similar constructions.

234

Kampen

5 Conclusion Instruction does not fit easily within those texts from the Qumran corpus that employ violent imagery for their own rhetorical purposes. The development of the rhetoric of violence in the sectarian scrolls is examined by Alex Jassen.90 He argues that, as the disagreements with the temple establishment in Jerusalem coalesced into a firm opposition, the violence of the rhetoric increased until all of those outside of the group were sons of darkness and destined for eternal destruction. The violent vision of the end of days would lead to the annihilation of the Romans and those Jews who were considered to have wandered from the way of the sectarians. In the War Rule, the ritualised activity of the eschatological temple is merged with the ritualised order of an eschatological war in the sectarian self-identification as the spiritual temple. However, this central violent worldview is defused by delaying all punishment to the eschaton. In the analysis of Dorothy Peters, the sectarian scrolls portray a worldview in which judgment and vengeance are in the hands of God who is the one that authorises and has control over the use of the sword.91 The use of the sword in the past by Israel and some expectation of their role in final judgment are part of this portrait. However, at the present time, their use of violent force is not encouraged. She finds that sectarians in their present life are not encouraged to engage in violent actions of aggression; however, in their fervent eschatological hopes they are expecting a time when Israel’s armies led by an appointed Davidic figure would be triumphant and vanquish all of the enemy forces. Therefore, the sectarians within the scope of human and Israelite history are in a rather temporary phase of non-violence. Both of these analyses are rather far-ranging but assume a sectarian identity at the centre, hence are not that helpful in the study of Instruction. Perhaps the differences point out the great range of ideological and theological options that are available in the compositions from the Qumran corpus, particularly if we broaden the question of violence and non-violence as has been suggested above. Årstein Justnes takes issue with the idea that a central violent worldview was dominant in the “Qumran community,” arguing that Jassen relies too heavily on the War Rule for the more comprehensive portrait he develops from the

90  Jassen, “Scrolls and Violence.” 91  Peters, “The Sword.”

Wisdom, Poverty, and Non-Violence in Instruction

235

sectarian texts.92 The recognition that there are no instances of real violence advocated in the texts is a more central interpretive problem than recognised by Jassen. Justnes proposes that there are three types of violence to be found in the Qumran texts: divine, sanctified and human. Both human and even sanctified violence play a relatively minor role in these texts. By sanctified violence, he means “ ‘violence that is believed to be either sanctioned/required by God,’ but performed by human agents.”93 The majority of the sectarian texts from Qumran that contain violent imagery actually employ divine violence. These instances of divine violence are categorised by Justnes as “fictional violence,” the war in the War Rule is not like other warfare and the punishment in portions of 1QS is a literary phenomenon. They have little to do with social reality and, he argues, are probably not even an adequate basis for the construction of a group’s worldview. In CD and 1QS these “fictionalised” accounts are employed in the construction of identity, particularly in marking the sharp distinction between insiders and outsiders. However he also notes that in some instances this fictionalised violence is actually present rather than future. He cites the example of the curses in 1QS 2:4–17 in which they are addressed to “all those foreordained to Belial” and “to anyone initiated with unrepentant heart, who enters this covenant.”94 In this case and others the fictionalised divine violence is addressed to contemporaries, not projected to some future judgment. This analysis of the sectarian compositions demonstrates more similarities with Instruction than would be evident from the other studies. In this case the dualism, which is certainly more enhanced in these compositions than in Instruction, has direct implications for the present in terms of the development of an appropriate ethic. The fictive violence of an eventual judgment provides a context for the identity and the resulting ethic of the addressee of the composition. The perspective on the human experience advanced particularly within what, to the best of our knowledge, are the initial columns of Instruction provides the context for what I have suggested above should be understood as an ethic of survival. Given the nature of the extant advice available to us, the way of life advocated is a non-violent strategy for living as a person in 92  Justnes, “Divine Violence.” He does not support the sectarian/non-sectarian division of texts, however in this case he includes the texts in his analysis employed by Jassen (“Divine Violence,” 224). 93  In this category, he is actually adopting the definition that Jassen uses for religious violence (“Divine Violence, 223–24). 94  Justnes, “Divine Violence,” 231–32. He also cites 1QS 5:12; CD 19:6, 13–14; 1QpHab 9:9–12.

236

Kampen

poverty—a farmer, an artisan, a woman, a slave—not within or having access to the well-being associated with the circles of power. The fragmentary text does not provide us with the information to determine whether the ethic is derived from a context of direct foreign rule or of native aristocracy. It does seem more likely that it would be the native Jewish aristocracy. In any case, the strategy is based upon experience and directed toward those living within these systems of imperial rule, so who has direct control over the institutions that impact on these lives is probably not all that significant. What is important is that the addressee is given the opportunity to live a life devoted to God patterned after the angels in the context of an imperial reality.

CHAPTER 13

Cutting Off and Cutting Down Shechem: Levi and His Sword in the Rylands Genizah Fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document Dorothy M. Peters and Esther Eshel On the third day, when they were still in pain, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and came against the city unawares, and killed all the males. Gen 34:25 NRSV

Then answered [Simeon (?) . . . ] My brother! (You are) more greatly zealous than [all of our brothers (?)] Rise! Enter in [your] wisdom! Take my sword; it is yours [. . .] and let us execute judg[ment . . . ]. Rylands P1185–1 Recto, 8–12

1

The Sword of Levi in the Rylands Genizah Fragment

1.1 The Story of the Re-discovery of the Rylands Genizah Fragment On the heels of the infamous circumcision deception, Levi and Simeon killed the Shechemites with the edge of the sword (‫)לפי־חרב‬. For this, in Genesis, Levi and Simeon suffered rebuke from their father, Jacob (Gen 34:25–30). On his deathbed, Jacob condemned Levi and Simeon’s weapons of violence (‫)כלי חמס‬

* This study was funded by the Harold Hyam Wingate Fellowship while the authors were Visiting Fellows at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University of Oxford (Oct.–Dec. 2011) and, for D.M. Peters, the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship (2009–11).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_014

238

Peters and Eshel

and cursed them for their anger (Gen 49:5–7). With the re-discovery of the Rylands Genizah fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), one of the more innovative attempts by Levi’s descendants to rehabilitate their priestly ancestor has now been recovered. The story of the discovery, migration, and re-discovery of the fragments of ALD, one of the most ancient Jewish texts extant from the Second Temple period, spans more than a century. It begins in the Egyptian Cairo Genizah at the end of the nineteenth century, moves to the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge in the early 1900’s, wends its way through the Qumran desert caves in the 1940’s, only to return in 2008 to England, to the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester where the Rylands Genizah fragment was waiting to be identified. This essay is divided into three parts, each exploring the subtly posed answers to subtextual questions that are familiar from the history of traditions concerning Levi and the legitimacy of his wielding of the sword (‫)חרב‬1 against Shechem: Against whom was the sword authorised? In whose hand? By whom and how? Part I introduces and translates the Rylands Genizah fragment, examining its contribution to the interpretation of the Shechem and Dinah affair in ALD 1–2.2 Part II introduces Levi as a narrator-candidate of the entirety of ALD and explores the subsequent implications for interpretation of “Levi and the sword.” Part III contextualises the newly reconstructed ALD within an abbreviated but representative history of early Jewish “Levi and the sword” traditions.3 But first, we tell the story of the re-discovery of this remarkable fragment.

1  Unless otherwise indicated, sword represents the Hebrew ‫ חרב‬throughout the essay. 2  A LD ordering and numbering follow Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, and Commentary (TALD) (SVTP 19; Brill: Leiden, 2004), 1–5. 3  Marty Abegg’s life work in producing searchable electronic concordances of the Dead Sea Scrolls was invaluable for setting the Rylands Genizah fragment within a history of Levi traditions. Hebrew and Aramaic transcriptions of the non-biblical scrolls are from the official editions in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series (DJD) as transcribed electronically in Martin G. Abegg, Jr., “Qumran, Non-biblical Manuscripts,” Accordance Bible Software Version 4.1.

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

239

Gideon Bohak was sifting through the Gaster Genizah fragments at the John Rylands Library in 2008, in search of magical texts, when he found an unidentified Aramaic parchment fragment, measuring 12.8 cm high × 11.4 cm wide and inscribed on both sides. Bohak recognised the scribal hand and identified the fragment as belonging to a single copy of the ALD Genizah manuscript, known from the pieces already housed in Cambridge and Oxford. He located the fragment within the early columns of ALD describing Levi and Simeon’s response to the Shechem and Dinah affair.4 Witnesses to ALD known previously to Bohak’s discovery include seven Dead Sea Scrolls copies and extracts from a Greek translation of ALD interpolated into an 11th century Greek manuscript of T. 12.5 No overlaps exist between the Qumran copies and the Rylands fragment. However, substantial similarities in the extant overlaps between the Second Temple period Qumran copies and the previously known Genizah fragments would indicate that a highly similar version of the Shechem incident found in ALD would also have been preserved in the much earlier Qumran copies. Therefore, the Rylands Genizah fragment potentially makes a vital contribution to the Second Temple conversations about Levi and his sword.6

4  Bohak ordered as follows: Cambridge a (ALD 1:1–3) + Rylands Recto + Rylands Verso + Cambridge b (ALD 2:1). Genizah fragments: Cambridge, University Library T-S 16.94 and Oxford, Bodleian Heb. C.27.56. See Gideon Bohak, “A New Genizah Fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document,” Tarbiz 79 (2011): 373–83 [Hebrew]; Gideon Bohak, “A New Genizah Fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document” in From Cairo to Manchester: Studies in the Rylands Genizah Fragments, (ed. Renate Smithuis and Philip S. Alexander; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 31; Oxford University Press, 2013), 101–14, 101–102. The authors wish to thank Professor Bohak for sharing pre-publication copies of these articles. 5  Manuscript Athos, Monastery of Koutloumous, Cod. 39, catalogue no. 3l08. Qumran copies: 1QTLevi (1Q21); 4QLevia (4Q213); 4QLevib (4Q213a); 4QLevic (4Q213b); 4QLevid (4Q214); 4QLevie (4Q214a); 4QLevif (4Q214b). 6  However, ALD existed in diverse recensions even among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Robert A. Kugler, “Whose Scripture? Whose Community? Reflections on the Dead Sea Scrolls Then and Now, By Way of Aramaic Levi,” DSD 15 (2008): 5–23, 5.

240 1.2

Peters and Eshel

Rylands Genizah Fragment: Plates, Text, and Translation  7

figure 13.1  Rylands Genizah P1185–1 Recto7

7  The Aramaic transcription and reconstruction is based on the authors’ own examination of the Rylands Genizah fragment at the John Rylands Library, University of Manchester, in consultation with Bohak, “A New Genizah Fragment.”

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

241

Text and Translation: Rylands Genizah Fragment P1185–1 Recto ‫ [ ]בו‬ ‫ [ ]ידע די טמאו [בב]ניהון‬ ‫ [ ]הן ולא ישבקון יתהון עד‬ ‫ [די כולהון (?) ] יאבדון‬ ‫ח]מור ומלילו במילי‬ [‫ [אד]ין‬ // ‫א]ינש קריתהון‬ [ ‫ה]ון למגזר ולמעבדה‬ [ ‫ [ ]למהוי להון חתנין‬ ‫ [ ]רותהון ולאשליותן‬ ‫ [ ]יו עורלת‬ ‫ ]ן וחשבת‬ ‫ [בישרהון‬

1–3 [. . .] 4. [. . .] know that they [ ] defiled [by] their [s]ons 5. [. . .] and they will not spare them until 6. they [all (?)] will be destroyed.8 vacat 7. [Th]en (?) [ . . . they went to H]amor and they spoke in words of 8. [. . .] the [m]en of their city. 9. [. . .] to circumcise (themselves) and to do it 10. [. . .] to become sons-in-law for them 11. [. . .] them and to set them at ease 12. [. . .] the foreskin of 13. [their flesh . . . ] And I contemplated

8  Alternatively, they [all] perish.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

242

figure 13.2  Rylands Genizah Fragment P1185–2 Verso

Peters and Eshel

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

243

Text and Translation: Rylands Genizah Fragment P1185–2 Verso ] [‫◦א‬ ̊ ] [‫מ◦ש‬ ̊ ] [ ‫ואנה‬ ]‫ו]נקטול לכל ב[ני‬ [ ‫ברז ונעול‬ ]. . .[‫אל‬ ̊ ‫שכם ארום יומא הדין יהב‬

1 2 3 4 5 ]‫ביד[נא‬ ֗ ‫כולהו̊ ן̊ אל‬ ֗ ‫ועידנא דין סגר‬ 6 ‫[ר]ע‬ ̊ ̊‫ולמעבד[ דין ]ז‬ ֗ ‫למקטל אינון‬ 7 ] ‫דקשוט אדין ענה [שמעון‬ 8 ] [ ‫אחי מקנא סגי מן‬ 9 ] ‫בחוכמת[ך‬ ֗ ‫ קום עול‬10 ] [‫ודילך‬ ̊ ‫וסב חרבי‬ 11 ] ‫ ונעבד די[ן‬12 ] [‫ שכם ואל‬13 ] [‫ [ ]ב‬14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

[. . .] [. . .] and I [. . .] by a mystery/in secret. Now, let us enter [the city (?)] [and ]we shall kill all the so[ns of ] Shechem. For (on) this day God has given [. . .] and (at) this time, God has delivered all of them up into [our] hand[s] to kill them and to execute [ judgment . . . by] the s[e]ed of righteousness. Then answered [Simeon . . .] My brother! (You are) more greatly zealous than [all of our brothers.] Rise! Enter in [your] wisdom! Take my sword; it is yours [. . .] and let us execute judg[ment . . . ] Shechem and God (?)[. . .] [. . .]

Although a small portion of the text has survived, a remarkable number of weighty words and phrases, hinting at multiple exegetical motifs, are crowded together within this fragment. Among them are defiled (‫)טמאו‬, they will be destroyed (‫)יאבדון‬, to circumcise (‫)למגזר‬, I contemplated (‫)וחשבת‬, by a mystery (‫)ברז‬, God has delivered all of them up into [our] hand[s] (‫ביד[נא‬ ֗ ‫כולהו̊ ן̊ אל‬ ֗ ‫)]סגר‬, s[e]ed of righteousness (]‫)ז̊ [ר]ע דקשוט‬, zealous (‫)מקנא‬, in [your] wisdom (‫בחוכמת[ך‬ ֗ ), judgment (‫ )די[ן‬and, of course, my sword (‫)חרבי‬.

244

Peters and Eshel

Against Whom was the Sword Authorised? (Rylands Genizah Fragment) Genesis 34 manages to censure Levi and Simeon while evoking empathy for Shechem. Shechem loves Dinah, speaks to her heart, (]‫)וידבר על־לב הנער[ה‬ and hopes to marry her. The unnamed sons of Jacob (‫ )בני־יעקב‬make gestures of inclusion, deceptively inviting the Shechem and Hamor, along with all the Shechemites, to be circumcised so that they could become one people (‫)לעם אחד‬. Trustingly, the males of the city did just that. But while still in the pain of their circumcisions, they are killed by Simeon and Levi. Emphatically excluded from Israel, Shechem is thus cut off and cut down. In contrast, the Rylands fragment suppresses empathy for the Shechemites, instead striking them with the language of judgment. One brother says to another, “Let us execute judgment” (‫( )ונעבד די[ן‬Rylands Verso, 12). The term of destruction is chosen (‫ יאבדון‬in Rylands Recto 6), language well known to the tradents from their scriptures as an extermination occasioned by sin.9 That this extermination was justified and even divinely initiated is evoked by the terms delivered all of them up (‫ )סגר‬and greatly zealous (‫( )מקנא סגי‬Rylands Verso, 6, 9).10 Shechem’s individual and collective guilt were already known from Genesis: Shechem defiled Dinah (‫טמא‬, piel) and they had defiled their sister (‫)טמאו אחותם‬.11 In the Rylands fragment, collective guilt for defilement—defiled [by] their [s]ons (‫( )טמאו [בב]ניהון‬Rylands Recto, 4) —implicitly justifies a collective punishment. But who was authorised to punish Shechem legitimately? 1.3

In Whose Hand was the Sword Authorised? (Rylands Genizah Fragment) That the successful rout of Shechem was dependent on a circumcision deception (‫( )במרמה‬Gen 34:13) was problematic for interpreters hoping to legitimise the sword in the hand of Levi. One way to resolve the difficulty was to reinterpret the pejorative deception, here neutralised by its replacement to set at ease (‫( )לאשליותן‬Rylands Recto, 11).12 Another way was to create distance between Levi and the circumcision proposal. The Rylands fragment may do both (discussed further below). 1.4

9  For example: against “other gods” (Jer 10:11), the wicked (Ps 37:20), God’s enemies (Judg 5:31), nation not serving God (Isa 60:12), and Israel for covenant violations (Lev 26:38). 10  In its piel form, ‫ סגר‬is found only four times in the Hebrew Bible; each time when God delivers up an adversary to David. 1 Sam 17:46; 24:19 [18]; 26:8; 2 Sam 18:28. 11  Gen 34:5, 13, 27. 12  Cf. Gen 34:13 Tg.Onq., Tg. Neof., Tg. Ps.-J. that substitute wisdom (‫)בחוכמתא‬.

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

245

The attributes of righteousness, zeal and wisdom (Rylands Verso, 7–10) are neither attached to Levi or Simeon in Genesis nor are they explicitly associated with Levi or Simeon in the Rylands fragment. The identity of the speaker of these words—presumably either Levi or Simeon—is not preserved: “My brother! (You are) more greatly zealous than [all of our brothers.] Rise! Enter in [your] wisdom! Take my sword; it is yours [. . .]” (Rylands Verso, 9–11). However, the attribute of zeal does evoke the priestly Phinehas who was rewarded with the covenant of eternal priesthood (‫ )ברית כהנת עולם‬after driving a spear through an Israelite man and the Midianite woman (Num 25:6–13). Of the two brothers, Levi was the ancestor of priests; therefore, it is more likely that Simeon was the one attributing zeal to the priestly, purity-protecting Levi. Substantiation for a zealous Levi may be found in the Greek Testament of Levi, a text that significantly expands, excises and reinterprets its Aramaic Levi sources. It is not reliable, in every case, for reconstructing content missing in ALD. However, Levi says of himself in the Greek tradition, “I was filled with zeal” (T. Levi 6.3), an arguably logical development from the Aramaic tradition.13 Both Simeon and Levi wield the sword in Genesis. In the Rylands fragment, the identity of the sword-wielder(s) hangs on the identity of the speaker while the number of swords depends on the reading of a waw. Bohak’s reading, “take my sword and yours” as spoken by a reconstructed Simeon would give Levi two swords (Rylands Verso, 11). Reading the waw, however, as a semi-colon, Simeon would bestow his sword upon the swordless Levi: “Take my sword; it is yours.”14 The plural form on the following line, “let us execute judgment” (1cp), does suggest both brothers having a role in executing judgment, yet both ways of reading seem to leave Simeon oddly and awkwardly swordless, unless it was understood that he carried a spare! By Whom was the Sword Authorised and How? (Rylands Genizah Fragment) Within a vision in T. Levi, it is an angel who gives Levi a sword, charging him to execute vengeance against Shechem (T. Levi 5:3). Language suggestive of some kind of revealed knowledge is found in the Aramaic fragment: And 1.5

13  For a study of the development of Levi-priestly traditions from the Hebrew Bible into ALD, Jubilees, and T. Levi by means of a “Levi-apocryphon,” see Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 14  Williams’ pleonastic waw §435 but see 4Q542 1 i 8 for a similar waw construction: “Levi’s righteousness that belongs also to me” (‫)ובצדקת לוי ודילי‬. Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax (3d ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007).

246

Peters and Eshel

I contemplated (‫ ;וחשבת‬Rylands Recto, 13). Elsewhere in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, I contemplated (‫ )חשבת‬is found in Noah’s mouth after his vision of the deed of the Sons of Heaven (‫ )עובד בני שמין‬and linked to bloodshed by the Nephilim and mating of the holy ones (‫ )קדישין‬with women. Noah makes known (‫ )ואחואת‬what he has learned and then comes the flood (1QapGen 6: 9–26). In a study of the Aramaic dream-visions in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Andrew Perrin has observed that ‫ חשבת‬is one of six terms used for pausing narrative action while the dreamer reflects on the content of the dream vision.15 In the Rylands fragment, Levi appears to be contemplating knowledge received about his brothers’ circumcision proposition. While it is unclear whether the knowledge comes from a human or divine source, a vision cannot be ruled out. Translating ‫ ברז‬as secretly could easily be justified as derived from Genesis, where the sons of Jacob entered the unsuspecting city (‫( )ויבאו על העיר בטח‬Gen 34:25). However, highlighting the secretiveness would intensify the deceptiveness of the circumcision proposal, language that the interpreter had already neutralised. Elsewhere in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, ‫ רז‬is the language of protected, revelatory communication.16 Enoch communicates authoritative revelation in secret (‫ )ברז‬to Methuselah who speaks in secret (‫ )ברז‬with Lamech (1QapGen 5:20–25) and Enoch claims to know secrets (‫ידע אנה ברז̊ י̊ [מריא די] קדישין‬ ‫)אחויוני ואחזיוני‬, authoritative revelation from the Holy Ones (4Q204 5 ii 26 = 1 En. 106:19).17 Noah hides the revealed mystery (‫רזא‬ ֗ ) in his heart (1QapGen 6:12) and an angel speaks to Noah in a vision about the comprehension of a mystery (‫לרז̇ א‬ ̇ ) (1QapGen 14:19).18 ALD is among the Aramaic texts represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls that Samuel Thomas identifies by their characteristic features of esotericism, including “previously hidden truth delivered by mediation by a specific authority.” Levi is one of these authorities and the language of mystery (‫)רז‬ is also associated with his descendants, Amram and Aaron.19 In the Rylands 15  Andrew B. Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls (JAJSup; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming). 16  See Dan 2:18–19, 27–30; 4:9. 17  These are the only three places in the DSS, where ‫ רז‬is prefixed by the bet as in ALD. 18  For the usage of this term ‫ רז‬in 1QapGen and parallels, see Esther Eshel, “The Genesis Apocryphon and Other Related Aramaic Texts from Qumran: The Birth of Noah,” in Aramaica 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; Brill: Leiden, 2010), 277–97, especially 289–91. 19  Visions of Amram (4Q545 4 15–17). See Samuel Thomas, “Esoteric Knowledge in Qumran Aramaic Texts,” in Berthelot and Ben Ezra, eds., Aramaica Qumranica, 403–428, 413–418.

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

247

fragment, therefore, ‫ רז‬could refer to a vision report not visible in the breakage of the text, translated as by a mystery or in secret.20 Whether or not ALD originally preserved a supernatural vision at this point, God may be introduced as a character who authorised the sword against Shechem if ]. . .[ ‫אל‬ ֯ ‫ יהב‬and ‫( סגר כולהון אל‬Rylands Verso, 5–6) are read as prophetic perfects (God has given and God has delivered up) instead of as completed actions.21 This may better sense in the flow of the narrative (see Part II); even before entering Shechem, Levi confidently asserts that the outcome is assured. 2

The Sword of Levi in the Aramaic Levi Document

2.1 By Word and Sword: Narration, Speech and Action The chart in this section serves two purposes. First, the Rylands fragment is contextualised within ALD 1–2, according to Bohak’s location of Rylands Recto and Rylands Verso in relation to columns a and b of the Cambridge fragment. A new reconstruction and translation for 1QTLevi 8, now located immediately before ALD 1:1, is also proposed.22 Second, the interpretation of the Rylands fragment rests on the identity of the narrator and speaker(s). Therefore, the whole of ALD is revisited with this question in mind: Might the previously known columns ALD be understood to have been composed as first person narrative in the mouth of Levi? If so, the figure Levi would most likely have narrated the speech and actions also in the Rylands fragment. Loren T. Stuckenbruck argues that first person discourse came to be integrated into third person narrative in some Aramaic texts. For example, some of the earliest 1 Enoch material anonymously narrates the intermarriage of angels 20  It is not necessary to find the full contents of a vision in the immediately preceding text. Levi could simply be referring to a vision that occurred earlier; cf. T. Levi 9:2, 6; 11:5. 21  For reading as completed action, see Bohak, “A New Genizah Fragment,” 105. 22  The ordering follows TALD. Alternative, well-reasoned orderings of the manuscript fragments also yield differing storylines and interpretations. See especially Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, and Henryk Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004). Worthy of further study is the placement of frg. 3 of 4QLevib (4Q213a) that mentions a virgin who should be burned because she had profaned the name of her ancestors. Cf. similar interpretation preserved in Jub. 30:5–7 where it follows the killing of the Shechemites. Kugler links the fragment to Levi’s vision, suggesting that the Qumran community interpolated the material as an “innovation on a received tradition” and served to heighten the sense of “extraordinary purity” maintained by Levi (Kugler, “Whose Scripture?,” 22).

248

Peters and Eshel

and women, judgment and revelatory communication from God to Noah (1 En. 6–11) as third person narrative without even mentioning Enoch. Later, these chapters were enfolded within a first person reported divine revelation to Enoch (1 En. 1:1–3).23 The Genesis Apocryphon is an example of what may represent an intermediate stage; it preserves abrupt shifts between first and third person communication without clarifying the identity of the speaker.24 The headings in the chart below highlight the suggested sequence of events with Levi as the proposed narrator. Only brief excerpts from ALD 3–13 are given as representative examples of narrated speech and action.  2526272829 TABLE 13.1  The Aramic Levi Document: Levi as proposed narrator Reconstructed Ald: Proposed Narrative Flow

Levi: Proposed Narrator

Jacob and sons settle in Shalem with peaceful intentions (1QTLevi 8)25 1QTLevi 8 1. [ . . . and Jacob my father came . . . ] and peacefully (‫ )םלשו‬vacat [And ] I [ and all my brothers came with him.] 2. [ . . . And he came to] Shalem (‫)םלש‬, and every man [of his household . . . ] 3. [. . .]. And I, L[evi . . . .4. [. . .]

Levi recounts his family’s move to Shechem.

The brothers discuss the circumcision plot (ALD 1:1–3) ALD 1:1. . . . she was defiled26 by the so[ns of (?) ac]cording to the manner of all people [ ] to do according to the law in all [. . .] | Jacob my father and Reu[ben my brother . . . ]

Levi narrates the circumcision planning meeting, either from first hand knowledge

23  Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse in the Dead Sea Documents: From the Aramaic Texts to Writings of the Yahad,” in 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), 295–326, 303. 24  Stuckenbruck, “Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse,” 315–16. 25  Cf. double interpretation of ‫ שלם‬in Jub. 30:1, “. . . he went up peacefully to Shalem, to the east of Shechem.” 26  Puech seems to have reconstructed Cam A:14 (ALD 1:1): ‫ ד[]טמאת‬correctly as passive. See Émile Puech, “Le Testament de Lévi araméen, Cambridge a–b et f. Corrigenda et addenda,” RevQ 23/4 (2008): 544–45.         

249

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem Reconstructed Ald: Proposed Narrative Flow

Levi: Proposed Narrator

1:2 and we say (‫ )ואמרנן‬to them: [. . .] [i]f they27 desire our daughter so that we all become br[others] and friends, 1:3 “Circumcise your fleshly foreskin and look like us, and (then) you will be sealed like us with the circumcision [of tru]th and we will be br[others] for y[ou].”

or from hearing about it afterwards.

Gap of three lines between these lines in Cambridge a and Rylands Recto.28 The fate of the Shechemites is predicted Rylands Recto, 4. [. . .] know that they [ ] defiled [by] their [s]ons 5. [. . .] and they will not spare them until 6. they [all (?)] will be destroyed (vacat)

Levi predicts the coming fate of the Shechemites, perhaps as heard in a vision.

Circumcision is proposed to Hamor Rylands Recto, 7. [Th]en (?) [ . . . they went to H]amor and they spoke in words of 8. [. . .] the men of their city 9. [. . .] to circumcise (themselves) and to do it 10. [. . .] to become sons-in-law for them 11. [. . .] them and to set them at ease 12. [. . .] the foreskin of [. . .]

Levi recounts his brothers’ actions.

Levi contemplates what he has just learned Rylands Recto, 13. . . . [their flesh.] And I contemplated . . .  Eleven lines of text missing between Recto and Verso.29

Levi recounts his own contemplative moment.

Levi tells Simeon what he has just learned Rylands Verso, 3. and I [. . .] 4. by a mystery/in secret. Now, let us enter [the city (?)] [and ]we shall kill all the so[ns of ] 5. Shechem. For (on) this day God has given [. . .] 6. and (at) this time, God has delivered all of them up into [our] hand[s] 7. to kill them and to execute [ judgment . . . by] the s[e]ed 8a. of righteousness.

Levi recounts his own words to Simeon.

27

28 29

TALD translated ‫ ואמרנן‬as “and we said to them” and emended “they” (‫ ;אינון‬3cp) to “you” (‫)אנתון‬, yielding “and we said to them (‫[ )ואמרנן‬. . .] 20 “[I]f desire our daughter so that we all become broth[ers] and friends.” However, if ‫ ואמרנן‬is translated as the imperfect, the emendation becomes unnecessary. So Bohak, “A New Genizah Fragment,” 108. So Bohak, “A New Genizah Fragment,” 108.

250

Peters and Eshel

TABLE 13.1  The Aramic Levi Document: Levi as proposed narrator (cont.) Reconstructed Ald: Proposed Narrative Flow

Levi: Proposed Narrator

Simeon bestows his sword upon Levi Rylands Verso, 8b. Then answered [Simeon . . . ] 9. “My brother! (You are) more greatly zealous than [all of our brothers.] 10. Rise! Enter in [your] wisdom! 11. Take my sword; it is yours 12. and let us execute judg[ment . . . ]” 13. Shechem and God (?) [. . .]” 23 lines of text are missing between Rylands Verso and Cambridge b.30

Levi recounts Simeon’s words as spoken to himself.

Judah tells the brothers about the actions of Levi and Simeon31 ALD 2:1 [. . .]. my brother(s?) at all times [. . .] who were in Shechem, [. . .] my brother(s?) and he told this | [. . .] in Shechem and that [ . . . do]ers of violence and Judah told them that I and Simeon my brother had gone [. . .] to Reuben our brother, which is to the east of Asher, and Judah leaped forward [to] leave the sheep . . . 

Levi recounts his brothers’ actions and speech.

Levi cleanses himself from corpse impurity ALD 2:4 Then I laundered my garments, and having purified them in pure water 2:5 I also washed my whole self in living water, and I made all my paths upright.

Levi recounts his own actions.

Levi prays (ALD 3:1–18) ALD 3:1 . . . I opened my mouth and I spoke . . . 

Levi recounts the words of his own prayer.

Travels and vision(s) of Levi (ALD 4:1–13) ALD 4:4 Then I was shown visions . . . 

Levi recounts his vision, quoting the words the “seven” speak.

30 31

Bohak, “A New Genizah Fragment,” 108. At this point, the sons of Jacob may have gone to kill the rest of the Shechemites; cf. Gen 34:27–39; T. Levi 6:5.

251

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem Reconstructed Ald: Proposed Narrative Flow

Levi: Proposed Narrator

Levi’s priesthood, blessing, and instruction (ALD 5:1–8) ALD 5:1 And we went to my father, Isaac, and he thus [blessed] me . . . 

Levi recounts the actions of Jacob, Isaac, and himself.

Isaac’s priestly teaching and blessings: (ALD 6:1–10:14) ALD 6:1 And he said to me, “Levi my son . . .”

Levi recounts Isaac’s words.

Marriage, birth and naming of three generations of Levi’s descendants (ALD 11:1–12:5) ALD 11:1 . . . I took a wife for myself . . . ALD 11:3 . . . “I saw in my vision . . .  ALD 12:4 . . . I said when he was born, “This one will raise up the people from the la[nd of Eg]ypt. . . .”

Levi recounts his family history, summarises a vision, and recounts his own words.

Overview of Levi’s life (ALD 12:6–9) ALD 12:6 . . . I was eighteen when I killed Shechem and destroyed the doers of violence . . . ALD 12:9 I saw my thi[rd] generation before I died.

Levi summarises his life.

Levi recounts his own Levi instructs his children and grandchildren words. (ALD 13:1–16) ALD 13:2 . . . I spoke up and said to my chil[dren, “List]en to the word of your father Levi . . .”    3031

As the chart shows, Levi is named as the narrator where a transition is preserved between third person narrative and first person discourse. If there were originally shifts between first person speech and anonymous third person narration, such as found in the Genesis Apocryphon, none have been preserved. Therefore, because the extant portions of the less fragmentary portions of ALD do identify Levi as the narrator of all speech and actions, it is possible that the narrated speech and actions in the fragments for which the transitions are not preserved were not anonymously narrated but were composed as narrated by Levi. The proposed identity of the narrator will have interpretative implications both for questions about Levi’s role in the circumcision proposal and the legitimacy of the sword in hand of Levi against Shechem.

     

252

Peters and Eshel

2.2 Against Whom was the Sword Authorised? (Aramaic Levi Document) The collective Shechemite guilt found in the Rylands fragment is already introduced earlier in the text: “She was defiled by the so[ns of the stranger]” (ALD 1:1), doubly authorising collective punishment. The label doers of violence (‫( )עבדי חמסא‬ALD 2:1; 12:6) effectively transfers violence from the weapons of Levi and Simeon (Gen 49:5) to the Shechemites, possibly allying the Shechemites more closely with the mythical villains in the Book of Giants.32 Levi and Simeon’s original objection to Jacob’s censure, “Should our sister be treated like a whore?” (Gen 34:30–31) is thereby validated. ALD does not communicate that the sword should be wielded indiscriminately against any foreigner. Instead, Levi is re-formed from a figure associated with violence into a priest of peace, in keeping with the covenant of peace (‫ )שלום‬God made with Levi in Mal 2:4–5.33 He prays that “the wall of your peace” would surround him (ALD 3:11). Levi’s vision seems to link peace (‫)שלום‬ to the kingdom of the priesthood (‫ )מלכות כהנותא‬in contrast to the (reconstructed) kingdom of the [sword (?)] (])?(‫( )]מלכות [חרבא‬ALD 4:7–9). Levi advises his descendants to study and teach wisdom, as Joseph did, in order to build a great reputation so that: “To every la[nd] and country to which he will go, he has a brother and friend therein, He is [not a]s a stranger in it” (ALD 13:8). The language of judgment in the Rylands fragment, therefore, coheres with the attitude toward Shechem in other parts of ALD. Shechem was to be excluded from those who could become br[others and friends (?)] (])?( ‫)א[חין וחברין‬ (ALD 1:3).34 Indeed, the sword was to be wielded selectively and exclusively against the Shechemites and their defiling ilk, authorised solely for the punishment of defilement and for the protection of purity. In Whose Hand was the Sword Authorised? (Aramaic Levi Document) Whether or not Levi narrates: “H]amor and they spoke in words of . . . the [m]en of their city” (Rylands Recto, 7–8) has significant implications for 2.3

32  See deeds of violence (‫ע(ו)ב]די חמס‬ ̊ ) in 4Q531 19: 2; cf. doers of violence (‫ ) ̊עבדי֗ ן חמס‬in the context of the Watchers myth (1QapGen 5:18). 33  Drawnel (Aramaic Wisdom Text, 66–68) argues that Levi as “ideal priest” is observed as early as Mal 2:4–7. 34  ALD might be added to the texts that Hanan Eshel identified as containing anti-Samaritan polemical elements. See Hanan Eshel, “The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Origin of Samaritanism” (Ph.D. Dissertation, the Hebrew University, 1994), 107–10; Hanan Eshel, “The Growth of Belief in the Sanctity of Mount Gerizim,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (ed. Eric F. Mason et al.; 2 vols; JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 2:509–35, 518–19.

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

253

the question of Levi’s involvement circumcision proposal. Options include: (a) Levi knew of and participated in presenting the circumcision proposal to Hamor; (b) Levi rejected the plan and did not participate in its presentation; (c) Levi had no foreknowledge of the plan, hearing of it only after it was carried out. If narrated anonymously, then Levi could be included among the “they” who approached Hamor. However, if narrated by Levi, then he grammatically excludes himself, not necessarily from the plan’s discussion but, at least, from its presentation. The Greek manuscripts of T. Levi indicate that Levi did have knowledge of the plan prior to its presentation; however, there is disagreement about whether or not Levi counseled for or against the plan. Most manuscripts record that Levi counseled his father and Reuben to ask the sons of Hamor to be circumcised (T. Levi 6:3). However, R.H. Charles (1908) based his translation on the minority report, the single manuscript that contained a negation: “I counseled my father, and Reuben my brother, to bid the sons of Hamor not to be circumcised.”35 The evidence contained in the Rylands fragment may add some weight to negation in the Greek manuscript tradition. If the interpreters were trying to show that Levi was not in agreement with the circumcision proposal and excuse him from its presentation, then they could both highlight his concern for purity and, more justifiably, legitimate his use of the sword against Shechem. Throughout ALD, Levi is presented as an idealised priest. He is credentialed as priest after killing Shechem: “I was eighteen when I killed Shechem. . . . I was nineteen when I became a priest” (ALD 12:6–7). After destroying Shechem, he launders his garments and purifies himself, presumably of corpse impurity (ALD 2:1–5). He prays for and teaches wisdom (ALD 3:6; 13). As a priest, he is designated to receive authoritative priestly instruction from Isaac, who received it from Abraham who, in turn, found it written in the book of Noah (ALD 6:1–10:14). Finally, his priesthood is to be characterised by peace (ALD 3:11; 4:7–9). Presenting Levi as initially swordless, therefore, would make sense within this concerted interpretative effort to rehabilitate Levi as an idealised, peaceful priest. Simeon bestows his sword (or one of his swords) upon Levi, saying “Take my sword; it is yours [. . .]” (Rylands Verso, 11). The interpreter thus skillfully communicates simultaneously that Levi—the archetypical idealised priest—was not normally a sword-wielder but that he was authorised to wield the sword zealously when required to do so in defense of the purity of the family of Jacob. 35  MS. Vatican Graec. 731.

254

Peters and Eshel

Simeon’s charge to Levi to take up his sword so they could execute judgment (‫ )ונעבד די[ן‬takes an intriguing turn within a vision in T. Levi. If the Greek tradition is a reworking of the Aramaic tradition, then Simeon’s role is transferred to an angel. Furthermore, in T.Levi, it is the angel who gives Levi a sword and shield and charges Levi to execute vengeance against Shechem. Still within the vision, Levi puts an end to all the sons of Hamor (T. Levi 5:1–4). However, upon awakening and in real time, Levi recounts that he found a shield (with no mention of sword!) and destroyed Shechem, while Simeon destroyed Hamor, and the brothers destroyed the city by the sword (T. Levi 6:4–5). Curiously, there is a reticence—even in T. Levi —to placing the sword explicitly in the hand of Levi. By Whom was the Sword Authorised and How? (Aramaic Levi Document) In Drawnel’s ordering and reconstruction of ALD, Levi’s prayer, purification and the remnants of his vision in Abel Mayyin (4QLevib 1 i–ii) are placed before the Shechem incident and another vision. Unfortunately, the contents of this first vision are not preserved in ALD.36 Ursula Schattner-Rieser has revisited and interpreted Milik’s unpublished reconstructed text of the Aramaic version of the visions of Levi, a reconstruction that incorporated 4QApocryphon of Levia (4Q540) and 4QVisions of Amramf(?) (4Q548). In his reconstruction, Milik proposes three visions with two preceding the Shechem incident. Milik proposed that the ascent to heaven found in T. Levi 2:7–9 was also in the Aramaic Vorlage, among the minute fragments of the Aramaic 1QTestament of Levi. His corrected reading allows for three firmaments (‫ש]מין תלי̊ ̊ת[ין‬ ̊ ; 1Q21 37a 1).37 In their ordering and reconstruction, Greenfield, Stone and Eshel locate the reference to the Abel Mayyin vision following the Shechem incident, linking it to other fragments describing the contents of a vision.38 When Levi awakes, he says, “And I hid this too (‫ )וטמרת אף דן‬in my heart and I revealed it to nobody” (ALD 4:13).39 2.4

36  Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 356–59. The chronology would correspond with the ‘spirit of understanding; and vision coming to Levi at ‘Abel-Maoul’ where the angel gives Levi a sword (T. Levi 2:3–5:7). 37  Ursula Schattner-Rieser, “Levi in the Third Sky: On the ‘Ascent to Heaven’ Legends within Their Near Eastern Context and J.T. Milik’s Unpublished Version of the Aramaic Levi Document,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in Ancient Languages, Texts, and Culture (ed. Armin Lange et al.; VTSupp 140; 2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2:801–19, 805–807. 38  TALD, 66–67. 39  TALD, 146.

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

255

Again, the Rylands fragment only hints at an earlier vision. Whichever ordering is followed, there is ample room in the broken text in the early columns of ALD for a vision report. Yet, another clue may reside in the gaps. Throughout ALD, vacats appear to mark temporal, spatial and character/speaker shifts, functioning like a dramatic pause for re-directing the readers’ eyes and listeners’ ears. A vision report prompts both a spatial shift (heaven to earth) and a speaker shift; therefore, it is not surprising that vacats both open and close the vision report in ALD 4. In the Rylands fragment, a lengthy vacat is found in the region where a vision might be expected, either at the beginning or ending of the actual vision or a vision report. The text is broken where the other vacat might be expected. [. . .] know that they [ ] defiled [by] their [s]ons [. . .] and they will not spare them until they [all (?)] will be destroyed (vacat) (Rylands Recto, 4–6). A vision report could explain the seemingly numerous repetitions of the Shechem event. Hypothetically: (1) Levi narrates the circumcision proposal discussion (ALD 1:1–3); (2) the plan is carried out; (3) Levi receives or reports a vision authorising him to come against Shechem (ALD 1:4; Rylands, Recto 12); (4) Levi considers what he has heard (Rylands Recto, 13); (5) Levi communicates the contents of a vision to Simeon (Rylands Verso, 3–8a); (6) Simeon responds with a call to action (Rylands Verso, 8b—13); (7) Judah tells the others what has occurred and possibly prompting the brothers to go and kill the other Shechemites (ALD 2:1). 3

The Sword of Levi in Early Jewish Traditions

Finally, the Rylands fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document contributes significantly to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Second Temple conversations about Levi and the sword. The story was retold in ways that solved exegetical curiosities in the biblical text and also communicated the varying beliefs and practices of Levi’s interpreters.40 40   For more comprehensive discussions of the Levi history of traditions, see Tjitze Baarda, “The Shechem Episode in the Testament of Levi: A Comparison with Other Traditions,” in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude (ed. J.N. Bremmer and F. García Martínez; Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1992), 11–73; James Kugel, “The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi,”

256

Peters and Eshel

3.1 Against Whom was the Sword Authorised? (Early Jewish Traditions) Josephus dignified Hamor by calling him a king (Ant. 1.337) but interpreters generally denigrated the Shechemites. Jubilees justified lethal force against Shechem by stating that Dinah was a small, 12-year-old girl, forcibly taken ( Jub. 30:2). Joseph and Aseneth authorised the sword in Levi’s hand against the Shechemites but against the Egyptians the sword was eschewed unless the family came under threat ( Jos. Asen. 23). Kugel found “xenophobia and bloodthirstiness” in the shared Jubilees-Judith stream of tradition but not in the Theodotus-T. Levi stream.41 The ALD tradition, consistently with most interpretative traditions, counteracts the emphasising elements present in Genesis with various vilifications of Shechem. However, ALD is not characterised by generalised xenophobia. Again, becoming brothers and friends to those of other lands is presented as hypothetically possible; however, a defiling marital intermingling was to be punished zealously. 3.2 In Whose Hand was the Sword Authorised? (Early Jewish Traditions) Righteousness and wisdom are generic terms applied by Second Temple interpreters to numerous biblical figures. The righteousness of Levi in the Rylands Genizah fragment overlaps most significantly with language contained in the Aramaic Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks, a description of the author’s imminent future: And at its conclusion [of the seventh week], the chosen will be chosen, as witnesses of righteousness from the eternal plant of righteousness to whom will be given sevenfold wisdom and knowledge (4Q212 1 iv 12–13//1 En. 93:9–10) and they will uproot the foundations of violence and the structure of deceit (‫ )חמסא ועבד שקרא‬in it, to execute judgment (]‫)למעבד [דין‬. After this there will arise an eighth week of righteousness, in which a sword will be given to all the righteous (‫)לכול קשיטין‬, to execute righteous judgment (‫ )למעבד דין קשוט‬on all the wicked, and they will be given into their hands (‫( )ויתיהבון בידהון‬1 En. 91:12// 4Q212 1 iv 15–17).

HTR 85 (1992): 1–34; Louis H. Feldman, “Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, and Theodotus on the Rape of Dinah,” JQR 94 (Spring 2004): 253–77. 41  Kugel, “The Story of Dinah,” 3.

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

257

As an archetype or seed of righteousness (‫ )ז[ר]ע קשוט‬of the Enochic righteous planting, Levi would also be credentialed, in ALD, to wield the sword and execute judgment (‫)ונעבד די[ן‬. God would give over (‫אל‬ ̊ ‫ )יהב‬the ones deserving punishment (Rylands Verso 5–12), specifically the doers of violence (‫)עבדי חמסא‬ (ALD 12:6).42 Simeon acknowledges Levi’s great zeal (Rylands Verso, 9) as a zeal that surpasses even his own. Zeal is elsewhere attributed to Levi alone ( Jub. 30:13; T. Levi 6:3) or to all the sons of Jacob (Jdt 9:4). In keeping with his sensitivity to relations with non-Jews, Josephus criticises Simeon and Levi but approves of the zealousness of Phinehas. Unlike Shechem who had been given no chance to repent, Zimri had every chance to repent and was not taken unawares, as was Shechem (Ant. 1.152–55; Ant. 4.141–42). The problem for Josephus seems to be that Simeon and Levi killed the guards of Shechem while they were sleeping (Ant. 1.339–40). In contrast to the zealous sword-wielding Phinehas model of priestly warfare adopted by the Hasmonaean Maccabees, the zeal of ALD’s Levi-priest comes closer to what Christophe Batsch describes as the “anti-Phinehas” model.43 Levi’s sword-wielding is carefully circumscribed and his idealised priesthood was to be characterised by peace, prayer and purity. In Jos. Asen. 23, Pharaoh’s son plans to murder Joseph. Simeon draws his sword to strike him but Levi restrains him, counseling against vengeance and attempting to reason with Pharaoh’s son. Gordon Zerbe suggests that Levi and Simeon represent two divergent responses; Levi portrays reconciliation while

42  In the Genesis Apocryphon, Noah blesses God for destroying the doers of violence (‫מסא‬ ֗ ‫) ֗ע ̇ב ̇די ̇ח‬, evil (‫)רשעא‬, and deceit (‫ )שקרא‬but for rescuing a righteous one (‫( ) ̇צ ̊די̊ ̇קא‬1QapGen 19:13–14). For a synoptic view of ALD’s priestly Levi as a literary ancestor of a priestly Noah in the Genesis Apocryphon, see Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity (SBLEJL 26; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 52–59. 43  Num 25:6–15; 1 Macc 2:23–68; 3:18–19; 2 Macc 5:1–4. Positioning themselves on a “backto-the-Bible” and “back-to-Hebrew” platform, the Maccabees revolted violently against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, killing hellenizing Seleucids and assimilated Jews and forcing circumcisions. The “anti-Phinehas model” of the non-fighting priest prevails in the Qumran literature; so C. Batsch, “Priests in Warfare in Second Temple Judaism: 1QM, or the Anti-Phinehas,” in Qumran Cave I Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS Ljubljana (ed. Daniel K. Falk et al.; STDJ 91; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 165–78.

258

Peters and Eshel

Simeon portrays a “preference for armed reaction and revenge.”44 Yet Levi, when pressed, is prepared to use the sword as a deterrent: “If you insist on this wicked purpose of yours, behold, our swords are drawn in our right hands before you” ( Jos. Asen. 23:14–15). The sword’s legitimacy as an instrument of authorised divine vengeance is thereby affirmed while unauthorised, willynilly retaliation is rejected.45 3.3 By Whom was the Sword Authorised? (Early Jewish Traditions) Jubilees’ narrator confirms the judgment as an order from God with God handing Shechem over to the sons of Jacob for destruction by the sword and as an execution of judgment ( Jub. 30:5–6). Joseph and Aseneth describes Levi as a prophet who saw letters written in heaven by finger of God and who knew mysteries of Most High. Pharaoh’s son fears the drawn swords of Simeon and Levi when the brothers tell him that it was with those swords that the Lord God had punished the Shechemites ( Jos. Asen. 23:8–16). As noted earlier, Simeon’s enthusiastic bestowal of his own sword to Levi as preserved in ALD (Rylands Verso, 10–12) is transferred to the angel in T. Levi in order to heighten the authority by which Levi wielded the sword against Shechem (T. Levi 5:1–4). 4 Conclusions In conclusion, the Rylands Genizah fragment makes a contribution to the study of the history of traditions on Levi and his sword that is disproportionate to the size of the fragment. It justifies the destruction of the Shechemites and confirms the legitimacy of the sword in the hand of a righteous, zealous, wise and habitually swordless Levi, who may not have been complicit in the presentation of the circumcision proposal. There are hints of a revelatory vision; however, whether or not Levi received such a vision charging him to wield the sword, the language of the Rylands fragment communicates that the sword against Shechem, in the hand of Levi, had been authorised by God himself. This Aramaic portrayal of an archetypical idealised priest may reveal that its composers, these particular descendants of Levi, preferred to be known for peace, not for wielding the sword indiscriminately and illegitimately. Yet, they believed that they could and they would wield the sword zealously and effectively when called upon to defend the purity of Israel, when ordered by God. 44  Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSupp 13; Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 95. 45  See Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 76.

Cutting Off And Cutting Down Shechem

259

Finally, in this particular history of traditions, Levi was charged to pick up the sword and execute judgment against Shechem. However, the responsibility of charging Levi to do so was transferred from Simeon in the Aramaic tradition (Rylands Genizah fragment, ALD) to an angel in the Greek tradition (Testament of Levi). This may prove important for further study of the ways that interpretative traditions were adapted, more generally, as they migrated into different languages and were re-contextualised within new compositions, by interpreters who created for themselves new archetypical stories, concerning Levi and his sword.

CHAPTER 14

Prophecy, False Prophecy, and War in the Dead Sea Scrolls James E. Bowley 1

The Apocalyptic War

My themes for this essay on war and prophecy among writers of the Qumran sect, can profitably be explored by approaching them through the doorway of Qumranic apocalypticism.1 The apocalyptic mindset and resulting writings preserved at Qumran are well known.2 Qumran apocalyptists believed strongly that the events of history, a continuous battle between the evil forces of earth and heaven with the forces of good led by Israel’s God, would soon result in a divinely determined game-ending war, which would bring about the vanquishing of evil powers and the triumph of the forces of Israel’s God and his final judgment on nations and individuals. Qumran covenanters placed themselves on the stage as participants in the final act of a divine drama, the end of days (‫)אחרית הימים‬, a term that was popular in scrolls from Qumran.3 But * I am not sure if our friend Marty Abegg knows more about the Dead Sea Scrolls or about rock n’ roll music, but I am sure that if we all wrote about Bob Dylan, or Allison Kraus, or The Who or a hundred other musicians, he would be just as pleased with this volume. I am most grateful for the many ways he has enriched my life with a wonderful friendship since 1986 (or is that 1896?). 1  On the group’s identity and identifying sectarian writings, see Charlotte Hempel, “Qumran Community”, in EDSS (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2:746–751 and Eyal Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross Cultural Perspective (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007(. For my argument here, the various designations for the group (Essenes, Covenant Community, Yaḥad etc.) is not of crucial import. 2  For a full discussion of apocalyptic thought and literature at Qumran, see John J. Collins Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997) and Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Apocalypses and Apocalpyticism in Antiquity (Parts I and II)” in Currents in Biblical Research 5 (2007): 235–286, 367–432. DiTommaso states that “one relatively firm consensus . . . is that the Qumran community was a millenarian movement with an apocalyptic ideology” (Part II, 393). 3  Annette Steudel, “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16/2 (1993): 225–46. For examples see ‫וזה הסרך לכול עדת ישראל באחרית הימים‬, 1QSa 1:1, and ‫וזה הוא‬ ‫בישרא ֯ל‬ ֯ ‫אחרית הימים שישובו‬, 4Q398 11–13 4. The term occurs more than 30 times in the cache of scrolls. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_015

Prophecy, False Prophecy, And War

261

how did the Qumran covenanters know this future? How did they make their claims? Who was their prophetic messenger(s)? Qumran authors claim that knowledge of this divine plan comes via special revelations (apocalypses)4 from the divine realm to the faithful community of Israel, perhaps especially through their True Teacher (‫)מורה צדק‬,5 who likely lived in the second half of the second century BCE, though they speak of these revelations using a variety of terminology. In fact, the war and conflict of the Yaḥad was multi-fold. In several of their apocalyptic writings they refer to their enemies as the Kittim, a sobriquet standing for a variety of foreign invaders or occupying powers, who are always outsiders, even if they are understood as being used by the God of Israel for his purposes.6 In the rhetoric of these scrolls, the Kittim are labeled only by a title, a substitute name, almost a generic designation of Enemy. Kittim can stand for any foreign enemy, whether distant or threatening (no matter how distant), or even an unrealistic enemy. Though the authors knew the national names of such powerful rulers and armies, they chose to label them with a different name, foreign and negative. This label of their own rhetorical making allows, within the context of the community, the sect to imagine a kind of control over the powerful armies of their day. We find this same kind of rhetorical power practiced in the numerous compositions where Qumran authors give their enemies epithets and titles, such as The Wicked Priest, The Liar or Spreader of Lies rather than referring to them by name. As Matthew Collins has argued, using such titles (negative and positive) functions to label deviants and outsiders and to affirm communal ideals.7 This also serves as a reminder that the Yaḥad was not in a position of power or authority whereby its membership could physically go to war against the Kittim, 4  The use here of “apocalypses” is not limited to a literary genre. I refer to any claim of a revelation of knowledge through divine communication. 5  For discussion of translation and understanding this common title for the community’s preeminent leader see John C. Reeves, “The Meaning of Moreh Sedeq in the Light of 11QTorah,” RevQ 13/52 (1988): 287–98. 6  In the surviving documents produced by the Qumran community, 46 times the gentilic Kittim (‫ כתיים‬or ‫ )כתיאים‬is employed, mostly within six different compositions, namely, The War Scroll (1QM, 4Q491, 4Q492, 4Q496), Pesher Psalms (1Q16), Pesher Isaiah (4Q161), Pesher Nahum (4Q169), Pesher Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247, a small scrap, possibly a non-sectarian composition) and the Sefer ha-Milhamah or Scroll of the War (4Q285+11Q14). This data is from Martin G. Abegg, Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Vol 1: The Non-Biblical Scrolls from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 7  Matthew A. Collins, The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls (LSTS 67; London: T&T Clark, 2009). On the origin and earlier use of the term see Timothy Lim, “Kittim”, in EDSS 1:469–471.

262

Bowley

whether they were identified as Greek or Roman overlords. Despite the battle descriptions and formations imagined in The War Scroll (1QM, 4Q491–96), it was not a war planning manual but a rhetorical tool used to encourage Yaḥad insiders, just as earlier prophets in Israel would condemn Assyria, Egypt, Moab or Babylon, not as a way of informing the foreign ruler that they were soon to be destroyed by YHWH but with the goal of convincing Israelites/Judahites to follow the ideology of the prophet. As Abegg states in his introduction to The War Scroll, [the primary purpose of the work] is not to be found in the intricate and often mysterious details of the text. Rather, the author was concerned with the tribulation and hopelessness that his readers were currently experiencing. . . . Ultimately, God’s purpose was to exalt the Sons of Light and to judge the Sons of Darkness. The message is one of hope. In the face of such perverse evil, the Sons of Light are encouraged to persevere to the end.8 But rhetorically fighting the Kittim was the easy part.9 Another and more urgent aspect of the battle for Yaḥad leaders and authors was fighting for the minds and loyalty of the Sons of Light, their own community. 2

The Prophetic War

2.1 Revelation Continued I and others have argued that in the sociological and historical reality Jewish prophetic claimants did not cease in the period following the exile, as had been a fairly common understanding among scholars some decades ago.10 Among 8  Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (2d ed.; New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 147. 9  In another sense it is also the most tragic part. If historical reconstructions of the community are correct, it would appear that the Roman army, the final Kittim of the scrolls, did in fact destroy the site of Qumran after 68 CE, at which time the community was tragically scattered and lost. 10  James E. Bowley, “Prophets, Kittim, and Divine Communication in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Enemies and Friends of the State: Ancient Prophecy in Context (ed. C.A. Rollston; Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015), forthcoming. See also John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel After the Exile (New York: Oxford, 1992), 102–16, Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 148–245; George J. Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea

Prophecy, False Prophecy, And War

263

the diverse religious ideologies of Jews in the Second Temple period, it would be no surprise to find some who opposed all such claims, but there is certainly ample evidence that claims of divine revelation continued well into the first century CE, as a perusal of the histories of Josephus and the writings of the New Testament shows.11 However, it is demonstrable that among some Jewish groups, such as the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was a shift and evolution in the terminology used for prophetic speech. Among the scrolls, with one explainable exception (see below), the term prophet or prophets ‫ נביאים‬/ ‫ נביא‬is never used of a current speaker or teacher within the group. At the very least the term, which Qumran authors do not hesitate to use for prophets of yore12 or even for a prophet of the future,13 seems to have been purposefully discontinued for modern speakers who claim to reveal the divine will. Why? While there is no explicit answer in the Scrolls, I would follow a suggestion by Rebecca Gray who posits that Jews at the time who held that prophecy had declined or ceased were exhibiting a kind of nostalgia for the distant past.14 This nostalgic Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M.H. Floyd and R.D. Haak; LHB/OTS 427; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 151–65; Lester Grabbe “Poets, Scribes, or Preachers? The Reality of Prophecy in the Second Temple Period,” in Knowing the End From the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships (ed. L. Grabbe and R. Haak; LSTS 46; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 192–215; Martti Nissinen, “The Dubious Image of Prophecy” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M.H. Floyd and R.D. Haak; London T&T Clark, 2006), 26–41; and Alex P. Jassen, “Prophecy after ‘The Prophets’: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Prophecy in Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (ed. A. Lange et al.; 2 vols; VTSupp 140; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2:592–93. The most thorough study is from Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 11  Josephus narrates these claimants (and followers): Theudas, 44–46 CE (Ant. 20.97–98), an unnamed Egyptian in ca. 58 (Ant. 20.169–72; J.W. 2.261–63), Jesus son of Ananus in about 62 ( J.W. 6.300–9) and himself, ( J.W. 3.399–408). The New Testament includes these: Anna (Luke 2:36), John the Baptizer (Mark 11:32; Matt 11:9), Jesus (Mark 6:15; Luke 6:17; Acts 3:17– 22) and numerous mentions of ordinary people in the Jesus movement who displayed a “gift of prophecy” (Acts 2:1–18, 13:1; 1 Cor 12:8–11, 14:1–5, 24; Rom 12:6; Did. 11:3–12). 12  Examples are 1QS 1:3, “Moses and all his (God’s) servants the prophets” and CD 7:10, which similarly features Isaiah. 13  An example is 1QS 9:9–11, “until the coming of a prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel.” 14  Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford, 1993), 8, 34; and Barton, Oracles 115–16.

264

Bowley

turn can also explain the evolution of the terminology, that is, the disuse of ‫ נביאים‬/ ‫נביא‬. The Yaḥad community and authors looked back to the prophets of old as part of a historio-mythic “golden age,” and this is reflected in the tendency not to use the term ‫ נביא‬for themselves, even though their claims of divine communication are explicit in other ways. The disuse of one title, ‫נביא‬, in no way inhibits a community or individual from claiming to know and reveal the will of a deity. There are many people still today who would not label themselves a prophet, but who still claim to know and speak the will of a deity. As George Brooke has argued about the authors of the Scrolls, in the wide range of parabiblical compositions there are prophetic continuities both with the literary prophets and with other prophetic figures. Such continuities can also be seen in the inspired explicit interpretations of unfulfilled curses, blessings, oracles, visions and dreams, that are mostly but not exclusively to be found in the writings of the literary prophets. The intellectual transformation of prophetic activity has its setting in a complex matrix of apocalyptic, priestly, scribal and mantological ideas and practices. All this deserves the label “prophecy” as the Qumran Community and the movement from which it came and of which it was a part looked backwards to the prophets of old and their literary legacy and brought that legacy forwards to their present.15 The conceptual continuity can especially be seen by comparing the employment of a divine spirit, ‫רוח‬, as the source of revelation. In the Community Rule (1QS 8:15–16), members are instructed to hear and obey “the torah he [God] commanded through Moshe . . . and which the prophets revealed through his sacred spirit” (‫)גלו הנביאים ברוח קודשו‬. This terminology is directly comparable to the claims to divine inspiration found in the apparently autobiographical poems of the Yaḥad leader (most likely the True Teacher [‫ )]מורה הצדק‬found in the Hodayot: ‫משכיל ידעתיכה אלי ברוח ̊אשר נתתה בי ונאמנה שמעתי לסוד פלאכה ברוח‬ ̊ ‫ואני‬ ] ‫גבורת[כה‬ ̊ ‫לתוכי דעת ברז שכלכה ומעין‬ ̊ ‫קודשכה [פ]תחתה‬

15  Brooke, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 165. See also Barton, Oracles of God, 102–16; Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, 148–245; Grabbe “Poets, Scribes, or Preachers?” 192–215; and Jassen, “Prophecy after ‘The Prophets’,” 592–93.

Prophecy, False Prophecy, And War

265

And I, Leader, have known you, my El, by the spirit that you put into me and faithfully I listened to the wonderful secret by your holy spirit. You [e]ntered into me knowledge in the mystery of your wisdom and source of [your] power (1QHa 20:14–16). The parallels are clear and the assertion of having direct divine revelation and knowledge in Hodayot could hardly be more explicit. Furthermore, this text is hardly unique in Hodayot; one should also consider 1QHa 4:26, 6:25, 9:21, 12:5–6, 23; 17:32. Alex Jassen has surveyed the scroll and concluded that “the hymnist deliberately avoids referring to himself with a prophetic designation or more common revelatory language. Yet, there can be little doubt that he viewed his activity as recounted in this hymn as true revelation and as part of a larger institution of prophecy.”16 It is well-known that the pesher or commentary genre that we encounter at Qumran also expands the ideas and claims of supernatural communication by giving us the notion of a divinely inspired interpreter of ancient texts.17 In the case of the commentary to Habakkuk, this True Teacher is said to be the one “to whom El made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets” (‫מורה הצדק אשר הודיעו אל את כול רזי דברי עבדיו הנבאים‬, 1QpHab 7:4–5). Perhaps most obvious of all are the many apocalypses from the post-exilic and Second Temple periods that are preserved and used by the Qumran covenanters. These apocalypses, literally “revelations,” present their audience with a lengthy message from Israel’s God and are clear examples of claims to having received divine communications.18 Thus, the practice of writing works that purport to contain divine messages to honored figures of the past such as Moses and Enoch continued unabated from earlier times and testifies to the broad acceptance of revelatory claims.19 16  Jassen, “Prophecy after The Prophets,” 583. 17   On inspired interpretation especially focusing on Chronicles, see William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). On a negative view of oral prophecy see also Nissinen, “The Dubious Image of Prophecy.” 18  For an excellent discussion of literary and social categories, such as prophecy, prophet, and apocalypse, see Lester L. Grabbe, “Prophetic and Apocalyptic: Time for New Definitions—and New Thinking,” in Knowing the End From the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships (ed. L. Grabbe and R. Haak; LSTS 46; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 107–33. 19  For Moses see Deuteronomy, Jubilees, and 4QApocrMosesa (4Q375) and for Enoch see 1 Enoch.

266

Bowley

2.2 Revelation Contested Claims to know the will of a deity can always be contested; ancient Israelite literature is replete with narratives of prophetic contestation and clear evidence of challenges to prophets’ or authors’ assertions of representing the speech or knowledge of Israel’s God. The story from a YHWH-only faction about the prophet Elijah competing for the loyalty of Israelites against prophets of the God Ba’al (1 Kgs 18:20–40) and winning by a spectacular display of cosmic fire is dramatic and legendary, but it does not record the historical reality of clashes and contests among different prophets of YHWH in Israel in the days of ancient kingdoms until the days of the Qumran covenanters. Narratives in 1 Kgs 22, Jer 28–29, Deut 18:15–22, to mention but a few, better illustrate the conflicting claims existing between different prophets of YHWH and the inability to resolve them in the real world of competing religious authorities without the aid of magic displays of power. 2.3 The Rhetorical Weapons Though receiving little attention in modern scholarship, the conflict over claims to divinely revealed knowledge continued among the members of the Yaḥad. The contentions must have been experienced both with outsiders (other Jews who did not accept the authority of the Moreh Ṣedeq or other Yaḥad leaders) and with insiders (group members who questioned the legitimacy of the leadership of the Sons of Light). Such conflicts of authority are surely inevitable for religious groups which practice claims of divine revelation. Why whould any Jew in Jerusalem, for example, believe that there was a holy man in the wilderness receiving communications from Israel’s God? More urgently for that holy man, why should members of the Yaḥad remain loyal to the Moreh Ṣedeq when a majority of other Jews did not believe and follow this claimant of divinely given knowledge? John Reeves has noticed that apocalypses and other revelatory claims of this period are often found to be, like Jeremiah, “self-authenticating.” That is, “the revelatory event itself supplies the necessary validation for the information that is revealed to the seer or prophet.”20 A person (speaker, writer) makes a claim (implicit or explicit) to know the will of the deity and the audience either believes or does not believe; no other epistemic evidence is offered. Reeves cites the works of Dan 7–12, 1 Enoch, the War Scroll and 4 Ezra as examples. I would also include the statements cited above from the pesharim and 20  John C. Reeves, Trajectories in Near Eastern Apocalyptic: A Postrabbinic Jewish Apocalypse Reader (Resources for Biblical Studies 45; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 5–6.

Prophecy, False Prophecy, And War

267

the Hodayot Scroll, which state explicitly that the teacher and interpreter(s) have been given super-natural insight to teach and to interpret. We can be sure that these claims were undoubtedly reinforced in the oral practice of the community, during both the formal and informal teaching sessions of the Qumran covenanters.21 However, while both the constant repetition of claims to knowing the divine will and the “self-authenticating” revelations may have had psychological power for many Yaḥad insiders, they provided no logical or argumentative force for outsiders. Furthermore, they may not have assuaged the second thoughts of those who were beginning to doubt the claims of their leaders. Nor should we rule out the motive of a speakers or writers attempting to convince themselves. For these reasons of doubt, we seek for clues among the scrolls to the rhetoric used in an attempt to convince all listeners of claims to receiving and possessing communication from the deity. For example, the author of Pesher Habakkuk (mid-first century BCE) claims to know that the community is experiencing the end of days; while others may not believe, the community’s priestly teacher has been given this knowledge from their God (1QpHab 2:3–10). In 1QpHab 7:7 the author seems aware that some have become impatient about the coming of the final end, and so are beginning to doubt. Thus, using Hab 2:3–4, he implores his listeners to be loyal, to have patience and to believe what the God had made known to the True Teacher (1QpHab 7:1–8:3). Apparently some members were beginning to doubt whether the predicted end was really upon them. For any apocalyptic community such doubts are serious threats that must be confronted and engaged, and at the heart of the matter is the question of whether the claims to divine knowledge are legitimate. The rhetorical appeal to the reader/listener of the scroll is put in negative terms, using the weapon of fear-inducing threat: ‫הנה עופלה לוא יושרה [נפשו בו] פשרו אשר יכפלו עליהם [חטאתיהם ו]ל[וא ]י֗ רצו‬ ‫במשפטם‬

“See how puffed up and not upright [his person is]?” It means doubled will be [their guilt] on them and they will not find favor in their judgment (1QpHab 7:14–16).

21  For example, the initiation rite of the group contained in the first two columns of Community Rule supplements priestly blessing of Num 6:24–26 with a blessing for divine communication: ‫( ויאר לבכה בשכל חיים ויחונכה בדעת עולמים‬1QS 2:3). See also Benedict Viviano, “Study and Education” in EDSS 2:896–898 and the long discussion by David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 215–39.

268

Bowley

The rhetorical appeal is also put in positive terms, presenting the inducement of reward for loyalty: ‫[וצדיק באמונתו יהיה] פשרו על כול עושי התורה בבית יהודה אשר יצילם אל מבית‬ ‫המשפט בעבור עמלם ואמנתם במורה הצדק‬

[“And the right man,] by his loyalty he will live.” It means for all those in the house of Judah who do the torah, El will rescue from the house of judgment because of their suffering and loyalty to the True Teacher (1QpHab 7:17–8:3). We should carefully observe that this polemic, this war of words, not only promises reward, common enough in religious arguments, but also offers two other insights specific to the situation of the Yaḥad. First, suffering is presented as a reason for the reward, likely reflecting a reality in which Yaḥad members saw themselves as a persecuted minority. Second, the loyalty called forth by the ancient scroll of Habakkuk was not just loyalty to El/YHWH but was, in fact, loyalty to the Yaḥad’s own Moreh Ṣedeq, the divinely inspired interpreter himself, “to whom El made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets” (1QpHab 7:4–5). Understood in this way, these sectarian arguments may be located within the larger ideological battle for the minds of the community. Another rhetorical weapon in the ideological battle is the weapon of condemnation of rival prophets. In material intended for internal usage, one potentially effective way of fighting those foes whose representations of YHWH’s will were at odds with the Yaḥad sect, was to categorise them as false prophets. In 1QHa 12, the authority of the community leader is pitted against prophetic claimants who are labeled deceitful seers (‫חוזי רמיה‬, 1QHa 12:11) and fraudulent prophets (‫נביאי כזב‬, line 17). In other words, the author defends Yaḥad legitimacy by simply labeling rival leaders and claimants as liars and does this in a poem that reiterates and reinforces the idea that the Yaḥad leader’s revelations from the deity are legitimate: “. . . as perfect light you appeared to me (line 7) . . . your torah which you placed distinctly on my heart” (line 11) . . . you appear to me in strength of perfect light (line 24).” The entire poem (1QHa 12:6–13:6) is replete with contrasts between the untrustworthiness of the enemy claimants and the divinely legitimised authority of the Yaḥad.22 22  For more on the contrast between false prophets and the true teacher and the extensive use of prophetic expressions in the poem see Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (STDJ 59; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 63–134, especially 96–116. Carol

269

Prophecy, False Prophecy, And War

There is another intriguing Qumran text that indicates that members of the sect were concerned with the battle against false prophets in another way. 4Q339 is a small fragment that contains only a short list of names, with this heading on the first line: ]‫נביאי [ש]קרא די קמו ב[ישראל‬ [F]alse prophets who have arisen in [Israel] This is actually the oldest occurrence of the term false prophet(s) in either Aramaic or Hebrew,23 and the text itself is quite unique. The fragment retains upper, lower and left margins. The original editors believed it to be a onecolumn text, measuring about 8.5 × 7 cm, like a small square card written in the late first century BCE. Shaye Cohen has pointed out that it is a list similar to many that were commonly made in Hellenistic scribal culture and called a pinax (πίναξ).24 Armin Lange argues that this list is in fact one of the few original autographs that we have among the Dead Sea Scrolls.25 The names in the list are mostly names that are known from earlier Israelite literature. The false prophets, one per line, are listed in this order: Baalam son of Beor (Num 22–24; 31:16), Old man from Bethel (1 Kgs 13:11), Zedekiah son of Chanaanah (1 Kgs 22:24), Ahab son of Koliah (Jer 29:21), Zedekaih son of Maaseiah (Jer 29:21), Shemaiah the Nehlemite (Jer 29:24), Hananiah son of Azur (Jer 28:1), Prophet of Gibeon or John son of Simon. Newsom has shown the value of this poem for sectarian identity formation in the “ideology of truth” in The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (STDJ 52; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 308–25. 23  M. Broshi and A. Yardeni, “339. 4Q List of False Prophets ar” in Qumran Cave 4.XIV Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. M. Broshi et al.; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon), 77–79. 24  Shaye J.D. Cohen, “False Prophets (4Q399), Netinim (4Q340), and Hellenism at Qumran,” JGRChJ 1 (2000): 55–66. 25  Armin Lange, “ ‘The False Prophets Who Arose Against Our God’ (4Q339 1),” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-enProvence, 30 June–2 July 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D.S. Ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 208. Lange also reads the final word of the first line not as “‫ ”]ב[ישראל‬but as against our God (‫)באלה[נ]ה‬, which is not a crucial difference for my purposes (see 206 n. 7).

270

Bowley

The final name on the list remains a mystery, because only the last three letters are preserved in the entire line: ‫]עון‬. In the official publication of DJD, Broshi and Yardeni fill in the missing text as ‫נביאה די מן גב]עון‬, which identifies the prophet of the previous line, ‫וחנניה בן עו]ור‬, Hananiah son of Az]ur as a prophet from Gibeon (see Jer 28:17). However, in an earlier publication, Broshi and Yardeni read it as ‫ויוחנן בן שמ]עון‬26 and Johanan son of Sime]on, that is, the Hasmonaean king, John son of Simon (better known now as John Hyrcanus I), who ruled 134–104 BCE and was also the High Priest in Jerusalem. It should be noted that the previous line has even fewer preserved letters, though it is reasonable to reconstruct Hananiah son of Azur, based on Broshi and Yardeni’s search through possible false prophets known from earlier Jewish writing. Of these two possibilities, Lange argues that the latter is the most likely because the rest of the list gives one prophet per line, and in no other case are both the patronymic and place given.27 John Hyrcanus I seems an especially good candidate because he was known to Josephus, among others, for his prophetic skills: “He was the only man to unite in his person three of the highest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. For so closely was he in touch with the Deity, that he was never ignorant of the future.”28 The John Hyrcanus reading is attractive and may be plausible but it is by no means certain.29 In my mind, the previous line’s Hananiah is equally plausible and uncertain. Both lines could contain names of false prophets of which we are unaware; prophets whose names have not been preserved in extant 26  Magen Broshi and Ada Yardeni, “On netinim and False Prophets” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff; Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 33–37. This reading was first suggested by Alexander Rofé, “The ‘List of False Prophets’ from Qumran: Two Riddles and Their Solutions,” in the Hebrew newspaper ha’Aretz 13 (13 April 1994) and Elisha Qimron, “‫”לפשרה של רשימת נביאי השקר‬, Tarbiz 63 (1993–94): 273–75 ]Hebrew[. 27  Lange, “ ‘The False Prophets,” 206. 28  J.W. 1.68–9. H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, The Jewish War, Books I–III (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1927). See also Ant. 13.300. 29  Some have also read 4QTestimonia (4Q175) as a polemic against John Hyrcanus I. See Katell Berthelot, “4QTestimonia as a Polemic against the Prophetic Claims of John Hyrcanus,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (ed. K. De Troyer, A. Lange and L.L. Schulte; CBET 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 99–116 and Armin Lange, “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination,” in Legal Texts and Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995 (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martinez, and J. Kampen; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 427–30.

Prophecy, False Prophecy, And War

271

Jewish literature, such as possible contemporary or near contemporary sectarian rivals. If John Hycanus I is meant, or any other contemporary or nearcontemporary, then the list maker is claiming that a rival religious leader is to be associated with false prophets of yore whose evil deeds are recorded in ancient texts of Israel and known to all. Thus the author may be using the rhetorical tool of “guilt by association” in the continuing battle with rival factions, aimed especially at the insider Yaḥad audience in order to warn them and keep them within the fold.30 Regardless of whose names were originally written on the last two lines, what we have in this document is part of a larger polemical discourse. Whether or not Lange is correct in his view that the “pinax on false prophets was compiled in preparation for writing a pesher,”31 it was clearly compiled by an individual with a purpose relating to the importance and threat of false prophets. It surely seems safe, at the very least, to conclude that a Qumran sectarian, who went to the trouble of making a list of false prophets, was not just doing the work of archiving or disinterested scholarship. How the list may have been used is not known, but what is known is that from the Hodayot Scroll, which repeatedly condemns lying seers, that there were contemporary Jewish religious rivals who were of major concern to Yaḥad leaders. The 4Q339 list fits exactly into that same kind of concern. But the charge against false prophets could go in several directions. What would the community do, if such serious charges were brought against one of their own by outside factions? There is no reason to think that the True Teacher and other teachers of the Yaḥad were not labeled as False Prophets by other groups whose writings, if any, are not preserved. The numerous religious zealots that Josephus labels false messiahs or false prophets were undoubtedly True Teachers for their followers.32 The problem would be all the more serious, if someone from inside the Yaḥad charged their own True Teacher or another internal leader for falsity of their teachings. We find that in their battle against rival Jewish groups, Yaḥad leaders were not just prepared to attack, they were also prepared to defend their own. 4Q375 seems to be a text concerned with how the community should resolve matters when one of their own is accused of being a false prophet.

30  For another possible sectarian use of lists see Michael O. Wise, “4Q245 (psDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus”, DSD 12 (2005): 313–62. 31  Lange, “The False Prophets,” 213. 32  See Ant. 20.97–98, 169–72; J.W. 2.261–63; 3.399–408; 6.300–9.

272

Bowley

The text was named Apocryphon of Moses by John Strugnell33 and is really a pseudepigraphical torat-moshe, giving instructions for deliberations concerning a prophet who has been accused of “turning you from following your God” but who is then defended by his tribe as a “just/true man and faithful prophet.” ‫והנביא אשר יקום ודבר בכה [סרה להש]יבכה מאחרי אלוהיכה יומת וכיא יקום‬ ‫השבט [אשר] הואה ממנו ואמר לוא יומת כיא צדיק הואה נביא [נ]אמן הואה‬

And the prophet who stands and speaks among you [a falsehood to tur]n you from following your Elohim must be put to death. And if his tribe arises and says, ‘Do not put him to death because he is true/just, a [t]rustworthy prophet, . . . (4Q375 1 i 4–7). The text goes on to prescribe a procedure that involves an appearance before elders and judges and a ritual involving an anointed priest, anointing oil and a sin offering in a sacred space. Because very little of the original scroll survives and the second column is especially fragmentary and difficult to read, the majority of the actual instructions are lost,34 but they certainly went beyond ideas found in Deut 18:20–22; clearly this text is not simply repeating the teachings of another scroll (Deuteronomy) in a scroll ascribed to Moses. But even without knowing the specifics of the instructions, we can see the possibility that at least in this one text, this torat-moshe, the author saw the possibility of applying the term ‫ נביא‬to a group member.35 What is certain in the torat-moshe 4Q375 text, however, is that significant dissension and dispute within the community about a prophet within the community is envisioned. The scenario involves a prophet who has led others astray and is considered by some to be deserving of death. Yet others in the community support him and oppose the punishment. We are in the dark about the social context of this text, but a split in the community is clear. Hanan Eshel has argued that the charges of false prophesying came about because of unfulfilled messianic predictions and expectations.36 This seems to be a reasonable possibility, though unproven, especially because so little of the 4Q375 manuscript is preserved. Regardless of the specifics of the charge, it is 33  John Strugnell, “375. 4QApocryphon of Mosesa,” DJD 19, 113–15. 34  Strugnell (“375. 4QApocryphon of Mosesa,” 116) argues that it is most likely that the ritual material in col. 2 is a continuation of the case of the prophet from col. 1. 35  The word ‫ נביא‬is used in lines 4Q375 1 i 4 and 1 i 6. 36  Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 178.

Prophecy, False Prophecy, And War

273

clear that this teacher was considered one who has led others astray but who is defended as a true and faithful prophet by some. It is also worth noting that this is the only case where a contemporary teacher who is not of a rival group is actually called a prophet (‫)נביא‬. It seems to me that this may be the case because 4Q375 is an official, formal document prescribing procedures and rituals. Therefore, its author is not following the general practice of not referring to contemporaries as prophets, but is instead being guided by the procedures and wording of another torat-moshe, Deut 18. In regard to the content of the ritual, I have speculated elsewhere that the missing portion of the text may contain a stipulation of a confession or acknowledgement of error of some kind.37 After all, even a hallowed prophet of old, such as Ezekiel, acknowledged that he got it wrong sometimes (Ezek 26:7–14 and 29:17–20); he too could have been subject to accusations of leading the people astray. However, regardless of the exact details of the ceremony described in 4Q375, one of the several functions of social rituals is to help resolve internal conflicts and disruptions in a community.38 Clearly both Deut 18:15–22 and 4Q375 have social tensions in their background that motivated the articulation and implementation of rituals designed to ameliorate the conflicted internal relationships within the social setting. The author of 4Q375 speaks of a situation in which some have accused a prophet of leading others astray whereas others have defended him as a true and faithful prophet. A cease-fire in this internal battle is needed, and the sacred ritual involving elders, priests, anointing and sacrifice is thus a tool for such a task. 3 Conclusion Prophecy for the Qumran sectarians was about warfare in more than one way. As they read and interpreted older Israelite literature of all kinds—including many apocalypses—they saw themselves in a state of war against the Sons of Darkness and they looked forward to the soon-to-come day when they, led by their God, would be victorious. But until that day of victory, they had their own battles to fight within the on-going ideological warfare of Second Temple Judaism. In that warfare, they used rhetorical weapons to strike fear and hope of reward into the psychology of Yaḥad covenanters in order to induce loyalty 37  Bowley, “Prophets, Kittim, and Divine Communication,” forthcoming. 38  On the function of rituals and other plausibility structures to maintain religious order and realities see Thomas F. O’Dea, The Sociology of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1966) 39–41 and Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy (New York: Anchor, 1967), 37–49.

274

Bowley

(1QpHab). They used the weapon of condemnation by associating rival leaders with false prophets and they made lists of false prophets to somehow serve in their struggle against what they saw as falsehood (4Q339). On the positive side, they reinforced their own claims of revelation, as seen above in Pesher Habakkuk and Hodayot, by repeatedly referring in a variety of statements and terms that the deity had given his knowledge and understanding to them, though they do not refer to themselves with the formal title ‫נביא‬. Finally, they were also prepared to defend contemporary prophets and ritually resolve disputes that might arise about false prophecy in their own community by utilising rituals for communal unity as described in the torat-moshe of 4Q375.

CHAPTER 15

Prayer, Liturgy, and War Daniel K. Falk 1 Introduction “A good half of the [War Scroll] as we possess it is a liturgy.”1 In his review of Yigael Yadin’s commentary on the War Scroll, Robert North argued that determing “whether the liturgical or the military element is the Sitz im Leben of the scroll” should be a first-order task.2 The possibility of a liturgical function for the War Scroll has been raised by other scholars since, but only Matthias Krieg has given the question a detailed exposition, before then proceeding to focus more narrowly on a literary investigation of the scroll’s structure.3 In this paper, I wish to reconsider the question of a possible liturgical use of the War Scroll, adding further argumentation. There are four main proposals for the genre of the War Scroll: (1) a military manual of some kind for providing guidance on procedures for the eschatological war; (2) an apocalyptic text for giving a heavenly and future perspective on the present; (3) a rule text as a guide to community life; and (4) a liturgy of some kind, as a cultic drama in the community’s ritual.4 One of the first to describe the scroll as a liturgical work, Carmignac pointed to the mixture of “true utopia” and “false realism.”5 Describing 1QM 1–9 as a “sacristan’s manual for preparing paraphernalia” and cols 10–19 as a “priests’ ritual,” Robert North suggested that the whole could be compared to an opera, * As a token of appreciation for Martin Abegg’s labour of love in producing the Accordance modules for the Qumran texts, the cited texts and translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls in this article will be from Accordance (based on Michael Owen Wise, Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation [2d ed.; New York: Harper SanFrancisco, 2005]), with adaptation where necessary for the argument. 1  Robert North, “ ‘Kittim’ War or ‘Sectaries’ Liturgy?,” Bib 39 (1958): 84. 2  North, “ ‘Kittim’ War,” 84–85. 3  Matthias Krieg, “Moʿed Naqam—ein Kulturdrama aus Qumran: Beobachtungen an der Kriegsrolle,” TZ 41 (1985): 3. 4  See Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 53–61. 5  Jean Carmignac, La Règle de la guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres: Texte restauré, traduit et commenté (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1958), xi–xii.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_016

276

Falk

with an “allegorical-dramatic-liturgical” function, and with its setting in the ritual rather than on the battlefield.6 Noting similarities with the Hodayot, Svend Holm-Nielsen regarded the War Scroll as “a liturgical text . . . a sort of cultic drama.”7 Eduard Nielsen, comparing the War Scroll with the Rule of the Congregation, suggested that the militant imagery is a symbolic expression of daily religious life.8 On the basis of a detailed literary examination and using criteria from drama theory, Krieg argued that 1QM 15–19 represents a cultic drama that ritually celebrates the eschatological war for the final conquest of true Israel. He suggested that it might have been recited or performed at the covenant renewal festival every seventh year.9 John Zhu-En Wee argues that 1QM 15–19 was adapted from cols. 10–14 and that these columns “were intended as a literary-liturgical work,” possibly “as part of the regular ritual at Qumran.”10 Fletcher-Louis believes the War Scroll was not a “practical manual for the conduct of war” but “a highly liturgical text specifically written for the priesthood.”11 He gives only vague hints as to how he imagines the scroll functioning as a liturgy celebrating the eschatological conflict: “By celebrating and dramatically re-enacting the separation of darkness and night in creation at the Tamid offering, the community energises history with the power of the creator who overcomes the darkness with light.”12 The literary analyses by Krieg and Zhu-En Wee provide the only extended arguments for liturgical use of the War Scroll and, even then, the literary data they consider do not necessarily point to liturgical use in the regular life of a community rather than liturgies in the context of war. Below, I add several further considerations favouring the hypothesis that the War Scroll may have had a place in a regularised communal liturgy.

6  North, “ ‘Kittim’ War,” 84–85. 7  Svend Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms From Qumran (ATDan 2; Aarhus: Universitets­ forlaget, 1960), 345–46. 8  Eduard Nielsen, “La guerre considérée comme une religion et la religion comme une guerre,” ST 15 (1961): 108–9. 9  Krieg, “Moʿed Naqam,” 11. 10  John Zhu-En Wee, “A Model for the Composition and Purpose of Columns XV–XIX of the “War Scroll” (1QM),” RevQ 21/2 (2003): 263. 11   Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, “The War Scroll,” in All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 457 n. 134. 12  Fletcher-Louis, War Scroll, 455; cf. 477.

277

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

2

Contents and Structure

For the purposes of this paper, it will be sufficient to adapt Duhaime’s outline of the content of 1QM, consisting of three distinct sections with an introduction.13 TABLE 15.1  Outline of 1QM

Col. 1

Introduction Overview of war

 

Cols 2–9

I. Organisation and Tactics Movement of troops; signals; standards; rules; role of priests; tactics

Cols 10–14

II. War Prayers Prayers at camp Prayers on the battlefield Prayers after victory

Cols15–20

III. The War Against the Kittim Introduction First engagement Engagement of the reserve Final engagement After the war

 

Signals and troop movements Exhortation by priest Prayers

13  Duhaime, War Texts, 13–20. For simplicity, I list the sections as cols 1, 2–9, 10–14, and 15–20. In actuality, the transitions between sections are all missing in the lost parts at the bottoms of cols 1, 9, 14, and probably somewhere on col. 20 (missing). There are different ways of understanding the structure. Schultz, for example, regards the whole as a combination of material from different traditions of a War against the Kittim and a War of Divisions: col. 1, War against Kittim; cols 2–9, War of Divisions; cols 15–19, War against Kittim but a different tradition than col. 1; and cols 10–14, prayers from different contexts adapted to War against Kittim. Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 72–85.

278

Falk

Part II is dominated by prayers for three occasions of war: before the battle in camp, on the battlefield and after victory. Part III includes prayers and instructions for various battle rituals. The Cave 4 copies confirm that the War Scroll as represented in 1QM is a composite work, the product of a complex redactional process. Although there is considerable uncertainty due to the fragmentary nature of the remains, there seem to be three or four other scrolls with similar recensions to 1QM: 4QMb (4Q492), 4QMd (4Q494), 4QMe (4Q495) and possibly 4QMf (4Q496). A further five or six scrolls seem to represent different recensions: 4QWar Scroll-like Text B (4Q471), 4QMa/a (4Q491a), 4QMa/b (4Q491b), 4QMc (4Q493), 4QWar Scroll-like Text A (4Q497) and possibly 4QMf (4Q496).14 The number of copies and different recensions is comparable to the rule books and the Hodayot, and suggests intense on-going use of the material in the life of the community. Moreover, two of the scrolls with different recensions (4QMa/a, 4QWar Scroll-like Text A), may have contained only liturgical material (parts II and III), with different versions of some prayers. Also, if the material in 4QMa/c (4Q491c) belongs with 4QMa/a (as newly defended by Kipp Davis in this volume), a version of hymns appearing also in three copies of the Hodayot (1QHa 26; 4Q427 7i; 4Q431) is combined with a description of the final battles against the Kittim in a recension of the War Scroll. 3

Liturgical Formulas

The prayers found at Qumran show, in general, a tendency toward consistency in the use of blessing formulas to frame the prayers. In this way they reflect an analogous impulse to the later prayers of the synagogue. Among the liturgical prayer texts at Qumran, there are a few distinctive prayer patterns that dominate. One is the formula ‫“( ברוך אתה אדני‬Blessed be You, O Lord . . .”), which is used in the Hodayot and the banishment ritual in the Damascus Document.15 14  For the separation of 4Q491 into three different MSS, see Martin G. Abegg, “The War Scroll From Caves 1 and 4: A Critical Edition” (Ph.D. diss., HUC-JIR, 1993), 12. Abegg’s division of 4Q491 has been accepted by most scholars, but see in this volume the detailed argument by Kipp Davis on the basis of damage patterns that the two fragments Abegg assigned to 4QMa/c (4Q491c) must belong to 4QMa/a (“‘There and Back Again’: Reconstruction and Reconciliation of the War Text 4QMilḥamaa (4Q491a–c”). Florentino García Martínez has also questioned the separation of 4QMa/c, but argued on the basis of the scribal hand that these two fragments belong with 4QMa/b (“Old Texts and Modern Mirages: The ‘I’ of Two Qumran Hymns,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism [ed. Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 2007], 113–14). 15  1QHa 8:26; 13:22; 18:16; 19:30, 32, 35–36; 4QDa 11 9. See Daniel K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 234 and n. 61.

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

279

Another is the pattern ‫“( ברוך אדני‬Blessed be the Lord, who . . .”) that is used as a closing formula in Words of the Luminaries (4Q504–506) and Festival Prayers (1Q34, 1Q34bis; 4Q507–509)—these prayers begin with the formula ‫זכור אדני‬, Remember, O Lord. . . . Both of these patterns are based on biblical models (with substitution of Adonai for the divine name), and the standard rabbinic prayer form is, in some ways, a combination of the two.16 A third pattern has no biblical precedent: ‫“( ברוך אל יׂשראל‬Blessed be the God of Israel . . .”) or ‫“( ברוך אתה אל יׂשראל‬Blessed be You, God of Israel . . .”). The form is also extremely rare in other early Jewish sources—only Tob 13:1, and a similar form in Luke 1:6—and there are hints that the rabbis sought to censure such blessing formulas containing ‫אל‬.17 This is, however, the most distinctive blessing formula in the sectarian scrolls from Qumran, and it is usually introduced with the distinctive rubric: “They shall bless . . . and they shall answer and say, ‘Blessed be the God of Israel.’ ”18 This pattern is found not only in the War Scroll (1QM 13:1–2; 14:3–4//4Q491 8–10 i 1–2) but it is also the common pattern for the prayers in 4QDaily Prayers (4Q503), the purification rituals (4QPurification Liturgy [4Q284]; 4QRitual of Purification A [4Q414]; 4QRitual of Purification B [4Q512]); and 4QRitual of Marriage (4Q502), which may be a collection of festival prayers.19 That is, these prayers in the War Scroll have the same distinctive prayer pattern otherwise found mainly in the scrolls containing (sectarian) liturgical prayers for the community. Moreover, as David Flusser noted, several of the prayers in the War Scroll reflect a generic blessing of redemption with the following form, reflected also in the Magnificat and Benedictus (Luke 1:46–55, 68–79) and in the first blessing of the Amidah.20

16  See Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 81–84; Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patters (SJ 9; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 77–103. 17  See Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 27–29. It may also be implied in Jdt 4:12; 6:21; 10:1; 12:8; 13:7. 18  On this introductory rubric, see Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 26–27; Martin G. Abegg, “ ‘And He Shall Answer and Say . . .’—a Little Backlighting,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P.W. Flint, J.C. VanderKam, and E. Tov; VTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006). 19  E.g., 4Q503 1–3 1–2, 6, 12; 4Q284 2 ii 5; 3 3; 4Q414 1 ii–2 i 1–2; 2 ii–4 5–6; 4Q512 29–32 8; 40–41 23; 4Q502 6–10 2–3; 24 2. See Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 22–29, 35–40. On 4Q502, see Michael L. Satlow, “4Q502 A New Year Festival?,” DSD 5 (1998): 57–68. 20  David Flusser, “The Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the War Scroll,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988); cf. Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 213–15.

280

Falk

a. blessing to God b. keeping the covenant with his people c. saving his people d. for his name’s sake 1QM 18:6–8 (cf. 1QM 13:7–9; 14:4–5): a. Blessed be Your name, O God [of god]s, for You have done wondrous things for Your people, b. and have kept Your covenant for us from of old. c. Many times you have opened for us the gates of salvation . . .  d. You, O God of righteousness, have acted for the sake of Your name. Benedictus: a. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel. b. Thus He has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered His holy covenant c. For He has looked favorably on His people and redeemed them . . .  d. that we . . . might serve Him without fear. (Luke 1:68–75; cf. the Magnificat, Luke 1:46–55) Amidah: a. Blessed be You, Lord our God and God of our Fathers . . .  b. who remembers the good deeds of our ancestors c. and who will graciously bring a redeemer to their children’s children d. for the sake of your Name. At the very least, this indicates that these prayers in the War Scroll are modeled on common prayer patterns, but it also highlights that these prayers could be appropriate as prayers for regular use by the community. 4

Adapted Prayers

There is an intriguing case of two recensions of the same prayer incorporated into two different sections of 1QM, but in different ritual settings. Scholars have typically explained this in terms of literary adaptation, but I suggest that it may reflect liturgical re-use.21 Part of the Prayer before Battle in 1QM 12 appears 21  For two recent, contrary examinations of this case, see Schultz, Conquering the World, 277–96 and Wee, “A Model,” 266–68, 279–83. Schultz argues that it demonstrates the literary adaptation of a prayer for War against the Kittim (in 1QM 15–19) to be more

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

281

verbatim—with some differences—in 1QM 19 (//4Q492 frg. 1). The version in 1QM 19 is shorter. The variations are minor, and it is difficult to determine a clear recensional agenda.22 As discussed below, it is more likely that these are two versions of the same song. 1QM 10–14 consists of a collection of three war prayers with no narrative framework, just a brief introduction to each prayer (preserved only for the last prayer, 1QM 14:2–4a).23 1. 2. 3.

Prayer before Battle (9:end–12:end) Prayer on the Battlefield (12:end–14:1) Prayer after Victory (14:2–end)

The Prayer before Battle (9:end–12:end) takes place in the camp, and is a long prayer with a coherent structure. It falls into four main sections: historical recollections, expression of confidence, petition and praise. 1.



2.

3.

Historical recollections (a)  recalls God’s instructions concerning battle through Moses, including purity of the camp, speeches by the priest, the officers and the use of signal trumpets (b) recalls God’s creation  Israel; heavens, angels; earth, animals, humans; appointed times (c) petition (d) recalls God’s acts of deliverance in the past through Moses; through David; through the kings (e) recalls God’s foretelling of eschatological battle through prophets Confession of confidence in God (a) God will defeat his enemies through the poor (b) God’s army = angels and human congregation (c) God himself will fight with them Petition: Arousal of Divine Warrior (imperatives)

• •

appropriate in the context of the War of the Divisions (in cols 10–14), by means of secondary additions. Wee argues the opposite, that the prayer in 1QM 19 is a secondary adaptation of the prayer in col. 12, and represents a “summarizing” tendency. On the form of the prayer in 1QM 12 as showing secondary adaptation, the argument below is in concord with Schultz, but I agree with Wee that the adaptation is evidence of liturgical use. 22  Cf. the competing explanations by Schultz and Wee, cited in the previous note. 23  Note that the bottom of col. 9, which would have contained the beginning of the prayer, is not preserved.

282 4.

Falk

Praise (a) Call to Praise: Apostrophe to Zion (imperatives) (b) Praise to God

Only the petition—and perhaps part of the confession of confidence— appears also in the prayer in 1QM 18–19, but there, these sections are again part of a longer prayer that is different and has a completely different setting. There, it is part of a prayer for prolonging the day of pursuit (1QM 18:5b–19:8). According to the introductory rubric, the prayer is apparently recited on the battlefield at the approach of sunset (18:5b–6a). It is to be recited by the chief priest, the priests and Levites and all the chiefs and men of the army: probably, this would not be unison, but recited by a prayer leader with congregational responses or congregational assent (Amen). 1. 2.

Blessing of God who saves Petition for God to utterly defeat their enemies (cf. 18:12–13) (or, praise to God for utterly defeating their enemies; cf. 19:9–10) 1. Confession of confidence in God (a) God is peerless (b) God is acting according to his predetermined plan (c) God’s army = angels and human congregation (d) God himself will fight with them 2. Petition (imperatives) (a) Arousal of Divine Warrior 3. Conclusion: Apostrophe to Zion

Immediately after the prayer it indicates that all the men return to the camp for the night (1QM 19:9//4Q492 1 8–9), and the next morning return to the battlefield to praise God for victory (19:9ff //4Q492 1 9ff.). That is, this prayer is recited on the battlefield when victory is imminent (or already achieved) rather than in camp before the battle as in 1QM 10–12. In this different context, the prayer has a different meaning. In 1QM 19, the Apostrophe to Zion serves as a conclusion, affirming victory. In 1QM 12, however, the Apostrophe to Zion serves as a call to praise, and is followed by words of praise. The wording is adapted to this function by the addition of and shine with joyful songs, O Jerusalem (12:13) and shout out (12:15) (a verb regularly used in calls to praise) rather than burst out (19:17). Similarly, the addition (in italics below) to the confession of confidence in 1QM 12 is related to its setting within a longer prayer. The addition of “together with the holy ones, mighty men . . .” picks up the language from 1QM 12:7: “You,

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

283

O God . . . and the company of Your holy ones is in our midst . . . disdain at mighty ones” (in bold). 1QM 12:7–10a And You, O God, are awe[some] in the glory of Your dominion, and the company of Your holy ones is in our midst for etern[al] support. We [shall direc]t our contempt at kings, derision 8 and disdain at mighty men. For the Lord is holy, and the King of Glory is with us together with the holy ones Migh[ty men and] the host of angels are with our commissioned forces. 9 The Hero of Wa[r] is with our company, and the host of His spirits is with our steps. Our horsemen are [as] the clouds and as the mist covering the earth, 10 and as a steady downpour shedding judgment on all her offspring Also in this section in 1QM 12:7–10, there is an awkward seam: You O God . . . are with us We show contempt . . .  the Lord . . . is with us Not only is there a switch from second to third person for God, the “we” section in between the passages about God’s presence with the community feels like an intrusion. On the other hand, in 1QM 19, the section “we show contempt” for kings and mighty men perfectly fits the context of that prayer, coming immediately after God’s retribution against his enemies. These details indicate that the prayer in 1QM 12 is secondary, adapted— somewhat awkwardly—to a new context. We are probably dealing with an independent prayer unit of three parts: 1. 2. 3.

Confession of Confidence: God fights for the community Petition: Arousal of Divine Warrior Call to Praise: Apostrophe to Zion

284

Falk

At the very least, this case points to the composite nature of the War Scroll as we have it in 1QM. But this may point to a phenomenon of liturgical reuse rather than literary borrowing; hence, it is possible that this section (1QM 10–14) may reflect a collection of prayers that was used in the liturgy of the community, as argued below. The prayer in camp includes a recital of instructions for war by Moses (1QM 9:end–10:8a), citing both Deut 20 concerning speeches by the priest and officers and Num 10 concerning the use of trumpets. In terms of its place in prayer, this is part of the historical recital of God’s great deeds of the past, a standard feature in early Jewish prayer. Thus, there follows God’s actions of creation (10:8b–17a; Israel, the heavens and earth, angels and humans), and his actions of delivering Israel in the past (10:end–11:5a; through Moses, David, and the kings). But as part of this historical recital, it also includes foretellings of eschatological war by the prophets (11:5b–12): “You told us in time past. . . . By the hand of Your anointed ones. . . . You have told us about the ti[mes] of the wars. . . . In time past You foretold [the app]ointed time . . .” It is a small step from recital of Torah instructions and prophetic oracles of the future as prayer, to the recitation of military procedures for the eschatological war as prayer. Here we have a potential analogy: why could not recital of God’s deliverance in the eschatological future serve a liturgical function in the present? The blessing and cursing rituals in the War Scroll are plausible examples of such use. Scholars have long recognised that there is a close connection between the blessing and cursing ritual on the battlefield in 1QM 13 and similar blessing and cursing rituals in other texts found at Qumran.24 The most extensive verbal agreements are with 4QBerakhot (4Q286 7 ii 1–2) but, whereas several lines correspond almost exactly (4Q286 7 ii 2b–5a//1QM 13:4–5a), the context is entirely different. Whereas in 4QBera this is part of a series of curses on Belial, which is preceded by a series of blessings of God, in 1QM the blessing of God is interwoven with the curse of Belial and the spirits of his lot. Also, there is a different conclusion: after mentioning the judgment of the spirits of Belial’s lot, 4QBera states that their punishment is the pit, whereas 1QM brings in a contrast again to the lot of God. 1QM 13 also has some similarities with the cursing ritual in the covenant ceremony described in the Community Rule (1QS 2:4b–10). However, in 1QS 2 it is the men of Belial’s lot that are cursed, whereas in 1QM 13 it is Belial and his spirits that are cursed.

24  J.T. Milik, “Milkî-Ṣedeq et Milkî-Rešaʿ dans les anciens écrits Juifs et Chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 95–144.

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

285

There is a complicated web of intertextual relations among these, as well as 4QCurses (4Q280) and the cursing of apostates in the expulsion ritual that appears in the Cave 4 copies of the Damascus Document, 4QDa frg. 11 (//4QDd 11 ii + 15; 4QDe 7 i–ii).25 The most likely explanation of these phenomena is that ritual cursing had a place in multiple contexts of the community—at the very least, the covenant ceremony and an eschatological ritual, but likely other contexts as well. Given the prominent emphasis on cursing darkness and blessing light in 1QM 13:4–6, it is possible to imagine the use of these blessings and curses in a daily ritual. 4 Cursed is Belial for his contentious purpose, and accursed for his guilty dominion. And cursed are all spirits of his lot for their wicked purpose. 5 (vac) Accursed are they for all their impure unclean service. For they are the lot of darkness, but the lot of God is light 6 [eterna]l. 5

Worship as Warfare

Why a military manual might contain prayers and other liturgical materials is a legitimate question. There certainly is ample attestation of prayers and rituals in martial contexts in the ancient Mediterranean world and the books of 1–2 Maccabees indicate that an idealised description of Jewish war should include prayers. But it opens up new directions for insight if we reverse the question to ask, instead, why militant language and imagery might be employed in prayers and in descriptions of the worshiping community. First of all, we can note that the sectarian community is structured as an army, using the same cluster of language for the community gathered for worship as did the armies of Israel mustered for war, and for the angels, simultaneously as a heavenly congregation at worship and a heavenly army mustered for battle.26 This is apparent especially in three key groups of texts. (1) Two sectarian eschatological rules: the War Scroll and the Rule of the Congregation. (2) Two sectarian rules for community life in the present: the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.

25  Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4: XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 76–77. 26  See also Fletcher-Louis, “War Scroll,” 423–32.

286

Falk

(3) Sectarian liturgical texts: 4QDaily Prayers (4Q503); Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–407; 11Q17); and the Hodayot.27 The military formation of ancient Israel for war, arranged in military units of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens, is not only the structure of the eschatological army in the War Scroll (1QM 3:12–18), but also of the religious community in the present (CD 12:22–13:2).28 Most significantly, this includes especially the great liturgical procession of the community in the annual covenant renewal ceremony: They shall do as follows annually, all the days of Belial’s dominion: the priests shall pass in review first, ranked according to their spiritual excellence, one after another. Then the Levites shall follow, and third all the people by rank, one after another, in their thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens. Thus shall each Israelite know his proper standing in the Yaḥad of God, an eternal society. (1QS 2:19–23) We also notice the opposite, that a ritual structure is the basis for both the community in the present and the eschatological army. During the time of the second temple, the priests and Levites were divided into 24 courses (‫)משׁמרת‬ for taking turns serving in the temple (1 Chron 24–25), with corresponding stations (‫ )מעמד‬from each tribe (cf. m.Taʿan. 4.2). In various Qumran texts, it is clear that the movement used instead a division into 26 service groups, corresponding to their distinctive calendar of exactly 52 weeks.29 The eschatological army has the same structure: 26 courses with corresponding stations, 52 fathers of congregations, 26 chiefs of weekly courses and 12 chief priests and Levites.30 There are many other passages which describe the congregation at worship with military language: they are mustered, enlisted, arrayed in rows. For example, in a song about times of prayer, “I will bless Him with the offering, the issue of my lips when in ranked array” (1QS 10:14).31

27  Not all scholars agree that the first two are sectarian prayers, or that the latter is liturgical. 28  See Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Edited With Commentary and Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 59–62. 29  See Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 202–8. This liturgical division is reflected in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: there are 13 songs, corresponding to one quarter. 30  See Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 202–7. The term ‫ מעמד‬as military station in 1QM 6:1, 4; 8:3, 6, 17; 16:5; 17:11; 1QSa 1:17; 2:15; as liturgical station in congregation: 4Q503 11 4; 1QHa 8:29–32; 10:24; 11:21–24; 19:16; 22:15; 26:7; 26:36. 31  The term translated array (‫ )מערכה‬otherwise appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls only in 1QSa 2:22 for the eschatological assembly, and throughout the War Scroll for troop formations: e.g., 1QM 3:10; 5:3.

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

287

Military language is also used to describe times of prayer in liturgical texts. In 4Q503, the movements of the heavenly bodies that mark the divinelyordained times of worship are described as troops in formation, using the same language as in the War Scroll for the arrangements and movements of troops: gates (‫ ;)שׁער‬banners of troops (‫ ;)דגל‬army; lots (‫ ;)גרל‬divisions (‫;)מפלג‬ dominions.32 Moreover, we note the use of some of this same language also in astronomical texts, where there is an overlapping of language for heavenly lights as angels.33 The heavenly lights that mark appointed times as angels and heavenly warriors also appears in liturgical texts, including the Hodayot and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. You have stretched out the heavens for Your glory, You [ formed] all [their hosts] according to Your will, and the powerful spirits according to their laws, before they became [Your holy] angels [ . . . ,] as eternal spirits in their dominions, luminaries for their mysteries, stars according to [their] paths . . . (1QHa 9:11–14) Moreover, the angels at worship are frequently described simultaneously in military array. For example, a short hymn in the Hodayot (1QHa 7:12–20) combines the image of the angels worshiping God with the angels as warriors. The image is abundant in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, where the descriptions of the angels use the language of military arrangements: camp, troops, chiefs, station.34 32  See Daniel K. Falk, “Daily Prayers,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Not Included in Scripture (ed. L.H. Feldman, J.L. Kugel, and L.H. Schiffman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 1928 and in commentary. E.g., Gates (‫ )שׁער‬as troop formations: 1QM 3:1, 7; 7:16; 8:4; 9:14; 16:4; gates of light and dark: 4Q503 1–6 iii 3, 14; 7–9 2; 19 2; 29–32 10; 33 i + 34 7; 33 ii + 35–36 12; gates as angelic choirs: 4Q405 23 i 7. ‫דגל‬‎of troops: 1QM 1:14; 3:6; 4:10; 5:3; 6:1, 4, 5; 8:4, 14; 9:4, 10; 17:10; ‎‫ דגל‬of light and dark: 4Q503 1–6 iii 4; 7–9 4; 10 2; 29–32 11, 19; 39 3; 51–55 8; 64 9; 67 2; 100 2. ‫גרל‬‎as forces: 1QM 1:1, 5, 11, 13; 4:2; 13:2, 4, 9, 12; 15:1; 17:6; 18:1; ‎‫ גרל‬of light and dark: 4Q503 1–6 iii 15, 21; 33 i + 34 16; 37–38 16; 39 2; 51–55 2, 14; 76 4; 215 4; 218 3. Divisions (‫ )מפלג‬of God’s glory: 4Q503 1–6 iii 7; divisions of angels who worship God: 1QHa 20:26; 4Q405 23 i 7 (//“gates”); divisions of those aligned with good and evil spirits: 1QS 4:14–16. Dominions (‫ )ממשׁלה‬of angels: 1QM 1:15, 12; 13:10, 11; 14:9; 17:5; 18:1; 11; dominion of light and dark: 4Q503 1–6 iii 3; 37–38 16; 8 8. 1QHa 9:19; 1QS 10:1. On the astronomical use of these terms in 4Q503, see Martin G. Abegg, “Does Anyone Really Know What Time it Is: A Reexamination of 4Q503 in Light of 4Q317,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E.C. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 399–400. 33  See the Astronomical Book of Enoch (4Q204–212), e.g., 4Q204 1 i 21, 26; 4Q205 1 xi 5. 34  See James H. Charlesworth and Carol A. Newsom, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts With English Translations. Vol. 4B. Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the

288

Falk

For the Yaḥad, worship is warfare. Their liturgy repertoire includes a large number of exorcism prayers and songs intended to frighten demons. Among these, we can distinguish between prayers and songs that are curative and those that are prophylactic.35 The former are ad hoc, responding to demonic ailments and seeking to exorcise or heal. The latter are apotropaic: they seek to ward off evil; they work as a preventative vaccine to protect the community from demonic harm. It is the latter that are interesting here because they need to be regular and periodic to provide a constant shield for the community from spiritual attack.36 For example, in the Songs of the Maskil (4Q510, 4Q511): And I, the Instructor, proclaim His glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and [desert dwellers . . . ] and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding . . . (4Q510 1 4–6) Through the words of the Maskil, God battles evil spirits: “And through my mouth He frightens [all the spirits] of the bastards” (4Q511 48–49 + 51 2–3).37 Reference to the use of praise at appointed times (4Q511 63–64 ii 2) seems to imply that these songs were to be used somehow in the regular liturgical cycle; Joseph Angel has argued that they may have been performed in a communal ritual.38 Angel also emphasises how these songs “disrupt ontological barriers” for the community both temporally and spatially, so that “in the liturgical moment” they are absorbed “among the forces of light offering praise” in the Sabbath Sacrifice (PTSDSSP; Tübingen/Louisville, Ky.: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 1999), 7. E.g., for ma‘mad as stations of angels: 4Q403 1 i 12; 4Q405 23 ii 7. 35  Cf. Esther Eshel, “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and D. Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 395–415. 36  See Philip S. Alexander, “ ‘Wrestling Against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans; JSPSup 26/Roehampton Institute London Papers 3/LSTS 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 324. 37  Similarly, in another set of apotropaic prayers: “As for me, I am the Dread of God. He opened my mouth . . . in order to battle evil spirits . . .” (4QIncantation [4Q444] 1–4 i + 5 1, 4). 38  Joseph Angel, “Maskil, Community, and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511),” DSD 19 (2012): 3, 12–17, 25–26. Cf. Jeremy Penner, Patterns of Daily Prayer in Second Temple Period Judaism (STDJ 104; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 189–90.

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

289

heavenly sanctuary, and proleptically realise “protection during the present era in anticipation of the final elimination of the demons at the eschatological judgment.”39 As Crispin Fletcher-Louis notes, the latter half of the War Scroll (cols 10–19) maintains a focus on liturgical actions such as ritual blessing and cursing and shows these to be the effective means of God’s actions through the community in the eschatological war.40 This is in continuity with the community’s daily liturgy in the present at the “eternal fixed times” (1QM 14:13–14). Beyond the use of prayers and songs explicitly for spiritual protection, the entire elaborate system of prayer can be seen as military tactics. A prominent motif in their petitions is for protection from evil influence. Regular praise punctuating the day thus would create a protective shield over the community and their sessions of night-time prayer may be seen as storming the stronghold of the enemy.41 In several parts of its liturgy, the community engages in ritual cursing not only of humans, but also of Belial and the leaders of the dark realm. In the Yaḥad, prayer is the means by which, in the present, the humans of the kingdom of Light do battle alongside the angels against the kingdom of Darkness. 6

Times of Prayer

In both the Rule of the Community and the Hodayot are poetic calendars of appointed times of prayer, associated with the Maskil (1QS 9:26–10:8; 1QHa 20:7–14). In both cases, the focus is on prayer at the daily transitions of day and night described in militant language as the dominion of light and the dominion of darkness. The War Scroll also contains a short passage on the appointed times of praise (1QM 14:12–14) that is related to these other hymns, not only in the specific language concerning appointed times for prayer, but also in other motifs such as reflection on the mysteries of God’s wonderful works and being raised up from the dust. In the War Scroll, however, this poem of appointed times is part of a victory hymn. On the morning after battle, the army returns to the field of combat and in battle formation praises God for his mighty acts. 39  Angel, “Maskil,” 5, 21, 24–25. 40  Fletcher-Louis, War Scroll, 453–55. 41  Cf. Penner, Patterns of Daily Prayer, 189–90, 208. Such may be the point of 1QS 10:15–16. In the context of times ordaince for prayer, it lists praise of God at the “beginning of terror and dread” (‫)ברשית פחד ואימה‬. In light of the language for prayer at sunrise and sunset at the beginning of this poetic calendar of times of prayer (1QS 10:1–2: “at the beginning [‫ ]ברשית‬of the dominion of light,” “at the beginning [‫ ]ברשית‬of the watches of darkness”; cf. 4Q503 33 i + 34 19), it is possible that 10:15–16 refers to prayer at sunset.

290

Falk

But we, Your holy people, shall praise Your name for Your works of truth. Because of Your mighty deeds we shall exalt [Your] sp[lendor in all] epochs and appointed times of eternity, at the beginning of day and at night and the exit of evening and morning. For Your [glorio]us p[urpose] is great and Your wondrous mysteries are in [Your] high heavens, to [raise u]p those for Yourself from the dust and to humble those from the gods. (1QM 14:12–14) That the climactic point of the hymn is the declaration of praise at the appointed times, morning and evening, reveals the eschatological victory over the forces of darkness to be directly parallel to the defeat of darkness in daily prayers. It should not be missed, then, that this hymn—recited in the morning—continues with the summons to God as Divine Warrior to arise, defeat the sons of darkness, and shine his light. This declares the success of the blessing and cursing ritual on the day of battle: And cursed is Belial. . . . And cursed are all spirits of his lot. . . . For they are the lot of darkness, but the lot of God is light [eterna]l. (1QM 13:4–6) It is likely that in the daily cycle of day and night, the sectarian community saw at work the struggle between the kingdoms of light and dark.42 The poetic times of prayer emphasise that the community stands in prayer “at the beginning of the dominion of light” and “at the beginning of the dominion of darkness.” By standing at these times, the community took their place alongside the angels in defending the threshold between light and darkness, the realms of God and anti-god. A prayer recited on the battlefield as the sun is setting (1QM 18:5b—6a) further strengthens this hypothesis. Blessed is Your name, O God [of god]s, for You have done wondrous things for Your people, and have kept Your covenant for us from of old. Many times you have opened for us the gates of salvation. . . . You, O God of righteousness, have acted for the sake of Your name. (1QM 18:6b–8; italics for emphasis) The language of gates of salvation recalls the gates of light in 4Q503. In this prayer recited at dusk, beseeching God to prolong the light to enable the defeat 42  See Jeremy Penner, “Nocturnal Prayer in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Studia Liturgica 44 (2015): 234–46.

291

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

of enemies as in the day of Joshua (cf. 1QM 18:12), the motifs of light as salvation and darkness as evil are readily apparent. Acknowledging that the day is spent, the prayer then urges God to destroy the enemy’s dominion (1QM 18:10–11), recalling the dominion of darkness as the dominion of Belial. This and numerous other resonances with 4Q503 reinforces that such prayers are equally at home in a daily as well as eschatological context. 7

Codicological Perspective

Of the ten War Scroll manuscripts, two were copied on the back of a papyrus manuscript (4Q496, 4Q497). Manuscripts re-used for inscribing on the reverse (opisthographs) are rare at Qumran, and the dominant genre one finds on these is liturgical texts.43 Papyrus opisthographs are extremely rare. Of only four such scrolls with identifiable content, all of these contain prayer texts. TABLE 15.2 Papyrus opisthographs Name of Text

Date

recto verso

4Q255 4Q433a

pap Serekh ha-Yahada pap Hodayot-like Text B

125–100 BCE c. 75 BCE

recto verso

4Q499 4Q497

pap Hymns/Prayers? pap War Scroll-like Text A?

c. 75 BCE c. 50 BCE

recto verso

4Q503 4Q512

pap Daily Prayers pap Ritual Purification B

100–75 BCE 100–75 BCE

recto verso

4Q509 + 505 4Q496 4Q506

pap Festival Prayers pap Milḥamahf pap Words of the Luminariesc

c. 70–60 BCE shortly after 50 BCE mid-first c. CE

43  The following data are drawn from Daniel K. Falk, “Material Aspects of Prayer Manuscripts At Qumran,” in Literature or Liturgy? Early Christian Hymns and Prayers in their Literary and Liturgical Context in Antiquity (ed. C. Leonhard and H. Löhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 45–56. Note: the dates given are typological dates assigned by the editors on the basis of palaeography, and should not be taken as reliable indicators of actual date.

292

Falk

Moreover, all of these look like intentional collections for personal use, rather than the recycling of defunct scrolls. The clearest case is the papyrus containing— on the recto—4Q503, a collection of morning and evening liturgical prayers for days of a month. On the verso is 4Q512, which contains instructions and prayers for purification rituals. Although they are written in a different hand, these are both dated on the basis of palaeography to the same scribal generation (100–75 BCE). Moreover, the blessing structure in these two texts is formcritically similar: a statement of occasion, instructions for prayer and the same opening blessing formula. The small format of the scroll reinforces the perception that this is a portable personal collection of similar prayers. This makes the case of the last scroll in the table above all the more significant. On the front is a collection of prayers for festivals throughout the year (4Q509 + 505), dating to about the second quarter of the first century BCE.44 A few decades later, someone inscribed a copy (or recension) of the War Scroll (4Q496) on the reverse. About a century later, someone added a collection of prayers for days of the week (4Q506). It can hardly be coincidental that Festival Prayers and Words of the Luminaries are form-critically of the same type, but of a fundamentally different type than that of 4Q503/4Q512.45 It seems that the person who copied Words of the Luminaries on the back was intentionally adding to the Festival Prayers on the front, in making a personal scroll of liturgical prayers. This suggests quite forcefully that the copy of the War Scroll— sandwiched between these two—was received and/or was used, somehow, as a liturgical text. Another papyrus scroll seems to contain prayers on both sides, with a War Scroll-like text (4Q497) on the reverse of 4Q499, although the papyrus is much too fragmentary to identify either text with confidence.46 They were copied by different scribes, but close in time around the middle of the first century BCE, 44  That 4Q505 belongs with 4Q509, see Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 59–61, 156. Chazon has recently questioned this view: Esther G. Chazon, “The Classification of 4Q505: Daily or Festival Prayers?” in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ ( Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. by A.M. Maeir, J. Magness, and L.H. Schiffman; JSJSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 23–34. In a yet-to-be-published paper, I have added further evidence that 4Q505 belongs to 4Q509: “Reconsideration of the War Scroll in a Liturgical Opisthograph From Qumran” (Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Baltimore, 24 November 2013). 45  Statement of occasion (“Prayer for the festival of n”; “Prayer for the n day”); opening prayer formula “Remember, O Lord . . .”; concluding benediction of the form “Blessed be the Lord who . . .” See Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers, 79, 183. 46  4Q499 may be a copy of Prayer of Enosh. See Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “4Q499 48 + 47 (par 4Q369 1 ii): A Forgotten Identification,” RevQ 18/2 (1997): 303–6.

Prayer, Liturgy, And War

293

again suggesting the intentionality of this collection of similar materials for personal use. The physical format is also relevant for evaluating the use of these scrolls. 1QM is a large, elegant copy, one of the very few non-scriptural de luxe scrolls from Qumran; however, there are also copies giving the impression of being made for personal use.47 Besides the two opisthographs, 4Q491a (4QMa/a) is a small format scroll with very narrow line spacing and margins, giving the whole a cramped appearance. According to Abegg’s division of fragments, it is possible that this scroll mostly contained the liturgical parts of the War Scroll.48 4Q493 (4QMc) is also a small format scroll, unruled and with irregular lines. The idea of reading prayers from a book (the Book of the Rule of His Time) is attested in the War Scroll, with the chief priest leading the priests, Levites and army (1QM 15:4–5). The codicological evidence suggests that at least some individuals may have treated the War Scroll itself as a collection of liturgical prayers. 8 Conclusions This article has sought to add further arguments for the liturgical use of the War Scroll, beyond the literary arguments of Krieg and others. Specifically, I argued that the number of copies and recensions, the use of prayer formulas in common with liturgical prayers and the evidence for re-use of prayers, all suggest a living liturgical context. Moreover, the function of worship as spiritual warfare together with angels provides a plausible liturgical purpose for war prayers in various settings, including night-time and morning prayers. The use of common language between liturgical prayers and the War Scroll, and parallel terminology for angels and the human community at worship and in warfare, suggests a close connection between daily liturgy and eschatological warfare in the ideology of the sectarian movement. It is likely that the sectarians regarded their daily prayers as participating in the defeat of darkness in anticipation of eschatological victory over the forces of darkness. Finally, the existence of two scrolls that include the War Scroll in an intentional collection of liturgical prayer text indicates that at least some might regard it as a collection of prayers for use. It must be admitted that none of this provides definitive evidence for a liturgical use of the War Scroll. Collectively, however, it is highly suggestive. 47  On de luxe editions, see Tov, Scribal Practices, 125–29. 48  Abegg, “The War Scroll From Cave 1 and 4,” 476; cf. Duhaime, War Texts, 43.

294

Falk

What specific settings might we imagine for liturgical performance related to the War Scroll? Of course the evidence accumulated here allows nothing more than informed speculation, but it is worth the exercise if it provokes further attention to the question and helps generate further possibilities. The annual covenant renewal ceremony would be a natural ritual setting to imagine a large-scale dramatic liturgy, but there is another possibility. Although it is often assumed that the expulsion ritual mentioned at the end of the Damascus Document (4Q266 11; 4Q270 7 ii) was part of the covenant renewal ceremony, this is by no means certain. It is merely stated that “all [those who live in] camps shall convene on the third month and curse those who stray from the Law to the right [or to the left]” (4Q266 11 17–18). If this cursing ritual were merely one subordinate part of the covenant renewal ceremony, it would be surprising to describe the convocation as one for cursing apostates. It seems more likely that this might refer to a separate ritual of expulsion that would precede the covenant renewal ceremony. If so, this would be an especially appropriate occasion to muster the community in battle formation to ritually act out their combat with the forces of darkness. In any case, a partial analogy to the use of an eschatological war text in the ritual life of a religious community might be derived from the New Testament book of Revelation. It is effectively a Christian war scroll, explicitly mentioning a liturgical function: “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy” (Rev 1:3 NRSV).

CHAPTER 16

Purity in War: What is it Good for? Ian Werrett and Stephen Parker ‫ִה ְת ַק ָּדׁשּו ִּכי ָמ ָהר יַ ֲע ֶׂשה יְ הוָ ה ְּב ִק ְר ְּב ֶכם נִ ְפ ָלאֹות‬ JOSHUA 3:5

1 Introduction In the aftermath of his successful campaign against the city of Jericho, the book of Joshua’s eponymous hero sends a contingent of spies to size-up his next target: the city of Ai. Located “near Beth-a’ven, east of Bethel” (Josh 7:2),1 Ai was situated in the central hill country of Palestine to the west of the river Jordan. Although the actual location of Ai is still a matter of debate for archaeologists,2 Joshua’s spies reported that the city’s population was ‫ ְמ ַעט‬or few and that a much smaller force than the one employed at Jericho would be sufficient to * We would like to thank the editors of this volume for the invitation to participate in this meaningful project and Ericka Manthey Werrett for her assistance in editing our manuscript. It goes without saying that Dr. Martin Abegg Jr., or “Marty” as his friends call him, has had a massive impact on the field of Dead Sea Scrolls research. From his “risky” decision in 1991 to publish a reverse-engineered version of the as yet unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls to his doctoral work on the War Scroll, and from his numerous grammatical and linguistic contributions to Accordance to his efforts on what is arguably one of the most popular translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls in print, and countless other projects besides, Dr. Abegg has enjoyed a long and fruitful career. For those of us who know him, however, and have been privileged to be one of his students, these are not the reasons why his students consider Dr. Abegg to be one of the most well-prepared and skillful professors that they have ever had. Rather, it is Marty’s warmth, his generosity, and the ease with which he mentors his students that leaves such an indelible mark. For these, and many other kindnesses, we will always be grateful. 1  Unless otherwise noted, all English quotations of the Hebrew Bible are from the Revised Standard Version. 2  Joseph Callaway, “Excavating Ai (Et-Tell): 1964–1972,” BA 39/1 (1976): 18–30; Joseph A. Callaway and Kermit Schoonover, “The Early Bronze Age Citidel at Ai (Et-Tell),” BASOR 207 (1972): 41–53; Bryant G. Wood, “The Search for ‘Joshua’s Ai,’ ” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (ed. R.S. Hess, G.A. Klingbeil, and P.J. Ray Jr.; Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement; Winona Lk. Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 205–40.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_017

296

Werrett and Parker

overcome Ai’s defenses (Josh 7:3). Based upon this information, Joshua sent 3,000 troops to Ai, which is less than one tenth of the force that he had utilised at Jericho (Josh 4:12–13). The encounter at Ai was short-lived; Joshua’s troops were instantly repelled and 36 of his men were killed as they fled the battlefield (Josh 7:4–5). In response to this defeat, Joshua mourns and cries out to God: “Alas, O Lord God, Why have you brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us?” (Josh 7:7). Given that Joshua had lost only three-dozen men, his lament would appear to be somewhat hyperbolic, but reading his response this way misses the point. In truth, Joshua was less concerned about the death of 36 men than he was with the message this loss would convey to his enemies. After expressing his fear that the news of his army’s defeat would only serve to embolden the Canaanites and the rest of the land’s inhabitants, thereby making it all the more difficult to conquer the land and fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant, Joshua receives an explanation from God regarding the Israelites’ unsuccessful attack on Ai: Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen and lied, and put them among their own stuff. Therefore the people of Israel cannot stand before their enemies, because they have become a thing for destruction. I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you. (Josh 7:11–12) Having been made aware of Israel’s sin, Joshua is commanded by God to identify the guilty party and purge that individual from the people’s midst. The story of Achan’s guilt and his decision to withhold a portion of the devoted objects from Jericho is well known and need not be repeated here (cf. Josh 7:10–26). What does bear repeating, however, is that Achan’s violation affects the holiness of Israel and, by extension, renders its military aspirations impotent. In order to repair this damage, God commands his people to sanctify themselves anew by removing all traces of the offending individual, his family and his possessions from their midst. Immediately after Achan’s sin is expunged, and the relationship with God repaired, Joshua and 30,000 Israelites descend upon Ai with renewed vigour. In the ensuing battle Joshua’s troops slaughter all 12,000 of the city’s inhabitants, loot the buildings and burn what is left to the ground (Josh 8:1–29). Although utilising ten times the number of soldiers as the first attack may have had something to do with their success, the book of Joshua makes it clear that it is God, and God alone, who enables the Israelites to be

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

297

victorious (Josh 8:1–2).3 By extension, Israel must exhibit a level of holiness that is acceptable to God in order to maintain his favor and secure future military success (Deut 23:14; Josh 3:5; 7:13). Similar to the book of Joshua, the eschatological document from Qumran known as the War Scroll (1QM) also deals with the concept of defeat in battle. However, whereas the book of Joshua provides a comprehensive explanation for the loss at Ai, and a way to rectify the situation, the War Scroll simply indicates that the ‫ בני אור‬or Sons of Light will experience three losses at the hands of their dualistic counterpart, the Sons of Darkness (‫ ;בני חושך‬cf. 1QM 1:12b13; 15:4–19:14).4 What is particularly interesting about this, however, is that the Sons of Light are not accused of committing any covenantal violations or sins that would affect their sanctity in the eyes of God. In fact, the purity and ritual requirements outlined in the War Scroll are far more rigorous than those of the book of Joshua and there is no indication whatsoever that the Sons of Light will deviate from these prescriptions at the end of days. Moreover, the notion that the elect will be called ‫ בני אור‬even after they have suffered several defeats, and that God will “strengthen the heart of the [Sons of Light]” by overcoming the forces of Belial in a seventh and final battle (1QM 1:14–16; 18:1–19:14), suggests that the sacred status of the Sons of Light will remain intact for the duration of the war, which raises an interesting question: If the Sons of Light are preordained to lose to the Sons of Darkness on three separate occasions, then what is the purpose of maintaining the purity and ritual requirements in the War Scroll? In the following discussion, we will attempt to answer this question by scrutinising the purity regulations and eligibility requirements in the War Scroll so as to shed some light on the scope and feasibility of this document’s dynamic vision for the end of days.

3  “Holy war,” notes Gordan Wenham, “begins with Yahweh’s promise of success and an exhortation to fight bravely (Josh 1:6, 9; 6:2; 8:1; 10:8; 11:6). The narratives stress that it is God who takes the initiative in the conduct of the war. It is he who sends Israel into battle and ensures its success . . . So Israel goes out into battle in obedience to Yahweh’s command. Then Yahweh fights for Israel.” Gordon J. Wenham, “The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua,” JBL 90 (1971): 141. 4  Regardless of how one understands the chronology of the war, or whether or not cols 1 and 2 represent two separate campaigns, the War Scroll makes it clear that the Sons of Light are defeated on several occasions (1QM 1:12.b–15; 16:11–17:9). For an intriguing discussion on the differences between cols 1 and 2 and the possibilty that they are describing different stages of the eschatological war, see Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 204–13.

298 2

Werrett and Parker

Ritual Purity in the War Scroll

Whereas one largely intact copy of the War Scroll, or Rule of the War ([‫]סרך‬ ‫המלחמה‬, 1QM 1:1), was recovered from Cave 1 in 1947 (1QM),5 ten additional fragments of the War Scroll, or documents that were somehow interested in an eschatological war, were also recovered from Cave 4 and Cave 11 in the mid 1950’s (4Q285, 4Q471, 4Q491–497, 11Q14).6 Based on a comparison with 1QM, it has been argued that three of the fragments from Cave 4 represent one or multiple copies of the War Scroll (4Q492, 4Q494, and 4Q495). By contrast, 4Q471, 4Q491, 4Q496, and 4Q497, although interested in the eschatological war, exhibit few similarities with the War Scroll and may have functioned as a competing vision(s) for the end of days. Finally, 4Q285 and 11Q14 would appear to be copies of yet another previously unknown document called the Book of the War (‫)ספר המלחמה‬, not to be confused with the War Scroll.7 Although the War Scroll’s relationship with the Essenes is somewhat difficult to determine, this document does contain a number of hallmarks that are understood by most Dead Sea Scholars as being emblematic of Qumran sectarianism. Notably, the War Scroll is overwhelmingly preoccupied with angels, dualism, predestination and eschatology—concepts that are found in abundance in such texts as the Damascus Document, the Community Rule and the Rule of the Congregation.8 In addition to this, the author/redactor of the War Scroll has chosen to employ a number of sobriquets, such as Kittim, Belial and Sons of Light, which appear in a variety of documents from Qumran. Based on these correspondences and on the recovery of different recensions of the War Scroll from caves 1 and 4, it would appear that the War Scroll is a sectarian composition that is closely related to Qumran or was composed by the Qumran community itself.

5  Eleazar Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (trans. D.A. Fineman; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955). 6  Maurice Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982); Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, “14. 11QSefer Ha-Milḥamah,” in Qumran Cave 11 II, (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 243–51; Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, “285. 4QSefer Ha-Milḥamah,” in Qumran Cave 4 XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (Stephen J. Pfann, et al., DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 228–46. 7  For a helpful summary of these studies, and an extensive bibliography, see Schultz, Conquering the World, 10–41. 8  James VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2d ed., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 101f.

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

299

Of the five major categories of ritual purity that are outlined in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., diseases, clean/unclean animals, corpses, bodily discharges and sexual misdeeds),9 the War Scroll concerns itself with all but one: clean/unclean animals. The absence of any discussions on the laws of kashrut or the impurity of certain types of animals is not particularly surprising, given the eschatological genre of the War Scroll, but it becomes even less surprising when one considers that not a single scroll from Qumran contains a systematic treatment on the rules of ritual purity. In point of fact, the passages on impurity and purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls are largely haphazard and lacking in organisational structure. Take, for example, the composite document 4QMMT, which contains a seemingly random list of halakhic issues ranging from whether or not the wheat of the Gentiles can be used for sacrificial purposes (4Q394 3–7 i 6b–8a) to a prohibition indicating that even the smallest portion of a corpse can render those who come in contact with it impure (4Q397 6–13 10b–11). Not only does there appear to be no rhyme or reason to 4QMMT’s list of legal positions, but the author/redactor of 4QMMT, in a manner not unlike the author/redactor of the War Scroll, fails to deal with all five categories of ritual impurity. Although additional examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls would certainly help to illuminate the basic trends described above, it is enough to say at this point that there is nothing particularly unusual about the way the War Scroll organises and presents its pronouncements on ritual purity. With the exception of two passages dealing with corpse contamination and the impurity of blood (1QM 9:7b-9a; 14:2–3), the entirety of the War Scroll’s discussion on ritual purity is contained within col. 7. At the beginning of this column, the reader encounters the tail end of a list from the preceding column enumerating various divisions within the army and the age limits for each of these groups (1QM 6:11b–7:3a). At the end of this list, the War Scroll then moves on to record a series of eligibility requirements for those wishing to join the Sons of Light:

9  Here we are following the categories of purity outlined in Ian C. Werrett, Ritual Purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 72; Leiden: Brill, 2007). For a slightly different yet complimentary list of purity categories, see Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 18–22; Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity Texts (CQS 5; London: T&T Clark, 2004).

300

Werrett and Parker

1QM 7.3b–710

‫ וכול נער זעטוט ואשה לוא יבואו למחנותם בצאת‬3 b ‫ם‬ ‫ מירושלים ללכת למלחמה עד שובם וכול פסח או עוד חגר או איש אשר מום‬4 ‫ עולם בבשרו או איש מנוגע בטמאת‬ ‫ בשרו כול אלה לוא ילכו אתם למלחמה כולם יהיו אנשי נדבת מלחמה ותמימי‬5 ‫ רוח ובשר ועתודים ליום נקם וכול‬ ‫ איש אשר לוא יהיה טהור ממקורו ביום המלחמה לוא ירד אתם כיא מלאכי‬6 ‫ קודש עם צבאותם יחד ורוח יהיה‬ ‫ בין כול מחניהמה למקום היד כאלפים באמה וכול ערות דבר רע לוא יראה‬7 ‫ סביבות כול מחניהם‬

3b 4 5 6 7   11

No young boys or women are permitted to enter their camps when they [the soldiers] set out from Jerusalem to go to war until they return. And concerning the lame, blind, crippled or any man who has a permanent blemish in his flesh or a man who has been afflicted with impurity in his flesh; none of these are permitted to go with them to war. All of the volunteers for war will be perfect in spirit and flesh and prepared for the day of vengeance. But every man who is suffering from uncleanness on account of his penis on the day of battle will not go down with them because holy angels are together with their armies. And there will be a space between all of their camps and the place of the hand of 2,000 cubits and no immodest nakedness will be seen around any of their camps.11

Much has been written elsewhere about this passage and its possible relationship with other texts from Qumran, which also prohibit the lame, the blind, or both from participating in the eschatological community (1QSa 2:3–11; 11QTa 45:7–18).12 As has been noted by Lawrence Schiffman and Saul Olyan, 10  The parallel manuscript 4QMa (4Q491) 1–3 6–8 retains a slightly different order for the exclusions from the war camp, but the fragmentary nature of this text makes it difficult to determine whether or not the purity rulings would have deviated from those of 1QM. See Maurice Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 12–44. 11  All translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are ours, unless otherwise noted. 12  Yigael Yadin, Megillat Ha-Miqdash (2 vols; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 2:221–24, [Hebrew]; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection: Exclusion from the Council of the Community in the Serekh Ha-‘Edah,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem, April 1984 (ed.

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

301

the material in this section of the War Scroll is clearly dependent upon such biblical antecedents as Lev 13, Lev 21 and Deut 23.13 Furthermore, the list of those who are excluded from the army of the Sons of Light is generally in line with the entrance requirements articulated in 1QSa and 11QTa. The upshot of these observations is that these texts appear to hold the average person to a level of purity that is on par with the regulations for priests, which would have constituted a significant increase in the purity requirements for the ‫עם הארץ‬. As Schiffman has noted: “The Dead Sea sect, in seeking to achieve the highest standards of purity and perfection in the end of days, maintained the exclusion of certain classes of those afflicted with impurity, physical deformities or old age . . . It therefore extended the Torah’s legislation regarding the priesthood to the eschatological assembly.”14 By demanding a level of purity that was equal to that of the priesthood in the Hebrew Bible, the War Scroll articulates a notion of holy war that far exceeds the requirements of Deuteronomy and Joshua. According to Hannah Harrington, “Purity, tohorah, can best be understood in its relationship to, on the one hand, holiness, qedushah, and on the other, tum’ah, impurity. Tohorah is a state of being; it refers to the absence of impurity. Holiness . . . is an active force which comes from God.”15 Although humans cannot be holy in and of themselves, it is possible to emulate God’s holiness and sanctity by avoiding acts that are ritually and morally defiling. From the perspective of those who were responsible for authoring and editing the sectarian documents from Qumran, the greater the rigour with which an individual was able to maintain their purity, the more likely it was that they would be able to participate in God’s holiness. And in the case of the War Scroll, where God’s holy angels are present in the camps of the Sons of Light (1QM 7:6), not to mention the battlefield (1QM 12:4–5), the need to separate oneself from impurity would have taken on even greater significance.16 J. Amitai; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 373–89; Aharon Shemesh, “ ‘The Holy Angels are in their Council’: The Exclusion of Deformed Persons from Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature,” DSD 4 (1997): 179–206; Saul M. Olyan, “The Exegetical Dimensions of Restrictions on the Blind and the Lame in the Texts from Qumran,” DSD 8 (2001): 38–50; Harrington, The Purity Texts, 51–55. 13  Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection,” 375f; Olyan, “The Exegetical Dimensions,” 48–50. 14  Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection,” 385. 15  Harrington, The Purity Texts, 9; see also, idem, Holiness: Rabbinic Judaism and the GraecoRoman World (London: Routledge Press, 2000); idem, “Holiness and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 8 (2001): 124–35. 16  “At Qumran” observes Harrington, “purity was paramount since the eschatological war was imminent and access to holy power depended on the purity of the group. As part of

302

Werrett and Parker

As the War Scroll states, “young boys and women” (1QM 7:3b) are among the first groups to be excluded from participating in the war against the Sons of Darkness. Although the text does not make it clear why women and boys should be prohibited from taking part, several possibilities come to mind. In the case of young boys, the Dead Sea Scrolls repeatedly indicate that men below a certain age are deemed to be both socially and spiritually immature. Not only is the age of entrance into the eschatological community of the ‫ יחד‬set at 20 (1QSa 1:6–9, 27b), but the reason for doing so is that individuals who had yet to reach this age were, in the eyes of the community, deemed incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong (1QSa 1:9b-11). Similarly, the Damascus Document claims that young men are not eligible to act as witnesses in murder trials (CD 9:23b–10:3) and that “the judges of the nation” were expected to be between 25 and 60 years of age (CD 10:4–7a). Elsewhere the Temple Scroll indicates that 20 was the minimum age to enter the precincts of the temple (11QTa 39:10–11a) while 4QTohorot Bb indicates that children were not allowed to sprinkle the ashes of the red heifer (4Q277 1 ii 7a).17 Concerning the absence of women from the eschatological war, the central issue would appear to be the possibility of ritual contamination stemming from the menstrual cycle and sexual activity. Not only does the Torah require any soldier who has had a seminal emission to leave the war camp until they have cleansed themselves (Deut 23:10–11; cf. Lev 15:16–18), but the War Scroll explicitly bars those who have experienced uncleanness with regard to their sexual member from accompanying the army on the day of battle (1QM 7:5b–6).18 Beyond the issue of sexual activity, the frequency and length of a woman’s monthly cycle, combined with the menstruant’s ability to defile inanimate and animate objects through touch (Lev 15:19–24), would have presented a nearly insurmountable challenge for the author/redactor of the

the preparation for this event, the soldiers had to perform ablutions (1QM; 1QSa). Purity was mandatory due to the presence of the angels in this battle (1QM VII:3–6).” Hannah K. Harrington, “Examining Rabbinic Halakhah thorugh the Lens of Qumran,” in The Qumran Legal Texts between the Hebrew Bible and Its Interpretation (ed. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, and J.S. Adcock; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 137–55, 149. 17  See Joseph Baumgarten, “4QTohorot Bb,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXV Halakhic Texts (ed. Joseph Baumgarten et al.; DJD 35; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 116–18; Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 234–36. 18  Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B. and C. Rabin; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 290–91; Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection,” 374–75.

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

303

War Scroll.19 “[T]hese regulations,” argues Moshe Bernstein, “may be seen as deriving from a need for strict purity in participating in holy war . . . a level of purity which women and children were presumed not to be able to attain and maintain.”20 Given the stakes at risk, and the difficulty in maintaining the purity of an army that is engaged in a holy war, the author/redactor of the War Scroll appears to have followed the lead of 4QMiscellaneous Rules,21 which prohibits women and young boys from consuming the Passover sacrifice (4Q265 3 3), by disallowing the very same group from engaging in yet another sacred activity: the war against the Sons of Darkness. Generally speaking, the War Scroll demands that conscripts in the eschatological army be “perfect in spirit and flesh and prepared for the day of vengeance” (‫ ;תמימי ועתודים ליום נקם רוח ובשר‬1QM 7:5b). In order to achieve this level of cleanliness, the author/redactor bars “the lame, blind, crippled, or any man who has a permanent blemish in his flesh or a man who has been afflicted with impurity in his flesh” from participating in the holy war (lines 4b–5a). Taking this agenda of purity even further, the author/redactor of the War Scroll requires the war camps to be free from any “immodest nakedness” (‫ערות דבר‬ ‫ ;רע‬line 7) and orders that the army’s latrines be located no closer than 2,000 cubits from their encampments (lines 6b–7; cf. 11QTa 46:13–16a).22 This section of the War Scroll is clearly based upon the witness of the Torah, which prohibits 19  As Harrington has rightly noted, “Menstrual impurity was a major concern among the Scroll authors.” Harrington, The Purity Texts, 100, 101–03; See also CD 5:6b-7a; 4Q265 7 11–17; 4Q266 6 ii 2b–4; 4Q270 7 i 12b–13; 4Q272 1 ii 7b–17; 4Q274 1 i 0–9; 4Q414 7 11; 4Q514 1 i 5–6; 11QTa 45:7b–10, 48:14–17a. 20  Moshe J. Bernstein, “Women and Children in Legal and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” DSD 11 (2004): 209. 21  Joseph Baumgarten, “4QMiscellaneous Rules,” in Qumran Cave 4 XXV Halakhic Texts (DJD 35; Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1999), 57–78. 22  See Werrett, Ritual Purity, 158–59, 278. See also Jodi Magness, “Toilet Practices, Purity Concerns, and Sectarianism in the Late Second Temple Period,” in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity, and Rituals (ed. B. Eckhardt; JSJSup 155; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 51–70; Ian C. Werrett, “A Scroll in One Hand and a Mattock in the Other,” RevQ 23/4 (2008): 475–89; Torleif Elgvin and Ian Werrett. “4Q472a in Infrared Light: Latrine Manual Down the Drain,” RevQ 23/2 (2007): 261–68; Joseph E. Zias, James D. Tabor, and Stephanie Harter-Laiheugue, “Toilets at Qumran, the Essenes, and the Scrolls: New Anthropological Data and Old Theories,” RevQ 22/4 (2006): 631–40; Joseph E. Zias, “Qumran Toilet Practices, A Response to a Response,” RevQ 22/3 (2006): 479–84; Jodi Magness, “Toilet Practices at Qumran: A Response,” RevQ 22/2 (2005): 277–78; Stephanie Harter, Françoise Bouchet, Kosta Y. Mumchuglu, and Joe E. Zias, “Toilet Practices Among Members of the Dead Sea Scrolls Sect at Qumran (100 BCE–68 CE),” RevQ 84 (2004): 579– 85; Albert Baumgarten, “Who Cares and Why Does it Matter? Qumran and the Essenes,

304

Werrett and Parker

the physically disabled from serving as priests (Lev 21:16–24) and bars individuals from defecating in the war camp (Deut 23:12–14). Of particular relevance is Deuteronomy’s rationale for the latter as it closely parallels the language of the holy war from the book of Joshua: “the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to save you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you” (Deut 23:14). As noted above, the War Scroll’s position on the physically disabled is clearly intended to elevate the purity of the eschatological army to a status that is on par with that of the priesthood. And although the list of deformities in Leviticus deviates wildly from that of the War Scroll,23 there is no doubt that Lev 21 has influenced the War Scroll’s author/redactor. What is in doubt, however, is the degree to which one’s physical disability would have precluded him from serving in the eschatological war. As Schiffman has observed: “It is difficult to determine . . . how far the sect might have gone in its disqualifications . . . the sect’s desire to insure ultimate perfection and purity might have led them to exclude even the most minimally unfit.”24 If Schiffman is correct, then the total number of individuals who would have qualified to serve in the war against the Sons of Darkness may have been far smaller than the 28,000 soldiers and 6,000 cavalry who are described in the War Scroll (1QM 9:4b–5a), thereby raising a number of questions about the feasibility of this document’s vision for the end of days. However, before we turn to these issues let us first consider two remaining passages on ritual impurity. In the lines immediately following the list of those who are ineligible to participate in the battles against the Sons of Darkness, the roles of the priests and the Levites are described in great detail (1QM 7:9–9:9). As one might expect, the priests play a critical role in the organisation and mobilisation of God’s army at the end of days, but in spite of their presence on the battlefield, they are nevertheless required to keep their distance from the carnage itself:

Once Again!” DSD 11 (2004): 186; Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 105–13. 23  In addition to the blind, lame and one with a blemish, Leviticus also excludes those with a “mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching desease or scabs or crushed testicles” from officiating as a priest (Lev 21:18b–20). 24  Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection,” 379.

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

305 1QM 9:7b–9

‫ ובנפול החללים יהיו הכ[והנ]ים מריעים מרחוק ולוא יבוא ו‬7 b ‫ אל תוך החללים להתגאל בדם טמאתם כיא קדושים המה [לו]א יחלו שמן‬8 ‫ משיחת כהונתם בדם‬ ‫ גוי הבל‬9

7b 8 9

And when the slain have fallen, the priests will blow [their trumpets] from afar and they will not enter into the midst of the slain to defile themselves with the unclean blood [of the fallen] because they are holy. They will not allow the oil of their priestly anointment to be profaned with the blood of vain nations.

Concerning blood, the Hebrew Bible is clear: it should not be eaten (Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23). What is less clear, however, is whether or not coming in physical contact with blood renders an individual impure. In the case of menstrual bleeding, those who touch the menstruant or anything that she has touched or sat upon, are rendered impure (Lev 15:19–23). Moreover, any man who sleeps with a menstruant is rendered impure for seven days (Lev 15:24). Although the presence of menstrual blood does seem to be the reason for the contamination, the act of touching blood directly, and its relationship to ritual impurity, is never specifically addressed in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Isa 59:3; 63:3). To complicate matters even further, blood is frequently used as a cleansing agent within the sacrificial system (cf. Lev 4:4–7; 16:18–19; Ezek 43:20). Regarding the prescription on the blood of the slain in the War Scroll, which uses the words ‫ גאל‬to defile and ‫ טמא‬to be unclean, Joseph Baumgarten has noted: “‫ להתגאל‬refers to staining by contact, while ‫ טמאתם‬denotes the ritual impurity adhering to the corpses of the enemy.”25 And while the language of this prohibition would seem to suggest that it is with the blood of vain nations (‫ ;בדם גוי הבל‬1QM 9:9) that the priests have been rendered impure, blood is clearly not the only source of defilement in the War Scroll. Rather, as a liquid, blood acts as a transmitter for other forms of impurity.26 And, in this instance, 25  Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Essenes Avoidance of Oil and Laws of Purity,” RevQ 22/6 (1967): 185. 26  Joseph M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 91, 95; idem, “Liquids and Susceptibility to Defilement in New 4Q Texts,” JQR 85 (1994): 91–101; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Relationship of the Zadokite Fragments to the Temple Scroll,” in The

306

Werrett and Parker

the other form of impurity just so happens to be the single most defiling force in ancient Judaism: corpse contamination. Although the blood of the slain or sinful corpses ‫ ;פגרי האשמה‬1QM 14:3a) is clearly impure in the War Scroll, and requires those who have come in contact with it to be cleansed (14:2b–3a),27 the presence of the word ‫ טמא‬in 1QM 9:8 and ‫ פגר‬in 14:3 makes it clear that the greater concern is to protect priests from the defilement of corpse impurity,28 which would render the army’s sacerdotal contingent impure for a minimum of seven days and require them to be sprinkled with the ‫( מי נדה‬cf. Num 19). 3

The Demographics of Exclusion

As we have already seen, the War Scroll lists a number of qualifications that need to be fulfilled in order for a person to be eligible to fight in the eschatological war (1QM 6–7). In this section, we will use a variety of estimation techniques so as to identify an approximate figure for the number of Jews in the Second Temple period that would have met these restrictions.29 As an initial starting point, we need to know the population of the region at the time of War Scroll’s composition (ca. 50 BCE to 25 CE).30 Although scholars Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center, 4–8 February, 1998 (ed. J.M. Baumgarten, E.G. Chazon, and A. Pinnick; STDJ 34; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 141. 27  Soldiers who have been stained with blood are required to “wash their clothing and bathe” (1QM 14:2b; cf. Lev 15:5–22) before returning to their position in the army’s lines, but the War Scroll fails to mention whether or not the supplicant is required to wait until evening to be clean. Given the Dead Sea Scroll’s overwhelmingly consistent position on the tebul yom, who is considered to be unclean until the evening after their lustrations (cf. 4Q269 8 ii 3b–6; 4Q277 1 ii 3; 4Q394 3–7 i 16b–19a; 11Q19 49:20–21; 50:4b-9, 10–16a, 20–51a), it seems plausible to suggest that the blood of the slain in the War Scroll imparts, at most, a minor form of impurity. 28  Although the War Scroll elevates the ‫ עם הארץ‬to a level of purity that is on par with that of the priesthood (1QM 7:3b-7), the priests and Levites are expected maintain a level of ritual cleanliness that continues to be higher than that of the ‫( עם הארץ‬cf. 1QM 9:7b-9). Of particular relevance in this instance is the War Scroll’s reference to the “oil of their priestly anointment” (9:8), which, although serving to further distinguish the priests from the ‫עם הארץ‬, would have deviated from the known practices of the Essenes (cf. Josephus, War 2.123). 29  Numbers in the text have generally been rounded so as to display two or three leading digits. 30  Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts (CQS 6; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 81–84.

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

307

disagree on the exact number of people who may have lived in ancient Palestine,31 Magen Broshi has convincingly argued that the population at the turn of the first millennium could not have exceeded 1,000,000 people.32 We will therefore take the figure of 1,000,000 as an upper bound for the population of ancient Palestine.33 Furthermore, since the War Scroll prohibits women from enlisting in the army (1QM 7:3b–4a), the army would only be able to draw recruits from the men in society, which would have been ~50% of the total population, or ~500,000 individuals. Finally, given that upwards of 14% of the overall population may have been comprised of Gentiles,34 the pool of eligible Jewish males would be limited even further to ~430,000. Beyond the restrictions on gender, the War Scroll also places a number of age requirements on the fighting force. Not only are young boys prohibited from joining the army (1QM 7:3b–4a), but the cavalry (‫ )רכב‬were to be between 30–45 years old while the horsemen (‫ )פרשי‬and men of the army (‫ )אנשי הסרך‬were to be between 40–50 (6:13–15; 7:1). Other positions listed in the War Scroll include those in logistical support, who were to be between 25–30 years old (7:2–3), and the chiefs of the camps (‫)וסורכי המחנות‬, who were required to be between 31  Chester C. McCown, “The Density of Population in Ancient Palestine,” JBL 66 (1947): 425–36; Anthony Byatt, “Josephus and Population Numbers in First Century Palestine,” PEQ 105 (1973): 51–60; Yigal Shiloh, “The Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas, and Population Density,” BASOR 239 (1980): 23–35; Magen Broshi and Israel Finkelstein, “The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II,” BASOR 287 (1992): 47–60; Doron Bar, “Settlement and Economy in Late Roman Byzantine Palestine (70–641 AD),” BSOAS 67/3 (2004): 307–20. 32  Using well-established coefficients for the population density in walled cities (i.e., 400– 500 people/hectare) together with an estimate for the grain growing capacity of ancient Palestine, Broshi argues that “the population of Palestine in antiquity did not exceed a million persons . . . moreover, that this was more or less the size of the population in the peak period—the late Byzantine period around AD 600.” Magen Broshi, “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” BASOR 236 (1979): 7. 33  This figure represents a conservative estimate for the maximum number of people who may have lived in this area. The actual population at the turn of the millenium could have been considerably smaller than this estimate. See Broshi, “The Poulation of Western Palestine,” 7. 34  S.W. Baron estimated that roughly 14% of the total population of ancient Palestine at the turn of the millenium was non-Jewish, whereas W.F. Albright calculated that, in the eighth century BCE, upwards of 22% of the coastal population of Palestine were nonHebrew. See Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Relgious History of the Jews (2 vols; New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 1:130–33; William Foxwell Albright, “A Brief History of Judea from the Days of Josiah to Alexander the Great,” BA 9/1 (1946): 1–16; see also McCown, “The Density of Population,” 434–35.

308

Werrett and Parker

50–60 (7:1). In the case of latter two positions, neither would have engaged in combat and neither would have counted towards the overall strength of the fighting force. Several attempts have been made to estimate the average life expectancy in the ancient world, but an accurate age distribution for Jews who were living at the turn of the first millennium remains difficult to ascertain.35 Nevertheless, the current consensus in the fields of archaeology and biblical studies is that life expectancy in ancient Palestine would have been much lower than it is in the present day.36 Therefore, keeping consistent with our analysis of calculating an upper limit, we have chosen to model the ancient population with statistics from the modern world. Although this will fail to yield a completely accurate number, it will result in an overestimation of the total population at the time of the War Scroll’s composition, (i.e., when life expectances would have been much lower), thereby functioning as a maximum value for our calculations. According to U.S. census statistics, at the midpoint of the year 2000 the world’s population was estimated to be 6.1 billion people.37 It was further estimated that approximately 3.1 billion of this population was male. As shown in Table 16.1, the number of males in the world (col. 2) has been sorted into five-year age brackets (col. 1). We have then converted these raw numbers into the percentage of the entire male population that falls in each of these fiveyear age brackets (col. 3). By taking our estimate from above for the total number of Jewish males in ancient times and multiplying it by these percentages, we can approximate an upper limit for the possible number of soldiers that would have been of the proper age to join the army of the Sons of Light (col. 4). 35   Györgi Acsádi and János Nemeskéri, A History of Human Lifespan and Mortality (Budapest: Akdémiai Kiadó, 1970); Thomas F. Carney, The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity (Lawrence, Kans.: Coronado Press, 1975), 88f; Muhammad Dandamaev, “About Life Expectancy in Babylonia in the First Millenium BC,” Mesopotamia 8 (1980): 183–86; Bruce Friar, “Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian’s Evidence,” HSCP 86 (1982): 213–51. 36  According to J.L. Angel, the average life expectancy in the eastern Mediterranean during the Hellenistic period was 42.6 years for males and 36.6 years for females. Similarly, the mean life expectancy during the Roman period was 40.2 for men and 34.3 for women. “These [rates],” argues Blenkinsopp, “fall within the same range as the Judean results [ for the Hellenistic and Roman periods], especially with respect to the sex differential. While the data base is therefore extremely restricted the ecological conditions are very similar, and it seems unlikely that future results from that time and place will be significantly different.” J. Lawrence Angel, “Ecology and Population in the Eastern Mediterranean,” World Archaeology 4 (1972): 94; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Life Expectancy in Ancient Palestine,” SJOT 11 (1997): 52–53. 37  The United States in International Context: 2000. Census 2000 Brief (Washington D.C.: US Census Bureau, 2002): 6; http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-11.pdf.

309

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ? TABLE 16.1 Population distribution of Jewish males in antiquity Age range (years)

# of males (Year 2000)

% male population

# of Jewish males (Ancient times)

30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 Overall population

242,000,000 215,000,000 185,000,000 164,000,000 3,067,000,000

7.9 7.0 6.0 5.3

34,000 30,000 26,000 23,000 430,000

As an upper limit estimate for a population distribution at the turn of the first millennium, the same percentage of males from the year 2000 with the ages listed in the first column are scaled down so as to arrive at the estimated Jewish male population of ancient Palestine.

After summing up the numbers in col. 4 for the Jewish males that qualify on age alone, we approximate that roughly 110,000 (or ~26%) would have been between 30 and 50 years old at the turn of the millennium. As stated above, we do not expect the ancient population to mimic the exact population distribution from the year 2,000, but that it only serve as an upper limit for the relevant population for further analysis. As discussed above, the War Scroll prohibits the blind, those with a skin disease, those who are paralyzed or lame and those who are ritually defiled from sexual relations from serving in the army of the Sons of Light (1QM 7:4–6). Although reliable data on physical afflictions and sexual activity in the ancient world is a guessing game at best, it has been repeatedly argued that the rates of illness and disease in ancient Palestine would have far outstripped those of the 21st century. According to Jonathan Reed: [L]ife in first-century Galilee—though not necessarily dissimilar to other parts of the Mediterranean—was substantially different from the modern world and cannot be characterized as stable. Chronic and seasonal disease, especially malaria, cut down significant segments of the population and left even the healthy quite often ill. The age structure was youthful, women bore many children, random death made family and household patterns ephemeral, young men were often mobile, and elderly women especially vulnerable.38 38  Jonathan L. Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee: A Demographic Perspective,” JBL 129 (2010): 345. See also, Maurice Bear Gordon, “Medicine Among the Ancient Hebrews,” Isis 33/4 (1941): 454–85; Edward Neufeld, “Hygiene Conditions in Ancient Israel (Iron Age),” BA 34

310

Werrett and Parker

It seems obvious to say that the tenuousness of life at the turn of the millennium would have further decreased the number of men who were available to fight in the eschatological army, but we find it unnecessary to make such an argument in this discussion.39 And while it is tempting to adjust our numbers so as to bring them in line with our assumptions about ancient Palestine, accurate statistics from this period of time are incredibly hard to ascertain. That being said, we will continue to use statistics from the present day in an effort to identify an upper bound for those who would have been allowed to fight with the Sons of Light. In data analysed from the National Health Examination Survey in the United States from the middle of the twentieth century, the percentage of males that never wear glasses was found to be 70% for those aged 25–34 years old, 65% for those aged 35–44, and 25% for those aged 45–54.40 Since eyeglasses were not invented until the thirteenth century,41 it seems reasonable to interpret blindness, as described in the War Scroll (cf. Lev 21:20), as referring to people with poor eyesight that would have required glasses. “We cannot be certain,” notes Schiffman, “what the specific definition of the blind man was. It would seem probable, though, that the [Qumran] sect in its stringency would have interpreted the Torah to exclude those with the greatest variety of deformities and blemishes.”42 If Schiffman’s hypothesis is correct, then any instance of impaired vision may have been interpreted maximally by the author/redactor (1971): 41–66; Roderick Saxey, “A Physician’s Reflections on Old Testament Medicine,” Di 17/3 (1984): 122–28. 39  Rather than modeling population distribution rates on the entire modern world, one might be inclined to use data from a less developed country with higher mortality rates and greater instances of disease. For example, in the year 2000, males in Ethiopia had a life expectancy of 49.5 years and the corresponding age distributions for Ethiopian men between 30–34 years, 35–39 years, 40–44 years, and 45–49 years was 6.1%, 5.1%, 4.2%, and 3.5% respectively (see http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/). The upshot of using the data from Ethiopia as a model is that ~19% of the males in Ancient Palestine would have qualified to join the army of the Sons of Light whereas ~26% would have qualified based on the population data from the world as a whole. Given the paucity of data available to us from the ancient world however, and our desire to remain consistent with our model of calculating an upper limit, we will continue to use population numbers from the entire modern world. 40  Jean Roberts and John Cohrssen, “History and Examination Findings Related to Visual Acuity Among Adults: United States 1960–1962,” Vital and Health Statistics 11/28 (1973): 74–1284. 41  Edward Rosen, “The Invention of Eyeglasses,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 9 (1956): 13–46. 42  Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection,” 378.

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

311

of the War Scroll as blindness. With that in mind, we will use the numbers above to estimate the percentage of sighted individuals who would have been eligible to serve in the eschatological army. In terms of skin diseases, current studies have shown that 30% to 70% of the people worldwide suffer from skin diseases, with even higher rates among at-risk populations.43 In one study, it was found that 80% of randomly selected children from a school in Ethiopia were diagnosed with one or more skin diseases.44 In yet another study, 87% of the rural inhabitants from three villages of Upper Egypt had one or more skin diseases.45 Without the benefit of modern diagnostic procedures and medical treatments, the prevalence of skin diseases at the turn of first millennium would likely have been similar to that of the third world in the 21st century. As Joe Zias has noted, “many of the chronic debilitating diseases of antiquity are seldom seen in today’s modern clinical practice. . . . Unfortunately, this does not hold true for many parts of the Third World, where morbidity and mortality statistics of today approximate those of antiquity.”46 We find it reasonable, therefore, to approximate that only 20% of the population would have been free from conditions that would have been interpreted as skin diseases.47 According to data analysed from the National Health Survey of 1971, 5.2 per 1000 males aged 17 to 44 years old and 12 per 1,000 males aged 45 to 64 suffered from some form of paralysis or partial paralysis.48 The same survey also found 43  Roderick J. Hay et al., “The Global Burden of Skin Disease in 2010: An Analysis of the Prevalence and Impact of Skin Condition,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 134/6 (2014): 1527–34. 44  Jose L. Figueroa, L. Claire Fuller, Aynalem Abraha, and Roderick J. Hay, “The Prevalence of Skin Disease among Schoolchildren in Rural Ethiopia: A Preliminary Assessment of Dermatologic Needs,” Pediatric Dermatology 13 (1996): 378–81. 45  Kamal Abdel-Hafez, Mahmoud Attia Abdel-Aty, and Eman R.M. Hofny, “Prevalence of skin diseases in rural areas of Assiut Governorate, Upper Egypt,” International Journal of Dermatology 42/11 (2003): 887–892. 46  Joseph Zias, “Current Archaeological Research in Israel: Death and Disease in Ancient Israel,” BA 54 (1991): 146–59 47  According to the War Scroll, “any man who has a permanent blemish in his flesh or any man who has been afflicted with impurity in his flesh” are not permitted to go to war with the Sons of Light (1QM 7:4b–5a). There is little doubt that the latter half of this prohibition has the list of skin diseases in mind from Lev 13. If true, then an individual may have been able to enter the war camp if they had been cleansed from their skin disease (Lev 13:46), but the man with a “permanent blemish in his flesh” would have been ineligible to participate. 48  Charles S. Wilder, “Prevalence of Selected Impairments: United States 1971,” Vital Health Statistics 10/99 (1975): 75–1526.

312

Werrett and Parker

that 3.2 per 1,000 males under 45 and 13.7 per 1,000 males over 45 reported the absence of finger(s) or toe(s) while 0.8 per 1,000 males aged 17 to 44 and 5.3 per 1,000 males aged 45 to 64 reported the absence of a major extremity. Furthermore, the combined prevalence of impairments to the limbs, back, or trunk other than paralysis or absence were reported to be 117 per 1,000 males aged 17 to 44 and 156 per 1,000 males aged 45 to 64. Since paralysis and lameness were likely to be more prevalent in the ancient world,49 we suggest that combining all of these statistics would be a reasonable attempt to estimate how many people would have been disqualified from joining the Sons of Light. This means that 87.4% of the males aged 30 to 44 and 81.3% of the males aged 45 to 50 would have been eligible to join.50 Finally, according to data from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB) published in 2010, nearly 80% of the population aged 30–40 years old and 75% of the population aged 40–50 years old have sexual relations from a few times a month to four or more times a week.51 Although it is unclear as to whether these numbers are consistent with ancient Palestine, one can at least approximate that they are not completely inconsistent with that period. This would mean that, at any given time, only 20% of the population aged 30–40 years old and 25% of the population 40–50 years old would have been eligible to enter the camps of the Sons of Light.52 49  In relation to spinal injuries, Donald Ortner notes: “Because medical procedures were not likely available in archaeological populations, evidence of partially occluded neural canal above the second lumbar vertebra would be suggestive of paralysis.” As for lameness and its relation to trauma or a degenerative disease, Ortner argues: “Relatively few people complete life without some type of trauma that affects the skeleton. The importance of this generalisation for the paleopathologist is that trauma should be high on your list of diagnostic options for many of the abnormalities seen in archaeological human skeletons . . . [trauma] along with infection and arthritis, is one of the three most common conditions encountered in archaeological human remains . . .” Donald Ortner and Walter Putschar, Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains (Washington, DC; Smithsonian Institution Press, 1981), 131, 177. 50  “The hjgger (“cripple”) of the War Scroll,” argues Schiffman, “is the nekhe raglayim of the Serekh Ha-‘Edah who has an improperly healed fracture which leaves him deformed. Even if he walks properly, his presence will in some way defile the military camp so he may not go to war. The lame (pisseah) . . . is the one who limps, even if his limbs are formed properly. Such a person, not only for practical military reasons, but also for reasons of sanctity, cannot go to war with the armies of the sect.” Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection,” 380. 51  Michael Reece et al., “Sexual Behaviors, Relationships, and Perceived Health Among Adult Men in the United States: Results from a National Probability Sample,” Journal of Sexual Medicine 7/5 (2010): 291–304. 52  According to Deut 23:10–11, those who have experienced a seminal emission must leave the war camp, bathe, and wait until evening before being allowed to reenter the camp. By

313

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ? TABLE 16.2 Eligibility of Jewish males for inclusion among the “Sons of Light” Age range # of Jewish % without eyesight (years) males (Ancient problems times)

% without skin disease

% without % without # of paralysis or impurity qualifying lameness from sexual males relations

30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49

20 20 20 20

87.4 87.4 87.4 81.3

34,000 30,000 26,000 23,000

70 65 65 25

20 20 25 25

Total estimated size for the army of the Sons of Light

830 680 740 230 2,480

Using the estimated number of Jewish males in ancient Palestine from Table 16.1 and an estimated percentage of the males that would have qualified to become a part of the Sons of Light due to listed restrictions in the War Scroll itself, the final column calculates the number of soldiers that would have qualified to be a part of the eschatological army.

Based on the various approximations outlined above, we have constructed Table 16.2. We are thus able to estimate how many Jewish males in each of the age brackets would have been eligible for service in the war against the Sons of Darkness by taking the numbers from the second column and multiplying them by each of these percentages in the given row,53 yielding the final column of possible recruits for the Sons of Light. According to these calculations, and after accounting for the various exclusions that are listed in the War Scroll, we estimate that only ~2,500 individuals would have been eligible to participate in the war against the Sons of Darkness.54 The War Scroll, on the other hand, contrast, the War Scroll indicates that “every man who is suffering from uncleanness on account of his penis on the day of battle will not go down with them because holy angels are together with their armies” (1QM 7:5b–6a). As Schiffman has noted, “such people were unable to participate in the battle at the end of days and in the Messianic Council of the Rule of the Congregation.” Schiffman, “Purity and Perfection,” 376. In a similar vein, Yadin has argued, following Deut 23:10–11, that those who have experienced a seminal emission may have been able to participate in the eschatological battle once they had been cleansed of their impurity or they “may have served away from the actual battlefield.” Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 73. 53  Although there may well be slight correlations between the restrictions, we have approximated them as independent variables in this estimation. 54  It is worth noting that this number could be further reduced by taking into account things such as those who are maimed or those who lose their lives during the battle. Moreover,

314

Werrett and Parker

claims that there will be a total of 34,000 ritually clean and physically fit soldiers fighting at the end of days (1QM 9:4–5). To put these numbers in perspective, there would have needed to be nearly 14 million people living in ancient Palestine at the turn of the millennium in order to muster a fighting force that would have been consistent with the restrictions outlined in the War Scroll.55 4 Conclusions Returning once again to the question posed at the beginning of our discussion, it is difficult to say with absolute certainty how the purity and ritual requirements recorded in the War Scroll are related to the idea that the Sons of Light are preordained to lose three battles to the Sons of Darkness (1QM 1:12b-13). From the perspective of the author/redactor, the purity of the eschatological army is de rigueur and the underlying assumption is that the Sons of Light are not only maintaining their ritual cleanliness but that they are comprised of individuals who are perfect in spirit and flesh (‫ ;ותמימי רוח ובשר‬1QM 7:5b). The notion, therefore, that the military losses of the Sons of Light can be attributed to the presence of sin, impurity or to some sort of covenantal violation on the part of their contingent would appear to be untenable. But if we cannot attribute these losses to a ritual or moral violation, then how does one explain the failures of the Sons of Light on the battlefield?

even if we assumed that one in five of those who were disqualified as a result of blindness and/or skin diseases could somehow disguise their condition, or be oblivious of it, the total number of clean Jewish men who would have been elible to fight with the Sons of Light would still be far less the the numbers that are outlined in the War Scroll. 55  According to Schultz: “In the first column we are told that the Sons of Light are the sons of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin (1:2), apparently assuming that the rest of Israel is part of the violators of the covenant (1:2), those who help constitute the Sons of Darkness. In col. 2, however, we read that the Sons of Light will choose their soldiers from all the tribes of Israel (2:7).” In order for the latter to transpire, however, a miraculous restoration of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom would have had to have taken place between the defeat of the Kittim in col. 1 and the war of the divisions in col. 2. And although the restoration of the northern kingdom’s tribes would have most certainly increased the total population of ancient Israel, the historical implausibility of such an occurance only serves to reinforce the utopian nature of the document and the author/redactor’s complete lack of interest in the logistical difficulties of what it is that he is proposing. See Schultz, Conquering the World, 86, 204–13.

Purity In War: What Is It Good For ?

315

As we have seen above, the number of people excluded from serving in the War Scroll’s army far outstrips those who were eligible. Moreover, the population of ancient Palestine at the turn of the first millennium was simply too small to support the creation of an army anywhere near the size of the one described by the War Scroll. In truth, the author/redactor is far more concerned about ritual matters than he is with the logistical and “real world” concerns of warfare. “In its current form,” notes Jean Duhaime, “this composition is an eschatological rule that parallels, in a religious and utopian way, the genre of the Graeco-Roman tactical treatise.”56 And, as one might expect from a utopian document, the War Scroll’s vision is largely out of touch with the world in which it was written. While it is conceivable that portions of the War Scroll may once have been used “by priests standing alongside real troops and trying to determine how they should be prepared and motivated according to the Torah requirements for military operations interpreted as holy war,”57 the document’s primary function seems to have been one of providing spiritual and moral support to those individuals who envisioned a future where the forces of evil would be conquered and the righteous vindicated;58 a future where the Sons of Light would fight alongside God’s angels in an effort to cleanse the world from sin and secure the blessings of the Divine. In a utopian world such as this, dualistic and predestinarian concerns take precedence over the feasibility of marshalling a ritually clean army from a severely limited population. Moreover, the author/redactor’s quixotic desire to ensure the sanctity of an army that will be engaged in a cosmic struggle against the Sons of Darkness trumps the obvious

56  Duhaime, The War Texts, 61. 57  Duhaime, The War Texts, 59–60. 58  The War Scroll has been interpreted by modern scholars as a rule text, a liturgy on war and as a military manual, to name but a few. For differing views on the genre and style of this text, see Henri Michaud, “Une apocalypse nouvelle: La guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils des ténèbres,” Positions Luthériensses 3 (1955): 64–73; Mathias Delcor, “La guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres ou le Manuel du parfait combattant‘,” NRTh 77 (1955): 372–99; Jean Carmignac, La Règle de la Guerre de Fils de Lumière contre les Fils Ténèbres: Texte restauré traduite et commenté (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1958); Yadin, The Scroll of the War; Russell Gmirkin, “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponary Reconsidered,” DSD 3 (1996): 89–129; Duhaime, The War Texts; Philip S. Alexander, “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S.M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 17–31.

316

Werrett and Parker

and manifold difficulties in attempting to hold the ‫ עם הארץ‬to a level of cleanliness that is on a par with that of the priesthood. Towards the end of the War Scroll, the author/redactor provides a description of the seven battles between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, but, due to the fragmentary nature of 1QM, the War Scroll only retains portions of the first three battles and the seventh (1QM 15:4–18:8). Alternating between victories and defeats, the odd numbered battles are won by the Sons of Light, whereas the even are taken by the Sons of Darkness. Of particular relevance to our discussion is the victory of the Sons of Darkness in the second battle (16:11–17:9), which describes the Sons of Light as being tested in [God’s] crucible (‫ ;מצרף בחוני‬17:1) and indicates that the loss should be understood as one of the mysteries of God (‫ ;רזי אל‬16:11).59 While the exact meaning of the mysteries of God is unclear, the repeated references to being tested (16:11, 15; 17:1, 9) appear to be a tacit acknowledgment on the part of the author/redactor that a loss to the Sons of Darkness, or any loss for that matter, flies in the face of traditional wisdom. Jewish/Israelite armies that have sanctified themselves and have managed to secure the help of the holy angels, do not lose. But the rules for the end times are not the same as the rules for the present or the past, and the holy war in the book of Joshua is not a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. For Joshua, enemies could become allies and the sanctity of his army could be jeopardised by the actions of a single individual (cf. Josh 2:1–24; 7:1– 26). By contrast, the holiness of the army of the Sons of Light is non-negotiable and their enemies remain just that: enemies. Purity in the War Scroll then, far from meaning absolutely nothing, is both the means and the end—not only is it a prerequisite for those who are engaged in the eschatological war but it is the state of being required by God in order to achieve the hoped for end, a final victory over the Sons of Darkness.

59  The phrase ‫רזי אל‬, and the related phrase ‫ רז נהיה‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls, “represents a type of hidden wisdom that can only be accessed through divine revelation. Individuals who have been given access to this knowledge are able to understand the divine order of the universe from its creation and deterministic structure to its final eschatological judgment. Furthermore, comprehension of raz nihyeh was meant to inspire its recipients to live righteous and moral lives on earth . . . by combining practical wisdom on various topics, such as marriage and filial piety, with the concept of raz nihyeh in order to suggest that one who has access to the mystery that is to be will act correctly in each case and will be blessed both on earth and in the afterlife.” Ian C. Werrett, review of M. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www .bookreviews.org] (2004).

War and Peace in Early Jewish and Christian Text and Interpretation

∵

CHAPTER 17

Violence, Apologetics, and Resistance: Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue Torleif Elgvin 1 Introduction In the first part of this paper, I try to reconstruct elements of Hasmonaean theology, to understand how the Hasmonaeans supported their state-building project by scripture and theological argument. In the second part, I analyse relevant texts in 1 Maccabees, the best extant source text for pro-Hasmonaean state ideology. Then I read Qumran texts as resistance texts, dialectic responses to Hasmonaean ideology, state-building, and harsh and intractable autocracy. Some non-Qumranic sources that reflect anti-Hasmonaean voices are also introduced into the discussion, as well as Hasmonaean responses to critical voices. The investigation concentrates on the period from the Maccabean revolt to the takeover by Herod the Great, but I also look for a Nachleben of memories and discussions from the Hasmonaean period in later sources.1

1  An earlier and shorter version of this paper was included in my article “Hasmonean State Ideology, Wars, and Expansionism,” Encountering Violence in the Bible (ed. M. Zehnder, H. Hagelia; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 52–67. It is a pleasure to dedicate this contribution to my long-time friend and colleague Marty Abegg. Translations of Qumran texts usually follow Accordance, cf. Martin G. Abegg, Qumran Nonbiblical Manuscripts: A New English Translation. based on the book The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New English Translation by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook (2 ed.; New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). For the OT Apocrypha, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (ed. A. Pietersma, B.G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); for Psalms of Solomon and Testament of Levi, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James C. Charlesworth; 2 vols; New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985), 2:651–70, 1:788–95.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_018

320 2

Elgvin

Hasmonaean State-Building and Biblical Presuppositions

2.1 From Revolt in Judaea to a Large Israelite State The Maccabean project started as a guerrilla revolt for Torah, temple, and Israelite purity.2 It developed into a state-building project with an organised army, territorial ambitions, and a military expansionist policy vis-à-vis the surrounding nations. The Hasmonaean expansion of territory implied ethnic cleansing: forced conversion of the Idumaeans in the south (between 112 and 109 BCE, Ant. 13.257–58, 13.395–97), and probably of all Gentiles who remained in the conquered territories.3 This harsh policy created anti-Jewish reactions among non-Jews in the ancient world. With the military conquests of John Hyrcan (135–105 BCE), Aristobul (105–104 BCE), and Alexander Yannai (103–76 BCE), an Israelite state was established that matched the biblical accounts of the united kingdom—and, according to historians and archaeologists—by far superseded the size of both the state (or fiefdom) ruled by David and Solomon, and the northern and southern kingdoms of the ninth century BCE together.4 Such a remarkable achievement after four hundred years of subjugation under world empires would lead to messianic fervour in some circles, and to critical reflection in others. Archaeological findings supplement Josephus’ reports on the expansion of the Judaean state. Hasmonaean coins, miqwaot, pottery, stone vessels, and ossuaries are among the markers of Jewish presence in the region. Textual5 2  1 Macc 2–5; 2 Macc 9; Josephus, Ant. 12.265–326. 3  Uzi Leibner, “The Origins of Jewish Settlement in Galilee in the Second Temple Period: Historical Sources and Archaeological Data” Zion 77 (2012), 437–70 [Hebrew], 468–69. “There is no positive evidence of non-Jewish settlements within Hasmonean Galilee by the reign of Alexander Yannai”: Danny Syon, Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee. The Evidence From Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction (Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society, forthcoming), ch. 9. Uzi Leibner doubts the historicity of Josephus’ account of conquest and conversion of the Ituraeans (Ant. 13.318–19). This nation lived in the northern Golan, Hermon, and the Lebanon valley, and no traces of Ituraean culture have been found in Hasmonaean territory: Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee. An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 321. Archaeological evidence from Maresha shows that Idumaea was conquered already under Hyrcan. 4  For a recent discussion of the maximum extension of the northern kingdom under the Omrides of the ninth century, see Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 83–117. 5  Some rabbinic lists of Jewish settlements in Galilee and Golan are indicative of the borders of the Hasmonaean state: “Walled Towns From the Time of Joshua bin Nun” (m.ʿArak. 9.2); “Baraita of the Borders of Eretz-Israel” (t.Šeb. 4.14); and a list of the 24 priestly courses and

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

321

and archaeological evidence suggest that most of lower and eastern Galilee and of the Golan were Judaised already by Hyrcan,6 with the conquest of Bet Shean in 108 BCE as his final great achievement (Ant. 10.3).7 Hellenistic sites were destroyed and abandoned in the second half of the second century BCE. Sites such as Yodefat, Zalmon, and Beersheba in Galilee were destroyed and subsequently settled by Jews, in a Galilee and Golan more densely populated than in any earlier period.8 Large-scale Hasmonaean investment in the north around 100 BCE can be seen in the expansion of Gamla, the fortress of Sepphoris, the takeover of the Hellenistic fortress at Qeren Naftali, the establishment of the towns Arbel and Migdal, and the olive-oil industry documented at Gamla and other sites.9 The large Hasmonaean port of Migdal served this thriving Jewish town of perhaps 4,000 people—possibly the capital of Galilee until the rebuilding of Sepphoris by Antipas.10 The massive building of settlements can only be explained their villages reconstructed from a piyyut by Kallir, cf. Josephus’ list of nineteen fortified settlements in the Galilee during the first revolt, when Jewish Galilee was smaller in extension (J.W. 2.580): Mordechai Aviam, “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation,” in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition (ed. J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, D.B. Martin; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 115–32. The Chronography of Georgios Syncellos (eighth century CE) records the Hasmonaean conquest of three Galilean sites not mentioned in Josephus’ reports of the Hasmonaean campaigns (Philoteria, Tabor, Geba), sites likely conquered by Hyrcan in 108 BCE: Leibner, “The Beginning of Jewish Settlement in the Galilee,” 443. 6  Leibner, “The Origins of Jewish Settlement in Galilee,” 468–69. Danny Syon uses numismatic evidence to pinpoint the borders of Hasmonaean Galilee and Golan. He suggests that Gamla had a substantial Jewish population already before Yannai overthrew the local ruler Demetrios there around 80 BCE ( J.W. 1.103–6; Ant. 13.394). More than 300 coins of Hyrcanos suggest that Gamla was settled by Judaeans during his reign. Coins minted by Aristobul are primarily found in Galilee and Golan, corroborating the reports by Josephus that during his short reign Aristobulos acted mainly in the north (Ant. 13.318–19): Syon, Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee, ch. 9. 7  Dan Barag, “New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanos,” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992–3): 1–12. 8  Leibner, Settlement and History, 323–24. Josephus’ mention of 204 Jewish settlements in Galilee (Life 235) is probably reliable: H. Ben-David, “Were There 204 Settlements in Galilee at the Time of Josephus Flavius?” JJS 62 (2011): 21–36. 9  Mordechai Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Galilee. 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys. Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods (Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 2004), 51–59. 10  Mordechai Aviam, “People, Land, Economy, and Belief in First-Century Galilee and Its Origins: A Comprehensive Archaeological Synthesis,” in The Galilean Economy in the Time of Jesus (ed. D.A. Fiensy, R.K. Hawkins; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 5–48.

322

Elgvin

as a state-initiated strategy. The new sites were settled primarily by Judaeans and veterans from the Hasmonaean army, who remained loyal to the Hasmonaeans and opposed Herod’s takeover in the north in 38 BCE (J.W. 1.303, 314–15; Ant. 14.414–17).11 Returnees from the diaspora (cf. Pss. Sol. 11) and converted Gentiles may have played a role as well.12 2.2 Biblical Texts and the Hasmonaean State Hasmonaean rulers and their supporters enlisted the Torah, the Prophets, Davidic Psalms, and even Daniel as legitimation for their new state, a Judaea with messianic pretentions. Scriptures combined with a belief in divine election were used to legitimate a leadership that used an iron fist both against external and internal threats. Some scriptural texts would be attractive as hermeneutical keys to the upheavals of the second century BCE. Early Davidic psalms and prophetic texts stress the independent and righteous rule of the Davidic king in his own land (Mic 5:3–5), and some texts portray the Davidic king ruling over a larger territory with peoples paying homage to him (Pss 2:8–11; 89:26 [89:25]). In exilic and postexilic texts, the Davidic kingdom is transformed into an empire that may transcend normal limitations: ‫ץ‬‎ ‫(עד) אספי אר‬, originally understood as “(to) the borders of the land” (Ps 2:8; Mic 5:3),13 could now be read “to the ends of the earth” (Ps 72:8–11; Zech 9:10). ‫כל הארץ‬, originally read as “all the land”14 would, in later tradition, be read in terms of a messianic rule over “all the earth.”15 “From the sea to the sea” and “from the River (Euphrates) to the sea,” The last digging seasons have revealed that there was a small (gentilic) village at Migdal from the third century BCE (personal communication from Mordechai Aviam). 11  Leibner, “The Beginning of Jewish Settlement in the Galilee,” 469. 12  In contrast to Leibner, Milton Moreland sees a Judaisation of Ituraeans and other pagan inhabitants in the north: “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence,” in Zangenberg, Attridge, and Martin, eds., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 133–59, (150–59). 13  Mic 5:4–5 demonstrates that the Davidic king would guard and rule his own land. Most Bible translations, however, render v. 3 “to the ends of the earth.” 14  In the royal Psalm 45, cf. v. 17 (16) “princes in all the land,” and further on King Josiah’s actions in “all the land of Israel” (2 Chron 34:7). Unless otherwise indicated, translations of biblical texts are my own. 15  Cf. Ps 110:5 “He will strike rulers throughout the wide earth” and Magne Sæbø, “Vom Grossreich zum Weltreich. Erwägungen zu Pss. lxxii 8, lxxxix 26; Sach. ix 10b,” VT 28 (1978): 83–91. As God is king of “all the earth” (Ps 47:3, 8 [47:2, 7], cf. Isa 6:3), so will his Davidic viceroy be. 4QMessianic Apocalypse asserts that “he]aven and earth shall obey his messiah” (4Q521 2 ii 1).

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

323

originally read as “from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea/the Gulf of Aqaba,” and “from Eufrat to the Mediterranean,” could now be interpreted as terms for a coming Davidic empire in the image of the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian or Persian empires (Amos 8:12, Ps 72:8, Zech 9:10; cf. Ps 89:26 [89:25]). A restorative eschatology that saw the Hasmonaeans as fulfilling scriptural promises of a Davidic empire would be close at hand for their supporters. For voices critical to the new rulers, texts such as Isa 11; 24–27; Amos 9; and Dan 7–12 would support a more apocalyptic theology and a postponement of the messianic kingdom to the eschaton.16 The high priests of the Hellenistic period paved the way for Hasmonaean priests to promote themselves as rulers of the people. For generations the high priest was both the civil and the religious leader of the Judaean province.17 This enabled Ben Sira to connect civil or royal prerogatives with the priestly line ruling at his time.18 Furthermore, Ben Sira’s eschatological poem on Zion (ch. 36) does not mention a Davidic ruler at all, only the coming renewal of 16  The exilic texts Isa 11:6–10 and Amos 9:11–15 describe a restored Davidic kingdom with terminology that could suggest some kind of new creation, even if the language in these passages was originally symbolic. 17  James C. VanderKam argues convincingly that the high priests from 320 (Onias I) to 200 BCE (Simon II) functioned as political leaders of the Judaeans: From Joshua to Caiaphas. High Priests after the Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2004), 122–57. According to Armin Lange, the expanded proto-Masoretic recension of Jeremiah may reflect third century criticism of the Oniads as ruling high priests: Armin Lange, “The Covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in “Go Out and Study the Land” ( Judges 18:2). Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. A.M. Meir, J. Magness, L.H. Schiffman; JSJSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 95–116, esp. 100–5. 18  Sirach 50:1–4 portrays the high priest Simon acting as the leader of the people. Cf. William Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians. Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 43–50. According to Sir 45:24–26, the covenant with Aaron is greater than that with David. The Hebrew version of v. 25 limits the Davidic promise to Solomon, while the covenant with Aaron is lasting: “And there is also a covenant with David, son of Isai, from the tribe of Judah; the inheritance of a man [i.e. David] is to his son alone, the inheritance of Aaron is also to his seed” (MS. B, translation Horbury); Greek “an inheritance of the king for son from son only.” The panegyric praise of Simon in ch. 50 hardly allows for a Davidic ruler alongside the priest. However, the section on David and Solomon in Ben Sira’s praise of the fathers could suggest a possible future fulfillment of Davidic promises: “The Lord . . . exalted his [i.e. David’s] horn for ever; he gave him a royal covenant and a glorious throne in Israel . . . But the Lord would not go back on his mercy, or undo any of his words, he would not obliterate the issue of his elect, nor destroy the stock of the man who loved him; and he granted a remnant to Jacob, and to David a root springing from him” (Sir 47:11, 22).

324

Elgvin

Jerusalem and the temple. The same is true for the concluding Zion hymn in the contemporary book of Tobit (13:8–17).19 Ruling priests who downplayed the hope of a Davidic messiah were, therefore, no novum with the Hasmonaeans. The memory of the Oniads ruling the province of Judaea made it easier for governing Hasmonaean priests to implement harsh measures against dissidents. 3

Pro-Hasmonaean Voices

Probably written in the beginning of Yannai’s rule, 1 Maccabees is a consistent apologia for the Hasmonaeans as elect deliverers of the Judaean nation, They are the “men to whom was given salvation to Israel by their hand” (1 Macc 5:62),20 as David was in his time. By their deeds they have established themselves both as rulers and the legitimate high priests of Israel. 1 Maccabees 2:24–28 sets Phinehas’ zeal for the purity of Israel as a paradigmatic ideal. By repeating the deeds of “Phinehas our father” (2:54), Matthatias and his sons earn God’s favour: “and he became zealous in the law as Phinehas had done” (2:26). Through their actions, the Maccabees restored the righteousness and independence of Israel. The covenant of Phinehas, which gave legitimacy to the high priesthood of the house of Zadok, is superseded by the new covenant with the house of the Hasmonaeans.21 3.1 The Testimony of Ben Sira, 190 BCE and 130 BCE The Hebrew version of Sir 50 (a text likely known by the author of 1 Maccabees) concludes with an eulogy of the Zadokite high priest Simon:22 “May his mercy be with Simon and uphold in him the covenant of Phinehas; so that it never will be cut off from him, and may his offspring be as the days of heaven” 19  While Tobit (written around 200 BCE) likely has an Eastern Diaspora background, the added Zion hymn with its address to Zion represents a novum in Hebrew psalmody, originating in Judaea or Jerusalem; see Torleif Elgvin and Michaela Hallermayer, “Schøyen ms. 5234: Ein neues Tobit-Fragment vom Toten Meer,” RevQ 22 (2006): 451–61, esp. 460. 20  An echo of 2 Sam 2:17, in which deliverance is entrusted to David: Jonathan Goldstein, “How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 97–109, esp. 80. 21  John J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas, the Bible, and the Legitimation of Violence,” JBL 122 (2003): 3–22, esp. 12–13; Horbury, Messianism, 48–50. 22  Either Simon II (ca. 200 BCE) or, more probably, Simon I, (early third century BCE); thus VanderKam, From Joshua, 137–154. This high priest was responsible for fortifying the city and improving its water sources—tasks of a civil leader (Sir 50:3–4).

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

325

(50:24 MS. B, translation mine). 1 Maccabees 2:24–28, 54 (see above), as well as the eulogies of the Hasmonaeans Judah and Simon (1 Macc 3:3–9; 14:4–15), and the decree on Simon’s powers in 140 BCE (1 Macc 14:41–47, see below), all demonstrate that the Hasmonaeans are seen as the new hereditary high-priestly line. Josephus’ statement that Judah already had taken hold of the high-priestly office might well be historically plausible (Ant. 12.414, 419, 434; on the other hand, 20.237–38 seems to contradict a high priesthood for Judah).23 When the Greek version of Sirach came into being around 130 BCE, the eulogy of the pre-Maccabean high priest Simon was omitted. This textual change reflects the Hasmonaean take-over of the high priesthood. The translation was made in Ptolemaic Egypt, but even in Egypt one needed to acquiesce to the new reality in Jerusalem. The temple in Heliopolis, established by the Zadokite Onias IV around 170 BCE was not mentioned (Ant. 13.72; J.W. 7.426–32). 3.2 Eulogies on Judah and Simon The Hasmonaeans saw themselves as an integral part of biblical history, walking in the footsteps of David and Solomon. This is evidenced in two poetic eulogies honouring Judah and Simon after their deaths (1 Macc 3:3–9; 14:4–15), which contain a number of echoes or allusions to biblical texts on (the son of ) David and the future Davidic kingdom.24 Here these anointed priestly rulers were hailed as small messiahs, bringing to some kind of fulfilment Davidic prophecies from the Bible as well as general prophecies on God’s turning the

23  Wise reconstructs the name Judah before Jonathan and Simon in a list of high priests recorded around 100 BCE in 4QpsDanc (4Q245 1 i 10): “Judah, Jon]athan, Simon.” Judah acted as de facto high priest when he dedicated the temple and recognised priestly service: Michael O. Wise, “4Q245 (psDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” DSD 12 (2005): 313–62. 24  These two poems are not discussed by Gerbern S. Oegema, who states, “[f]rom the Maccabeans no messianic expectations have been handed down to us”: Oegema, The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 73. Cf. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; New York, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 244, 490–91: “the abundant echoes of prophecies in the poem here are intended to suggest to the Jewish reader that the age of fulfilment of the prophesies of Israel’s glory had begun in the years of Simon’s rule” (490); and Horbury’s remark, “The rulers thus have some of the glamour of what could be called in a broad sense a fulfilled messianism” (Messianism, 49).

326

Elgvin

fate of his people.25 Key words recur from Gen 49:9; 1 Sam 17:5, 38; 1 Kgs 5:3–5; 8:13; Isa 11:4; Mic 4:4; 5:3–5; Zech 9:10; Pss 2:10; 45:18 [45:17]; 72:4, 17–19; 110:5–6. When Judah “resembled a lion in his works and was like a whelp roaring in the hunt” (1 Macc 3:4)—this refers to Gen 49:9, “Judah is a lion’s whelp . . . going up from the prey.”26 Judah the Maccabee is thus the Lion of Judah of his time. The transition from a ruler of the tribe of Judah in Gen 49:8–12 to the warrior Judah the Maccabee is easily done, his acts align with the fighter envisioned in Gen 49:8–9. The proclamations that “his memory will be a blessing for ever,” “his name was known to the ends of the earth,” (1 Macc 3:7, 9) bring to mind the Solomonic Ps 72: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” (v. 8), “May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun. May all nations be blessed in him” (v. 17). “He gathered together those who were lost” (1 Macc 3:9) would recall prophecies of the ingathering of the dispersed ones (Ezek 34:12–13; 36:24; Mic 4:6). The description of Judah’s armour (1 Macc 3:3) recalls that of Goliath, Saul, and David (1 Sam 17:5, 38). When Simon made Joppe “an entrance way to the islands of the sea . . . and widened the borders of his nation” (1 Macc 14:5–6), he fulfilled prophecies of the future Davidic rule reaching “from the sea to the sea” and “from the River to the sea,” (Ps 72:8, Zech 9:10; cf. Ps 89:26 [89:25], see above). “They were farming their land in peace,” “everyone sat under their own vine and their own fig tree,” “he made peace in the land” (1 Macc 14:8, 11, 12) allude to Mic 4:4 “they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid,” and the Davidic prophecy of Mic 5:4–5 “And they shall live secure, for he shall be great to the borders of the land; and he is peace,” cf. also Ezek 34:27 “The trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase. They shall be secure on their soil.” For “a person fighting them disappeared in the land, and the kings were crushed in those days” (1 Macc 14:13), cf. Ps 2:9 “You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel; 110:2.5 “Rule in the midst of your foes. . . . The Lord is at your right hand, he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.” “His glorious name was renowned to the end of the earth” (1 Macc 14:10) recalls Ps 72:8, and “he supported all the humble among his people” (1 Macc 14:14) the words of Isa 11:4 “with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for 25  Goldstein notes that the expression used in 1 Macc 13:41, “the yoke of the gentiles was lifted from Israel,” sees the liberation from the Seleucid empire, the latter-day Assyria by the hand of Simon, as fulfilment of Isa 10:27; 14:25: “How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises,” 77. 26  Translation of biblical passages in the following are adapted from NRSV.

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

327

the meek of the earth”. When Simon “glorified the holy places and multiplied the vessels of the holy places” (1 Macc 14:15), this brings to mind David’s instructions to Solomon on the temple equipment in 1 Chron 28:11–18, and the listing of the temple vessels in Ezra 1:7–10. From Jonathan onwards, the Hasmonaean rulers occupied the double office of high priest and civil leader.27 Psalm 110 with its priestly Son of David would be a natural reference text for the supporters of the Hasmonaeans. When the eulogy of Simon praises him for “crushing the power of the kings” (1 Macc 14:13), this could echo Ps 110:5–6, “He [God] will strike kings on the day of his wrath . . . he [the king] will strike leaders throughout the land.” When Judah “caused bitterness to many kings” (1 Macc 3:7), the eulogy probably alluded to royal psalms such as Pss 2:1–4, 10–12; 110:1–2, 5–6. These two laudatory poems probably existed before their present literary context: in their poetic form they stand out from the surrounding prosaic story-line, and they are more expressed in their allusions to biblical passages than the rest of 1 Maccabees. The poem on Judah may have been written during the rule of Jonathan or Simon (160–135 BCE), serving as legitimation for the continued rule of his brothers. Another indication that the Hasmonaeans incorporated Davidic prerogatives is found in the repeated referral to “Judah and his brothers” in 1–2 Maccabees.28 This phrase consciously recalls the same form of reference in Genesis (37:26; 38:1; 44:14, cf. Gen 49:8; 1 Chron 5:2) which sets the patriarch Judah (David’s ancestor) apart as the leader of Israel. Together these texts suggest that Hasmonaean reign was connected to Davidic texts already before Aristobul I and Yannai took the title of king from 105 BCE. For the Hasmonaeans and their supporters, the realised eschatology evident in the laudatory poems did not exclude a more comprehensive future fulfilment of the prophecies; Simon (and implicitly his descendants) would be high priest and civil leader perpetually only “until a faithful prophet would arise,” a conditional clause (1 Macc 14:41; see below). The Hasmonaeans and their reign were probably seen as a nucleus of an awaited messianic kingdom. 27  The first two generations did not take the title king. This could have been seen as a provocation both by the Seleucids and Judaean opponents. Cf. Mic 4:6–8, which foresees a restored rule from Zion and ingathering of the dispersed, but with the Lord as the king of his people. 28  1 Macc 3:25, 42; 4:36, 59; 5:10, 61, 63, 65; 7:6, 10, 27; cf. 1 Macc 8:20; 2 Macc 2:19 “Judah the Maccabee and his brothers.”

328

Elgvin

3.3 Wars, Territorial Expansion, and the Prayer for King Jonathan The territorial expansion of the Judaean state under Hyrcan, Aristobul, and Yannai would understandably have been interpreted by many Judaeans as a sign of the messianic age. The inclusion of the Idumeans into the Jewish commonwealth would have brought to mind texts such as Amos 9:12, Isa 2:1–4, and Zeph 3:9, on the inclusion of Edom and other neighbouring peoples in the Israelite faith and commonwealth. Hyrcan’s razing to the ground of the Samaritan city of Shechem and the temple on Mount Gerizim, some time between 112 and 108 BCE,29 would easily be connected to texts that featured the son of David’s victory over the enemies of God’s people (Pss 2; 110; Mic 5:1–5). The Prayer for King Jonathan (Yannai’s Hebrew name)—strangely enough preserved in a Qumran document (4Q448)—testifies to messianic connotations that were connected to the Hasmonaean kingdom. Awake, O Holy One, for king Jonathan and all the congregation of your people Israel, who is dispersed to the four winds of heaven. Let peace be on all of them and on your kingdom! May your name be blessed! For you love Is[rael]30 from morning until evening [ ] Come near [ ] and visit them for a blessing [ ] by your name that is called upon [ ] kingdom to be blessed [ ] to complete his wars [ ] Jonathan and all your people [ ] to come near (2 1–9; 3 1–8) The theme of “God with us and the king” that penetrates this prayer echoes biblical passages about Solomon.31 The term ‫ ממלכה‬is used for God’s kingdom in the first stanza and probably for the kingdom of Jonathan in the second. This text sees Yannai’s wars, territorial expansion, and ingathering of the exiles as fulfilment of biblical promises such as Ezek 34:12–13; Mic 5:3–5; Zech 2:10–14.32

29  Josephus, Ant. 13.254–56; J.W. 1.62–63. 30  I choose to translate “Is[rael]” although the text uses samek, not sin. A meaningful alternative is hard to find. Translation mine. 31  For ‫ וכל קהל עמכ ישראל‬in 4Q448 2 3–4 and the repeated use of ‫ברך‬, cf. 1 Kgs 8:14 (on Solomon), ‫ויסב המלך את פניו ויברך את כל קהל ישראל‬, “The king turned around and blessed all the assembly of Israel.” See also 1 Kgs 2:45, ‫והמלך שלמה ברוך וכסא דוד יהיה‬ ‫נכון לפני יהוהעד עולם‬, “But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord forever,” and 1 Kgs 5:4 (4:24) “he had peace on all sides.” 32  The reference to the assembly of Israel spread with the four winds of heaven connects Jonathan with the ingathering of the exiles from the “north” (Babel and Persia), cf. Zech 2:10 “Up, up! Flee from the land of the north, says the Lord; for I have spread you abroad

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

329

In hymnic phrases reminiscent of 4Q448, Pss. Sol. 11 describes the return of the dispersed from the north in the early first century BCE. Different from other psalms in this collection, this hymn does not signal any criticism of the Jewish rulers of the land. Pss. Sol. 11 can be brought in dialogue with the large number of Jewish settlements in Galilee and Golan from this period, and suggests that also returnees from the Diaspora settled in the north. 4

Sectarian Resistance Texts

4.1 The Yaḥad and the Hasmonaean Entity To the Wirkungsgeschichte of Hasmonaean messianism and harsh rule belongs the contrasting messianism and alternative resistance theology of the Yaḥad, an opposition group that one might identify sociologically as a small community, distinct from but also in conversation with the “great cultural and religious centers from which it evolves,” constituted by the present temple and the ruling circles.33 The Yaḥad was a non-violent opposition group that postponed the divinely ordained judgement on their enemies to the end-time. This perspective is clearly outlined in texts such as the War Scroll (1QM) and Isaiah pesharim (4QpIsaa–e [4Q161–4Q165]). The exhortation to hate the Sons of Darkness was intended as admonition to strengthen internal cohesion,34 not as an exhortation to take up arms or start a guerrilla movement against Hasmonaean rulers. like the four winds of heaven, says the Lord.” Zech 2:10–11 refers to Zion, and col. I of 4Q448 is indeed a Zion psalm. 33  Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule (STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 47–51, 274–75. Oegema states: “There might be an analogy between the Hasmonaean priest-kings and the [Qumran] eschatological ‘Messiahs’ from Aaron and Israel” (The Anointed, 100). I see the Yaḥad as an elite group within a larger Essene movement, originating in the mid-second century and settling Qumran some time in the first century BCE (see T. Elgvin, “The Yahad Is More Than Qumran,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins; New Light on a Forgotten Connection (ed. G. Boccacini; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 273–79. 34  Årstein Justnes, “Divine Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Encountering Violence in the Bible, 178–193. A biblical analogy is found in the texts of holy war in early Israel which, to a large extent, contained rhetorical language and which were edited in relatively peaceful seventh cent. Judah, and also the exilic period. The stories may preserve memories of northern Israelite expansion up to the mid ninth century (Finkelstein, Forgotten Kingdom, 21–22, 32–36, 52–61, 81–117), perhaps stretching back to the total destruction of Hazor in the mid-thirteenth century possibly caused by proto-Israelites (cf. Josh 11:10–13).

330

Elgvin

But a number of Yaḥad texts reflect theological and exegetical responses to the presence and propaganda of Hasmonaean rulers.35 The ultimate powers given to Simon by a Judaean assembly in 140 BCE would only be needed if there already existed anti-Hasmonaean groups such as the Yaḥad. 1 Macc 14:41–47 (cf. Ant. 13.213) gives the following account: The Judeans and the priests were pleased that Simon would be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet would arise, and that he would be commander over them . . . over the country and over the armed forces and over the fortresses, and that the responsibility would be upon him concerning the holy places, and that he would be obeyed by all and that all documents in the country would be written in his name. . . . And no one of the people or the priests will be able to set aside any of these resolutions or to dispute anything to be said by him or to convoke a gathering in the country without him. . . . But whoever acts against or sets aside any of these resolutions shall be culpable. . . . And Simon accepted and was pleased to be high priest and to be commander and ethnarch of the Judeans and priests and to protect all of them. This chronicle was written before the violent divisions within the people under Yannai in the first decade of the first century BCE. The author had likely not witnessed Yannai’s slaying of tens of thousands of his opponents (Ant. 13.372– 76, 379–83). However, 1 Maccabees repeatedly refers to opponents of the Hasmonaeans as “impious and lawless men” who allied themselves with external enemies (1 Macc 7:23–24; 9:23–26, 73; 10:14, 61). Dissenting voices were not “of the seed of those men to whom was given salvation to Israel by their hand” (1 Macc 5:62). Tough measures against dissenters were thus qualified as sanctified violence; that is, “violence (performed by human agents) that is believed to be sanctioned and/or required by God.”36

35  Echoes in sectarian texts of Simon’s edict quoted in 1 Macc 14:41–45 demonstrate that the origin of the Yaḥad should be sought not later than the rule of Simon, pace Michael O. Wise, “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of his Movement,” JBL 122 (2003): 53–87; John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community. The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 103–21. 36  Alex P. Jassen, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschato­ logical Imagination,” in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. R.S. Boustan, A.P. Jassen, C.J. Roetzel; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 13–44, (15, n. 7).

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

331

4.2 The Wicked Priest and Wicked Rulers The Yaḥad’s critique against the Wicked Priest (an acronym either for Jonathan, Simon, or a sequence of Hasmonaean rulers) addressed the misuse of wealth, a wicked, divisive, and violent leadership, and disobedience to halakhic rules of purity. 1QpHab 8:8–9 accepts that the Wicked Priest was called by the name of truth when he rose to power. But he is criticised for violently persecuting the Righteous Teacher on his day of fast, on Yom Kippur as celebrated according to the calendar of the Yaḥad (1QpHab 9:2–8). He is further castigated for pride, living a life in luxury, and halakhic impurity likely connected to temple service and marital relations. This refers to the Wicked Priest who had a reputation for reliability at the beginning of his term of service; but when he became ruler over Israel, he became proud and forsook God and betrayed the commandments for the sake of riches. He amassed by force the riches of the lawless who had rebelled against God, seizing the riches of the peoples, thus adding to the guilt of his crimes, and he committed abhorrent deeds in every defiling impurity (1QpHab 8:8–13). These specific points of criticism are echoed in a group of non-sectarian texts from Qumran, the so-called Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389). According to the recent analysis by Kipp Davis this text praises the Hasmonaean priests as keepers of the covenant. Three Hasmonaean priests “are called by the name of the God of Israel” (4Q385a 5 7–8/4Q387 3 4–9), and they are contrasted against their Hellenistic predecessors who are castigated for their pride, for violating the covenant, and for their idolatry (4Q385a 5 8; 4Q387 3 15). Davis separates 4Q390 as an independent work— dependent on the Apocryphon, but more closely related to the Yaḥad than its precursor—that has turned the critique of the pre-Maccabaean priests against the Hasmonaeans: they are likewise censured for their avarice, for exogamy, for violating the Law and the commands, and for their failure to replace the lunar calendar introduced in the time of Antiochus (4Q390 2 i 8–12; 2 ii 10–11). The historical reviews in both compositions describe the Hasmonaean period as a time of internal division and quarrel (4Q387 3 7–8; 4Q390 2 i 6, 9).37

37  Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity (STDJ 111; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 193–226.

332

Elgvin

Two Qumran texts, 4QTestimonia (4Q175) and the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q378–4Q379)38 describe two evil brothers who rebuild the city and fall under Joshua’s curse over Jericho (4Q175 1 21–30; 4Q379 22 ii 7–15; cf. Josh 6:26). Their father is described as an evil man of Belial, and the sons as having brutally shed blood in Jerusalem. Most scholars connect these texts with Hyrcan’s sons Aristobul I, Antigonus, and/or Yannai, and the city with Hasmonaean Jericho, but Milik’s suggestion that the brothers are Jonathan and Simon who fortified and rebuilt Jerusalem remains a valid option.39 Whatever the right interpretation of these texts, a restoration of the holy city by a ruler in Jerusalem40 would easily be interpreted as a sign of the messianic age. Hasmonaean rebuilding of Jerusalem and/or Jericho led to the polemic in the Apocryphon of Joshua and 4QTestimonia, sectarian counter-texts to Hasmonaean claims of messianic rebuilding of the Israelite state. The Nahum Pesher (4Q169) calls Alexander Yannai the Lion of Wrath and castigates him for his persecution of Pharisaic political opponents in the 90s BCE (4QpNah 3–4 i 4–8; Ant. 13.372–83). This term could be understood as a perversion of the biblical nom de guerre Lion of Judah (cf. Gen 49:9–10), and meant to convey that he was a destructive ruler who did not represent the will of God. For members of the Yaḥad, obedience to the Hasmonaeans (cf. 1 Macc 14:41–44) is exchanged for faithfulness to the Righteous Teacher (1QpHab 8:2–3). 4.3 The Offices of Ruler, Priest, and Prophet It is noteworthy that the future hope of 4Q175 designates separate offices for prophet (1 1–8), Davidic ruler (1 9–13), and priest (1 14–20), which could be construed as a critical response to the double office of Hasmonaean rulers. 4Q175 mirrors the edict of 140 BCE that made Simon and his descendants both high priests and ethnarchs of the Judaeans “until a trustworthy prophet would arise” (1 Macc 14:41). Simon’s edict recognises the three offices of prophet, priest, and civil ruler:41 two of them were already functioning at the time, while the office 38  The Apocryphon of Joshua is quoted as authority in 4QTestimonia, along with scripture texts from Exod 20 (in the pre-Samaritan tradition), Lev 24, and Deut 33. 39  Cf. e.g. Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 63–89; J.T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (London: SCM Press, 1959), 61–64. 40  See 1 Macc 4:60; 10:10–11; 12:36–37; 13:52; 14:7–15; Ant. 13.181–83. Hasmonaean rebuilding of the temple and the temple mount was on such a large scale that essential features were preserved in Herod’s temple. The eastern balustrade, the colonnade of Solomon, belongs to this stratum: Jostein Ådna, Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999), 4–31. 41  Also in NT writings the end-time offices of the Davidide, the prophet, and the priest are of central importance for understanding and interpreting the roles of Jesus and John the

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

333

of prophet was postponed to the future. The collection of scriptures in 4Q175 represents a silent protest: the present anointed leadership is illegitimate; the Yaḥad still waits for the right prophet together with the anointed ones of Aaron and Israel: “until the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel will arise” (1QS 9:11). There were opponents to Hasmonaean priestly rulers also outside the Yaḥad. The non-sectarian 4QpsDanc (4Q245), written around 100 BCE, contains two separate lists of kings and high priests, presupposing a separation of these offices. The list significantly culminated with the rule of Alexander Yannai, who was the first to identify himself both as king and high priest.42 A talmudic text with parallel in Josephus refers to Pharisaic critique against Yannai (Talmud) or Hyrcan (Josephus), asking him to be satisfied with the office of ruler and leave that of high priest (t. Qidd. 66a; Ant. 13.288–292). Both texts refer to a rumour that his mother had been a wartime captive, thereby rendering the son unfit for priestly office. According to the Talmud, this disagreement led to the king’s violent persecution of the sages.43 Two Josephus texts suggest that Hyrcan countered opposition by claiming also the third office, that of the prophet. Josephus and his proHasmonaean source saw Hyrcan “accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges; the rule of the nation, the office of high priest, and the gift of prophecy” (Ant. 13.299–300). Elsewhere Josephus reports a prophetic revelation given to Hyrcan in the temple during his priestly service (Ant. 13.282–83),

Baptist (cf. e.g. Mark 11:1–10; Matt 11:9–10; 21:11; Mark 11:32; Luke 7:16, 26; 13:33; 20:6; 24:19; John 1:19–21, 25; 6:4; 7:40; Acts 3:20–23; 7:37; Heb 4–9). 42  Wise (“4Q245 [psDanc ar] and the High Priesthood,” 339) sees these lists that deliberately separate priest from prince as a silent critique of the Hasmonaeans, which significantly made no mention of Alexander Yannai, and seemingly set the eschaton in his reign. Two or three of the Hasmonaeans are mentioned as priests, not rulers—a feature suggesting an origin outside the Yaḥad. 43  Vered Noam recently argued that the talmudic text has roots in the first century BCE and renders a Pharisaic response to the divisions in the Hasmonaean period and specifically to the Yaḥad. According to Noam, this text distinguishes the Pharisees from those who criticised the king, and mirrors specific Yaḥad terminology in its polemic: “A Pharisaic Reply to Sectarian Polemic” (Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 18 November 2012). Noam notes that some Yaḥad terms also appear in the talmudic text, such as ‫“ איש לץ רע ובליעל‬a man of naught, frivolous and evil,” cf. CD 1:14 ‎‫איש הלצון‬,‎ 4Q175 1 23–24 ‎‫איש ארור אחד ובליעל‬.‎ Cf. ‫“ ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם‬the sages of Israel separated themselves in anger” (b. Qidd. 66a) with 1QS 5:1–2, ‫“ להבדל מעדת אנשי העול‬to separate from the men of evil.” I agree with Noam that the incident fits the time of Yannai better than the time of Hyrcan.

334

Elgvin

a tradition positively affirmed in the Tosefta (t. Sotah 13.5).44 These three texts should be seen as Hasmonaean counter-propaganda, responding to criticism from movements such as the Yaḥad and other oppositional voices still waiting for the eschatological prophet to arise. 4.4 The King at War The War Scroll (1QM) preserves material from the early Hasmonaean period and uses Dan 11:40–12:3 as a source. In its description of the first phase of the eschatological war, the War against the Kittim, the enemies of the Sons of Light are listed as Edom, Moab, Ammon, Philistia, the Kittim of Assyria (=the Seleucids), and those who have violated the covenant (1QM 1:1–2). The mention of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia as outside of Judaean control implies that the text was composed before Hyrcan and Yannai conquered most of these territories.45 According to Yaḥad ideology, the Hasmonaeans would surely have been counted among “those (Israelites) who have violated the covenant” and identified with the forces of the Sons of Darkness,46 In the eschatological scenario of the Yaḥad, the time would come for for the Sons of Light to pass vengeance and judgement on the evil ones within Israel (1QS 9:23; 10:19–20; 1QpHab 5:4–5). The Temple Scroll may not be a composition of the Yaḥad, but it nevertheless aligns closely with Yaḥad ideology. The treatise of kingship in 11QTa cols 56–59 prescribes that the king shall be subject to a council of chiefs, priests, and Levites (57:12–15). This radical alternative version of the deuteronomic law of the king may be read as a critique of Alexander Yannai that tacitly tolerates 44  A number of texts connect the high priest serving in the temple with the spirit of revelation. Cf. Josephus’ report of a revelation to the high priest Jaddus at the time of Alexander the Great (Ant. 11.326–8), and rabbinic references to an angel appearing to the high priest in the sanctuary during the Yom Kippur liturgy, a tradition connected with Simon the Righteous (t. Soṭah 13.8: y. Yoma 5.2; Lev. Rab. 21.12; b. Yoma 39b; b. Menaḥ 109b; cf. John 11:49–51). In rabbinic writings, a distanced scepticism or expressed silence vis-à-vis the Hasmonaeans is usually found. Tosefta’s acceptance of Hyrcan’s gift of prophecy suggests a more nuanced view among Jewish sages in the Roman period. For a slightly different perspective on 4QTestimonia, see Katell Berthelot, “4QTestimonia as a Polemic against the Prophetic Claims of John Hyrcanus” Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (ed. K. de Troyer, A. Lange, L. L. Schulte; CBET 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 99–116. 45  Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 99–102, 129–32, 154–58. 46  Schultz sees the decade after the death of Judas Maccabeus as a particularly fitting setting for 1QM col. 1. Conquering the World, 158–59 n. 247.

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

335

his claim to kingship, but that was meant to set severe limitations on the king’s prerogatives.47 11QTa may be the only Qumran text that criticises the expansionist policy of the new Judaean commonwealth: 11QTa 58:3–11 limits the commitment of troops for warfare against external enemies to a specified percentage of the total force, giving priority to the defence of the cities. Unlike other rules in this treatise, this non-expansionist policy lacks scriptural support; it is perhaps understood as critique that was possibly triggered by Yannai’s military practice.48 4QpIsaa cites Isa 11:3 to argue that the Davidic messiah should be guided by others (probably the priestly leadership of the Yaḥad) in his military campaigns against the nations (4Q161 8–10 17–24). As the pesher should be dated to the early or mid-first century BCE, this text may also be read as a response to Hasmonaean politics of warfare.49 While the utopian war manual of 1QM expects decisive angelic action that helps the warriors on earth—priests and pious ones, not trained men of war—this Isaiah pesher foresees an active military role for the Davidic messiah (Prince of the Congregation and Shoot of David) and his army in the end-time war. Angelic intervention is not mentioned within the extant text (4Q161 frgs 5–6 and 8–10). Thus, Hyrcan and Yannai may be positive examples as leaders of military campaigns, only that the ideal king should listen to his spiritual advisors first. 5

Hasmonaean Response

1 Maccabees demonstrates that Hasmonaean state ideology developed in a dialectic process, where pro-Hasmonaean voices responded to others who were critical of or distanced themselves from the new establishment. Somewhat unexpectedly, 1 Macc 2:59–64 even enlists Daniel and his three friends as types and ideals for the Hasmonaean cause. Such an apologetic use of Daniel 47  Martin Hengel, James C. Charlesworth, Doron Mendels, “The Polemical Character of ‘On Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll: An Attempt at Dating 11QTemple,” JJS 37 (1986): 28–38. 48  Marcus K.M. Tso, Ethics in the Qumran Community (WUNT 2.292; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 136–40. The text is phrased with regard to external threats to the nation: “At the time the king hears of any nation or army trying to steal something that belongs to Israel . . . they will dispatch one-tenth of the army to go out with him to battle against their enemies. . . . But if a mighty army comes to the land of Israel, they shall send with him one-fifth of the warriors. . . . If, however, the battle is going against him, they must send him half of the army, the men of war; but the other half of the army cannot be separated from their cities” (11Q19 58:3–11). 49  Tso, Ethics, 89.

336

Elgvin

demonstrates not only the high standing this book enjoyed by multiple, even adversarial Jewish groups, but may also be seen as a response to antiHasmonaean voices that used Daniel as a scriptural basis for their own ideology.50 Another apologetic response from the Hasmonaean side is found in the coinage of Yannai, the second Hasmonaean ruler to use the title king—written both in Greek and Hebrew—on his coins. According to Dan Barag, the title of priest the king inscribed on the coins were a reaction to Pharisees who opposed Yannai’s holding the double office of king and high priest (see above).51 Another group of his coins, with the title king enscribed only in Hebrew, shows an anchor and a star surrounded by a diadem, probably alluding to the star of Jacob (Num 24:17).52 I see such a proclamation as a response to the Yaḥad’s eschatological exegesis of Num 24:15–24 from the second century onwards in such texts as CD 7:18–21, 4Q175 1 12–13, and 1QM 11:6–7.53 The Rule of Blessing (1QSb) delivers the following invocation for the Prince of the Congregation (‫—)נשיא העדה‬a sectarian designation for the future ruler: May you trample the nati]ons like mud in the streets! For God has established you as “the scepter” over the rulers; bef[ore you peoples shall bow down, and all nat]ions shall serve you. He shall make you mighty by his holy name, so that you shall be as a li[on (‫ )כא[ריה‬among the beasts of the forest.] (1QSb 5:27–29). If ‫ כא[ריה‬is correctly reconstructed in line 29, this text foresees a future ruler that will be the true Lion of Judah. It forms a sharp contrast against the proHasmonaean tribute to Judah the Maccabee, who “resembled a lion in his works and was like a whelp roaring in the hunt” (1 Macc 3:4). 50  Yonder M. Gillihan, “Apocalyptic Elements in Hasmonaean Propaganda: Civic Ideology and the Struggle for Political Legitimation,” in The Seleucid and Hasmonean Periods and the Apocalyptic Worldview (ed. L.L. Grabbe; London: T&T Clark, forthcoming). 51  Dan B. Barag, “Alexander Jannaeus—Priest and King,” in Maeir, Magness, and Schiffman, eds., ‘Go Out and Study the Land’, 1–5. 52  Cecil Roth, “Star and Anchor: Coin Symbolism and the End of Days,” Eretz Israel 6 (1960): 13*–16*. 53  Cf. Schultz, Conquering the World, 139–41, 152–53. See also the non-sectarian 4QMessianic Apocalypse that may refer to a coming ruler—‫“ שבט[ו‬its/his scepter”—who shall cause freedom and joy in the nation (4Q521 2 iii 6). While Yannai and his advisors would not have been familiar with the sectarian texts, they would have been acquainted with their ideology; there were Judaean circles who did not accept Yannai’s kingship and were waiting for an end-time Davidide who would be the star of Jacob.

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

6

337

Other Anti-Hasmonaean Voices

The condensed chronicle that is 2 Maccabees records events up to 161 BCE. This book reflects a Diaspora background, and is perhaps related to the Jews of Alexandria.54 It praises Judah the Maccabee as leader of the revolt, but offers no hint of the continuing Hasmonaean dynasty. The ultimate honour is given to God, who intervenes and gives Judah and the Israelites victory over the enemies. Judah is portrayed as a warrior, not as civil leader of Judaea. Thus, a dismissal of the Hasmonaeans succeeding Judah as civil leaders may be perceived. Some of the Psalms of Solomon were composed shortly after the Roman conquest in 63 BCE, by authors close to the Pharisees. The messianic hymn in 17:21–44 expresses a weariness of Hasmonaean rulers who were levying taxes on the people in order to finance their luxury and wars. The ideal is a future son of David who would inaugurate a time of peace: He will not rely on horse and rider and bow, Nor will he collect gold and silver for war. Nor will he build up hope in a multitude for a day of war. He shall be compassionate to all the nations who reverently stand before him (17:33–35). Psalms of Solomon 2, 4, and 8 see the Roman conquest as a just punishment for the sins of the preceding generations and their Hasmonaean leaders: Because the sons of Jerusalem defiled the sanctuary of the Lord, they were profaning the offerings of God with lawless acts . . . (2:3) And the daughters of Jerusalem were available to all  . . . because they defiled themselves with improper intercourse (2:13–14). Let crows peck out the eyes of the hypocrites, for they disgracefully emptied many people’s houses and greedily scattered them (4:20). They stole from the sanctuary of God as if there were no redeeming heir. They walked on the place of sacrifice of the Lord in all kinds of uncleanness; 54  The dating of 2 Maccabees is difficult, “almost anywhere in the last 150 years BC,” states Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees. A Critical Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 14–17, esp. 14.

338

Elgvin

and with menstrual blood on them they defiled the sacrifices as if they were common meat. There was no sin they left undone in which they did not surpass the Gentiles (8:11–13). The Testament of Levi, although still being edited in the second century CE, has a wording that suggests an earlier Jewish source critical to Hasmonaean priestly rulers. Levi prophesies to his offspring: You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Torah . . . teaching commandments opposed to God’s just ordinances. You plunder the Lord’s offerings; from his share you steal choice parts, contemptuously eating them with whores. You teach the Lord’s commands out of greed for gain; married women you profane; you have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. You take gentile women for your wives and your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. You will be inflated with pride over your priesthood (14:4–7). The Vision of Gabriel from the second half of the first century BCE can be compared to 1QM, as it fully relies on angelic intervention to save Zion from enemy armies in the end-time war. The prophet behind this apocalyptic text was no supporter of the military might of the Hasmonaeans or of Herod. He listens to a dialogue between God and the Davidic messiah in the context of the final war, a dialogue inspired by Ps 2, and declares that “Jerusalem shall be as in former times” (line 32), thus hinting at the illegitimacy of the present leadership.55 Philo, who enjoyed family connections with the Herodian dynasty, describes the brutality and savagery of earlier rulers in Judaea in Every Good Man is Free, 89–91. According to Joan Taylor, this section is an expressed criticism of the Hasmonaean dynasty.56 Philo specifically denounces rulers who dismembered the bodies of enemies still alive, cutting off their limbs—a probable reference to Judah the Maccabee (cf. 2 Macc 15:29–36).

55  T. Elgvin, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Gabriel Inscription,” Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 1 (2014): 5–25. 56  Joan Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 35–38, 48.

Hasmonaean Ideology and Yaḥad Texts in Dialogue

339

7 Conclusions Pro-Hasmonaean and anti-Hasmonaean texts show a dialectic interaction between the Hasmonaean establishment and other groups in Judaea in the second and first century BCE. Hasmonaean power and propaganda led to oppositional voices and “textual resistance,” that in turn influenced the arguments of the rulers and their supporters. Hasmonaean messianism represented an eschatology different from the more apocalyptic eschatology shared by other circles in second century BCE Judaea, such as the Yaḥad and the authors of the Enochic books.57 Both the maskilim of Daniel (cf. the distance to the Maccabeans reflected in the mention of the little help in Dan 11:34) and the Yaḥad were peaceful opposition groups who deferred the fight against the evil to the eschaton.58 1 Maccabees demonstrates that restorative messianism was a prominent feature in Hasmonaean ideology. This messianism was used to legitimate strict measures against internal dissenters and an expansionist policy to defend and enlarge the new kingdom. The developing Judaean state was seen as fulfilment of biblical prophecies and the Hasmonaeans as part of biblical history. Texts from the Torah on Phinehas and Judah were enlisted as legitimation for the Hasmonaean leaders who combined priestly and royal prerogatives. Royal psalms and prophetic texts referring to the coming son of David offered themselves as attractive proof texts and were utilised as such. Both pro-Hasmonaean theology and the deeds of the new rulers led to critical response. Voices were raised in criticism of the new dynasty and the double office of ruler and high priest. These voices found expression in Yaḥad texts, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Testament of Levi. They may be silently sensed in 2 Maccabees as well, and are reflected in a story preserved by Josephus and the Talmud criticising the double office of king and high priest. It should be noted, however, that only one or two sources criticise the expansionist policy of the new rulers: Pss. Sol. 17:33–35 and perhaps 11QTa 58:3–11. The double office, 57   Gabriele Boccacini has noted that the more a contemporary text supported the Hasmonaean dynasty, the less apocalyptic it was: “Non-Apocalyptic Responses to Apocalyptic Events. Notes on the Sociology of Apocalypticism,” forthcoming in Grabbe, ed., The Seleucid and Hasmonean Periods and the Apocalyptic Worldview. 58  “Confidence in God’s ultimate vengeance frequently becomes rationale for passivity, non-retaliation, and even merciful behavior in the face of persecution”: Shelly Matthews, “Clemency as Cruelty: Forgiveness and Force in the Dying Prayers of Jesus and Stephen,” in Boustan, Jassen, and Roetzel, eds., Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, 117–44, (134).

340

Elgvin

halakhic impurity, a luxurious lifestyle, and a harsh policy against dissenters is condemned, but not the establishment of a new Judaean state as an heir of the united kingdom. At least until the early days of Yannai’s rule, there seems to have been a broad, positive acceptance of the new Judaean kingdom, an acceptance that still can be traced in Josephus and specific rabbinic traditions. Both the Hasmonaeans and the Yaḥad held to a combination of a realised and a futuric eschatology: some of the promises are already reality (in the Hasmonaean priest-state or in the ecclesiola of the Yaḥad), while others still await fulfilment. Each party claimed to have God and his spirit on its side. Josephus’ mention of Yohanan the Essene as an officer during the first revolt ( J.W. 2.567; 3.11) may indicate that, a century after the last Hasmonaean rulers, some Essenes were growing weary of the non-violent resistance theology of the Yaḥad, Evidence for this may be found in the scrolls discovered at Masada; some of which exhibit similar characteristics to those that are commonly identified with the Yaḥad.59 It would seem that Yohanan was not the only Essene who departed from his movement’s non-violent ideology and took up arms together with other Judaeans at the outbreak of the great revolt against the nations, the violent Kittim described in the pesharim of the first century BCE. Were some of the men of the Yaḥad finally convinced that the end-time war had begun? 59  The clearest example is MasShirShab (Mas 1k). The attribution of the songs also in this copy to the maskil (reconstructed to the margin in col. i 8) suggests attributing a sectarian character to the text. Also other compositions with Yaḥad characteristics and Qumranic orthography were found in the genizah close to the synagogue built by the rebels: MasApocryphon of Genesis (Mas 1m), MasApocryphon of Joshua (Mas 1l), MasJubilees (Mas 1j), and MasUnidentified Qumran-Type Fragment (Mas 1n): S. Talmon, Y. Yadin, Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Report (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999), 104–49; H. Eshel, Masada (Jerusalem: Carta, 2009), 87–90.

CHAPTER 18

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls Craig A. Evans 1 Introduction In some of his sayings Jesus seems to express the idea that in his ministry God has gone to war against Satan. Jesus likens Satan to a “strong man” who has been “bound,” whose possessions are now being plundered (Mark 3:27). Jesus says that he has seen “Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18). His disciples can trample under foot “serpents and scorpions” (metaphors for evil spirits) and exercise authority over the “enemy” (Luke 10:19). In one remarkable episode Jesus engages a fearsome demoniac, whose name “Legion” conjures up images of a Roman legion, and easily subdues him (Mark 5:6–9). Terrified in the presence of Jesus, evil spirits beg terms of surrender (Mark 1:24; 3:11). In short, the Jesus’ announcement of the arrival of the kingdom of God means war with the kingdom of Satan. We find similar ideas expresses in the Qumran Scrolls. The Yaḥad’s Rule of War (1QM) anticipates a six-year war, which will result in the defeat of the Kittim and a later thirty-three year war that will conquer all nations and kingdoms. Allowing for the sabbatical years, during which no fighting will occur, the scenario will run its course in forty years.1 In the scenario that is envisioned the (occupying) Roman army will be defeated and, according to 4QSM (4Q285) 7 3–4 (par. 11Q14), the Roman emperor will be killed by the “Branch of David,” who is no doubt to be understood as the Messiah.2 1  Philip S. Alexander, “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S.M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 17–31. On the identification of the Kittim and “King of the Kittim” with the Romans and the Roman emperor, see Timothy H. Lim, “Kittim,” EDSS (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:469–71, esp. 470. 2  Shortly after photographs of 4Q285 became public, James Tabor and Michael Wise published studies in which they translated the Hebrew text to read: “they will put to death the leader of the community, the Branch of David.” This translation is most unlikely, both with regard to the Hebrew and to the context of the fragment. See James D. Tabor, “A Pierced or

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_019

342

Evans

In his dissertation published in 2009 Brian Schultz contends that 1QM was originally composed with the Seleucids in mind and was later updated to refer to the Romans. As does Alexander, Schultz also believes two major wars are envisioned.3 Ted Erho takes issue with aspects of their interpretation, arguing that the Rule of War and related materials do not reflect a particular event (such as Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem) but rather reflect expectations of such an event. These texts, claims Erho, are “expectational”; they are not examples of vaticinia ex eventu. The authors of these sectarian texts have not created original scenarios; they have made use of ideas that “swirled about in ancient Judaism.” Erho concludes that 1QM “represents a general variation on a relatively firmly established set of criteria.”4 With respect to messianism, this seems to be true5 and perhaps Erho is also correct with respect to the more encompassing eschatological scenario.

Piercing Messiah? The Verdict is Still Out,” BAR 18/6 (1992): 58–59; Robert H. Eisenman and Michael O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury and Rockport: Element, 1992), 29. The Hebrew is properly translated (“the prince of the congregation, the Branch of David, will put him [the king of the Kittim] to death”) by Martin G. Abegg, Jr., in his study, “Messianic Hope and 4Q285: A Reassessment,” JBL 113 (1994): 81–91. More will be said below about the translation of this important text. For further discussion of the scenario envisioned in 4Q285/11Q14, see Alexander, “The Evil Empire,” 23–27; idem, “A Reconstruction and Reading of 4Q285 (4QSefer ha-Milhamah),” RevQ 19/75 (2000): 333–48. One should also see Philip S. Alexander and Geza Vermes, “285. Sefer ha-Milhamah,” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (ed. S.J. Pfann et al.; DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 228–46. 3  Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 4  Ted M. Erho, “The Motif of the Eschatological Battle in the War Scroll (1QM),” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (ed. P.W. Flint, J. Duhaime, and K.S. Baek; SBLEJL 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 359–74, with quotations from 371–72. Erho is especially critical of attempts to date the Rule of War on the basis of the supposed presence of allusions to Roman weapons and tactics. He has in mind especially Russell Gmirkin, “Historical Allusions in the War Scroll,” DSD 5 (1998): 172–214. Erho (“Motif,” 364) also thinks the Rule of War originally understood the Kittim as in reference to the Seleucids. This may be so, but by the turn of the era it is likely that Romans would have been in view. 5  On this point, see Richard J. Bauckham, “The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist,” DSD 2 (1995): 202–16; Craig A. Evans, “Qumran’s Messiah: How Important is He?” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J.J. Collins and R. Kugler; SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 135–49, esp. 146: “Qumran’s expectation of a conquering royal messiah is not distinctive and appears to be entirely consistent with Jewish messianic and eschatological traditions from the time of Qumran, through the New Testament period, and on into the time of the Rabbis.”

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

343

Ehro points out that the eschatological scenario envisioned in the Yaḥad’s War texts is attested in a number of other turn-of-the-era Jewish and Christian texts. The most important include Sib. Or. 3:657–731, 1 En. 56:5–8, Rev 20:7–10, and 4 Ezra 13:5–11. All of these texts appear to have been influenced by language and themes found in Ezek 38–39.6 Daniel, including chs 11–12, seems also to have been a contributing factor. In this paper I will explore in what ways, if any, a similar eschatological scenario is reflected in the teaching of Jesus and the evangelists. If there are significant parallels, comparison may clarify both the eschatological scenario reflected in the War texts and the eschatological teaching of Jesus and the evangelists who in various ways interpreted and expanded Jesus’ teaching. 2

Daniel in the Teaching of Jesus and the Evangelists7

In the summary of Jesus’ proclamation, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15), we may hear an echo of the words of the angel: “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end” (Dan 12:9). Mark’s πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός approximates Daniel’s ‫ ַעד ֵעת ֵקץ‬/ θ: ἕως καιροῦ πέρας (see also Dan 7:22; 12:4, 13).8 In Daniel the time of the end is part of the latter days (Dan 2:28; 10:14; ‫אַח ִרית ַהיָּ ִמים‬ ֲ ), a phrase drawn from much older biblical literature (e.g., Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; Isa 2:2; Ezek 38:16; Mic 4:1), which appears frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., CD 4:4; 4QpIsaa [4Q161] 8–10 17; 4QpIsab [4Q162] 2:1; 4QpIsac [4Q163] 23 ii 10; 4QpNah [4Q169] 3–4 ii 2; 4QFlor [4Q174] 1–2 i 2, 12; 11QMelch [11Q13] 2:4) and is sometimes linked to the Davidic Messiah (4Q161 8–10 17). The passage from 11QMelchizedek is interesting, for the latter

6  Ehro, “Eschatological Battle,” 360. 7  I explore some of this material in greater detail in Craig A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; 2 vols; VTSup 83; FIOTL 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:490–527; idem, “Der Sieg über Satan und die Befreiung Israels: Jesus und die Visionen Daniels,” SNTSU 34 (2009): 147–58. See also Susan R. Garrett, “Jesus als Befreier vom Satan und den Mächten,” ZNT 28 (2011): 14–23. 8  C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 63; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vols; EKKNT 2.1–2; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 1:66; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 43.

344

Evans

days are linked to the eschatological jubilee and the fulfillment of Isa 61:1–2.9 Jesus who announced that the time was fulfilled also appealed to Isa 61:1–2 (explicitly in Luke 4:16–30; allusively in Matt 5:4//Luke 6:21 and Matt 11:2–6// Luke 7:18–23). More will be said about 11Q13 below. In the eschatological discourse Jesus warns his disciples of the abomination of desolation (βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως) (Mark 13:14). These words find an exact match in Dan 12:11 (‫ ִשׁקּוּץ שׁ ֵֹמם‬/ OG: τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως).10 It is not surprising that in his version of the eschatological discourse the Matthean evangelist explicitly appeals to Daniel: “So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel . . .” (Matt 24:15). The dire warning in Mark 13:19, “For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from (αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη ἀπ᾿) the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be,” echoes Dan 12:1, especially in the OG: “That is a day of affliction, which will be such as has not occurred since (ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως, οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ᾿) they were born until that day . . .”11 In the explanation of the parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matt 13:24–30, 36–43) Jesus asserts, “the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (v. 43). The words οἱ δίκαιοι ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ὁ ἥλιος echo the language of Dan 12:3 (θ) οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρας εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (“those who are intelligent will shine like the splendour of the firmament, and some of the many righteous, like the stars forever”).12 The concluding words of Matthew’s expanded version 9  “. . . it applies to the Last Days (‫ )אחרית הימים‬and concerns the captives, just as Isaiah said: ‘To proclaim the jubilee to the captives’ ” (11Q13 2:4, citing part of Isa 61:1). On the potential relevance of the end-time ideas in 11Q13, see the helpful comments in Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 154–55. 10  Collins, Mark, 608 n. 112. See also Dan 9:27; 11:31; and 1 Macc 1:54 for less precise parallels. 11  Besides Dan 12:1, we have a close parallel in T. Mos. 8:1, “And there will come upon them . . . punishment and wrath such as has never happened to them from the creation till that time when he stirs up against them a king of the kings of the earth.” See Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 322. 12  R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 537. The parallel between the dominical tradition and Dan 12:3 is closest in Theodotion (θ), which is cited above. The LXX version reads: οἱ συνιέντες φανοῦσιν ὡς φωστῆρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ κατισχύοντες τοὺς λόγους μου ὡσεὶ τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος (“those who are intelligent will light up like the luminaries of heaven, and those who strengthen my words will be as the stars of heaven forever and ever”). It is important to note that neither Jesus nor Daniel is saying that the righteous become stars, only that they will shine like the stars or the sun. One should also see 1 En. 104:2: “You will shine like the lights of heaven, and the gate of heaven will be opened to you.”

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

345

of the eschatological discourse, “they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt 25:46), may well allude to Dan 12:2, “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”13 Jesus’ interest in Daniel is not limited to Dan 11–12 of course. The ubiquitous self-designation son of man most likely alludes to Dan 7:13–14. If so, the saying that the “son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) effectively subverts the Danielic passage, which affirms that the nations will serve the son of man.14 Similarly, Jesus’ prayer of thanksgiving in Matthew and Luke, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes” (Matt 11:25//Luke 10:21) subverts Daniel’s prayer: “To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom . . . he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding” (Dan 2:21, 23).15 The curious saying at the conclusion of Luke’s version of the parable of the Vineyard (Luke 20:9–19): “Every one who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one it will crush him” (v. 18), probably alludes to Dan 2: “A stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces . . . all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found” (Dan 2:34–35; cf. 2:44–45).16 Daniel’s stone “cut out by no human hand” (vv. 34, 45) is echoed in the charge brought against Jesus: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands’ ” (Mark 14:58).17 It is probable that Jesus did say something like this in his criticism of the temple establishment.18 Finally, the distinctive language in the prophecy of Jerusalem’s doom, “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), seems to

13  France, The Gospel of Matthew, 966. For an informative discussion of Dan 12:2 in the context of resurrection ideas at the turn of the era, see John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 394–98. 14  Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 123–24. 15  Werner Grimm, Jesus und das Danielbuch. Band I: Jesu Einspruch gegen das Offenbarungssystem Daniels (Mt 11, 25–27; Lk 17, 20–21) (ANTJ 6.1; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984), 1–69; John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34 (WBC 35B; Dallas: Word, 1993), 571. 16  John Nolland, Luke 18:35–20:53 (WBC 35C; Dallas: Word, 1993), 953. 17  Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 445–46. 18  Cf. John 2:19, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

346

Evans

be an echo “the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot” (Dan 8:13).19 I think it is reasonable to infer from these data that the eschatological scenario envisioned by Jesus was to an important degree informed by Daniel, especially chs 11–12. This is not to claim that every Gospel passage cited above necessarily derives from Jesus himself or reflects his exact words. It is not necessary to make such a claim. It is enough to show that the teaching of Jesus and that of the evangelists who in various ways elaborated on his teaching was informed by the eschatological expectations expressed in Daniel in ways that roughly approximate what we find in some of the scrolls from Qumran. 3

At War with Satan

Jesus’ understanding of his mission in terms of war with Satan offers another promising point of comparison with the eschatological scenario of the Yaḥad’s War texts. In 1QM Belial apparently plans war against God’s people: “Cursed be Belial for his hostile plan/purpose (‫( ”)מחשבת‬13:4; cf. 1QHa 10:18; 12:14). Belial is envisioned as heading an army (1QM 1:5; ‫)כול גורל בליעל‬, which is made up of humans and evil spirits (1:1–2, 14–15; 13:1–4).20 Similar ideas are found in 11Q13 (cf. 2:13, 25) and other texts (e.g., 1QS 2:5). The War texts and other texts from Qumran tell us that in the present time Belial possesses ‫ממשלה‬, which may be translated dominion, authority, or rule (1QM 1:15; 13:11; 14:9; 18:1; 4QCatena A [4Q177] 1–4 8; 1QS 1:18; 2:19). ‫ ממשלה‬occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible; four times it is translated as ἐξουσία in the LXX (2 Kgs 20:13; Pss 114:2 [113:2]; 19  Which in turn may have been influenced by Zech 12:3. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV (AB 24A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 1346–47. 20  ‫“( [בליעל וכו]ל מלאכי ממשלתו ולכול אנשי[ גורלו‬Belial and all angels of his dominion, and all the men of his lot”; 1QM 1:15); ‫“( ֗את ֯ב[לי]על ואת כול רוחי גורלו‬Belial and all the spirits of his lot”; 1QM 13:2); et al. Belial’s army may well include evil spirits, but it will manifest itself in terms of human warriors: “When [Belial] prepares himself to assist the Sons of Darkness, and the slain among the infantry begin to fall by God’s mysteries and to test by the mysteries all those appointed for battle” (1QM 16:11); “the great hand of God shall be lifted up against Belial and against all the forces of his dominion for an eternal slaughter [. . .] and the shout of the holy ones when they pursue Assyria. Then the sons of Japheth shall fall, never to rise again, and the Kittim shall be crushed without [remnant and survivor. So] the God of Israel shall raise His hand against the whole multitude of Belial” (1QM 18:1–3). For a recent study on the role of angels in warfare in Jewish late antiquity, see Aleksander R. Michalak, Angels as Warriors in Late Second Temple Jewish Literature (WUNT 2/330; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

347

136:8 [135:8]; Dan 11:5 [θ]); once as βασιλεία (2 Chron 8:6) and once as ἀρχή (Mic 4:8). In other words, Belial more or less functions as a supernatural king, who rules over an evil kingdom and opposes the rule (or kingdom) of God.21 Jesus presupposes a kingdom of Satan (Matt 12:26; cf. Mark 3:23–24; Luke 11:18). Satan is the strong man who must be bound if his kingdom or house is to be plundered (Mark 3:27). Jesus’ exorcisms should be seen in this light. He casts out Satan “by the finger of God,” which is not only evidence that the kingdom of God has truly begun making inroads into the human sphere (Luke 11:20; cf. Matt 12:28), but that the kingdom of Satan is in decline: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18). This remarkable saying is linked to and probably explains the success of Jesus’ disciples, who announce: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” (Luke 10:17). The link between the announcement of the kingdom of God and exorcism and healing is clear enough in the Gospels (Matt 10:7–8; Mark 6:7, 12–13; Luke 9:1–2; 11:20). Jesus has power over Satan because he has been given authority or power (ἐξουσία). After casting out an evil spirit, an astonished crowd asks: “What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him” (Mark 1:27). As son of man, Jesus possesses authority on earth, that is, an authority that he, as “son of man,” received from God in heaven (Mark 2:10). It is this authority that he delegates to his disciples, so that they may cast out evil spirits: “He called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority (ἐξουσίαν) over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity” (Matt 10:1; cf. Mark 3:15; 6:7; Luke 10:19). In effect, Jesus and his disciples are attacking the kingdom of Satan, freeing those who are bound. The real war is a spiritual one. In replying to the charge that he is in league with Satan (or Beelzebul),22 Jesus retorts: “if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end” (Mark 3:26). The words “has an end” (“is coming to an end” RSV) finds an interesting parallel in the Testament of Moses, a Palestinian document that originated sometime around 30 CE, or shortly before.23 After a 21  The Qumran texts avoid speaking of the kingdom of Belial, preferring instead dominion of Belial (‫)ממשלת בליעל‬. The kingdom language is largely reserved for God; see the many references to his kingdom and your kingdom, all in reference to God, in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400–407). 22  Beelzebul is one of several names given the prince of the evil spirits. The name appears about a dozen times in the Testament of Solomon, a first-century work devoted to the topic of demonology. 23  Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 116–17.

348

Evans

period of suffering, the kingdom of God will appear and the power of Satan will be broken: “And then his kingdom shall appear throughout all his creation, and then Satan will have an end” (T. Mos. 10:1).24 The words will have an end ( finem habebit) reflect a future expectation whereas Jesus’ words has an end (τἐλος ἔχει) imply a fulfillment already in process. Jesus’ language reflects a shared eschatological scenario, a scenario that coheres with the Yaḥad’s War texts. In his use of language, Jesus does differ in one important aspect from the language of the Yaḥad in the War texts. Evidently, Jesus did not envision a human army attacking Romans or other enemies of the righteous. His teaching on praying for one’s enemies, turning the other cheek and forgiving them would have been very much in tension with such eschatological expectation.25 As mentioned above, the real war is a spiritual one. Consistent with this perspective Jesus warns his disciples not to fear “those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do” (Luke 12:4). Rather, the follower of Jesus should be much more concerned about God, who is able both to kill and to cast one into Gehenna (Luke 12:5; Matt 10:28). Israel’s true enemy is sin and Satan, not Romans or other human beings. In referring to Belial and his supporters, the Qumran texts use a number of colourful sobriquets, such as sons/children of darkness,26 son/sons/children of Belial,27 men of the pit,28 sons of injustice29 and sons of deceit.30 In addition, the Damascus Document applies the snakes of Deut 32:33 to Gentile kings,31 the viper’s poison to the chief Greek king (CD 8:11) and the blind to the wicked (CD 1:9; 16:2; cf. 1QS 4:11). As we would expect, the Qumran texts use a number of positive sobriquets when referring to the righteous, such as sons/ children of light32 and sons/children of righteousness.33 Similar sobriquets are found in the New Testament Gospels. (1) In the explanation of the parable of the Wheat and Tares, Jesus refers to the sons of 24  For Latin text and critical discussion of this text, see Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, 18, 228–29. 25  Cf. Matt 5:21–26, 38–42, 43–48; 6:14–15; 7:12; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:27–36. 26  1QM 1:1, 7, 10; 3:6, 9; 13:16; 14:17; 16:11; 1QS 1:10. 27  4Q174 1–2 i 8; 4QBeat (4Q525) 25 2; 4QBera (4Q286) 7 ii 6; 4QBerb (4Q287) 6 5; 4QPsEzekb (4Q386) 1 ii 3; 11Q11 6:3. 28  1QS 9:16, 22; 10:20. 29  4QShirb (4Q511) 1 8. 30  4QVisions of Amramf (4Q548) 1 ii 8. 31  CD 8:9; 19:22–23. 32  1QM 1:1, 3, 9, 11, 13; 13:16; 1QS 1:9; 2:16; 3:13, 24; 11Q13 2:8. 33  1QM 1:8; 13:10; 1QS 9:14; 4QSe (4Q259) 3:10; 11Q13 2:24.

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

349

the evil one (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ) that is, sons of Satan (Matt 13:38). (2) In the diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees Jesus uses the epithet a son of hell (υἱὸν γεέννης; Matt 23:15). (3) He also denounces the scribes and Pharisees as sons of those who murdered the prophets (Matt 23:31). (4) Elsewhere, he likens the scribes and Pharisees to blind guides (Matt 15:14; cf. 23:16, 17, 19, 24, 26). (5) Jesus also speaks of the sons of this world (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου; Luke 16:8a; and 20:34), who are more shrewd than the sons of light (τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτὸς; Luke 16:8b). (6) In responding to the question put to him by the Sadducees, Jesus states that in the resurrection, the righteous “are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (υἱοί εἰσιν θεοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες; Luke 20:36). (7) In sending out the seventy, Jesus refers to a son of peace (υἱὸς εἰρήνης; Luke 10:6). (8) The Johannine Jesus exhorts the public: “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light” (υἱοὶ φωτὸς; John 12:36). 4

Eschatological Jubilee

The Melchizedek text (11Q13) is explicitly concerned with the theme of an eschatological jubilee.34 The relatively well preserved second column begins (at line 2) with quotations of Lev 25:13 and Deut 15:2—Mosaic legislation concerned with debt forgiveness, and then interprets these texts in reference to the last days (line 4) and captives (‫—)שבויים‬probably in reference to the captives of Isa 61:1 (though the condition of line 4 makes this difficult to confirm).35 We are told that it will be Melchizedek who delivers the captives and returns them to their inheritance (lines 5–6), to “free them from the debt of all their iniquities” (line 6). Atonement will be made for the sons of light, those who are of the lot of Melchizedek (line 8). We are then told, “this is the time of the year of Melchizedek’s favour (‫צדק‬ ֯ ‫( ”) ֯לשנת הרצון למלכי‬line 9). The allusion to Isa 61:2 34  Émile Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQMelkîsédeq,” RevQ 12/4 (1987): 483–513; Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, “13. 11QMelchizedek,” in Qumran Cave 11 II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 221–41 + pl. XXVII; J.J.M. Roberts, “Melchizedek,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth et al.; PTSDSSP; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 264–73. 35  Puech (“XIQMelkîsédeq,” 486, 488) restores part of line 4 to read: “to proclaim amnesty to the captives.”

350

Evans

is quite remarkable, for Isaiah’s text actually reads the year of Yahweh’s favor (‫ת־רצֹון ַליהוָ ה‬ ָ ַ‫) ְשׁנ‬. In some sense Melchizedek, seated in the midst of heavenly beings (as the quotations of Pss 82:1 and 7:8–9 (7:7–8) in lines 9–11 seem to imply), stands in for God, to execute his judgment upon Belial “and the spirits of his lot” (line 12). Melchizedek will free God’s people “from the hand of Belial and from the hand of all the spirits of his lot” (line 13). This wonderful scenario has been foretold by the messenger of Isa 52:7, who in lines 15–20 is further described as the messenger “anointed of the spirit” foretold in Dan 9:25. Melchizedek will “free” the righteous “from the hand of Belial,” an event heralded by sounding the shofar (line 25). The fragments that make up col. 3 seem to envision the destruction of Belial. Jerusalem is mentioned (perhaps besieged?). In any event in col. 3, the readers are assured that the righteous “will devour Belial with fire” (3:7). As mentioned above, 4Q285 describes a great battle between the Branch of David (alluding to Isa 11:1) and the king of the Kittim (frg. 7). The latter will be killed, the people of Israel will come out “with timbrels and dancing (‫( ”)בנגעי]ם ובמחוללו‬alluding to Exod 15:20, ‫ ; ְבּ ֻת ִפּים ִוּב ְמחֹֹלת‬perhaps also to Judg 11:34),36 and the priests shall give direction to the disposal of the slain of the Kittim (‫ח]ל ֗ל[י] ֗כ ֗תי֗ י֗ ֯ם‬ ֗ [) and purification of the land (probably inspired by Ezek 39:11–16). Fragment 10 continues this theme.37 Lines 4–6 read: “4 . . . and you shall eat [the spoil of your enemy . . . 5 . . . And they shall dig] graves (‫ )קברים‬for them . . . 6 [ . . . and you shall cleanse yourselves from al]l their slain (‫)חלליהם‬.” Alexander wonders if the slain in frg. 10 refers not to the Roman dead but to the Sons of Light who died in the battle. This is an interesting question and I shall address it shortly. Jesus also appealed to Isa 61:1–2 in his proclamation and teaching. He, too, spoke of forgiveness and even made so bold as to announce forgiveness on

36  Here again Abegg (“Messianic Hope and 4Q285,” 90–91) gets the reconstruction and translation right. Although in their respective studies Geza Vermes and Markus Bockmuehl rightly understand 4Q285 as foretelling the Davidic Branch’s killing of the king of the Kittim (probably the Roman emperor), they miss the allusion to Exod 15:20, in which Israel celebrates victory, following instead the faulty translation seen in Tabor and Wise (see n. 2 above). I refer to Geza Vermes, “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),” JJS 43 (1992): 85–90, esp. 88, where Vermes and his colleagues translate “by stroke]s and by wounds.” This is more or less followed in Marcus Bockmuehl, “A ‘Slain Messiah’ in 4Q Serekh Milhamah (4Q285)?” TynBul 43 (1992): 155–69, esp. 159, where we find “]s and with wounds.” 37  So Philip S. Alexander, “A Reconstruction and Reading of 4Q285 (4QSefer ha-Milhamah),” RevQ 19/75 (2000): 333–48, here 346–47.

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

351

his authority as the son of man (Mark 2:5, 9–10; cf. Luke 7:47–49).38 In Luke’s version of Jesus’ preaching at Nazareth, Isa 61:1–2 is formally quoted and then declared “fulfilled” (Luke 4:17–21). In the Q tradition, Jesus alludes to Isa 61:1 and other Isaianic passages in his reply to the imprisoned John: “The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them” (Matt 11:5//Luke 7:22). Not surprisingly, scholars have discussed the parallels found in 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521): [. . . For the hea]vens and the earth shall listen to his Messiah2 [and all t]hat is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones . . .7 For he will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of his eternal kingdom,8 setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down (Ps 146:7–8)]. . . .12 For he shall heal the critically wounded, he shall revive the dead, he shall announce good news to the afflicted,13 he shall sati[sfy the poo]r, he shall guide the uprooted, he shall make the hungry rich . . . (2 ii + 4 1–2, 7–8, 12–13). The principal scriptural passage is Ps 146:6–8. But there are also some very important parallels with words and phrases from Isaiah: “setting prisoners free” approximates Isa 61:1 (“liberty to the captives”); “opening the eyes of the blind” approximates Isa 35:5 (“the eyes of the blind shall be opened”); “he shall make alive the dead” approximates Isa 26:19 (“your dead shall live”); and “he shall announce good news to the afflicted (‫ ”)ענוים יבשר‬approximates Isa 61:1 (“to announce good news to the afflicted,” ‫) ְל ַב ֵשּׂר ֲענָ וִ ים‬. The one item that finds no parallel is “he shall heal the critically wounded.” The text is somewhat ambiguous, for ‫ יפרא חללים‬could also be rendered “he shall heal the slain.” Whether critically wounded or slain, the terminology brings to mind those wounded or killed in battle. ‫חללים‬, meaning “slain,” appears many times in 1QM 3:1, 8; 4:7; 6:3, 5, 17; 7:2; 8:9; et passim. Initially the expectation that when the Messiah makes his appearance and wonderful things take place the “slain” (in battle) will be healed seems out of place. However, it is not at all out of place if this part of 4Q521 reflects an eschatological scenario somewhat like that of the War texts, especially as described in 4Q285 frgs 7 and 10. 38  On this important theme, see Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission (SNTSMS 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Hägerland argues convincingly that Jesus did indeed offer forgiveness and that the core of authentic material is preserved in Mark 2:1–12.

352

Evans

Following Yigael Yadin, Alexander wondered if some of the Sons of Light fell in battle, perhaps because of some fault (as in 2 Macc 12:34, 39, where the Jews who died fighting the Seleucids were discovered to be in possession of idols).39 The suggestion is plausible, but 4Q521 seems to offer another possibility. If the portion of the text that has been cited and discussed is related in some way to the eschatological scenario envisioned in the War texts, then what we may have is the expectation that after the battle the Messiah, or God through the Messiah, will heal the critically wounded and raise the dead. Understood this way, 4Q521 offers a different answer to the puzzling question that asks why some of the Sons of Light should fall in battle: they may fall in battle or be seriously wounded, but they may look forward to being healed and raised up. This may well be the theme in frgs 7 + 5, of which lines 7–10 read: “Then we shall [giv]e thanks and relate to you the righteous acts of the Lord which [. . .] thos[e destined to d]ie. And he shall open [the graves . . .] and o[pen . . .] and [. . .] and a valley of death . . .” The words “he shall open the graves” probably alludes to Ezek 37:12–13: “Behold, I will open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people; and I will bring you home into the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people.” If raising the righteous dead was also part of the anticipated eschatological scenario, then this may be yet one more important point of overlap with Jesus’ teaching. Jesus preaches the good news of Isaiah (esp. Isa 61:1–2), offers forgiveness, battles Satan and his minions, invests some of his disciples with his authority, and provides atonement for his people in his suffering and death (as in the Words of Institution).40 5 Conclusion In this brief study, I have suggested that the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) could be viewed in the light of the eschatological scenario envisioned in the War texts, including the related 4Q285/11Q13. I am not suggesting, however, that 4Q521 is a text produced by the men of the Yaḥad or that the eschatology of 4Q521 offers an exact match with that of the War texts. Nevertheless, 39  Alexander, “A Reconstruction and Reading,” 347; Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 221. 40  That is, the words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper (Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor 11:23–25).

Jesus, Satan, and Holy War in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

353

it is important to recognise that several Jewish texts were produced in the first century BCE and in the first century CE that share a number of eschatological features. The author of the Testament of Moses believed that suffering of the righteous would precede the rise of the kingdom of God, at which time Satan will come to an end. The Yaḥad’s War texts anticipate a bloody confrontation between evil and righteous powers—spiritual and fleshly powers. Jesus, too, spoke of conflict between God and his rule versus Satan and his minions. Jesus lived, taught, and acted in a world that longed for change and sometimes gave expression to these longings in the language and imagery of apocalyptic scenarios in which God intervened in human affairs. Although all hoped for change, the manner by which the desired change was expected to take place varied from prophet to prophet and from seer to seer. What marked Jesus’ vision as distinctive was his anticipation of a change in which the faithful would lead the way: turning the other cheek, praying for enemies, forgiving the sins and debts of others and enlarging their faith in the God of Israel, who hears their prayers and loves his people. Jesus did not call his followers to take up arms and strike down Gentiles and their Jewish collaborators. Rather, he urged his followers to repent and follow his own example of compassion and self-sacrifice, in anticipation that in a time known only to himself, God would intervene in human history and make all things right.

CHAPTER 19

The Sword-in-the-Mouth of Jesus the King: Declarations of War and Peace in the Gospel of Matthew Kyung S. Baek 1 Introduction The Gospel of Matthew identifies Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and the King of the Jews within the matrix of Second Temple Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world (1:1; 27:37). Under the subjugation of the Roman Empire and confrontations with the Jewish elite in Palestine, Jesus—God’s chosen messiah and king—establishes the kingdom of heaven and God’s sovereignty over every empire and authority. Therefore, in a sense, King Jesus is at war. Within the volatility of these competing powers, he engages in war by resisting violence and promoting an empire of peacemakers who would extend love and forgiveness even to their enemies (5:9, 38–48; 6:14–15). But how would this be possible in a context in which wars were fought with military strategy and force—swords and weapons? Matthew’s answer is that Jesus does take up the sword and formulates tactics to expand the kingdom of heaven. However, he does not do so by conventional means. Instead, he renounces the use of violence and takes up the sword in his message and teaching (sword-in-the-mouth). Seen this way, Jesus’ two commissions are a call-to-arms to his disciples, to take up the sword-in-the-mouth and implement his military strategy: (1) to the lost sheep of Israel (10:1–42), and (2) to all the nations (28:16–20). In this paper, I will argue that Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus and the kingdom of heaven can be understood in terms of war and peace. These include Jesus’ royal identification as a way to incite war against the present powers and authorities, and his military strategy of renouncing violence (sword-in-thehand) and promoting revolutionary teaching (sword-in-the-mouth). Therefore, I will attempt to (1) briefly establish Matthew’s emphasis of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and the King of the Jews; (2) identify Matthew’s two uses of the sword— the sword-in-the-hand and the sword-in-the-mouth—as a way to resolve Jesus’ mixed language concerning violence and peace; and (3) present Jesus’

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_020

The Sword-in-the-Mouth of Jesus the King

355

commissions to his disciples as a call-to-arms to engage strategically in war with the sword-in-the-mouth and to establish and extend the kingdom of heaven. 2

Jesus: King of the Jews and Royal Messiah

The Gospel of Matthew asserts Jesus as the King of the Jews and the Royal Messiah within the Second Temple Jewish landscape of political tension as various sects, factions, and empires vied for power and control (16:15).1 Although God is the ultimate king, both Gentiles and Jews recognise Jesus’ royalty (5:35; cf. 14:9; 18:23). The Gentiles unmistakably acknowledge Jesus’ kingship with the title King of the Jews, which is the charge that eventually leads to his crucifixion (27:42; cf. 2:2; 27:11, 29, 37). In addition, the Jews recognise Jesus’ kingship through various royal titles: the Messiah (ὁ χριστός),2 Son of David3 and Son of God.4 Jesus’ royalty is most explicitly emphasised at the beginning and at the end of the Gospel of Matthew. First, Jesus’ messianic kingship is expressed from the outset: “Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ,”5 with his royal genealogy in the line of King David (1:1–17). As a descendant of David, Jesus in royal succession is recognised as the Royal Messiah and the Son of God, (2:11; 3:17; cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 42:1). Moreover, Jesus’ birth narrative emphasises his kingship since King Herod and the magi search specifically for the King of the Jews (2:1–3; cf. 14:9). Reminiscent of the infanticide of Exodus,6 Herod plots against 1  For the social, political, and religious diversity within Second Temple Judaism see Eyal Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran (Religion and Society 45; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007); Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era (JSJ 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997); Martin Goodman, Jews in a Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). 2  Χριστός (Messiah) occurs 16–17 times in Matthew (1:1, 16, 17, 18; 2:4; 11:2; 16:16, 20, 21[?]; 23:10; 24:5, 23; 26:63, 68; 27:17, 22). Although it may be used as a personal name, it still conveys the basic titular idea of an anointed, national deliverer, and is associated with the King of the Jews (2:2, 4, 13, 16; 27:11, 17, 22, 29, 37) and the Son of God (16:16; 26:63). 3  See Matt 1:1, 17; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15; 22:42; cf. 1:20. 4  See Matt 4:3, 6; 8:29; 14:33; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54. 5  Literally translated as “[The] book of the origins (or genesis) of Jesus Christ son of David son of Abraham.” 6  Matthew seems to be drawing a parallel here to the call of Moses in an effort to establish Jesus’ messianic credentials in line with mosaic authority and royal status (cf. Moses 1:20–21, 59–61). The call narrative of the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 1:5–10 serves as a useful analogy for this phenomenon. See also William Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,

356

Baek

“the child who has been born king of the Jews” and devises a plan to eliminate this threat to his rule under the pretense to pay homage to the new king. However, the magi do not return to Herod, but leave for their own country. This infuriates him, and leads him to murder all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years or under (2:1–19). Second, at the end of Matthew, a number of events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and death bring his royal identity to the forefront.

•

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem along with the quotation from Zech 9:9 portrays him as the messianic king who is celebrated as God defeats Israel’s enemies and establishes his rule (21:5).7 Before Pilate the Roman Governor, Jesus affirms his royalty when asked, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (27:11). The Roman soldiers’ mock Jesus as king by clothing him with a scarlet robe, by placing a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his right hand, and by kneeling before him and hailing him as the King of the Jews (27:27–31). The charge against Jesus leading to his crucifixion was the claim that he was the King of the Jews (27:37). During his crucifixion, Jesus is taunted by the Jewish religious elite to save himself by coming down from the cross and proving himself to be the King of Israel and the Son of God (27:42).

• • • •

Furthermore, alongside recognising Jesus as the Royal Messiah and the King of the Jews, Matthew portrays Jesus as a teacher who rightly and authoritatively interpreted the Torah and Jewish scriptures.8 Together, these two emphases and Jesus’ two uses of the sword (in-the-hand and in-the-mouth), as we will see, help clarify his military strategy, as well as serve to explain Matthew’s mixed language of violence and peace.9

1986), 26–31; Walter Beyerlin, ed., Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1978), 27–30. 7  Matthew develops the metaphor of Jesus as a shepherd, who will ultimately gather God’s scattered people and judges all the nations as a Shepherd King over his court (25:34, 40; cf. 2:6; 9:36; 10:6; 25:32; 26:31). See Clay A. Ham, The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005). 8  See Matt 3:2; 4:17; 7:29; 8:9; 9:6–8; 10:1; 21:23–27; 28:18. In addition, Jesus’ teaching is deemed authoritative through acts of power, healing and forgiveness, which he later bestows to Peter and the other disciples (16:19). 9  Various messianic figures sought to liberate the Jews from foreign oppression: e.g. Simon bar Kosiba, leader of the Jewish revolt in 132–135 CE, bore the messianic title bar Kokhba (Son of the Star), and was hailed as a Davidic messiah by Rabbi Aqiba ( y. Ta’anit 68d).

The Sword-in-the-Mouth of Jesus the King

3

357

The Sword-in-the-Hand and the Sword-in-the-Mouth

Threats of war and violence were simply a part of Mediterranean life in antiquity; therefore, it is not surprising that the Gospel of Matthew contains stories, language, and images of war and violence.

•

Stories of violence and war include King Herod’s order and implementation of infanticide (2:16–18), John the Baptist’s execution (14:1–12), Judas’ suicide (27:3–10) and Jesus’ crucifixion and death (27:32–50). Violence and war language includes sword (μάχαιρα),10 violence (βιάζεται), killing (ἀποκτείνω),11 and tribulation (θλῖψις).12 Violent images are found in the parables of the wheat and weeds (13:46–53), unmerciful servant (18:23–35), tenants (21:33–46), and banquet (22:1–14).13

• •

Specifically in Jesus’ parables of the Two Sons, the Tenants, and the Banquet (21:33–22:10), John Kloppenborg observes that God is portrayed as the agent of astonishing cruelty with excessive images of violence—torture and burning: The unrealistic and highly allegorical elements of Matthew’s parable are obvious and need not be rehearsed here. It is sufficient to remark that Matthew has taken a parable told in a generally realistic mode in Q (14:16– 24) and the Gos. Thom. 64 and turned it into an allegory of salvation (and damnation) history, borrowing from the Tenants the verb ἀπώλεσεν (21:41; 22:7) and adding the burning of the city, a motif that is featured in other Matthean parables.14 Matthew’s parables, compared to Mark and Q, are less realistic as they intensify the level of divine violence towards Jesus’ opponents and unrighteous 10  See Matt 10:34; 26:49, 51, 52(3x). 11  See Matt 11:12; cf. 21:38; 23:34–35. 12  θλῖψις is found three times in the Olivet Discourse as a sign of the end of the age (24:9, 21, 29). 13  Barbara Reid (“Violent Endings in Matthew’s Parables and Christian Nonviolence,” CBQ 66 [2004]: 237–55) gives three options for the tension between Jesus’ discourses and violent parables: (1) they combine strands of conflicting traditions; (2) parables of violence are meant to illustrate lower and higher forms of morality; and (3) these violent images should not be associated with God. Reid’s solution to resolve the tension is by distinguishing between Jesus’ nonviolent present mandate and God’s violent eschatological judgment (243, 250–52). 14  John Kloppenborg, “The Representation of Violence in Synoptic Parables,” in Mark and Matthew I. (ed. E. Becker and A. Runesson; WUNT 271; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 346.

358

Baek

insiders.15 Applied to hostile outsiders, God acts in vengeful violence putting them to a miserable death (κακῶς ἀπολέσει) as they repeatedly reject and kill God’s prophets, and ultimately his son (21:33–46; cf. Mark 12:9). Similarly, unrestrained divine violence is set loose to destroy and burn troops in the parable of the banquet.16 In addition, judgment and violence—including pain and humiliation—are directed to insiders who do not meet the ethical standards of Jesus’ teaching. This is illustrated by the treatment of being “cut into pieces” (24:41) or “cast out into outer darkness where there will be the weeping and gnashing of teeth” (22:11–14).17 In stark contrast, after centuries of wars and in view of the ever-increasing devastation brought with them, the longing for peace and stability was common everywhere.18 Peace or shalom, a well-established virtue, was fundamental to God’s order of the universe (divine ethics conforming humanity to divine standards) and closely associated with righteousness and justice.19 Correspondingly, Matthew, although recognising war as part of its social fabric, dramatically accentuates righteousness and mercy over injustice in the Sermon on the Mount (SM). The SM recognizes war, persecution, and injustice as part of the evil world. Precisely because there is war, strife, dissension, and hostility, peacemaking is a demand that comes with justice and the kingdom of God. Peacemaking is a means of involvement in the human predicament of warlike conditions. Coping with such conditions corresponds to God’s own response and action.20 Jesus’ beatitude regarding peacemakers (εἰρηνοποιοί)—those who were faithful and non-violent in the face of opposition and persecution—rewards and rec15  For example see 21:33–46; 22:1–10; cf. Mark 12:9. Furthermore, Kloppenborg (“The Representation of Violence,” 330, 343) recognises Matthew’s parables are less about viticulture and more about God’s dealings with Israel. 16  The parables of the tenants and the banquet are concerned with God’s demand for righteousness and aimed at the chief priests and elders with an escalating sequence of violence from nonbelief (21:32), to killing of the son (21:39), to the abuse and killing of God’s slaves who are presumably the members of the Jesus movement (22:6). 17  Cf. Matt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30. 18  This is also expressed in apocalyptic visions of a future, blissful era of peace and prosperity after God destroys his enemies. 19  See H.D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount (Hermeneia 57; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 139 n.369. 20  Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 140.

The Sword-in-the-Mouth of Jesus the King

359

ognises them as God’s children (5:9–11, 39–24, 48; cf. Ps 34:14).21 Furthermore, the moral and political senses of the language of peacemaker are entwined within the court milieu of King Jesus and his proclamation concerning the kingdom of heaven as Betz concludes: “To the extent, therefore, that peacemaking is a function of righteousness and the kingdom of God, the work of the disciples as peacemaking agents of God has indeed political implications.”22 The images of violence (torture and killing) in Jesus’ parables seems incongruous with Jesus’ teaching of peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation and his prohibition of anger and vengeance. Warren Carter helps contextualise Matthew’s mixture of violence and peace in the synagogue as a place for imperial and cultural negotiation within the context of Roman power and Greek culture.23 “In the first-century world, however, religion was very much a public or societal phenomenon, intertwined with political and societal institutions, with communal rituals and civic events, with economic and military, kinship and domestic structures.”24 Competing against the synagogue for the authoritative interpretation of religious traditions and the formation of community practices, Matthew attempts to guide Jesus’ followers to live in the midst of religious conflict, imperial pressures, and cultural adaptation. In this multifaceted context, first-century Christianity appears to be negotiating between Jewish traditions and leadership, on one hand, and Roman power and Greek culture, on the other hand, by prohibiting direct violence while advocating active resistance. Therefore Matthew’s violent polemic should not be understood narrowly as reflecting a context of intra-religious conflict, but as illustrating the horizontal violence among subjugated Jewish groups negotiating life under Roman rule.25 From this perspective, horizontal conflict and violence 21  Persecution seems to be the by-product of being a peacemaker (5:10–11; cf. 10:16–33; 22:6; 23:29–39; 24:9–14; 1QpHab 22:4–8; CD 1:20). Therefore, the peacemaker and the persecution of the righteous seem to be the present reality of being part of God’s kingdom on earth. 22  Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 138. In addition, Betz identifies four concepts connected to peacemakers that strengthen Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus’ kingship and political involvement: (1) the language of peacemaker is often used in court language; (2) peacemaking is related to righteousness; (3) the principal peacemaker is God (cf. 5:44–45, 48; 6:12, 14–15; 7:10–11); and (4) the concept of Jesus’ disciples as peacemakers has political implications (5:21–48). 23  Warren Carter, “Matthew: Empire, Synagogues, and Horizontal Violence,” in Becker and Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, 287. 24  Carter, “Matthew: Empire, Synagogues,” 295–96. 25  “At stake in this negotiation is the shaping of appropriate social identity, practices, and societal visions in the midst of Roman power, necessitating degrees of accommodation,

360

Baek

between Jewish groups is evident in Matthew in the example of King Herod and the Jewish leaders, who align themselves with Rome, against King Jesus, who advocates for peace and the kingdom of heaven.26 The answer to the incongruity within the Gospel of Matthew between images of violence and torture, and teachings of forgiveness and peace emerges with Jesus’ two usages of the sword.27 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household (10:34–36 NRSV). Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?” (26:51–54 NRSV). First, contrary to Luke’s use of the word “division” (διαμερισμός), Matthew uses the word “sword” (μάχαιρα): “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!” (Luke 12:51). This obvious difference of the word “sword” in Matthew carries with it connotations of violence and war as Clinton Black affirms: Moreover, one does not get rid entirely of the difficulty of Matthew’s harsh term ‘sword’ by describing it as purely figurative, for while ‘division’ may imply ‘conflict’ but not necessarily ‘violence’, the ‘sword’ has all its associations with violent conflict and with the use of the armed hand.28 mimicry, participation, survival, and protection of distinctive identity and practices” (Carter, “Matthew: Empire, Synagogues,” 306). 26  See Matt 2:2; 27:11, 29, 37, 42. 27  In EDNT (2.397–98), the Hebrew word for sword (‫ )חרב‬is translated with both μάχαιρα (“short sword” or “dagger”) and ῥομφαία (“long sword”) in the LXX. Also moving from the LXX, they are used interchangeable in the NT (cf. Rev 6:4 and 19:21). These two swords in the Hellenistic age are not clearly differentiated. 28  Matthew Black, “ ‘Not peace but a sword’: Matt 10:34ff; Luke 12:51ff,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 289.

The Sword-in-the-Mouth of Jesus the King

361

Second, in tension with bringing the “sword” in Matt 10:34, Matthew describes Jesus’ kingship as being a nonviolent and peaceful revolution without the use of a sword (26:51–54; cf. 5:9–12, 38–48; 6:14–15). How does one reconcile Jesus’ prohibition against and the instruction for the use of the sword? The Gospel of Matthew accomplishes this by distinguishing between the sword-in-the-hand and the sword-in-the-mouth. War is normally characterised by violence and accomplished with the sword-in-the-hand, but Jesus uses the sword-in-the-mouth. It must be emphasised that the use of the sword-in-the-mouth was not a passive resistance, but an active nonviolent insurrection against religious, political and spiritual powers and authorities.29 Jesus warns his followers that his revolution—his way of engaging in warfare—does not emulate evil by responding to violence with violence (armed battle with the sword-in-the-hand). In contrast, his assault with the sword-inthe-mouth opposes evil by proclaiming the kingdom of heaven and asserting human dignity and freedom.30 Therefore, violent force is disavowed in favour of peaceful revolution (cf. Isa 42:1–3). In the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish literature31 and the New Testament, the sword-in-the-mouth is a weapon of salvation, judgment and conquest. The sword-in-the-mouth saves the destitute from powerful oppressors (Job 5:15) and is placed in the mouth of God’s servant (Isa 49:2; cf. 4Q436 1a+b i 7).32 The king’s words can be gentle or used like a sword in judgment (cf. Ahiqar 7:18). Similarly, it is used to judge the intentions of the heart (Eph 5:10–17; Heb 4:12) and is given to Jesus to conquer all his enemies (Rev 1:16; 2:16; 19:15, 21).33 In conclusion, Matt 26:51–54 depicts Jesus’ opposition to using violent force (sword-in-the-hand) while Matt 10:34–36 describes Jesus’ aim in resisting present kingdoms with the sword-in-the-mouth. The sword-in-the-mouth makes it possible for Jesus and his disciples to engage in war by taking up arms as peacemakers to establish and extend the kingdom of heaven. In this light, Jesus’ second teaching discourse (10:1–42) and final exhortation (28:11–20)—often designated as missionary commissions—can be re-read as a call-to-arms and 29  Walter Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism,” RevExp 89 (1992): 197. 30  Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 318–26. 31  In more of an apocalyptic sense, the sword of judgment becomes the word of God in texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QHa 6:29; 1QM 19:11; cf. Isa 49:2; Wis 18:15; Rev 1:16; 19:15, 21). 32  It is important to note that, syntactically speaking, the “mouth” is an actual replacement for the “sword.” 33   See Alex Jassen, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination,” BibInt 17 (2009): 12–44.

362

Baek

military strategy for Jesus’ disciples to take up the sword in-the-mouth throughout Israel and to all the nations. 4

Jesus’ Military Strategy

Jesus’ military strategy for establishing the kingdom of heaven is found in Matt 10 and 28:18–20. Born within the politics of war and in a historical context that featured a foreign military presence in Palestine, it is not surprising that Jesus’ teaching reflects some knowledge of war (cf. 5:41; 22:7). With the birth of Jesus, a conflict between kings arose within Israel with the magi’s inquiry as to the identity of the king of the Jews (2:2). King Herod spurned on by jealousy and power, engaged in domestic war (2:16). Matthew 10 and 28:16–20 are King Jesus’ call-to-arms to take up the swordin-the-mouth and military strategy for his disciples. A number of observations can be made. (1) The twelve disciples are specifically listed and thrice identified as being given authority and instructed by Jesus (10:1–5; cf. 11:1). (2) The situation is dire as Jesus sends them throughout Palestine like sheep in the midst of wolves avoiding Gentiles and Samaritan towns proclaiming the good news, “the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (3) The disciples are given authority and power to cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons. These activities are suggestive of the signs of the coming messiah and God’s kingdom (10:8; cf. 11:2–6). (4) The disciples judge each town they enter by either giving or not giving their peace. This ultimately leads to the town’s salvation or destruction on the day of judgment (10:13–15). (5) The disciples, because of their allegiance to King Jesus, will face trials and persecution, before Jews and Gentiles, councils and synagogues, and governors and other kings (10:24–25). However, they are not to worry but trust in God as the spirit of God will speak through them. (6) The disciples are to proclaim publicly what Jesus has taught them without fear knowing that their king is the Son of God. (7) The purpose of Jesus’ military strategy is not to bring peace but a “sword” as he engages every power and authority in order to bring them under God’s sovereign rule (10:34–39). (8) All those who are loyal and acknowledge Jesus’ kingship will be rewarded (10:32–33, 40–42).

The Sword-in-the-Mouth of Jesus the King

363

(9) In King Jesus’ great commission after his resurrection, the disciples are gathered together and given final instructions and authority to expand his kingdom throughout all the nations: making disciples, baptizing and teaching them to give their obedience and fidelity to King Jesus. In summary, persecution and death are likely consequences for taking up the sword-in-the-mouth alongside King Jesus in proclaiming and establishing the kingdom of heaven. This message, like that which was delivered by the prophets in the past, will lead to a violent response by those who are threatened by it (11:12). Therefore Jesus’ fate—his persecution, crucifixion and death—brought about by a hostile world also awaits his disciples (10:24–25, 34–37; cf. Mic 7:6). 5 Conclusion In this paper, I have argued that the Gospel of Matthew’s usage of the sword is an answer to what appears to be Jesus’ “mixed message” of ruthless violence in his parables and non-retaliatory peace in his teachings. Although the uses of the sword in Matt 26:51–54 and 10:34–36 seem to be contradictory, they should be understood as two ways of engaging in warfare: either, with the sword-inthe-hand or the sword-in-the-mouth. Therefore, Jesus, as God’s chosen Messiah and King, goes to war by taking up the sword in his speech: proclaiming, teaching and establishing the kingdom of heaven. And to further advance his kingdom, Jesus issues a call-of-arms to his disciples, to take up the sword-in-the-mouth, promoting peaceful resistance and prohibiting violence. His disciples are to follow his military strategy by first going throughout Israel and then to all the nations bringing non-violent, peaceful revolution, and establishing his kingdom against all other politicalreligious-spiritual powers and authorities (10:1–42; 28:16–20). However, this call-to-arms to take up the sword-in-the-mouth, and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven comes at a cost with persecution and possible death as Jesus’ disciples follow their king.

CHAPTER 20

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt Michael O. Wise 1

Initial Discoveries and the Present Study

In late July of 1952 bedouin of the Taʿamireh tribe approached Roland de Vaux, J.T. Milik and their colleagues at the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem offering for sale certain new materials. This was the same tribe with which de Vaux and the Jordanians had been dealing in acquiring some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and various written and inscribed materials from the site of Murabbaʿat. Unlike those earlier finds, however, these new papyri derived from a site in Israeli territory, not Jordanian; its precise location was obscured for many years, usually being described as “unknown” or “imprecisely known.”1 * I offer this study as a small token of esteem to my treasured friend and colleague, Martin G. Abegg, Jr. I have heartily enjoyed our opportunities to interact and work together over the years, and have learned much from Marty. I hope and confidently expect that such will continue. Ad multos annos! 1  The Aramaist Jean Starcky, in publishing a preliminary study of a Nabatean document among the original items purchased, spoke of a group of texts, “sur lequel on manque . . . des précisions nécessaires” (“Un contrat nabatéen sur papyrus,” RB 61 [1954]: 161.) In a series of publications, Milik wrote variously of manuscripts “dont le lieu de provenance exact n’est pas certain;” “dont l’emplacement n’est pas jusqu’ici repéré avec certitude;” “trouvé en 1952 en un lieu mal déterminé du Désert de Juda” (respectively, “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits du Désert de Juda,” in Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg 1956 [VTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1956], 20; “Deux documents inédits du Désert de Juda,” Bib 38 [1957]: 245; P. Benoit, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabbaʿât [DJD 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961], 75.) Dominique Barthélemy wrote of “un grotte située plus au sud que celles du Wadi Murabbaʿat” (Le devanciers d’Aquila [Leiden: Brill, 1963], 163). None of the scholars mentioned the Wadi Seiyal, the rather precise though actually false find spot that their own official Jordanian records were listing. “Those directly in charge of the documents at the time of their discovery never made this claim [of Seiyal as the find spot] in print.” Thus the suspicious tone of the discussion by Hannah Cotton and Ada Yardeni in the introduction to their joint work, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites (DJD 27; Oxford, Clarendon, 1997), 1. The two scholars pressed the matter no further. Hanan Eshel, “A Survey of the Refuge Caves and Their Legal Documents,” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy (ed. A.I. Baumgarten et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 139, recognised and discussed some of the issues regarding this deception.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_021

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

365

Eventually the truth emerged that the bedouin had discovered almost all of them in three caves near En Gedi that are today known as the Cave of the Pool, the Cave of Horrors and the Cave of Letters; the last named being the principal source. The findings from the Cave of Letters would eventually be extremely rich, exceeding those from any Qumran cave except for Cave 4, although this first bedouin offer was just three texts (a dated Aramaic papyrus, a Greek document inscribed on skin and fragments of a scroll of Genesis). But on August 5 the tribesmen returned with additional texts from the same En Gedi caves, and authorities acquired two additional lots later that month, on the 22nd and 23rd.2 These groups were sizeable. The month following the acquisitions, de Vaux composed a description of the new finds, part of a larger article on the continuing excavations at the site of Khirbet Qumran. He described the provenance as follows: “Un autre lot important est sorti de plusieurs grottes qui paraissent voisiner dans une région qui n’a pas été sûrement identifiée.”3 Significantly, he mentioned several caves, and specified that they were apparently located very near one another. He then went on to say: Les textes bibliques en hébreu sont peu nombreux; ils appartiennent à la Genèse, aux Nombres et aux Psaumes et, ici encore, il y a un phylactère complet. Le plus nouveau, dans le domaine biblique, est la version grecque des Petits Prophètes sur laquelle le P. Barthélemy, dans ce même fascicule de la Revue, donne une première information. Une lettre en hébreu est adressée à Shimeʿon ben Kosebah, le chef de la Révolte, Bar Kokeba. Deux contrats en araméen sont dates de la “3e année de la libération d’Israël au nom de Shimeʿon ben Kosebah.” Deux documents grecs donnent l’ère de la Province d’Arabie et deux documents araméens suivent la même chronologie. Le plus étonnant a été de trouver dans ce lot une série de papyrus nabatéens, certains assez longs et fournissant plus de textes continus en cette langue que n’en avaient donné toutes les inscriptions. Mais leur écriture cursive demandera un gros effort de déchiffrement.4 (Italics added) Thus de Vaux indicated that, in contrast to the Qumran texts, the majority of the new finds seemed to attach to the Bar Kokhba period and the Second 2  The precise statements of chronology appear in Milik’s Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (London: SCM, 1957), 16. 3  R. de Vaux, “Fouille au Khirbet Qumran,” RB 60 (1953): 85. 4  de Vaux, “Fouille au Khirbet Qumran,” 85–6.

366

Wise

Jewish Revolt. Indeed, a letter addressed to the man himself was a signal discovery to which he drew explicit attention. This letter, today known as Papyrus Hever 30 (P.Hever 30), is the subject of the present chapter. In order to explore what it may mean for our knowledge of the history of the revolt, however, we must take into account the entire process of discovery for the early En Gedi region finds. To a notable degree our evaluation of the potential significance of P.Hever 30 hinges on where the bedouin found it and its possible relation to other materials discovered with it; consideration of this question, in turn, hinges on understanding how modern recovery of the En Gedi materials proceeded as a whole. 2

Further Discoveries and Publication

In the last two months of 1953 Yohanan Aharoni, then inspector of the Israeli Department of Antiquities, organised and conducted a survey of Naḥal Ḥever. Aharoni discovered two Roman siege camps overlooking caves on the eastern end of the wadi, a fact suggesting the importance of those anciently taking refuge within. He explored one of the caves, a large cavern on the northern bank later denominated “the Cave of Letters.” This exploration proved very discouraging, making evident as it did the thoroughness of the bedouin searches. Nothing significant was discovered. But Aharoni continued to ponder what he had seen. About eighteen months later, during the week of May 2–9, 1955, he returned to Naḥal Ḥever, this time to investigate the cave on the southern bank that lay opposite the Cave of Letters, beneath the second siege camp. Entering the cave after the enormous exertion of descending a rope ladder eighty metres long, Aharoni and his companions discovered dozens of skeletons of men, women and children, leading the archaeologists to dub this grotto “the Cave of Horrors.” And the bedouin had already been there—indeed, even this virtually inaccessible place had not escaped their searches. Despairing Israeli archaeologists accordingly forswore further exploration of the Judaean Desert caves and, apart from minor activity around En Gedi in 1956, nothing happened for nearly five years.5 The spur to new action was borne by the winds of rumour. Toward the end of 1959 a visiting American scholar, fresh from a visit in east Jerusalem with de Vaux and the other scholars at the Palestine Archaeological Museum, crossed 5  The facts in the foregoing two paragraphs depend largely on Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (New York: Random House, 1971), 30–31.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

367

the border and entered west Jerusalem bearing news for Aharoni. The documents from the “unknown source” offered by the bedouin to Jordanian authorities had come, he revealed, from Wadi Seiyal (Naḥal Se’elim). He had evidently received this impression in conversation with those he had been visiting. This southern locale lay well outside earlier Israeli surveys that had focused on the northern part of the Judaean Desert of Israel. Aharoni immediately organised an expedition to the wadi, from January 25 to February 2, 1960, but found little of interest, locating only one small cave that the bedouin had failed to notice. Clearly a more extensive search would be needed; the timing was of some urgency, given the continuing plundering of the caves by bedouin.6 Discussion of the matter among Israeli archaeologists and politicians led to the decision to conduct a massive four-pronged exploration of the relevant wadis of the Judaean Desert. Yigael Yadin would lead the fourth prong, Expedition D, to Naḥal Ḥever. The two-week excavations commenced on March 23, 1960, and almost immediately Yadin’s team began to make important discoveries, although the great discovery of that season’s excavations only emerged near the end of the season. On April 3, at the farthest remove of the cavern, wedged tightly into a crevice between the wall of the cave and a large boulder, a goatskin bag came to light. Held loosely within it were a variety of cosmetic objects and fifteen letters inscribed on papyrus. Composed in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, the letters were carefully folded and secured with strings to form a bulging rectangular bundle. Yadin handled them as little as possible, gingerly lowering them into a small cardboard box. Two days later, he was in Jerusalem, seeking the assistance of the preservation expert James Biberkraut to open them without further damage. Yadin’s plan was to unveil the writers and contents of the missives, kept secret from everyone involved with the Judaean Desert expeditions, at an evening of lectures scheduled for May at the residence of President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi. When the evening came a gathering of members of the Knesset, high ranking military figures, scholars and celebrities listened intently as each of the expedition leaders described the results of the 1960 season of excavations. Yadin, the most 6  The Israeli expeditions of 1960 and 1961 and their backgrounds are discussed in N. Avigad, “Expedition A,” IEJ 11 (1961): 6–10; Y. Aharoni, “Expedition B,” IEJ 11 (1961): 10–24; P. BarAdon, “Expedition C,” IEJ 11 (1961): 24–35; Y. Yadin, “Expedition D,” IEJ 11 (1961): 36–52; N. Avigad, “Expedition A–Nahal David,” IEJ 12 (1962): 169–83; Y. Aharoni, “Expedition B–The Cave of Horror,” IEJ 12 (1962): 186–99; P. Bar-Adon, “Expedition C–The Cave of the Treasure,” IEJ 12 (1962): 215–26; Yadin, “Expedition D–The Cave of the Letters,” 227–57; Yadin, Bar-Kokhba, passim; and Neil Silberman, A Prophet from Amongst You: The Life of Yigael Yadin, Soldier, Scholar, and Mythmaker of Modern Israel (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1993), 247–69.

368

Wise

charismatic of the men and easily the most riveting speaker, was intentionally scheduled to speak last. His entertaining rendition of the numerous spectacular discoveries at Naḥal Ḥever was rendered mere prologue by final comments and accompanying slides. Projecting an image of the first epistle he had deciphered, Yadin read the opening line (containing the phrase ‫שמעון בר כוסבה‬ ‫ )הנסי על ישראל‬in a loud, clear voice: “Simon bar Kosiba, the ‘president’ (nasi) of Israel.”7 He then turned to Ben-Zvi and addressed him in dramatic fashion, “Your Excellency, I am honored to be able to tell you that we have discovered fifteen dispatches written or dictated by the last president of Israel eighteen hundred years ago.”8 Yadin had discovered an entire archive of letters written by Simon bar Kosiba to the leaders of the Second Revolt at En Gedi all those centuries ago. The audience, at first stunned, presently erupted in clamour and astonished applause. Some of those present viewed Yadin’s presentation as grandstanding. Of course, they were right. But the next day Kol Yisrael broadcast news of the remarkable finds, and the newspapers headlined the letters and their discoverer. As Neil Silberman has written, “It was as if a Swiss scholar had suddenly located the private papers of William Tell, or as if a British archaeologist had stumbled upon Robin Hood’s personal correspondence.”9 For the 1961 season the same leaders headed up a similar, four-pronged attack. Yadin returned to the Cave of Letters, convinced that among the boulders, lying in their present positions since antiquity, additional hiding places might still be uncovered. On the first day of the excavations Yadin and his team made yet another spectacular discovery, comparable to that of the letters in the first year. Hidden beneath sizeable slabs of stone deliberately placed to conceal them were a basket and several water-skins, one on top of the other. Under the basket the water-skins, all badly decomposed, had let their contents slip out a bit, including a sack fastened with a twisting rope. Inside was a leather case packed tightly with papyri: the thirty-five documents of what we know today as the Babatha Archive. Still farther down in the deposit was a fine leather purse decorated on both sides with a rosette design. Badly torn, the purse had once contained the batch of documents now strewn along the sloping bottom of the crevice. Six in number, these materials comprised the archive of one Eleazar bar Samuel, a wealthy En Gedi farmer. In addition to these exceedingly important documentary finds, Yadin and his team also made discoveries that helped to expose 7  This was P.Yadin 54, the Aramaic letter engraved on wood. Spelling is as indicated. 8  Quotation from Silberman, Prophet, 261. 9  Silberman, Prophet, 262.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

369

the facts concerning the origins of the Jordanian purchases. Near the newly cleared eastern entrance of the Cave of Letters, some fragments of papyrus with traces of Nabatean script were brought to light. Yadin wrote of them, These fragments . . . are of great importance in decisively corroborating the conjecture that several of the documents now in Jordan—the origin of which, according to scholars there, is “unknown”—were in fact found in the Cave of Letters. . . . Also discovered in the recess, in addition to the fragments of Nabatean deeds, was a small piece of a scroll of the Book of Numbers. . . . We may assume—as in the case of the fragment of Psalms found in the first season—that larger pieces of this scroll are now in Jordan.10 In this statement Yadin’s scepticism regarding the postured ignorance of de Vaux, Milik and the other scholars in east Jerusalem was palpable. And he was completely correct in his surmise: the portions of the book of Numbers that de Vaux had described in his initial statement ten years earlier, as well as the Psalms scroll he had referenced, have subsequently been matched with the portions Yadin discovered.11 Given what we know today of the archaeology of the Cave of Horrors and the Cave of the Pool,12 we may safely conclude that the vast majority of what the bedouin supplied the Jordanian team from the environs of En Gedi originated in the Cave of Letters.13 The road to publication for the principal Naḥal Ḥever texts, both those brought to the Palestine Archaeological Museum by the bedouin, and those discovered by Yadin and Expedition D, proved to be long and winding. Yadin 10  Yadin, “Cave of Letters,” 228–29. 11  Peter Flint in J. Charlesworth, et al., Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert (DJD 38; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 133–34. Starcky’s Nabatean text has now been joined with the fragments discovered during Yadin’s excavations and is known as P.Yadin 36. 12  On the three documents now believed to derive from the Cave of the Pool, see Y. Baruchi and H. Eshel, “Another Fragment of Sdeir Genesis,” JJS 57 (2006): 136–38; E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and G. Geiger, “Mur 174: A Hebrew I.O.U. Document from Wadi Murabbaʿat,” SBFLA 58 (2008): 314, and H. Eshel, Ein Gedi (Jerusalem: Carta, 2009), 88–89. 13  Thought to derive from a fourth cave are P.Hever 9, an Aramaic contract anciently originating in Yakim; P.Hever 9a, a fragmentary Aramaic document involving the same hand and so presumably also from Yakim; and P.Hever 69, a Greek work from Aristoboulias. Both ancient locations were near the Cave of the Tetradrachm, which was certainly used as a Bar Kokhba refuge cave, and certainly dug by the bedouin. See D. Amit and H. Eshel, “A Tetradrachm of Bar Kokhba from a Cave in Naḥal Ḥever,” Israel Numismatic Journal 11 (1990–91): 33–35.

370

Wise

started well, commencing work on the Semitic texts immediately and bringing in H.J. Polotsky to edit the Greek letters he had found. But in the years following the excavations at Naḥal Ḥever, events conspired to prevent him completing what he had started. First, he led the excavations at Masada. Then Yadin managed to get his hands on the principal manuscript of the Temple Scroll and spent years editing that. Then Yadin decided to return to politics in Israel, and he remained fully involved until 1981. Upon stepping out, he promptly announced that publication of the Naḥal Ḥever texts would become his scholarly priority. Unfortunately, on June 28, 1984, at the age of 67, a seemingly healthy Yadin suddenly collapsed and died. Polotsky had also by this time resigned his assignment due to health concerns. The Greek documents of the Babatha Archive that Polotsky had been editing soon devolved upon Naphtali Lewis. Lewis completed that assignment so expeditiously that it was decided to publish the materials as a separate volume rather than include them with the Semitic texts. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri appeared in 1989. The Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean texts that Yadin had discovered and to a certain degree deciphered eventually fell to a group of experts. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri appeared in 2002, containing thirty documents.14 Included here were the editiones principes of the fifteen Bar Kokhba letters that Yadin and his team had uncovered more than forty years earlier. The Ḥever texts that the bedouin had brought to the Palestine Archaeological Museum in the early 1950s similarly took decades to reach the public eye. J.T. Milik and Jean Starcky had charge of the Semitic materials and published virtually nothing over the years. On one occasion Milik did break the silence. The virtuoso of the Murabbaʿat materials reported in 1956 that work on the Ḥever fragments “n’est guère avancée.”15 He singled out for mention our letter, P.Hever 30, for a very brief synopsis that supplied two of his readings and the name of Kosiba’s correspondent, but not much else: Une courte lettre est adressée à Simʿon ben Koseba’, Chef d’Israël, par Simʿon ben Matatyah, qui ajoute sa signature à la lettre. Notons la men-

14  Y. Yadin, J.C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni and B. Levine, The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri (Israel Exploration Society/Institute of Archaeology/Shrine of the Book: Jerusalem, 2002). 15  Milik, “Le travail,” 20.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

371

tion des Romains (hgʾym) qui ont déplacé leur camp (qsryhwn); malheureusement les toponymes ne sont pas conserves.16 Starcky’s Nabatean materials eventually passed on to Émile Puech, and have yet to appear in an editio princeps.17 All other materials ultimately devolved upon Ada Yardeni and Hannah Cotton, who teamed to produce Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites, which appeared in 1997. Sandwiched between the covers of this volume were treatments of some fifty Semitic and fourteen Greek documents. Thus the publication of both groups of Naḥal Ḥever documents discovered in the decade between 1952–1961 was, at last, complete. Further, as noted, we know today that almost all of these materials derived from the Cave of Letters. In order to suggest what P.Hever 30 may mean for historical understanding, therefore, we must come to terms with its presence in that cave. Why was it there, and who brought it? 3

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Question of Archive

We know for a fact that the Cave of Letters contained three archives carried there and hidden by Judaean refugees, because each was found in situ and intact. These are the Babatha Archive, the Archive of Eleazar bar Samuel and the Archive of John bar Baʿyah (comprising the fifteen Bar Kokhba letters Yadin discovered). From the loose bedouin findings Cotton has plausibly reconstructed a fourth archive, the Archive of Salome Komaise.18 But after abstracting all the documents belonging to these corpora, a considerable number of papyri found in the cave remain, scattered and disconnected. These materials can scarcely have been as disconnected in ancient reality as they seem on initial modern inspection. They must possess interconnections. They surely belonged to one or more additional archives, for nothing else explains their presence in the cave—assuming we are right in thinking that 16  Milik, “Le travail,” 21. 17  Of the Nabatean texts brought by the tribesmen in addition to P.Yadin 36—that is, P.Hever nab. 2–6—only the first has been published in a preliminary way. Yardeni included the work in her Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material (2 vols; Jerusalem: Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, 2000), 1:290 and 2:95. 18  This archive comprises according to Cotton P.Hever 12 (Aramaic) and P.Hever 60–65 (Greek). See her discussion in DJD 27, 60–64 and 158–237.

372

Wise

they did, in fact, all come from that one cave, so that they are properly regarded as a kind of “closed system” that must explain itself. Having suffered bedouin depredations like the Archive of Salome Komaise, they similarly require modern analysis with a view to reconstitution. I have argued elsewhere at some length that a number of the loose papyri that the bedouin recovered from the Cave of Letters can be reconstituted à la the Archive of Salome Komaise as an Archive of Eleazar bar Eleazar.19 I will not repeat here that full argument, but merely summarise. The entrée for the reconstruction of an Archive of Eleazar bar Eleazar is the problem posed by P.Yadin 36, often known as Papyrus Starcky.20 This Nabatean document recording certain actions of one Eleazar bar Nicarchus is the one text that the French Aramaist succeeded in bringing to print. The question is, “To whom in the Cave of Letters did it belong?” It cannot have been a part of Babatha’s materials, as those items were found tied together and undisturbed by the archaeologists working with Yadin.21 Yet the text concerns, among other things, a date plantation (‫ )גנת תמריא‬that came to belong first to Babatha’s second husband, Judah bar Eleazar Khthousion, and then, upon his death, to Babatha herself. The grove appears as the γαννὰθ Νίκαρκος (sic) in P.Yadin 21 and P.Yadin 22, two Greek documents belonging to Babatha’s archive. Therefore, why was P.Yadin 36 not a part of Babatha’s archive—as, certainly, it was not? She had the property; why not the documentation? A logical possibility considers the fact that the property discussed in P.Yadin 36 included more than the grove. It also included two stores (‫חנותא ותוניא די‬ ‫)גוא מנהם‬. Hence, a division of the various properties listed presumably took 19  Michael O. Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents (Cambridge, Mass.: Yale University Press, 2015). 20  The best and most recent study is A. Yardeni, “The Decipherment and Restoration of Legal Texts from the Judaean Desert: A Reexamination of Papyrus Starcky (P.Yadin 36),” Scripta Classica Israelica 20 (2001): 121–37. 21  Nor can it have belonged to the Archive of Salome Komaise as sometimes argued. Thus H. Eshel in “Another Document from the Archive of Salome Komaise Daughter of Levi,” Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002): 171; Jacobine Oudshoorn, The Relationship between Roman and Local Law in the Babatha and Salome Komaise Archives (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 14 n. 38, and Cotton, “Continuity of Nabataean Law in the Petra Papyri: A Methodological Exercise,” in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East (ed. H.M. Cotton, et al.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 155–56. This suggestion cannot be correct as no reconstruction of Salome’s family tree yields a connection with Judah bar Eleazar’s family. Instead of attaching to Babatha’s husband, Salome’s kinship to Babatha comes through Babatha’s own birth family, as I have tried to show in Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea, chapter 3 ( forthcoming).

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

373

place, in which Eleazar Khthousion, Babatha’s father-in-law and heir to Eleazar bar Nicarchus, distributed the grove to her husband Judah, while someone else received the stores. That P.Yadin 36 was not part of Babatha’s archive, yet was found in the Cave of Letters, entails that another heir of Eleazar Khthousion (or at least, someone holding that heir’s papers) must have been in the cave. This person’s archive included P.Yadin 36 because the possession of this document proved his ownership of the stores.22 In other words, the puzzle of P.Yadin 36 instigates a search for a missing relative of Judah bar Eleazar and, by marriage, Babatha. That person, I maintain, was most likely a certain Eleazar bar Eleazar, presumably Judah’s brother and therefore Babatha’s brother-in-law. We clearly encounter Eleazar bar Eleazar in P.Yadin 15, a deposition composed in Greek in which Babatha accuses the guardians of her orphan son, Jesus bar Jesus, of embezzling funds from the monies they controlled on his behalf. Her second husband, Judah bar Eleazar Khthousion, acted for the purposes of this document as her transactional guardian. Accordingly, when it came time for the illiterate Babatha to subscribe the deposition he could not also serve as her hypographeus, although he played this role for her in other documents. The man who did now sign was Eleazar bar Eleazar, and both his name and his role suggest a family connection. He penned: Ἐλεάζαρος Ἐλεαζάρου ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ἐρωτηθεὶς διὰ τὸ αὐτὴς[!] μὴ ἐδένα γράμματα, “Eleazar son of Eleazar wrote on her behalf as requested, since she does not know letters.”23 Given his patronym and the prominence of the name Eleazar in the family genealogy as it can be reconstructed, this man was likely the brother of Babatha’s husband. Confidence in this conclusion increases in light of P.Yadin 10, Babatha’s ketubbah for her marriage with Judah bar Eleazar. As in P.Yadin 15, Eleazar bar Eleazar acted as Babatha’s hypographeus, and this in a document intrinsic to the intimacies of Jewish family life, and therefore most likely to involve family members. The language of the contract was Aramaic, and Eleazar signed in the same tongue with a practiced hand. His signature is damaged 22  Study of the Bar Kokhba materials makes evident that some legal rights and obligations were established in writing, and others by oral agreement. Hence, Babatha and the heir who held P.Yadin 36 must have been parties to an oral agreement that established her right to the date grove. In this connection compare P.Dura 126 of the year 235 CE. In this document recording the decision of a tribune about a property dispute between two brothers, it is specifically stated that the disputed division had taken place somewhat earlier “[according to the cus]tom of the village, orally” (κατὰ τὴν συνήθειαν τῆς κώμης ἀγράφως, lines 1–2). In a similar vein, P.Dura 32, a divorce document of 254 CE, states in line 14 that a soldier, Julius Antiochus, will henceforth raise no claim against his former wife, Aurelia Amimma, regarding anything written or unwritten (περὶ ἐνγράπτου ἢ ἀγράπτου). 23  P.Yadin 15:34–35.

374

Wise

and Yardeni did not read his name in the editio princeps, but sufficient—and critical—letters survive, so as to give reasonable confidence in the reading: ]‫]ם ̊מ ̊מ ̊ר[ה‬ ̊ [‫אלע[זר] ב‬ ̊ ‫[כת]ב אל[עזר] ̊ב ̊ר‬23 ̊ ‫נפש ̊ה‬ ̊ ‫[בב]תא [ברת] ̊שמ[עון] ̊על‬,22 “[Bab]atha [berat] Sim[on] hereby (witnesses) concerning herself; Ele[azar] bar Elea[zar wro]te . . . at her dictation.” Thus, it is certain that an Eleazar bar Eleazar with connections to Babatha existed: probable brother and potential co-heir of Judah, likely brother-in-law of Babatha. Of course, his mere existence is not enough. We need to put him in the Cave of Letters with Babatha, and to do that more is required than an inference based on P.Yadin 36. We need documents that include his name, or are otherwise plausibly connected to him personally. These documents should be sought among the loose materials brought by the bedouin, whence derived P.Yadin 36. For the hypothesis must be that the bedouin discovered and plundered an archive containing P.Yadin 36 and one or more other documents. One may well begin with the Aramaic P.Hever 8a. This document was one of the initial batch of bedouin materials that Milik brought to print in 1954. Subsequent scholarship has greatly improved his original readings and translation, culminating in Yardeni’s treatment in DJD 27.24 In this writ executed in Kephar Baru and dated to year three of the era of Simon bar Kosiba (i.e., 134–135 CE), a certain Hadad bar Judah sells a house to an Eleazar bar Eleazar. Given the prima facie association of this document with P.Yadin 36—both emerging from the same cave, peddled by the same bedouin traders, in the same batch of loose materials recovered in 1952—the identification of this Eleazar with the brother of Babatha’s Judah seems very reasonable. Strengthening this equation is the signature of one of the witnesses, Judah bar Judah, presumably the vendor Hadad’s brother. His presence here strengthens the proposed identification because his signature also appears on a document in Babatha’s archive, P.Yadin 26, prepared four years earlier in Mahoza.25 That the same witness would sign documents belonging both to Babatha and to the Eleazar bar Eleazar before us, in two different villages separated by a journey of a hundred kilometres, can hardly be coincidence. Given the role of family members in ancient contracts generally, one must strongly suspect that these three people 24  Yardeni, DJD 27, 34–37, Plate 3 and Figures 4–5. 25  Judah’s hand is practiced and distinctive, with curvilinear letterforms and a left-leaning ductus. Yardeni in Lewis, Greek Papyri, 114 read only ] [ ‫יהודה בר‬, but close study of the accompanying Plate 35 clearly evidences ‫יהודה ֗ב ֗ר י֗ ֗הו֗ ֗ד ֗ה‬. Tal Ilan, “Witnesses in the Judaean Desert Documents: Prosopographical Observations,” Scripta Classica Israelica 20 (2001): 175–76, noted the possible identity of the Judah’s of P.Hever 8a and P.Yadin 26, but without suggesting a reading.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

375

were related, and therefore that this Eleazar is the same Eleazar we have met in P.Yadin 10 and P.Yadin 15. Note that in line 2 of P.Hever 8a the scribe assigns Eleazar the title ‫שטרא‬, which might be translated according to convention “officer,” but perhaps better “adjutant.” We will need to discuss this term and the role it assigns to Eleazar more fully a bit later. P.Hever 22 is another document that may reasonably be assigned to our putative Archive of Eleazar bar Eleazar. This is a deed of sale involving land, and perhaps additional items on the property. The land was almost certainly located in Kephar Baru because Judah bar Judah, the signatory to P.Hever 8a whom we met above, signed as a witness here as well. P.Hever 8a, it will be recalled, was explicitly contracted in Kephar Baru. A second signatory to that contract, Simon bar Joseph, signs here, too. Moreover, a third witness, Yohanan bar Joseph, supplemented his signature with the phrase, ‫בכ[פר ברו‬, ֗ “in Ke[phar Baru.” Careful study of the damaged papyrus shows that Eleazar bar Eleazar was the vendor in the transaction, selling to a Simon bar PN. This conclusion emerges by combining two readings with a fact. The first reading is in line 7, ‫“( אנה אלעזר לשמעון‬I, Eleazar, to Simon . . . ,”). The second reading appears in the second signature on the verso of the contract, ‫[אלעזר בר] אלע[זר על נפשה‬, “Eleazar b.] Elea[zar hereby (witnesses) concerning himself.” The fact: the first and second signatures on this type of Doppelurkunde were regularly those of the principals in Judaean legal writ of this period. The fact warrants combining the readings, the personal name of line 7 with the patronym of the principal. Fortifying the identification of this contract’s Eleazar as our man is the surviving lamedh of ‫ אלע[זר‬here, the bookhand-form of which is unusual in a semi-cursive script—unusual, yet identical with the form used by the Eleazar who signed Babatha’s marriage contract (P.Yadin 10). Thus, a number of small details add up to a reasonable case for associating P.Hever 22 with the Archive of Eleazar bar Eleazar.26 To this point our proposed archive would comprise at least three texts, P.Hever 8a, P.Hever 22 and P.Yadin 36. A full consideration of all the possibilities might add P.Hever nab 2 (and if so, likely also P.Hever nab 3–6—the latter Nabatean texts have yet to be published, as noted, and so cannot be adequately assessed); P.Hever 8; P.Hever 10; P.Hever 26 and P.Hever 36. Lack of space precludes that full consideration here, however, and so we must turn to the last text that may reasonably be assigned to Eleazar. That text, as I shall maintain, is our letter, P.Hever 30.

26  The readings/restorations suggested in this paragraph are new; cf. Yardeni, DJD 27, 85.

376 4

Wise

Reading and Analysis of Papyrus Hever 30

The history of scholarly study of P.Hever 30 is surprisingly sparse, given that it is a Bar Kokhba letter and that our knowledge of the Second Revolt is incomplete. Every potential source usually gets squeezed like the proverbial rock in search of water. The history of publication of the texts from the environs of En Gedi goes a long way toward explaining the lack of attention, since the editio princeps only appeared in 1997. Yardeni’s treatment there, excellent though it was in many respects, nevertheless gave the impression that not much could be got from this document.27 She read and restored so little continuous text that she evidently felt little more should be said, and so offered virtually no commentary. The only other treatment, by Klaus Beyer in his 1993 Ergänzungsband to the first volume of Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, attempted to offer a bit more in terms of reading and translation, but likewise provided no real philological analysis.28 Moreover, he took what I consider a number of wrong turns in his treatment. As a whole, the result is unreliable. One may reasonably hope to progress beyond these preliminary studies of our text. Accordingly, I propose the following new edition and some brief notes as a basis for further discussion. 4.1 Apparatus Criticus (B = Beyer Y = Yardeni) 2. ‫מתניה‬ ֗ B ‫ מתניה‬Y ‫ם‬/‫ מתניה‬// 3. ‫ אבה‬B ‫ אבת‬Y ‫אבה‬ ֗ / ‫ ֗חבי֗בי‬B ‫ ̊חביבו‬Y ‫ובי‬/‫י‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ח ֗ב‬// 4. ‫לך‬ ֗ ‫ ידוע יהיה‬B ‫יהא לך‬ ̊ ‫ ידוע‬Y ‫ ידוע יהיה לך‬/ ‫ ֗ש ̊כנ֗ פו֗ בי‬B ‫ ̊ש ̊ה קרבו‬Y ◦◦ ◦◦◦◦◦‫ ֗ש‬// 5. [◦ ‫ הגאים שחי֗ ו [מ]ן‬B ‫ הגאים חשהין בן‬Y [‫י◦ [?]שה◦◦[ ]ן ל‬/‫ הגאו‬// 6. ‫ קצתהון‬B ‫ קצריהון‬Y ‫קצת הי֗ ך‬ ֗ / ‫ בישו̊ ב‬B ◦◦◦‫ בב‬Y ‫]ב‬ ֗ [‫ ֗בי֗ ֗ש‬/ ‫ ̊א ֗ח ̊רי̊ [ם‬B [ ] Y [ ]◦◦◦[ ]◦◦[ ]◦ // 7. ‫ שנטרפו‬B ‫( שבברכו‬toponym) Y ֗‫ שנ֗ ֗ט ֗ר ֗פו‬/ ‫ אתם‬B ‫ יהא‬Y ◦‫ אח‬/ ]‫̊מן ̊כ[אן‬ B ‫ ̊ע ̊מך [הוא] ̊שלם‬Y [ ]◦ ‫ ◦[ ]ן‬// 8. ]‫ ולא היינו ֗מן בין להם ֗ש[לם‬so Y; B ‫ולא היינו‬ ]‫̊צ[ר]י̊ כין לחם ש[לך‬ 4.2

Transcription and Restoration Obverse ‫לשמעון בן ֗כוסבא נסי‬ ‫מתניה‬ ֗ ‫ישראל מן שמעון בן‬ ‫אבה ֗חבי֗בי שלם‬

1 2 3

27  Yardeni, DJD 27, 103–4 with Figure 18 and Plate 20. 28  K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Erganzungsband (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 222.

‫‪377‬‬

‫‪Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt‬‬

‫‪Hand-drawing of obverse‬‬

‫לך ֗ש ̊כנ֗ פו֗ בי‬ ‫ידוע יהיה ֗‬ ‫‪ 4‬‬ ‫הגאים שהי֗ ו [מ]ן ◦[ מן]‬ ‫‪ 5‬‬ ‫קצתהון בישו̊ ב ̊א ֗ח ̊רי̊ [ם עמי ואף]‬ ‫‪ 6‬‬ ‫שנטרפו אחם ̊מן ̊כ[אן]‬ ‫‪ 7‬‬ ‫ולא היינו ֗מן בין להם ֗ש[לם]‬ ‫‪ 8‬‬ ‫שמעון בן מתנה )‪(Second Hand‬‬ ‫‪Reverse‬‬ ‫אלעז̊ ר לשעמון‬ ‫̊‬

‫ ‪FIGURE 20.1‬‬

378

Wise

3 Translation Obverse 1To Simon ben Kosiba, prince of 2Israel, from Simon ben Mattaniah: 3My beloved father, greetings! 4–5Let it be known to you that the Gentiles who were [ fr]om/[wi]th . . . have gathered (?) with me; [. . . Some] 6of them are in the settlement, other[s are with me (personally). And also (let it be known to you)] 7that brothers from h[ere] have been struck, 8though we were not among them. Be w[ell]! (Subscription) Simon ben Mattanah Reverse Eleazar, for Simon The combination of the apparatus criticus and the hand-drawing should make detailed discussion of my readings, reconstructions and translation unnecessary for the most part. The differences from previous editions of P.Hever 30 are plain and visually self-explanatory. At certain junctures, however, an explanation doubtless is needed if my suggestions are to bear conviction. In addition, certain details bearing on the historical importance of the letter require attention, even if available space requires that this discussion be brief. Line 1. ‫לשמעון‬. P.Hever 30 is significant from the standpoint of epistolographic analysis in that it is the only secure example among the 26 to 29 Bar Kokhba letters that were discovered of a letter addressed to the leader of the Second Revolt.29 The only other possible example is the extremely fragmentary Mur 48, but this is better construed as a file copy held by the commanders of Herodium of their missive to John bar Mahanaim, an En Gedi official known from Mur 46 and P.Yadin 44. By beginning with Simon’s name as the addressee, rather than with the name of the sender, P.Hever 30 accords with Graeco-Roman epistolary practice of the period. Letters from inferior to superior fronted the superior’s name to signal recognition of that person’s authority. All other legible Bar Kokhba letters exemplify the other possibilities—of superior to inferior, or of equals corresponding—and so, again in keeping with broad customs of the time, always begin with the sender’s name. The man who commissioned a scribe to compose our letter, Simon ben Mattaniah, appears nowhere else among extant Second Revolt documents. 29  The only significant epistolographic analysis of the Bar Kokhba letters is today outdated, though still useful so far as the coverage goes. See Dennis Pardee et al., Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982).

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

379

Line 3. ‫אבה ֗חבי֗בי‬. To address Simon ben Kosiba as “my beloved father” is an atypical military address, in the ancient world no less than in the modern. One might consider the possibility that ben Kosiba was literally ben Mattaniah’s father, though, as Yardeni noted, “that interpretation seems somewhat forced.”30 In several of the Bar Kokhba letters Jewish soldiers are referenced as “brothers” (cf. line 7 below), so the styling of the leader of the revolt as “father” is perhaps consistent. The suspicion arises nevertheless that the relationship between author and addressee is charismatic in the sense made famous by Max Weber.31 This almost worshipful submission is, of course, not reflected in any of the letters sent by ben Kosiba or his high officers to subordinates. The significance of the charismatic element is that it has been a matter of controversy among modern historians of the revolt whether or not Bar Kokhba was really considered a “messiah,” as his appellation “Son of the Star” seems to imply on its face. The language of P.Hever 30 can be read as supporting the idea that he was, indeed, so conceived by at least some Jewish followers. Line 4. ‫ש ̊כנ֗ פו֗ בי‬. ֗ The verb ‫( כנף‬si vera lectio) is a hapax legomenon of uncertain etymology in Biblical Hebrew; it appears in the Niphal in Isa 30:20, where it is usually translated, “hide oneself.”32 Mishnaic Hebrew attests the word, but only in texts from the Amoraic stratum, which likely employ it as a borrowing from the biblical lexicon. It is absent from Tannaitic. The traces in line 4 cannot be construed as a Niphal, nor—given its rarity in ancient Hebrew— can one safely extrapolate what the root might mean in Qal. Perhaps the better approach is to posit here a semantic extension from contemporary vulgar Aramaic. Aramaic connections are everywhere apparent in P.Hever 30, presumably as a reflex of strong social bilingualism. People in our region arguably spoke an Aramaised form of vulgar Hebrew, but also a Hebraised form of vulgar Aramaic. Bilinguals and multilinguals are often observed to extend meanings from one of their languages to related words in another.33 In Aramaic generally the root ‫ כנף‬is well attested; it can mean “to gather; be assembled” (note especially Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic). The verb is attested as sometimes intransitive in the Peal. This meaning yields a very plausible understanding for the Hebrew of P.Hever 30. ‫ בי‬then represents an instance of the bet of accompaniment. 30  Yardeni, DJD 27, 103. 31  Max Weber, Economy and Society (ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich; 2 vols; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 2:1111–57. Cf. Charles Lindholm, Charisma (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1990). 32  HALOT s.v. 33  Cf. e.g., Ilse Lehiste, Lectures on Language Contact (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988), 19–27.

380

Wise

Line 5. ‫הגאים‬. We have already mentioned Milik’s understanding that the Gentiles in view here were Roman soldiers (“des Romains”). Likewise, Beyer translated the word “die Heiden (= die Römer),” and the term does have that referent in some other Bar Kokhba letters (e.g., Mur 42). But on the proposed reading of ‫ כנפו‬this understanding would seem to be ruled out. Rather, we are dealing with Gentiles (presumably Nabateans) who have allied with the Jews in their revolt from Rome. We shall discuss this point more fully below. Line 6. ‫קצתהון‬. This reading would seem to entail that from Simon ben Mattaniah’s perspective the Gentiles comprised two distinct groups. It would then be natural to read ‫ בישו̊ ב‬as the location of some of them, with the remainder described by the badly damaged second half of line 6. This understanding has guided the very tentative reading and restoration proposed here for the latter portion. Lexically, ‫( ישוב‬settlement, village) is noteworthy as a word unattested in biblical texts but common in Mishnaic ones. ‫ קצתהון‬is another instance of Aramaic impact, in two regards. First, one would expect a Hebrew text to use a suffixed form of ‫מקצת‬. This syntagm is known in Late Biblical Hebrew (Dan 1:2, Neh 7:69) and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QMMT, six times), and is common in Mishnaic Hebrew. Here we arguably have a suffixed form of ‫מן] קצת‬, the Aramaic form of the syntagm with the nun unassimilated, as known from the Hermopolis Papyri, for example, and from Dan 2:42. Second, the suffix ‫הון‬- is a straightforward morphological borrowing from Aramaic, used where one would expect the Hebrew ‫ם‬-. The identical suffix appears with the ‫ עליהון‬/ ‫ כליהון‬of P.Yadin 51:3. Although the correct reading of the noun or particle in that text is debatable, the suffixed ‫הון‬- (their) is legible and appears in place of expected Hebrew ‫הם‬-. In situations of language contact linguists generally consider this sort of borrowing—of inflectional morphology—to be rare.34 Line 7. ‫נטרפו‬. This would be a second suggested instance of lexical extension from Aramaic to Hebrew. The word ‫ טרף‬in Hebrew means tear, mostly of meat or animals being torn or devoured by wild beasts.35 That meaning clearly is inappropriate in the present context. But several Aramaic dialects use the root to mean strike; particularly relevant are Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and Christian Palestinian Aramaic. It seems, then, that vulgar Hebrew used the 34  Yaron Matras, Language Contact (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 212–16; Donald Winford, An Introduction to Contact Linguistics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 63: “Importation of inflections appears to be generally rare in situations of language maintenance, though it does occur if there is sufficient congruence between the inflections involved.” 35  HALOT s.v., DCH, s.v.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

381

root similarly, a usage arising from bilinguals extending certain of the Aramaic semantics to the cognate root of their other language. Line 8. ‫מן בין להם‬. ֗ The syntagm -‫—מן ֵּבן ְל‬in ִ context clearly to be translated among—seems to be vulgar Hebrew unique to the language of these letters. The closest biblical parallel is Ezek 10:2, 6 (bis) and 7, -‫מ ֵּבינֹות ְל‬.ִ In the standard editions of the Mishnah, the combination of ‫ מן‬and ‫ בין‬never occurs; but in Codex Kaufmann one finds some ten instances, though never precisely the expression used by Simon bar Mattaniah.36 The form ‫ בינותים‬appears without ‫ מן‬in P.Yadin 44:2, where context favors the understanding among them.37 ‫שמעון בן מתנה‬. The form of the patronym that Simon employed in signing his own name represents a well-known type of hypocoristic, whereby ‫< מתנה‬ ‫מתניה‬.38 Thus there is no real question (as Yardeni’s uncertain reading of the full form of the name in line 2 might be taken to imply) of these being two different men. The fact of Simon’s subscription requires comment. Since many letters were produced by scribes in our period, it was customary among the Greeks for the person sending the letter to write out ἔρρωσο or the equivalent in his or her own hand—provided, of course, that this correspondent was literate. The practice is already common in the royal correspondence of the Hellenistic period.39 From the Greeks the practice spread to become general in the Roman East. One reason it arose was to authenticate the letter, since most of it would be in a hand different from the author’s. Seeing that person’s handwriting would certify to the recipient that the missive was indeed genuine. With official letters this issue could be acute, particularly in a time of crisis, but even with private correspondence fraud was not unknown. Much could hinge on proof of genuineness. The importance of this reassurance is particularly evident from statements in the letters of the apostle Paul.40 Security was, as noted, a special concern in times of warfare, and so subscriptions became even more important then. Interception of couriers; spies; substitution of false letters for true; perfidious commands inscribed between 36  In that manuscript ‫ ִמ ֵּבין‬preceding a substantive occurs in Demai 7.4, Maʿas. 1.7, ʿErub. 10.15 and Qinnim 2.3. This is actually a biblical construction. ‫ ִמ ֵּבינְ ַתיִ ים‬meaning “among them” occurs in Sukkah 1.7 (ter), Kelim 13.4 and Kelim 13.8. 37  Not “between them” as translated in the editio princeps, since four men are involved. 38  T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002–), 1:25–26. 39  C. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (London, 1934; repr., Chicago: Ares, n.d.), xxxix. For a more recent discussion of royal correspondence, cf. Paola Ceccarelli, Ancient Greek Letter Writing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 297–330. 40  G.J. Bahr, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 87 (1968): 27–41.

382

Wise

the lines of actual: all were problems for wartime correspondence in the Graeco-Roman world.41 More than a dozen of the surviving Bar Kokhba letters attest the practice of subscription.42 Reverse ‫אלעז̊ ר לשעמון‬. ̊ Unlike earlier Semitic letters, whose address was inscribed on the last strip of the verso after folding it down—address thus paralleling the body of the letter—Greek letters were turned over and rotated ninety degrees. The scribe would then address the letter on the verso, at right angles to the body of the letter.43 This is precisely the method of P.Hever 30, and evidently of P.Yadin 52.44 The address might also present information about the carrier or bearer of the letter, as is evidently the case with our letter, since the named Eleazar is neither the writer nor the addressee. The reading of his name is uncertain, as indicated. Yardeni very tentatively proposed to read ‫אלי̊ ̊עז̊ ̊ר‬, (Eliezer). Nothing is at stake with the difference between the two proposed readings, however, as these were bi-forms of the same name, each demonstrably being used at different times for the selfsame individual.45 The Eleazar before us, I am suggesting, is Eleazar bar Eleazar known to us from other documents discovered in the Cave of Letters. Specifically, since P.Hever 30 was among the materials brought by the bedouin to the Jordanian scholars, it belongs with the other loose texts that testify to this man’s presence: thus, at a minimum, with P.Yadin 36, P.Hever 8a and P.Hever 22. Further, it is arguable that Eleazar bar Eleazar was the carrier of P.Hever 30 as a matter of his responsibilities as ‫ שטרא‬in the village of Kephar Baru. I turn now to an explanation of this suggestion and to the possible broader significance of P.Hever 30 for our historical understanding of the Second Revolt. 41  Cassius, for example, wrote to Cicero from Syria in 43 BCE, quod si litterae perlatae non sunt, non dubito quin Dolabella . . . tabellarios meos deprehenderit litterasque interceperit; and some years earlier, in May of 49 BCE, Cicero had written to Atticus, itaque posthac non scribam ad te quid facturus sim sed quid fecerim; omnes enim Κωρυκαῖοι videntur subauscultare quae loquor. So Cic., Fam. 12.12.1 and Att. 10.18.1, respectively. 42  In addition to P.Hever 30, Mur 43, Mur 46, Mur 48, P.Yadin 50, P.Yadin 54, P.Yadin 52 and P.Yadin 59 are clearest. 43   E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 76 and n. 16, 86. 44  For P.Yadin 52 see Cotton’s comments in Yadin et al., Hebrew, Aramaic and NabateanAramaic Papyri, 353. Most of the Bar Kokhba letters lack addresses, presumably because the carriers knew where they were headed. 45  See Ilan’s discussion of the name Eleazar in her Lexicon, 1:65–79, esp. 1:71 n. 8, where she classifies the two variants as a single name and documents the interchange of forms with people known variously by both. She does not observe that in P.Yadin 47a and 47b Eleazar bar Samuel is referenced by both forms: as Eliezer generally, but in 47b line 2 by Eleazar.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

5

383

Implications of Papyrus Hever 30 for the History of the Second Revolt

In P.Hever 8a the scribe annotates Eleazar bar Eleazar as ‫שטרא‬. The origins of ‫ שטר‬in both Jewish Aramaic and in Biblical Hebrew are disputed, some scholars arguing that the term was a borrowing from Akkadian, others that it was a Northwest Semitic cognate of the Mesopotamian word.46 For our purposes we can note that the usage in P.Hever 8a appears to be verbal (peal participle, status emphaticus masculine singular); observe that, practically speaking, the verb is known only in Aramaic dialects that were in contact with Hebrew;47 leave the etymological ins and outs to others; and focus on attested usage in Judaean texts. In Biblical Hebrew only the participial form of ‫ שטר‬is attested, but it is common, used as a title. Officials so designated were associated with the management of local affairs by the elders of the city (e.g., Deut 16:18). Conventionally translated officers, ‫ שטרים‬were probably the actual executives of any given community. The method of communal organisation described in the biblical texts carried over into the post-exilic period and extended, probably, all the way into the Roman era.48 In addition to other responsibilities, these “officers” had particular wartime functions. These functions, too, explicitly carried over into Hellenistic and Roman times. An example is 1 Macc 5:42: ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν Ιουδας ἐπὶ τὸν χειμάρρουν τοῦ ὕδατος ἔστησεν τοὺς γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ χειμάρρου καὶ ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῦς λέγων Μὴ ἀφῆτε πάντα ἄνθρωπον παρεμβαλεῖν ἀλλὰ ἐρχέσθωσαν πάντες εἰς τὸν πόλεμον. The Greek γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ here

46  For the evidence of attestation, see DISO2 (1995), 1123–24, where bibliography on the palaeographic issue of the reading in P.Hever 8a may also be found. For etymological discussion regarding both Hebrew and the Aramaic dialects, see S. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), s.v. and 101 n. 352, and P. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 142–44. 47  John Healey, Aramaic Inscriptions and Documents of the Roman Period (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 132, seems unaware of the rarity in an otherwise helpful treatment of P.Hever 8a. Apart from dialects in contact with Hebrew, only Palmyrene evidences this root ‫ שטר‬as a verb (homonymous roots meaning be stupid and smear; spread out exist but require no discussion here). For the Palmyrene usage see Delbert Hillers and Eleonora Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1996), 414. The verb is twice attested but in both instances uncertain. 48  Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (2 vols; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 1:155, 225, 251, 2:394; Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 2:184–85.

384

Wise

probably translated an original Hebrew ‫שטרי העם‬.49 These officials prevented the faint-hearted from retreating before battle. The same portrayal appears in 1QM 10:5–6: ‫ו[ש]וטרינו ידברו לכול עתודי המלחמה נדיבי לב להחזיק בגבורת‬ ‫“ אל ולשיב כול מסי לבב‬And our [o]fficers shall speak to all those ready for battle: to the willing-hearted, so that they hold fast to God’s power; and to the faint-hearted, so that they are turned back from flight.” In his magisterial commentary on this idealised manual for eschatological holy war, Yadin surveyed the work’s several other uses of ‫( שטר‬which his translators rendered by the quaintly Victorian “provost”) and compared them with the relevant passages in the Hebrew Bible. The erstwhile Israeli general then concluded: A review of the provosts’ duties in the O.T. proves that they were equivalent to the adjutant general’s branch and the adjutancy in today’s armies, dealing with conscription problems, matters of law and order, transmission of orders, and supervising their execution.50 Given the distribution of the verb ‫ שטר‬in the Aramaic dialects, the term may fairly be considered a lexical Hebraism in P.Hever 8a. In this connection it may be relevant that the scribe of this text, John bar Eli, was also the scribe of P.Hever 8, composed in both Aramaic and Hebrew; so he knew the language of the term’s origin.51 As a Hebraism, ‫ שטרא‬presumably carried with it a measure of the military semantics its use in biblical and post-biblical Hebrew texts displays. In other words, Eleazar was an official of some sort in Kephar Baru, and more narrowly, his responsibilities were at least partially military. At the time of the Second Revolt such can only mean that he had been placed in authority by Simon bar Kosiba. If so, Eleazar was an important man, a leader in the revolt, akin to Masabala bar Simon and John bar Baʿyah in En Gedi, and Jesus bar Galgula in Herodium. One aspect of his military duty seems to have been the delivery of correspondence to Simon bar Kosiba; the role would accord with Yadin’s summary regarding “transmission of orders.” This is the reason that his name was inscribed on the reverse of P.Hever 30 as the letter’s carrier.

49  Cf. J. Goldstein, I Maccabees (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976), 303: “Our author probably used the word [‫ ]שטר‬found in Deut 20:5–9, Josh 1:10 and 3:2.” 50  Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B. and C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 152. 51  John as the scribe of both P.Hever 8 and P.Hever 8a, as well as of P.Hever 26, is Yardeni’s conclusion, DJD 27, 26.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

385

The connection of this letter to Eleazar bar Eleazar, if rightly inferred, allows us to draw at least three further historical inferences—two of them of notable importance to our understanding of the Second Revolt: (1) First, because this was the village in which Eleazar exercised his adjutant functions, it seems probable that the letter describes events in the environs of Kephar Baru. Accordingly, Kephar Baru is quite likely the referent of the letter’s term ‫ישוב‬. It was here that certain Gentile allies of the Jewish war effort took refuge under the command of the Jew Simon ben Mattaniah, who was himself, however, not in the village, but hiding nearby. Possibly these Gentiles concealed themselves in tunnels under the village. The Roman historian Dio Cassius described anfractuous underground passages as characteristic of the revolutionaries’ guerilla methods (69.12), and modern archaeologists have excavated some of these tunnels and hideouts.52 However, Kephar Baru itself has yet to be excavated, and so this suggestion must remain tentative.53 In any event, P.Hever 30 likely gives evidence that the revolt was being fought in the Peraea. (2) A second historical inference made attractive by the proposed understanding of P.Hever 30 focuses on the “Gentiles” referenced in lines 5–6 of the document. If the readings and interpretations offered above are close to the truth, then these Gentiles were not Roman soldiers, but rather allies of the Jewish forces. Previously attached to another commander or perhaps to another locale, they had now joined Simon bar Mattaniah. Presumably their original situation was no longer tenable. One imagines that the reference in line 7 to the casualties suffered by the Jewish forces in the area may at least 52  For a brief synopsis of the archaeology of the hideouts, cf. H. Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Caves,” DEJ 417–18, and for an excellent popular and well-illustrated treatment of one of these hideouts, beneath the village of Horvat Ethri some twenty-five kilometers to the southwest of Jerusalem, see Boaz Zissu, “Village Razed, Rebel Beheaded,” BAR 33 (2007): 32–41. 53  Most scholars associate the site with the damaged βα[αρου of the Madeba Map, depicted as some four kilometers inland to the northeast of the hot baths of Callirrhoe. Josephus described the village, which he called Baaras, in a passage connected to Herod the Great’s travel to Callirrhoe in desperate search for relief from his final illness ( J.W. 7.180–89), and Josephus’ description fits the hot springs of Hammamat Maʿin. These springs emerge into the narrow, fissured Wadi Zarqa Maʿin. Above the hot springs sit the remains of an ancient village known today as Manyat Umm Hasan; this is probably Kephar Baru. Eusebius seems to have known Kephar Baru in his day, and described it as a very large village (Onomast. 205); cf. M. Avi-Yonah, Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Carta, 1976), s.v. Baaras. M. Broshi and E. Qimron, “A House Sale Deed from Kephar Baru from the Time of Bar Kokhba,” Israel Exploration Journal 36 (1986): 207 give the map reference as 207 113.

386

Wise

partially explain why these allies had mustered with the author of the letter. Clearly there was significant fighting in the Peraea, in the general vicinity of Kephar Baru. The Roman forces were defeating the locals and the sphere of the latter’s activity was being constricted. The importance of the apparent facts in the last two paragraphs lies in their potential contribution to disputed aspects of the historiography of the revolt. The geographic extent of Bar Kokhba’s rebel government and of the fighting has been a matter of considerable debate.54 Was it essentially confined to southern Judaea and the Judaean hills, or was the revolt more widespread? Also debated has been the truth of Cassius Dio’s claim that the revolt was fought not only by the Jews, but also extended to other nations: “Many alien peoples joined them as well, desirous of gain; all the earth, so to speak, was shaken by the thing” (69.13.2). A narrower notion, that of Nabatean participation in specific, has been argued by Hannah Cotton on the basis of another Bar Kokhba letter, the Greek P.Yadin 52, and P.Hever 30 may intersect with her position in interesting ways.55 In her communiqué a certain Soumaios wrote to John son of Baʿyah and Masabala bar Simon, the commanders of En Gedi, ordering them to make stipulated preparations for the approaching festival of Sukkot. Cotton has argued that Soumaios was a Nabatean. If so, it would probably be necessary to conceive the war as broader in geographic extent and participation than “minimalist” scholars such as Menahem Mor would accept.56 Yet there are notable problems with Cotton’s argument. Her contention that Soumaios is a Nabatean name, and so the letter’s author must be of that ethnicity, goes to ground on the fact that Soumaios was a hypocoristic of the name Samuel. It was a variant of Shammai. True, Nabateans bore this name, but so did many Jews.57 The Jewish option here would seem far the more likely prima facie, given the demographics (it was after all a Jewish revolt) and the national54  The literature on the Second Revolt (132–136[?] CE) is extensive, and many aspects of the war, including its causes, precise dating and extent, are the subjects of vigorous scholarly debate. An excellent recent summary of the issues with bibliographic guidance is H. Eshel, “The Bar Kochba Revolt, 132–135,” CHJ 4:105–27. 55  Cotton’s edition and interpretation appeared in Yadin et al., Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri, 351–62. For her Nabatean argument, note especially “Nabataean Participation in the Revolt (P. Yadin 52),” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome (ed. P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 133–52. 56  M. Mor, “The Geographical Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in Schäfer, Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, 107–31. 57  Ilan, Lexicon, 1:215–17.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

387

ist character of the conflict. It is hard to believe that perfervid Jewish nationalists such as Masabala would take orders from a Nabatean. Cotton’s further contention that Soumaios wrote in Greek because he could not use either Hebrew or Judaean Aramaic—stymied as he was by the Jewish script—fails to convince because in the most relevant surviving evidence Nabateans seldom used Greek.58 When they could not write Nabatean, they normally had no fall back position. It seems that only a small percentage of Nabateans controlled Greek. If so, the scenario Cotton wants us to imagine would rarely occur, and must yield if a more plausible interpretation is forthcoming. Marshalling her third and strongest argument, Cotton pointed out that the phrase camp of the Jews ([π]αρεμβολὴν Ἰουδ[αί]ων) that appears in P.Yadin 52 would not have been an expression a Jew would have used to describe Jewish forces; hence, the letter came from a Gentile. I have analyzed this argument at some length elsewhere and it really requires such detailed treatment. Here it must suffice to say that the expression is not as problematic as Cotton and many other scholars have supposed.59 For the week of Sukkot the normally scattered and concealed Jewish guerrilla units would come together openly at a place P.Yadin 52 was intended to identify. They would now be visible, vulnerable, a sealed tortoise daring to stretch forth its head. Obedience to their traditions required risking a type of attack that was the Romans’ incomparable strength, set battle formation. Given the situation, Soumaios had to avoid the agreed location’s familiar name, whatever that was. Interception of the letter was a definite possibility—a reality that various phenomena of the Bar Kokhba letters prove was well understood by Jewish correspondents during the war.60 Given this danger, a natural 58  Among the Judaean Desert documents Nabateans who signed Greek contracts overwhelmingly signed in Nabatean (20/23, 87%). These data derive from P.Yadin 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22 and P.Hever 62, 64. The three signatories producing Greek comprised witnesses to P.Yadin 12 and P.Hever 62, and Σ]ουμαῖος Κα[.]αβαῖου of P.Yadin 19. Ilan, Lexicon, 1:216, regarded this last as a Jew. Nabateans who signed Nabatean contracts either signed in Nabatean, or else could not sign at all (18/18, 100%); these data derive from P.Yadin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. 59  The fullest discussion of this point in the literature is Luc Devillers, “La lettre de Soumïos et les Ioudaioi Johanniques,” RB 105 (1998): 556–81, esp. 572–79. 60  Simon bar Kosiba’s lieutenant Samuel bar Ammi acted as secretary and composed P.Yadin 54 on a wooden leaf, probably first preparing a draft on another leaf or an ostracon that clarified the spacing for him. Thus he knew that the last line in each of the two columns of the fair copy would be blank, and so made certain to center one word or phrase in each. In this way he guaranteed that no one could modify the letter without detection, adding

388

Wise

alternative to straightforwardly naming the location was to designate this rare full gathering of Judaean soldiers (and possibly of their wives and children, as would be normal in peacetime) according to what it was: the main camp, since everyone would be there.61 That was just what our writer did, adopting παρεμβολὴν Ἰουδαίων, meaning the “Camp of the Jews” par excellence. Any more specific geographic information required by the En Gedi recipients could be supplied by the letter’s carrier. The most natural contextual reading of P.Yadin 52 is therefore that Simon bar Kosiba, writing here through an intermediate Jewish leader, one Soumaios, ordered the Jews of En Gedi to take steps for the coming Jewish festival of Sukkot. He probably wrote in the autumn of the year 135 CE. No Nabatean leadership was required. But if this interpretation is persuasive, then Cotton’s Nabatean allies obviously vanish. Here, I suggest, P.Hever 30: as her Nabateans exit through the front door, another group files in through the rear entrance. The Nabateans are back—and with them, new written evidence for the “maximalist” view that the Second Revolt was indeed widespread, spilling over the borders of Judaea and absorbing Gentile revolutionaries in addition to the Jews.62 (3) The third historical inference made possible by P.Hever 30 and its connection with Eleazar bar Eleazar is simply this: the letter was never delivered. For considering that P.Hever 30 wound up in the Cave of Letters, the straightforward interpretation of the facts would be that rather than deliver the missive, Eleazar elected to flee to the caves near En Gedi to try to save himself and his family. There he took refuge with additional relatives. Perhaps the revolt in the region of Kephar Baru collapsed more rapidly, more completely than either Simon ben Mattaniah or Eleazar had expected, the hopelessness of the situawords before it was received. Another method to deal with issues raised by interception was the suppression of proper names so as to guard critical information from unwanted readers. Note here Mur 44, where bar Kosiba tells Jesus bar Galgula to requisition grain from a certain person but suppresses the individual’s name: ‫ופקדתי תמי שיתן לך תחטין‬, And I have given orders concerning the man who will give you the wheat (lines 8–9). Cicero applied this method on numerous occasions in circumstances of war and conflict (e.g., Att. 2.19.4; 6.4.3; 6.5.1); see John Nicholson, “The Delivery and Confidentiality of Cicero’s Letters,” CJ 90 (1994): 49, 54–55. 61  P.Yadin 57 describes the incipient gathering with the phrase ‫אכלסה סגי‬, borrowing ὄχλος from Greek. 62  Among the best studies representing the “maximalist” perspective on the war’s scope and importance are those of Werner Eck, notably his, “The Bar-Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View,” JRS 89 (1999): 76–89 and “Hadrian, The Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and the Epigraphic Transmission,” in Schäfer, Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, 153–70.

Papyrus Hever 30 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

389

tion making itself fully apparent even as Eleazar was about to set out. Equally possible is that word of Bar Kokhba’s defeat at Betar reached Eleazar and precipitated the flight to the caves. And of course one may conjecture other scenarios. In any event, it seems clear that Simon ben Mattaniah’s letter to Simon bar Kosiba never reached its intended recipient. Since Graeco-Roman evidence nowhere suggests that a courier, as opposed to a letter’s sender, would retain a record-keeping copy, we must conclude that P.Hever 30 was the autograph intended for Simon bar Kosiba. Perhaps the Nasi was already dead, for the presence of the missive in the cave also strongly suggests that it was composed late in the year 135 CE. Within a few months Eleazar, too, would be dead, and so too all the refugees who had fled to the Cave of Letters. Left behind was this eight-line letter: delivered, as it turned out, not to Simon bar Kosiba, but to posterity.

CHAPTER 21

The Cave 11 Psalm Scroll (11Q5) and the Textual History of Ethiopic Psalm 151: Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior Steve Delamarter 1

Background and Appreciation to Professor Abegg

In the past ten years, Ethiopian manuscripts have consumed my scholarly attentions, even though I had no prior training in Ethiopic language, Ethiopian studies, codicology or book culture. This unexpected change in direction was set in motion by a trip to Ethiopia in 2004. I went there to locate and interview scribes active in the production of manuscripts within the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition. By doing this I hoped to develop a more robust model for understanding the social location and role of scribes within the book culture of Christian Ethiopia. I believed that some sort of model like this would be required to understand better and interpret more fully the evidences of scribal practice in the biblical manuscripts of the Dead Sea scrolls. Eugene Ulrich had begun to expound the phenomena of multiple editions of Old Testament books.1 Shemaryahu Talmon was articulating various sociological models to explain the nature of the Yaḥad at Qumran.2 And, in 2004, there appeared Emanuel Tov’s work on Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert3—itself the culmination of a host of individual studies he had carried out in previous months on various aspects of the work of scribes in the scrolls. All of these studies called me into new places, dimensions of the texts and of the communities that had produced them. 1  See especially, at that time, Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDDSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999). 2  Various articles were published in collections: Shemaryahu Talmon, World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1989); idem, Sha’arei Talmon: studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992); idem, Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible. Form and Content. Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1993); idem, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lk., Ind.: Eisenbrauns: 2010). 3  Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004301634_022

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

391

At the same time that I was studying these works, I was reading widely in the literature of book culture and medieval codicology and I was also meeting regularly with Marty Abegg, Peter Flint, Bill Schniedewind, Daniel Falk Rob Kugler and others in an informal setting we called the “West Coast Qumran Study Group.” This informal association of scholars gathered most every fall, sometime in October or November, and spent a day or two together sharing our research and enjoying one another’s company. Professor Abegg was an integral part of those events and the vibrant conversations that ensued there helped to shape my research agenda at this important juncture. I am grateful not only for the huge contribution he has made to the study of the scrolls, but also for his friendship in my life and scholarship. And to him I offer this brief study out of the trajectory my studies have followed since knowing him. 2

The Psalms Scroll (11Q5) and the Memory of David as Warrior

One of the many fascinating stories to emerge from the discovery and study of the Dead Sea Scrolls has to do with the extent and contents of the biblical book of Psalms, particularly in view of the large Psalms scroll discovered in Cave 11. It was James A. Sanders, later my doctoral advisor at Claremont, who unrolled, published and edited this important scroll in 1963–64. To everyone’s amazement, three Psalms beyond the 150 known from the Hebrew Bible were contained in the Scroll. These were Hebrew versions of five psalms already known to us from the Syriac tradition. The Psalms in 11Q5 corresponded to Syriac Pss 151, 154 and 155. But there were also four others, one known to us from Ben Sira 51 and three more previously unknown. Psalm 151 has also been preserved as part of the Greek tradition, contained in most Septuagint manuscripts. And as it turns out, the Ethiopian tradition contains Ps 151 as part of its canon. Psalm 151 presents a recital, ostensibly by David, of his encounter with Samuel, who chose him over any of his brothers and anointed him king (vv. 1–5), and of his encounter with Goliath, whom he fought in single combat (vv. 6–7). A full analysis of the various versions of Ps 151 is beyond the scope of what we could hope to accomplish in this context. But I would like to offer an account of the textual history of the Ethiopic Ps 151. Indeed, the history of the text of the Ethiopic Old Testament is one of the least studied of all biblical traditions, and yet is a profoundly interesting story. Because of the access which has been gained to large numbers of previously unknown manuscripts, we are now in a stronger position to sketch out the history of the text of Ps 151 and, in so doing, gain some understanding of the dynamics of the transmission

392

Delamarter

and reception history of sacred texts in this little-known part of the Christian tradition. What I propose to offer here is a report on the textual history of Ethiopic Ps 151 based on the transcription and analysis of 45 manuscripts. Taken together, these 45 represent the full range of the extant manuscript tradition and in sufficient numbers to offer statistically reliable conclusions. 3

The Ethiopic Psalter and Psalm 151

The Ethiopic Psalter represents the quintessential Ethiopian book. Perhaps as much as forty percent of all the books produced in Ethiopian Christian book culture are Psalters, commonly referred to as the Dawit. The transmission of the Dawit in Ethiopian Christianity represents the highest achievement, in certain respects, of Ethiopian Christian book culture, demonstrating its complexity and maturity. For instance, the content and form of the Ethiopian Psalter is very clearly defined. There are always five works: the 151 Psalms of David according to the Septuagint tradition, the 15 biblical canticles, the Song of Songs, two Maryan works, the Praises of Mary (arranged for the days of the week) and the Gate of Light. The first three works are laid out in one column with one strophe per line, leaving the left margin justified and the right margin unjustified. The last two works are laid out in two columns, justified on either side. There are many more fascinating aspects of scribal practice in reference to the Ethiopic Psalter which deserve their own study. For instance: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

the rubrication of the word for God (እግዚአብሔር) in the first three works of the Psalter compared to the rubrication of the word for Mary (ማርያም) in the last two works; the columetric arrangement of rubricated text (through alternating letters in red and black ink in successive lines) in the tenth biblical canticle (the single most extravagant use of red ink in the Psalter), Ps 135, Ps 150 and other Psalms (148, 145, etc.); the two common strategies to deal with line length in the first three works of the Psalter, by careful control of the aspect ratio of the text block and size of the letters, on the one hand, and micrography on the other; the marking of the midpoint of the Psalms (with text, rubrication, crosses, indentation, etc.) in Ps 77; the arrangement of Ps 118 (119) into twenty-two sections and the composition of superscriptions for each section that probe the spiritual meaning of the Hebrew alphabet;

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

6. 7.

393

the various approaches to marking section divisions, for example, the use of harags, lines of alternating red and black dots, multiple full-stop symbols, rubrication; and the sections thus marked: each of the five standard works in the Psalter, every group of ten Psalms or every group of 50 Psalms, each of the biblical Canticles, the sections of the Song of Songs and the days of the week in Praises of Mary.

But, for the purposes of this study I will restrict my focus to the reconstruction of the textual history of Ps 151 and the development of its text through at least four phases—one of which produced a substantial addition in the tradition of David as anointed warrior. 4

The Textual History of Ethiopic Psalm 151

4.1 Ethiopian Manuscripts Used for this Study I list here the 45 manuscripts employed as witnesses to the text of Ethiopic Ps 151. Witness 1: The Davies Microfilm Collection,4 Dabra Damo Psalter, reel 2, early 16th century. Witness 2: Davies Microfilm Collection, Dabra Libanos Psalter, 16th century. Witness 3: EMDL5 112, Mekelle Mäkänä Hǝywät Gäbrä Mänfäs Qǝddus, 26, early 17th century. Witness 4: Davies Microfilm Collection, Axum 3 Psalter, 1664. 4  This and the other manuscripts microfilmed by Donald Davies in Ethiopia were catalogued by William F. Macomber, Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts from Abba Garima, Asatan (Church of Saint Mary), Axum (Church of Zion), Dabra Bizan, Dabra Damo, Dabra Libanos, Gunda Dunde, Kebran, Lalibala (Church of the Savior of the World; Emmanuel Church), Maqale, Ura, Kidana Mehrat, Monastery of Dabra Daga (Church of Saint Stephen), Monastery of Lake Zeway, Dabra Maryam, National Library and Haiq, from Microfilms in the Collection of Dr. Donald Davies, De Land, Florida and Godfrey, Ontario and of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota (Collegeville, Minn: privately reproduced, 1979). 5  E MDL stands for Ethiopian Manuscript Digital Library, the project directed by Dr. Meley Mulugetta at the Harriett Tubman Institute in Toronto, Canada. For a number of years she has been working with the church in Ethiopia, particularly in the northern region of Tigray, to locate, preserve, and digitise manuscripts.

394

Delamarter

Witness 5: EMIP6 24, Marwick 20, early 18th century. Witness 6: EMIP 30, Whisnant Codex 2, 18th century. Witness 7: EMIP 60, Eliza Codex 30, 18th century. Witness 8: EMIP 99, Abilene Christian University Codex 2, 17th century. Witness 9: EMIP 110, Alwan Codex 5, 19th century. Witness 10: EMIP 161, Weiner Codex 56, 1865–1913 (mentions emperor Menilek) Witness 11: EMIP 242, Alwan Codex 32, 19th century. Witness 12: EMIP 342, MacLennan Codex 1, 18th century. Witness 13: EMIP 343, MacLennan Codex 2, 16–17th century. Witness 14: EMIP 395, Weiner Codex 162, 17th century. Witness 15: IES7 74, late 15th century. Witness 16: IES 837, 15th century. Witness 17: IES 77, the so-called Haile Selassie Bible produced in the Government Scriptorium, 1934–35. Witness 18: EMIP 2175, Albert Ten Kate Codex, 20th century. Witness 19: EMDL 274, late 18th century. Witness 20: EMIP 243, Alwan Codex 33, 18th century. Witness 21: EMML8 2010, 14–15th century. 6  E MIP stands for the Ethiopian Manuscript Imaging Project, directed by Steve Delamarter, assisted by Jeremy Brown. Catalogs of the project are published as part of the Ethiopic Manuscripts, Texts, and Studies series from Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon. 7  The collection of Gə`əz manuscripts at the Institute of Ethiopian Studies at Addis Ababa University is probably the largest in the world. 5,749 items in the collection were digitised by EMIP in 2010 with support from the British Library Endangered Archives Programme, including some 1,800 Gə`əz manuscripts. A series of three catalogs are forthcoming in 2014–15 which provide entries for each of the items digitised. The three volumes are as follows: Demeke Berhane, Melaku Terefe, Steve Delamarter and Jeremy Brown, A Handlist of the Manuscripts in the Institute of Ethiopian Studies: Volume One: The Gə`əz and Amharic Materials of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tradition (to be published by the Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement Series); Alessandro Gori, with contributions by Anne Regourd, Jeremy Brown, and Steve Delamarter, A Handlist of the Manuscripts in the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Volume Two: The Arabic Materials of the Ethiopian Islamic Tradition (to be published in the series Ethiopian Manuscripts, Texts, and Studies, Pickwick Press); and Melaku Terefe, Steve Delamarter, and Jeremy R. Brown, A Handlist of the Manuscripts in the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Volume Three: Remaining Materials beyond those of the Christian and Islamic Traditions (to be published in the series Ethiopian Manuscripts, Texts, and Studies, Pickwick Press). 8  E MML refers to the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, the largest of all microfilm projects conducted in Ethiopia between 1973 and 1993. Some 9,600 manuscripts were microfilmed and a series of catalogues produced: Getatchew Haile and William F. Macomber. A Catalogue of Ethiopian Mansucripts Microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

395

Witness 22: Tanasee9 166, 16th century. Witness 23: UNESCO10 2.84, 17th century. Witness 24: EMML 3071, 16th century. Witness 25: UNESCO 10.16, 17th century. Witness 26: Yale 18, 17th century. Witness 27: EMML, 15–16th century. Witness 28: EMML 2497, 16th century. Witness 29: EMML 2602, 16th century. Witness 30: EMML 4415, 15th century. Witness 31: EMML 2064, 14th century. Witness 32: EMML 4916, 15th century. Witness 33: EMDL 290, 15th century. Witness 34: EMML 3112, late 16th century. Witness 35: Tanasee 103, 17th century. Witness 36: EMML 6531, 15–16th century. Witness 37: EMIP 14, Marwick 10, 19th century. Witness 38: EMIP 35, Eliza 10, 19th century. Witness 39: EMIP 1055, Addis Alem 13, 19th century. Witness 40: EMIP 1060, Addis Alem 40, 19th century. Witness 41: EMIP 4, Eliza 3, 20th century. Witness 42: EMIP 11, Marwick 7, Ṭərr 21, 1915 (January 29, 1923). Witness 43: EMIP 22, Marwick 18, 20th century. Witness 44: EMIP 44, Eliza 19, 20th century. Witness 45: EMIP 48, Eliza 23, early 20th century. 4.2 Method After transcribing the full text of these 45 manuscripts, I divided the text of Ps 151 into 26 units, usually equivalent to the strophes of the Psalm in Ethiopic. Library, Addis Ababa and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, vols 1–10 (Collegeville: Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, 1973ff). 9  Ernst Hammerschmidt mounted a project in the late 1960’s to microfilm 182 manuscripts at churches and monasteries around Lake Tana in Ethiopia. Hammerschmidt and Veronika Six published a series of three catalogs: Äthiopische Handscrhriften vom Ṭānāsee, VOHD 20.1–3, (Wiesbaden: Steiner: 1973, 1977, and 1999). 10  UNESCO refers to the collection of around 370 manuscripts that were microfilmed in Ethiopia between September 1969 and February 1970 by a UNESCO mobile microfilm unit. The Ministry of Education and Fine Arts Department of Fine Arts and Culture produced a sketchy handlist: Catalogue of Manuscripts Microfilmed by the UNESCO Mobile Microfilm Unit in Addis Ababa and Gojjam Province (Addis Ababa: 20 February 1970).

396

Delamarter

We call these sections text variation units (TVUs). These 26 units did not include the superscription to Ps 151, since, as we will see, it posed a much more complex case than any of the TVUs within the Psalm. In a few cases, the strophes were divided into two TVUs since they contained two points of variation within them. Next, the texts of all the manuscripts were brought together for each TVU. Within each TVU, the manuscript readings were arranged into groups based on their shared variants. Each group within the TVU was assigned a group number, and a spread sheet prepared to show the group number of each variation unit of each manuscript. This made it possible to compare statistically the number of shared variations among the manuscripts at 26 points. This statistical analysis was facilitated by a set of scripts produced by Garry Jost, my colleague in the Textual History of the Ethiopic Old Testament (THEOT) Project. One of the outputs of this process is a graphic representation called a dendrogram of the relationships of the manuscripts.

FIGURE 21.1

Relationship of manuscripts based on shared linguistic variations

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

397

4.3 Results Eight of the TVUs actually contained no variations among all the manuscripts. The variations of the remaining 18 fell into two categories: linguistic variations (usually of morphology) and variations of substance (different words at one point or the presences of a plus/minus in the text). There were eleven variations of substance and seven linguistic variations. We ran the scripts three times on the data, once for just the linguistic variations, once for just the variations of substance, and once with them all combined. These produced the following three dendrograms. Dendrogram 1 made it clear that one aspect of the history of the manuscript tradition is in the ongoing development of the Ethiopic language. There is an archaic set of forms of morphology (employed especially in the thirteen manuscripts on the far right) to which many of the older manuscripts bear witness. Later copyists had to decide if they would employ those archaic forms or not. Most did not, but a few did, suggesting that some part of the community continued to associate the archaic forms of the language as part and parcel of the proper form of the text.

FIGURE 21.2

Relationship of manuscripts based on shared variants of substance

398

FIGURE 21.3

Delamarter

Relationship of manuscripts based on all variants

Dendrogram 2 documents the presence of two fundamental forms of Ps 151 in the Ethiopic tradition. The nine manuscripts on the far right represent a family of manuscripts characterised primarily by the presence of a substantial plus in v. 7 of Ps 151. All the rest of the manuscripts do not contain the plus, even though they do contain other small variations between them. When all of these variations come together, an overall picture of the manuscript families emerges. There are four distinct families of manuscripts, labeled here as families one through four. And there are a few manuscripts, witnesses 37, 9, 3 and 33, that do not fit into the general patterns. For the purposes of this study these manuscripts have been set aside. The four families that remain tell the overarching story of a manuscript tradition characterised in its earlier stages (families 1, 2, and 3) by linguistic variation and slight variations of substance, and the emergence of a later recension (family 4) with a substantial addition to the Psalm.

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

5

399

Psalm 151 and the Textual History of the Ethiopic Version

5.1 Family 1: The Earliest Extant Form of the Text Family 1 represents the earliest extant version of Ps 151. We offer it here as transcribed directly from one of the earliest and most important extant manuscripts, a 15th century Psalter from Dabra Damo microfilmed by Davies. Text 1  ንኡስ አነ እምአኃዊየ። ወወሬዛ በቤተ አቡየ። ወእሬዒ አባግዐ አቡየ። 2  እደዊየ ይገብራ መሰንቆ። ወአጻብዕየ ያስተዋድዳ መዝሙረ። 3  መኑ ይነግሮ ለእግዚእየ። ውእቱ እግዚአብሔር ውእቱ ይሰምዓኒ። 4  ውእቱ ፈነወ መልአኮ። ወነሥአኒ እምአባግዐ አቡየ። ወቀብአኒ ቅብአ ቅዱሰ። 5 አኃዊየስ ሠናያን ወልሂቃን። ወኢሠምረ ቦሙ እግዚአብሔር። 6  ወወፃእኩ ለተእኅዞቲ ለሕዝብ ነኪር። ወረገመኒ በአማልክቲሆሙ። 7  ወአንሰ ነሣእኩ ዘእምላዕሌሁ ስይፈ። ወመተርኩ ርእሶ። ወአሠሰልኩ ፅእለተ እምደቂቀ እስራኤል።

Translation 1 I was the smallest among my brothers and the youngest in my father’s house, and I used to tend my father’s sheep. 2 My hands built a musical instrument, and my fingers accompanied a psalm. 3 Who would announce this to my Lord? The Lord himself hears me. 4 He himself sent his messenger and took me from my father’s sheep, and anointed me with holy oil. 5 My brothers were handsome and big, but the Lord did not approve of them. 6 I went out to meet the strange foreigner; he cursed me by his false gods. 7 But I pulled out his own sword, and cut off his head; and I removed reproach from the children of Israel.

The oldest manuscripts bearing this earliest extant form of the text of Ethiopic Ps 151 come from the 14th and 15th centuries. Until recently, scholars have been accustomed to calling this form of the text the “Old Ethiopic” and essentially equating it with the earliest translation of the Ethiopic Bible known to have been carried out in the late-third, fourth and fifth centuries during the phase of the adoption of Christianity in the Kingdom of Axum. There are a few inscriptions from those early centuries that contain small snippets of biblical text in

400

Delamarter

Ethiopic and there are, indeed, many close correspondences between those texts and the ones that appear in the earliest extant manuscripts. However, the timeframe is so long and the evidence so scant that scholars have recently adopted a more modest set of claims about the form of the text carried in the earliest extant manuscripts. We adopt that position here and call it simply the earliest extant form of the text and thereby distinguish it from the Axumite Bible known to us from tradition and from the few small inscriptions.11 Perhaps the single biggest conclusion one reaches with regard to the entire textual history of the Ethiopic Old Testament is that this earliest extant form of the text is stamped onto the entire tradition. Whatever we choose to call the later families of manuscripts and however we choose to characterise them, it is clear that we dare not overemphasise the innovation of the later families of manuscripts. Only in very rare cases have later tradents felt it necessary to substantially alter the text of the earliest extant text. Having said this, though, there are a few instances where substantial innovation has taken place. The greatest example of this, that I know, has to do with an edition of the minor prophets which is contained in three manuscripts: UNESCO 10.34, EMIP 949, and EMML 7942. Virtually every sentence of this edition is at substantial variance with the earliest extant form of the text. These three manuscripts were copied well over a century apart but they present a form of the text that is identical to one another. Therefore, we must judge that these manuscripts represent a family, even though this family is, as yet, known to us only in these three manuscripts. And yet, they stand over against the entirety of the manuscript tradition12 in the Minor Prophets to such a degree that we may be justified, on the face of it, to conclude not only that the Vorlage of this family is likely non-indigenous to Ethiopia, but that the program which produced it was carried out by persons under the influence of a non-indigenous vision of the text, perhaps missionaries from outside Ethiopia, for instance. In fact, subsequent to reaching that general conclusion we have recently identified the Vorlage of this family. Curt Niccum, another colleague in THEOT, discovered that it is a direct translation of the Vulgata Sixtina into Ethiopic, complete with chapter summaries! 11  The jury is still out on the age of the Abba Garima gospels, which some claim come from the fifth and sixth centuries. Even if true, these contain only the four Gospels and tell us nothing about the textual history of the Ethiopic Old Testament. 12  My students and colleagues, Samuel Aldridge, Jeremy Brown, Jarod Jacobs, Brian Jeanseau, Garry Jost, Shaun Short, Jeremy Williams and I have transcribed sections of at least 50 manuscripts of the Ethiopic Minor Prophets. These three manuscripts are nothing like any of the others.

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

401

As we will see, the form of Ps 151 known from later manuscript families will represent another exception to this rule of fidelity to the earliest extant form of the text. But that later form is different only in the plus that it includes in v. 7. All the rest of the text is essentially uniform with the earliest extant form of the text.13 We make one further comment in relation to verse four which depicts the actions of a messenger sent by the Lord to David. He is described here as one who came to David, took him from his role as shepherd and anointed him to be king. Though unspecified, the most natural identity of this messenger is Samuel. 11Q5 makes this explicit with an addition to the text: “He sent his prophet to anoint me; Samuel, to elevate me.” Nothing in the earliest extant version of the Ethiopic Ps 151 conflicts with this conclusion. But we will see below that already by the time of the earliest extant manuscripts, there is a variant reading in circulation that brings a different perspective to this question. 5.2 Family 2: The Transitional Form of the Text Somewhere around the time of our earliest extant manuscripts, the 14th through the 16th centuries, evidence begins to emerge of a changing attitude in relation to the transmission of the Ethiopic Old Testament. Manuscript after manuscript shows evidence of a willingness to vary from the form of the text carried in the earliest extant form. The changes are subtle, usually focused on the linguistic and stylistic aspects of the text, but they occasionally extend to variations of substance. We have dubbed this form of the text the “Transitional Form” and, as the name suggests, it represents something of a threshold between the earliest extant form of the text and the form of the text that would emerge a bit later. Our second family of manuscripts in this study appears to align with this form of the Ethiopic text. It is perhaps more correct to see the transitional form of the text as a final stage of the life cycle of the earliest extant form of the text, one in which the inadequacies of language and translation of the earliest extant form were being acknowledged and modified. There is a uniform tendency in the transitional form of the text to respond to these perceived inadequacies, but the solutions are not uniform. In fact, the transitional form of the text often subdivides into two or three sub-groups of manuscripts within this family. This is the case in this study. Witnesses 12, 13, 14 and 19 appear to form one sub-group 13  For more on the textual history of the Ethiopic Old Testament see the articles in the multivolume Emanuel Tov and Armin Lange (eds.), Textual History of the Bible (forthcoming from Brill) and for which I served as the area editor in the first volume and contributor in the second volume.

402

Delamarter

while witnesses 2 and 36 appear to form another. And, witness 34, currently standing a bit isolated from the others in this branch of the dendrogram, may form part of another sub-group if we were to probe an even larger sampling of manuscripts. In Ps 151, one of the primary variations of the transitional form away from the earliest extant form is in verse 3. The manuscripts of the earliest extant form overwhelmingly render the two verbs in the imperfect, which is inherently ambiguous, possessing a range of nuances:

• • •

“Who will announce . . . the Lord himself will hear,” if we translate as simple action in the future; “Who announces . . . the Lord himself hears,” if we translate as habitual; “Who would announce . . . the Lord himself would hear,” if we translate it as contingent. The large majority of the manuscripts bearing the transitional form of the text systematically carry a straight-forward perfect form of the verb: “Who announced it to the Lord? The Lord himself heard me.” The alteration appears to be motivated by an interest in stylistic clarity. 5.3 Family 3: The Standardised Form of the Text In the 16th and 17th centuries another form of the text emerges. We refer to it as the standardised form of the text for two reasons. First, these manuscripts share a standard set of readings that distinguish them from other earlier families. And second, the manuscripts appear in such a high percentage of the surviving manuscripts that one is inclined to see this form of the text as the result of an official action of the leadership of the church and government, an authorised edition, as it were. In Ps 151:4, we have an example of such a reading that illustrates this characteristic of the standardised form of the text. It is the plus, “ወአድኀነኒ”, “The Lord himself, it is he who hears me and he delivered me.” This reading appears in only three of the nine manuscripts containing the earliest extant form of the text, including the very early manuscript, EMML2064, which is written in a 14th century hand. But it does not appear in any of the seven manuscripts in our study containing the transitional form of the text. But 16 of the 17 manuscripts in family 3 carry this reading. Thus, this reading did not originate with this form of the text, but it did become standardised in this form of the text. The significance of this addition is that it shifts the identity of the messenger somewhat away from Samuel, and the prophetic role of anointing, toward a heavenly messenger and defender like the archangel Mika’el, a figure of

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

403

enormous importance in Ethiopian Christianity. This messenger delivers David and, in the context of this Psalm, the most natural circumstance in which to conceive this deliverance is in the combat with Goliath. 5.4 Family 4: The Received Form of the Text (the Modern Textus Receptus) Without doubt, family 4 contains the most innovative form of the text that developed in Ethiopia. In other books of the Old Testament, the modern textus receptus shows indications of being a conflationary text, collating, as it were, competing variants within the earlier manuscripts and stringing them together side by side. This approach to textual variants stands at odds with the Western notion of selecting the best from among the variants and eliminating the rest. The Ethiopian tradition seems much more interested in preserving the variations and in specifying the theological usefulness of each. This sort of program is carried out in the traditional biblical commentaries of the Ethiopian Orthodox scholars known as the andemta. In Ps 151 the primary characteristic of this group of manuscripts is the substantial plus at the end of v. 6 and start of v. 7. And, the extent of this plus developed progressively over time in a process that we can trace: Two 17th century manuscripts (witnesses 8 and 35) contain the first appearance of the primary addition that would be recorded in all the other manuscripts in this family. We replicate the reading from witness 35. It begins with the addition of a pejorative adjective at the conclusion of verse six: Text 6 . . . ወረገመኒ በአማልክቲሆሙ ርኩሳነ። 7  አንሰ አንሣእኩ ሰለስተ አእባነ። ወወጸፍክዎ እንተ ፍጽሙ። ወወጽቀ በኃይለ እግዚአብሔር።

Translation 6 . . . and he cursed me by his abominable false gods 7 But I picked up three stones And I slung it at his forehead And he fell down by the power of the Lord.

From the 18th century onwards three other phrases are added. One is added to specify the location from which David picked up the stones, እምውስተ ፈለግ, (from the brook). Another is added to specify that the head cut off belonged to Goliath, by name, ለጎልያድ. A third adds a conjunction, አሚሃ, which correlates the actions of David to bring down Goliath and connects it to the divine cause of his success, “when he fell down by the power of the Lord.” The final form of the last line of v. 6 and all of v. 7, is contained in IES 77, for instance, a manuscript produced by the command of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1934 and produced by teams of scholars in the government scriptorium with the highest standards of materials and workmanship. We tend to think of this

404

Delamarter

manuscript has having all the marks of the identified final form of the text in modern Ethiopian culture in the early 20th century.14 Text 6 . . . ወረገመኒ በአማልክቲሆሙ ርኩሳነ። 7  ወአንሰ ነሣእኩ አዕባነ እምውስተ ፈለግ። ወወጸፍክዎ ውስተ ፍጽሙ። አሚሃ ወድቀ በኃይለ እግዜብሔር። ወአንሰ ነሣእኩ ዘእምላዕሌሁ ሰይፈ። ወመተርኩ ርእሶ ለጎልያድ። ወአሰሰልኩ ጽእለተ እምደቂቀ እስራኤል። 6

Translation 6 . . . and he cursed me by his abominable false gods 7 But I picked up three stones from the brook And I slung it at his forehead When he fell down by the power of the Lord. And I picked up his own sword And I cut off the head of Goliath, And removed the reproach from the children of Israel.

Superscriptions to Psalm 151 within the Manuscript Tradition

In contrast to the high degree of uniformity of text in the body of the Psalms and also to the text of the 15 biblical canticles that follow in Ethiopic Psalters, there is a great degree of variability of text in the superscriptions. We can see at least five forms of superscription, each with many variations. The longest and oldest form of the superscription for Ps 151 follows the first half of the Septuagint superscription very closely. These make reference to the authenticity of the Psalm as well as to the setting of its composition. LXX Οὗτος ὁ ψαλμὸς ἰδιόγραφος εἰς Δαυιδ καὶ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ• ὅτε ἐμονομάχησεν τῷ Γολιαδ

EMML 2064 (14th c.) መዝሙር ዘዳዊት ዘርእሱ ዘጸሐፈ ወውፁእ ውእቱ እምኆልቍ ዘአመ ይትበሐቶ ወይትበአስ ምስለ ጎልያድ።

Translation of Ethiopic A Psalm of David, his own, which he wrote, though it is outside the enumeration, at the time he combated alone with Goliath.

14  After completing this study I came across the work by Stephen Strelcyn, “Le Psaume 151 dans la Tradition Ethiopienne,” JSS 23 (1978) 316–329, in which he analysed 37 mss in England and France and identified many of the same developments in the text as we have shown here.

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

405

Fully thirteen of the manuscripts in this study contained a very similar form of the superscription, referring to both aspects, its authenticity and setting: witnesses 1, 2, 8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36. An examination of the dates of these witnesses shows that this form of superscription dominated the earliest manuscripts in the 14th to the 17th centuries. A 14th manuscript (witness 7 from the 18th century) has an abbreviated form, which nevertheless covers both aspects: መዝሙር ዘርእሱ ዘዳዊት ዘጸሐፈ በእንተ ጎልያድ. Related to these are two more manuscripts (witnesses 14 and 27 from the seventeenth and fifteenth centuries respectively) containing reference to the authenticity of the Psalm with the text, መዝሙር ዘዳዊት እምርእሱ ወውጹእ እምኊልቍ, “A Psalm of David from himself and outside the enumeration.” A second form of the superscription centres on the setting of the composition of the Psalm, but with phraseology different than the old superscription: አመ ቀተሎ ለጎልያድ, “when he killed Goliath.” Five manuscripts, dating in range from the 17th to the 20th centuries, contain this simple superscription: witnesses 4, 10, 23, 25 and 45. A third form of the superscription employs the term ርእሱ in a slightly different sense than the way it is used in the old superscription. It is part of the simple statement, በእንተ ርአሱ, (concerning himself). Eight manuscripts ranging from the 18th to the 20th centuries have this form of the superscription: witnesses 5, 9, 11, 17, 39, 42, 43 and 44. Four manuscripts (witnesses 13, 20, 29 and 35) contain a fourth form of superscription. This one makes no reference either to authenticity or to setting, but falls back on a simple form of superscription common to many of the Psalms: መዝሙር ዘዳዊት ሃሌ ሉያ (A Psalm of David, Haleluya) or ሃሌ ሉያ መዝሙር ዘዳዊት (Hale luya, a Psalm of David). A fifth form focuses on the encounter with Samuel and makes central use of the term መንግስት (“kingship or government”): አመ ቀብዖ ሰሙዔል ቅብዓ መንግስት, (when Samuel anointed him with oil of kingship; witness 6, cf. witness 8). 7 Conclusion The story of the textual history of Ethiopic Ps 151 represents some of the central features of the history of the text of the Ethiopic Old Testament generally. For one thing, the textual history of Ps 151 witnesses to the primary families known to us now from our studies of the extant manuscript tradition. Already, in the earliest extant manuscripts (from the 14th and 15th centuries), we can identify, side by side, the last remnants of an old text and the first attempts to

406

Delamarter

fix that old text (the so-called transitional form of the text). And what began as an uncoordinated movement to make corrections and improvements gave way within a century to what must have been an official revision that was widely adopted. The numbers of extant manuscripts from this family seem to prove this point. But even this so-called “Standardised” form of the text contains subgroups, perhaps a witness to parallel regional transmission processes in which slight variations developed across time between regions. Eventually, though, another movement ensued in which the text of Ps 151 was expanded and developed into the form of the text that is common to this day in Ethiopia, what we call the modern textus receptus. Crystallising in the nineteenth century, it arose out of the Standardised version and was promulgated from government scribal centers like the scriptoria of Emperors Menilek and Haile Selassie in Addis Alem and Addis Ababa. We can say in one breath that this form of the text was simultaneously creative (witness the significant plus), but also conservative in its desire to preserve variants through a process of conflation. This latter impulse, to conflate variants into a common text, reflects an epistemology that is the opposite of the sort of the drive to narrow the text down to one reading judged to be the “original.” Instead, like the writers of the Talmud, the point becomes not so much promulgate one correct reading, but to record the learned conversations that produced so many useful insights. With all of this discussion of four families of manuscripts in Ps 151, we should be reminded that the levels of variation between most of their differences is actually very small in absolute terms. We are reluctant to use anything as grandiose as terms like “recensions” or “versions” to describe the new forms of the text. The large plus in the textus receptus is actually quite unrepresentative of the tradition. In very real ways the form of the text has remained largely unchanged across the centuries for which we have manuscript evidence. Though our attention is inevitably drawn to the variations, it seems we ought rather to emphasise the essential unity of the Ethiopic tradition. It is very satisfying to work on the Ethiopic biblical text these days. So many manuscripts have become available that we can finally draw statistically reliable conclusions about the history of the text. But so much more remains to be done. The THEOT project has only just begun to scratch the surface of the textual history of the Ethiopic Old Testament. To this point transcriptions of more than 25 manuscripts have been completed only for Deuteronomy, Judges, Ruth, Psalms, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk and Malachi. And the work of processing and interpreting the data from these transcriptions is still in its early stages. But our conviction is that knowledge of the Ethiopic textual history will help to fill in one more part—a part that is currently neglected—of the grander tale of the transmission of the biblical

Memory and Interpretation of David as Anointed Warrior

407

text throughout a multitude of Christian communities. And when we recover the neglected text of a marginalised community, something precious, I believe, is taking place. We are giving voice to a community that has had its voice taken away. When we listen to that witness we often hear ideas that are familiar to us. But every so often we are also confronted with ideas and perspectives and practices (whether theological or scribal) that challenge us and force us to reflect on our own way of engaging the text. In this way we are pressed to become a little more self-aware, and perhaps also, a little more empathetic toward others. And by this process the wider Christian tradition can be enriched. This, at least, is our hope.

A Bibliography of Martin G. Abegg Compiled by Kyung S. Baek and Kipp Davis “The War Scroll From Cave 1 and 4: A Critical Edition.” Ph.D. dissertation. Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, 1993. “4Q471: A Case of Mistaken Identity.” Pages 136–47 in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. “Messianic Hope and 4Q285: A Reassessment,” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 81–91. “The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 125–44. Review of Magen Broshi et al., eds., The Scrolls of the Judaean Desert, Forty Years of Research [Hebrew], Hebrew Studies 36 (1995): 215–18. “Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of Righteousness.” Pages 61–73 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 111–26 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by J.M. Scott. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Review of Zdzislaw Jan Kapera, ed., Mogilany 1993: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls offered in memory of Hans Burgmann, Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 362–64. “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 325–58 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. “Does Anyone Really Know What Time it Is: A Reexamination of 4Q503 in Light of 4Q317.” Pages 396–406 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness’,” Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 139–47. “Liturgy: Qumran,” Pages 648–50 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. “Retribution,” “Visitation, Day of.” Pages 767–70 and 958–59 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

410

A Bibliography of Martin G. Abegg

Review of G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Journal of Semitic Studies 45/2 (2000): 374–75. “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law’.” Pages 203–16 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint with the assistance of Tae Hun Kim. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. “The Calendar at Qumran.” Pages 145–71 in vol. 1 of Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 5. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by A.J. AveryPeck, J. Neusner and B.D. Chilton. HOS I Near and Middle East 56. Leiden: Brill, 2001. “1QIsaaand 1QIsab: A Rematch.” Pages 221–28 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002. “Concordance of Proper Nouns in the Non-biblical Texts from Qumran.” Pages 229–84 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Review of Eugene Ulrich et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4:XI, Psalms to Chronicles, Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 162–64. “1QSb and the Elusive High Priest.” Pages 3–16 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Laurence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. Leiden: Brill, 2003. “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians.” Pages 81–97 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S.E. Porter and J.C.R. de Roo. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Review of James H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus?, Hebrew Studies 44 (2004): 280–82. Review of Dana M. Pike and Andrew C. Skinner eds., Qumran Cave 4.XXIII: Unidentified Fragments, Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 120–122. “A Messianic High Priest in the Scrolls?” Mishkan: A Forum on the Gospel and the Jewish People 44 (2005): 43–51. “ ‘And He Shall Answer and Say . . .:’—a Little Backlighting.” Pages 203–11 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, James C. VanderKam, and Emanuel Tov. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006. “Paul and James on the Law in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 63–74 in Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Craig A. Evans. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006. Review of Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5, Journal for the Study of Judaism 37 (2006): 437–38.

A Bibliography of Martin G. Abegg

411

“ ‘Rabbi Computer’ Recreates Unpublished Texts,” Biblical Archaeology Review 33/3 (May/June 2007): 51–52. Review of Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts, Dead Sea Discoveries 14 (2007): 392–95. “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More Than (Initially) Meets the Eye.” Pages 48–68 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls.” Pages 25–42 in Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 32. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010. “The Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Hebrew Syntax.” Pages 163–172 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. “‫ גָ ַמל‬gāmal.” Pages 615–618 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Edited by Ulrich Dahmen, and Heinz-Jozef Fabry. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011. “The Time of Righteousness (4Q215A): A Time of War or a Time of Peace?” Pages 1–12 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by J. Penner, K.M. Penner and C. Wassen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 98. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Review of Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts, Review of Biblical Literature (2013). http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8167. with J.E. Bowley and E. Cook, in consultation with Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Vol 1: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2003. with James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, in consultation with Eugene C. Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance III. The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2010. with James Charlesworth, Peter Flint, and Lawrence Schiffman. Dead Sea Scrolls, Christianity, and Judaism. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2010. Computer Disk (DVD). with Craig A. Evans. “Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 191–203 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. with Craig A. Evans and Gerbern S. Oegema. “Bibliography of Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 204–14 in Charlesworth, Lichtenberger, and Oegema, eds., Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

412

A Bibliography of Martin G. Abegg

with Peter W. Flint, and Eugene C. Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible, Translated for the First Time in English. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999. with Peter W. Flint and Eugene C. Ulrich. “Why Is Esther Missing from Qumran?” Bible Review 15/4 (1999): 2. with Ronald S. Hendel, James C. VanderKam, and Sidnie White Crawford. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2010. Computer Disk (DVD). with Michael Phelps, and Hershel Shanks. “Will Marty Abegg Ever Find A Job? Scroll Scholar Thrives Despite Unauthorized Publication,” Biblical Archaeology Review 29/1 (2003): 37. with Ben Zion Wacholder, eds. Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls. 3 vols. Washington D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991–95. with Ben Zion Wacholder and James Bowley, eds. A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four, Fascicle Four: Concordance of Fascicles 1–3. Washington D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1996. with Michael O. Wise and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. with Michael O. Wise and Edward Cook, eds. Die Schriftrollen von Qumran: Übersetzung und Kommentar: Mit bisher unveröffentlichen Texten. Augsburg: Pattloch, 1997. with Michael O. Wise and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Second Revised Edition. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.

General Bibliography Acsádi, Györgi, and János Nemeskéri. A History of Human Lifespan and Mortality. Budapest: Akdémiai Kiadó, 1970. Aharoni, Y. “Expedition B,” Israel Exploration Journal 11 (1961): 10–24. ———. “Expedition B–The Cave of Horror,” Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962): 186–99. Albert Carson, Cindy. “Raiders of the Lost Scrolls: The Right of Scholarly Access to the Content of Historic Documents,” Michigan Journal of International Law 16 (1994– 1995): 199–248. Albright, W.F. “A Brief History of Judea from the Days of Josiah to Alexander the Great,” Biblical Archaeologist 9/1 (1946): 1–16. Alexander, Philip. S. “The Redaction-History of Serekh ha-Yahad: A Proposal,” Revue de Qumran 17/1–4 (1996): 437–56. ———. “ ‘Wrestling Against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community.” Pages 318–37 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 26 / Roehampton Institute London Papers 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ———. “A Reconstruction and Reading of 4Q285 (4QSefer ha-Milhamah),” Revue de Qumran 19/75 (2000): 333–48. ———. “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome.” Pages 17–31 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul et al. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Amit, D., and H. Eshel, “A Tetradrachm of Bar Kokhba from a Cave in Naḥal Ḥever,” Israel Numismatic Journal 11 (1990–91): 33–35. Angel, Joseph. “Maskil, Community, and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511),” Dead Sea Discoveries 19 (2012): 1–27. Angel, J. Lawrence. “Ecology and Population in the Eastern Mediterranean,” World Archaeology 4 (1972): 94. Argall, Randal. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment. Society of Biblical Literature Early Jewish Literature 8. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Arnold, Russell C.D. The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 60. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Askew, Reginald J.A. Muskets and Altars: Jeremy Taylor and the Last of the Anglicans. London: Mowbray, 1997. Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

414

General Bibliography

Avalos, Hector. Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. Amherst: Prometheus, 2005. Aviam, Mordechai. “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation.” Pages 115–32 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition. Edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ———. Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Galilee. 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys. Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 2004. Avigad, N. “Expedition A,” Israel Exploration Journal 11 (1961): 6–10. ———. “Expedition A–Nahal David,” Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962): 169–83. Avi-Yonah, M. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Carta, 1976. Baarda, Tjitze. “The Shechem Episode in the Testament of Levi: A Comparison with Other Traditions.” Pages 11–73 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude. Edited by J.N. Bremmer and F. García Martínez. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1992. Bahr, G.J. “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 27–41. Baillet, Maurice. “Le travail d’édition de fragments manuscrits de Qumân,” Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 47–67. ———. “Les Manuscrits de la Règle de la Guerre de la Grotte 4 de Qumran,” Revue Biblique 79 (1972): 217–26. Baillet, M. Qumran Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Baker, David W. “Kittim.” Page 93 in vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Baker Mark C., and Jim McCloskey. “On the Relationship of Typology to Theoretical Syntax,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007): 285–96. Bar, Doron. “Settlement and Economy in Late Roman Byzantine Palestine (70–641 AD),” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 67/3 (2004): 307–20. Bar-Adon, P. “Expedition C,” Israel Exploration Journal 11 (1961): 24–35. ———. “Expedition C—The Cave of the Treasure,” Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962): 215–26. Barag, Dan. “New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanos,” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992–3): 1–12. Baron, Salo Wittmayer. A Social and Relgious History of the Jews. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937. Barthélemy, D., and J.T. Milik. Qumran Cave I. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

General Bibliography

415

Barthélemy, Dominique. Le devanciers d’Aquila. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Barton, J. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel After the Exile. New York: Oxford, 1992. Baruchi, Y. and H. Eshel, “Another Fragment of Sdeir Genesis,” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 136–38. Batsch, C. “Priests in Warfare in Second Temple Judaism: 1QM, or the Anti-Phinehas.” Pages 165–178 in Qumran Cave I Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS Ljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk et al. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bauckham, Richard J. “The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist,” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 202–16. Bauer, David R. “The Kingship of Jesus in the Matthean Infancy Narrative: A Literary Analysis,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 306–23. Baumgarten, A.I. “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration,” Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 137–56. Baumgarten, Albert I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 55. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Baumgarten, Albert. “Who Cares and Why Does it Matter? Qumran and the Essenes, Once Again!” Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 175–90. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Essenes Avoidance of Oil and Laws of Purity,” Revue de Qumran 22/6 (1967): 183–92. ———. Studies in Qumran Law. Leiden: Brill, 1977. ———. “Liquids and Susceptibility to Defilement in New 4Q Texts,” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 91–101. ———. Qumran Cave 4:XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 18. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Baumgarten, J. “4QTohorot Ba.” Pages 111–14 in Qumran Cave 4.XXV Halakhic Texts. Edited by Joseph Baumgarten et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 35. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Beale, G.K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham, Md.: University Press, 1984. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 68. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Bekins, Peter J. “Non-Prototypical Uses of the Definite Article in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of Semitic Studies 58/2 (2013): 225–40. Ben-David, H. “Were There 204 Settlements in Galilee at the Time of Josephus Flavius?” Journal of Jewish Studies 62 (2011): 21–36. Benoit, P., J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux. Les Grottes de Murabbaʿât. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.

416

General Bibliography

Berhane, Demeke, Melaku Terefe, Steve Delamarter and Jeremy Brown. A Handlist of the Manuscripts in the Institute of Ethiopian Studies: Volume One: The Gəʿəz and Amharic Materials of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tradition. Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement Series, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forthcoming. Berlin, Andrea M. “Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period,” Biblical Archaeology 60 (1997): 2–57. Bernat, David A., and Jonathan Klawans, eds. Religion and Violence: The Biblical Heritage. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions.” Pages 1–26 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the [Second] International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead sea Scrolls and Associated Literature. Edited by E.G. Chazon and M.E. Stone. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “Women and Children in Legal and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 191–211. Berthelot, K. “4QTestimonia as a Polemic against the Prophetic Claims of John Hyrcanus.” Pages 99–116 in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Armin Lange, and L.L. Schulte. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 52. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–40). Hermeneia 57. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: Erganzungsband. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Beyerle, Stefan. “The Book of Daniel and Its Social Setting.” Pages 205–28 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint. 2 vols. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 133. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Beyerlin, Walter (ed.). Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1978. Black, Matthew. “ ‘Not peace but a sword’: Matt 10:34ff; Luke 12:51ff.” Pages 287–94 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Black, Matthew, and James C. VanderKam. The Book of Enoch, or I Enoch: A New English Edition. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985. Blenkinsopp, J. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Revised edition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1996. ———. “Life Expectancy in Ancient Palestine,” Scandanavian Journal of the Old Testament 11 (1997): 52–53.

General Bibliography

417

Bockmuehl, Markus. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1990. ———. “A ‘Slain Messiah’ in 4Q Serekh Milhamah (4Q285)?” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992): 155–69. Bohak, Gideon. “A New Genizah Fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document,” Tarbiz 79 (2011): 373–83 [Hebrew]. ———. “A New Genizah Fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document.” Pages 101–114 in From Cairo to Manchester: Studies in the Rylands Genizah Fragments. Edited by Renate Smithuis and Philip S. Alexander. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 31; Oxford University Press, 2013. “Bootleg Volume of Long-Secret Dead Sea Scrolls Is Published,” The Los Angeles Times (5 September 1991): 18. Borchardt, Francis. “Daniel’s Court Tales as Source Code: What Daniel Can Teach Us about Biblical Development.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 17 November 2012. Bowley, J. “Prophets, Kittim, and Divine Communication in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Enemies and Friends of the State: Ancient Prophecy in Context. Edited by Christopher A. Rollston. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming. Bradford Welles, C. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. London, 1934. Reprinted. Chicago: Ares, n.d. “Breaking the Scroll Cartel,” The New York Times (7 September 1991): 22. Brenneman, Laura L., and Brad D. Schantz, eds. Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments. Studies in Peace and Scriptures 12. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2014. Brodd, Jeffrey, and Jonathan L. Reed, eds. Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult. Society of Biblical Literature Writings of the GrecoRoman World 5. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Brooke, George J. “The Kittim in the Qumran Pesharim.” Pages 135–59 in Images of Empire. Edited by Loveday Alexander. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 122. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ———. “Prophecy and Prophets in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking Backwards and Forwards.” Pages 151–65 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 427. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Brooke, George J. et al., in consultation with J. Vanderkam, Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Para­ biblical Texts, Part3. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Broshi, Magen. “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236 (1979): 1–10. Broshi, Magen, and Israel Finkelstein, “The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287 (1992): 47–60.

418

General Bibliography

Broshi, M. and A. Yardeni. “339. 4Q List of False Prophets ar.” Pages 77–79 in Qumran Cave 4 XIV Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by M. Broshi et al. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 19. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ———. “On netinim and False Prophets.” Pages 29–37 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Edited by Ziony Zevit, Seymor Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Broshi, M., and E. Qimron. “A House Sale Deed from Kephar Baru from the Time of Bar Kokhba,” Israel Exploration Journal 36 (1986): 201–14. Brown, Raymond. The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament. Facet Books, Biblical Series 21. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968. Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, W.G. Oxtoby, J. Teixidor. A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew and Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Caves II–X, Including Especially the Unpublished Material from Cave IV. Göttingen: privately printed, 1988. Brueggemann, Walter. Divine Presence Amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua. Eugene, Ore. Cascade Books, 2009. Byatt, Anthony. “Josephus and Population Numbers in First Century Palestine,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105 (1973): 51–60. Callaway, Joseph. “Excavating Ai (Et-Tell): 1964–1972,” Biblical Archaeologist 39/1 (1976): 18–30. Callaway, Joseph A. and Kermit Schoonover. “The Early Bronze Age Citidel at Ai (Et-Tell),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 207 (1972): 41–53. Capizzi. Joseph E. “War and International Order,” Communio 31 (2004): 280–301. Carmignac, Jean. “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans « La Guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres »,” Revue Biblique 63 (1956): 234–60, 375–90. ———. La Règle de la Guerre des Fils de Lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres: Texte restauré, traduit et commenté. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1958. Carney, Thomas F. The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity. Lawrence, Kans.: Coronado Press, 1975. Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Carson, Marvin. Performance: A Critical Introduction. Second Edition. London: Routledge, 2004. Carter, Warren. “Matthew: Empire, Synagogues, and Horizontal Violence.” Pages 285– 308 in Mark and Matthew I. Edited by E. Becker and A. Runesson. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Catalogue of Manuscripts Microfilmed by the UNESCO Mobile Microfilm Unit in Addis Ababa and Gojjam Province. The Ministry of Education and Fine Arts Department of Fine Arts and Culture. Addis Ababa: 20 February 1970.

General Bibliography

419

Ceccarelli, Paola. Ancient Greek Letter Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Cerquiglini, Bernard. In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology. Translated by Betsy Wing from Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie. Parallax; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. Charles, R.H. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902. Charlesworth, J. et al., eds. Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 38. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. ———. The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Charlesworth, James H. and Carol A. Newsom, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts With English Translations. Vol. 4B. Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Chomsky, Noah. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995. ———. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Cohen, S. “False Prophets (4Q399), Netinim (4Q340), and Hellenism at Qumran,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000): 55–66. Cohen, Shaye J.D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. Harvard Semitic Monographs 16. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. ———. Daniel. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997. ———. “The Mysteries of God. Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 287–305 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by García Martínez, Florentino. Dudley, Mass.: Peeters, 2003. ———. “The Zeal of Phineas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence,” JBL 122 (2003): 3–21. Revised and reprinted in Does the Bible Justify Violence? Facet Books. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. ———. The Sceptre and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. Second Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, John J., F.M. Cross, and Adela Yarbro Collins. Daniel: A Commentary On the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Collins, Matthew A. The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. Library of Second Temple Studies 67. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

420

General Bibliography

Cook, Edward M. Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls: New Light on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994. Cooke, George A. The Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936. Cotton, Hannah M. “Continuity of Nabataean Law in the Petra Papyri: A Methodological Exercise.” Pages 154–74 in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. Edited by H.M. Cotton, et al. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “Nabataean Participation in the Revolt (P. Yadin 52).” Pages 133–52 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome. Edited by P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Cotton, Hannah, and Ada Yardeni, eds. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 27. Oxford, Clarendon, 1997. Coughlin, Ellen K. “Biblical Scholars Construct Bootleg Version of Some Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (11 September 1991): A9, A12. Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Crouch, Carly L. War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 407. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Dandamaev, M.A. “About Life Expectancy in Babylonia in the First Millenium BC,” Mesopotamia 8 (1980): 183–86. Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. Biblica et orientalia 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. ———. “The Scribal School of Daniel.” Pages 247–65 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint. 2 vols. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 133. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. “The Biblical and Qumranic Concept of War.” Pages in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One, Scripture and the Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006. ———. “Dualism in the Qumran War Texts.” Pages 8–19 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by G.G. Xeravits. Library of Second Temple Studies 76. London: T&T Clark International, 2010. Davis, Kipp. The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions: Prophetic Persona and the Construction of Community Identity. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 111. Leiden: Brill, 2014. ———. “The Social Milieu of 4QJera (4Q70) in a Second Temple Jewish Manuscript Culture: Fragments, Manuscripts, Variance, and Meaning.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Munich. Edited by Samuel I. Thomas, George J.

General Bibliography

421

Brooke, Allison Schofield, and Eibert Tigchelaar. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah. Leiden: Brill. Forthcoming. De Jonge, Marinus. “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi.” Pages 71–89 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. De Jonge, Marinus and Johannes Tromp. “Jacob’s Son Levi and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and Related Literature.” Pages 203–236 in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Edited by Michael Stone and Theodore Bergren. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998. “Dead Sea Scroll Concordance Now Available for Use by Scholars,” Biblical Archaeology Review 16/2 (March/April 1990): 23. Delcor, M. “La guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres ou le_Manuel du parfait combattant’,” La nouvelle revue théologique 77 (1955): 372–99. Devillers, Luc. “La lettre de Soumïos et les Ioudaioi Johanniques,” Revue Biblique 105 (1998): 556–81. Dimant, Devorah. “Qumran Sectarian Literature.” Pages 483–550 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo Josephus. (Ed.) Michael E. Stone. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ———. “A Synoptic Comparison of Parallel Sections in 4Q427 7, 4Q491 11 and 4Q471B,” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 157–61. ———. “Themes and Genres in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran.” Pages 15–45 in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence, 30 June–2 July 2008. Edited by Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 94. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. “The Composite Character of the Qumran Sectarian Literature as an Indication of Its Date and Provenance.” Pages 171–83 in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Dimant, Devorah, and Uriel Rappaport, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah / Testi E Documenti 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Apocalypticism and the Aramaic Texts from Qumran.” Pages 15–45 in Berthelot and Stökl Ben Ezra, eds., Aramaica Qumranica. Drawnel, Henryk. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

422

General Bibliography

Drazin, Israel. Targum Onkelos to Numbers. Hoboken & Denver & s.l.: Ktav Publishing House & Center for Judaic Studies, University of Denver & Society for Targumic Studies, 1998. Driscoll, M.J. “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New.” Pages 85–102 in Creating the Medieval Saga: Version, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature. Edited by Judy Quinn and Emily Lethbridge. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2010. Dryer, M. “Are Grammatical Relations Universal?” Pages 115–43 in Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón. Edited by J. Bybee, J. Haiman, and S. Thompson; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997. Du Toit, Jaqueline and Jason Kalman. Canada’s Big Biblical Bargain: How McGill University Bought the Dead Sea Scrolls. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010. Duhaime, Jean. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 32–56. ———. “The War Scroll from Qumran and the Greco-Roman Tactical Treatises,” Revue de Qumran 13/51 (1988): 133–51. ———. “Étude comparative de 4QMa fgg. 1–3 et 1QM,” Revue de Qumran 14 (1991): 459–72. ———. “War Scroll (1QM; 1Q33; 4Q491–496 = 4QM 1–6; 4Q497).” Pages 80–203 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts With English Translations. Vol.  2. Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. ———. The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 6. London: T&T Clark, 2004. ———. “La Règle de la Guerre (1QM) et la construction de l’identité sectaire.” Pages 131– 45 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 70. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “War Scroll (1QM).” Pages 1329–30 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by J.J. Collins and D. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “War Scroll.” Pages 3116–3151 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013. Eck, Werner. “The Bar-Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View,” Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999): 76–89. ———. “Hadrian, The Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and the Epigraphic Transmission.” Pages 153–70 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome. Edited by P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

General Bibliography

423

Eisenman, Robert H., and James M. Robinson. A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1–2. Washington D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991. Eisenman, Robert H., and Michael O. Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. Shaftesbury and Rockport: Element, 1992. Elgvin, Torleif and Ian Werrett. “4Q472a in Infrared Light: Latrine Manual Down the Drain,” Revue de Qumran 23/2 (2007): 261–68. Elgvin, Torleif, and Michaela Hallermayer. “Schøyen ms. 5234: Ein neues Tobit– Fragment vom Toten Meer,” RevQ 22 (2006): 451–61. Elliott, Mark Adam. “Retribution and Agency in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Teaching of Jesus.” Pages 207–31 in The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Harold J. Ellens. Westport; London: Praeger, 2004. Erho, Ted M. “The Motif of the Eschatological Battle in the War Scroll (1QM).” Pages 359–74 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. Society of Biblical Literature Early Jewish Literature 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Eshel, Esther. “4Q471B: A Self-Glorification Hymn,” Revue de Qumran 17 (1996): 175–203. ———. “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 395–415 in Die Dämonen: die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld.,Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ———. “The Genesis Apocryphon and Other Related Aramaic Texts from Qumran: The Birth of Noah.” Pages 277–97 in Berthelot and Ben Ezra, eds., Aramaica Qumranica. Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. “The Date of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Light of the Biblical Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 129–52 in The Samaritans. Edited by Ephraim Stern and Hanan Eshel. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2002 [Hebrew]. ———. “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls.” Pages 215–40 in Paul, et al., eds., Emanuel. Eshel, E., H. Eshel, and G. Geiger. “Mur 174: A Hebrew I.O.U. Document from Wadi Murabbaʿat,” Studii biblici Franciscani liber annus 58 (2008): 314. Eshel, H. “The Bar Kochba Revolt, 132–135.” Pages 105–27 in vol. 4 of Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984ff. Eshel, Hanan. “The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Origin of Samaritanism.” Ph.D. dissertation, the Hebrew University, 1994. ———. “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim.” Pages 29–44 in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 37. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008.

424

General Bibliography

———. Ein Gedi. Jerusalem: Carta, 2009. ———. “A Survey of the Refuge Caves and Their Legal Documents.” Pages 103–53 in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy. Edited by A.I. Baumgarten et al. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ———. “The Growth of Belief in the Sanctity of Mount Gerizim.” Pages 509–35 in vol. 2 of in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam Edited by Eric F. Mason et al. 2 vols. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Eskhult, Mat. “Relative ha-: A Late Biblical Hebrew Phenomenon?” Pages 47–56 in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. “The Ethical Issues: A Position Statement,” Newsletter of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon 9 (February 1992): 1, 5. Evans, Craig A. “Qumran’s Messiah: How Important is He?” Pages 135–49 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. ———. “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom.” Pages 490–527 in vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. 2 vols. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 83/2. Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 2/2. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. “Der Sieg über Satan und die Befreiung Israels: Jesus und die Visionen Daniels,” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 34 (2009): 147–58. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Priests at Qumran—A Reassessment.” Pages 243–262 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context. Edited by Charlotte Hempel. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 90. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Falk, Daniel K. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “Daily Prayers.” Pages 1927–38 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Not Included in Scripture. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013. ———. “Material Aspects of Prayer Manuscripts At Qumran.” In Literature or Liturgy? Early Christian Hymns and Prayers in the Literary and Liturgical Context in Antiquity. Edited by Clemens Leonhard and Helmut Löhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Forthcoming. Fassberg, Stevem. “Shifts in Word Order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 57–72 in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. Fassberg, Steven E., Moshe Bar-Asher, and Ruth A. Clements, eds. Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary

General Bibliography

425

Sources: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Fifth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, jointly sponsored by the Eliezer Ben-Yehuda Center for the Study of the History of the Hebrew Language, 29–31 December, 2008. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 108. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Feldman, Ariel. The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations, and Commentary. Bihefte zur Zeitshcrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 438. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Feldman, Louis H. “Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, and Theodotus on the Rape of Dinah,” Jewish Quarterly Review 94 (Spring 2004): 253–277. Fiensy, David A. The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine. Studies in Bible and Early Christianity 20. Lewiston: Mellen, 2001. Figueroa, J.I., L.C. Fuller, A. Abraha, and R.J. Hay. “The Prevalence of Skin Disease among Schoolchildren in Rural Ethiopia: A Preliminary Assessment of Dermatologic Needs,” Pediatric Dermatology 13 (1996): 378–81. Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV. Anchor Bible 24A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985. “Flash! From 200 B.C.,” The New York Times (24 September 1991): A30. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Flusser, David. “Apocalyptic Foundations of the War Scroll.” Pages 434–52 in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume. Edited by A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stern. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi & Ministry of Defense, 1980. [Hebrew]. ———. “The Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the War Scroll.” Pages 126–49 in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. ———. “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll.” Pages 140–58 in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. Fox, Joshua. Semitic Noun Patterns. Harvard Semitic Studies 52. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. Frey, Jörg. “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 197–226 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Study Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurcie Baillet. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, F. García

426

General Bibliography

Martínez and Eileen M. Schuller. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 189–200 in The Wisdom Texts From Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by C. Hempel, A. Lange and H. Lichtenberger. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 159. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002. Friar, Bruce. “Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian’s Evidence,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86 (1982): 213–51. Frye, Northrop. The Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. Frye, Richard N. “Assyria and Syria: Synonyms,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51 (1992): 281–85. Furnish, Victor Paul. “War and Peace in the New Testament,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 363–79. García Martínez, Florentino. “Estudios qumranicos 1975–1985: panoramacritico (III),” Estudios bíblicos 46 (1988): 351–54. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. Translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson. Second Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ———. “Old Texts and Modern Mirages: The ‘I’ of Two Qumran Hymns.” Pages 105–25 in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 63. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple.” Pages 77–93 in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 64. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “The War Scroll and Related Literature: Visions of War and Tales of Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 303–34 in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2010: Visions of Pace and Tales of War. Edited by Jan Liesen and Pancratius C. Beentjes; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Second Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1999. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, eds. Qumran Cave 11.II: (11Q2–18, 11Q20–31).Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Gaster, T. The Dead Sea Scriptures. New York: Anchor, 1956. von Gemünden, Petra. “Anger and Aggression as Dealt with in Classical Antiquity and in the Sermon on the Mount,” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 32 (2006): 127–96. Gera, Dov. “On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads (Josephus, Antiquities 12, 156–222, 228–36).” Pages 21–38 in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays.

General Bibliography

427

Edited by A Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi/Israel Exploration Society, 1990. ———. Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 219–161 BCE. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gillihan, Yonder M. Civic Ideology, Organization, and Law in the Rule Scrolls: A Comparative Study of the Covenanters’ Sect and Contemporary Voluntary Associations in Political Context. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 97. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Gladd, Benjamin. Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism With Its Bearing On First Corinthians. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Gmirkin, Russell. “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponary Reconsidered,” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 89–129. ———. “Historical Allusions in the War Scroll,” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 172–214. Gnilka, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2.1–2. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Goff, Matthew J. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 116. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. 4QInstruction. Wisdom Literature from the Ancient World 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Goldstein, J. I Maccabees: A New Tranlsation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 41. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976. ———. “How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises.” Pages 97–109 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Goodman, Martin. Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Gordon, M.B. “Medicine Among the Ancient Hebrews,” Isis 33/4 (1941): 454–85. Gori, Alessandro, with contributions by Anne Regourd, Jeremy Brown, and Steve Delamarter. A Handlist of the Manuscripts in the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Volume Two: The Arabic Materials of the Ethiopian Islamic Tradition. Ethiopian Manuscripts, Texts, and Studies. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick. Forthcoming. Grabbe, Lester. “Poets, Scribes, or Preachers? The Reality of Prophecy in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 192–215 in Knowing the End From the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic, and Their Relationships. Edited by Lester Grabbe and Robert Haak. Library of Second Temple Studies 46. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Grabbe, L. “Prophetic and Apocalyptic: Time for New Definitions—and New Thinking.” Pages 107–33 in Knowing the End From the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic,

428

General Bibliography

and Their Relationships. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. Library of Second Temple Studies 46. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York: Oxford, 1993. Greenfield, J.C., M. Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, and Commentary (TALD). Studia in Veretis Testimenti Pseudepigraphica 19. Brill: Leiden, 2004. Grimm, W. Jesus und das Danielbuch. Vol. 1 of Jesu Einspruch gegen das Offenbarungssystem Daniels (Mt 11, 25–27; Lk 17, 20–21). Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum 6.1. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984. Grintz, Yehoshua M. “The People of the Yahad, the Essenes, and Beth (E)ssene,” Sinai 32 (1953): 11–43 [Hebrew]. Grossman, Maxine L. “Women and Men in the Rule of the Congregation: A Feminist Critical Assessment.” Pages 229–45 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Grossman, Ron, (Chicago Tribune). “Computer Gives Life to Ancient Texts. Dead Sea Scrolls, Unseen, Were Pieced Together From Phrase List,” The Kansas City Star (5 September 1991): A1. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. de Haan, Willem. “Violence as an Essentially Contested Concept.” Pages 27–40 in Violence in Europe: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Edited by Sophie Body-Gendrot and Pieter Spierenburg. New York: Springer, 2008. Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Haile, Getatchew, and William F. Macomber. A Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts Microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, vols 1–10. Collegeville: Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, 1973ff. Hall, Jonathan. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997. Ham, Clay Alan. The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope. New Testament Monographs 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005. Hammerschmidt, Ernst, and Veronika Six. Äthiopische Handscrhriften vom Ṭānāsee. ‪Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 20.1–3. Wiesbaden: Steiner: 1973, 1977, and 1999. Haran, M. “Priest and Priesthood.” Pages 1069–1086 in vol. 13 of Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Geoffrey Wigoder. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

General Bibliography

429

Harrington, Daniel J. “The Wisdom of the Scribe According to Ben Sira.” Pages 181–88 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J. Collins. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980. ———. “Mystery,” pages 589–91 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Harrington, Hannah K. Holiness: Rabbinic Judaism and the Graeco-Roman World. London: Routledge Press, 2000. ———. “Holiness and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001): 124–35. ———. The Purity Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 5. London: T&T Clark, 2004. ———. “Examining Rabbinic Halakhah thorugh the Lens of Qumran.” Pages 137–55 in The Qumran Legal Texts between the Hebrew Bible and Its Interpretation. Edited by Kristen de Troyer, Armin Lange, and James Seth Adcock. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Harter, Stephanie, Françoise Bouchet, Kosta Y. Mumchuglu, and Joe E. Zias, “Toilet Practices Among Members of the Dead Sea Scrolls Sect at Qumran (100 BCE–68 CE),” Revue de Qumran 84 (2004): 579–85. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. di Lella. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978. Haspelmath, M. “Pre-established Categories Don’t Exist: Consequences for Language Description and Typology,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007): 119–32. Hay, R.J. et al. “The Global Burden of Skin Disease in 2010: An Analysis of the Prevalence and Impact of Skin Condition,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 134/6 (2014): 1527–34. Hayes, Christine The Emergence of Judaism: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. Healey, John. Aramaic Inscriptions and Documents of the Roman Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Heinemann, Joseph. Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Sons of Aaron in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 207–224 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Èmile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “Do the Scrolls Suggest Rivalry Between the Sons of Aaron and the Sons of Zadok and If So was it Mutual?” Revue de Qumran 24 (2009): 135–93. Hengel, Martin. “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III (333–187 BCE).” Pages 35–78 in vol. 2 of Cambridge History of Judaism.

430

General Bibliography

Edited by W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984ff. ———. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 AD Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Hillers, Delbert, and Eleonora Cussini. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1996. Holladay, William. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Hodayot: Psalms From Qumran. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960. Holmstedt, Robert D. “Issues in the Linguistic Analysis of a Dead Language, with Particular Reference to Ancient Hebrew,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6/11 (2006): 14–18. ———. “Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah: A GenerativeTypological Analysis,” Journal of Semitic Studies 54 (2009): 111–39. ———. “The Typological Classification of the Hebrew of Genesis: Subject-Verb or Verb-Subject?” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11/14 (2011). ———. “Relative Clause: Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 350–57 in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by Geoffrey Khan; Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Forthcoming. Holmstedt, Robert D. and B. Elan Dresher. “Clitics.” Pages 458–63 in Khan, ed., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language. Holst, Søren. Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2008. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. ———. “Social Relations and Social Conflict in the Epistle of Enoch.” Pages 100–15 in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by R.A. Argall, B.A. Bow and R.A. Werline. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 2000. ———. Scribes, Visionaries, and Politics of Second Temple Judea. Louisville Ky.: West­ minster John Knox, 2007. Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno. “Fragmente einer älteren Fassung des Buches Milhamā,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957): 131–51. Ibba, Giovanni. Il “Rotolo della Guerra”: Edizione critica. Quaderni di Henoch 10. Torino: Silvio Zamorani editore, 1998. ———. Le ideologie del Rotolo della Guerra (1QM): Studio sulla genesi e la datazione dell’opera. Associazione Italiana per lo studio del Giudaismo Testi e Studi 17. Firenze: Giuntina, 2005.

General Bibliography

431

Ilan, Tal. “Witnesses in the Judaean Desert Documents: Prosopographical Observations,” Scripta Classica Israelica 20 (2001): 169–78. ———. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Isaksson, Bo. “Circumstantial Qualifiers in Qumran Hebrew: Reflections on Adjunct Expressions in The Manual of Discipline (1QS).” Pages 79–92 in Joosten and Rey, eds., Conservatism and Innovation. Israeli, Raphael. Piracy in Qumran: the Battle over the Scrolls of the Pre-Christ Era. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2008. Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE–400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination,” Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 12–44. ———. “Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination.” Pages 13–45 in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Ra‘anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin J. Roetzel. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. “Prophecy after ‘The Prophets’: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Prophecy in Judaism.” Pages 577–93 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, et al. 2 vols. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 140. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. “Survival at the End of Days: Aspects of Soteriology in the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesharim.” Pages 193–210 in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner. Library of Second Temple Studies 74. London: T&T Clark, 2011. ———. “Prophecy, Power, and Politics in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 171–98 in Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires. Edited by Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stökl. Ancient Near Eastern Monographs. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. ———. “War and Violence.” Forthcoming in T & T Clark Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by George J. Brooke and Charlotte Hempel; London: T&T Clark. Jefferies, Darryl. Wisdom at Qumran: A Form-Critical Analysis of the Admonitions in 4QInstruction. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2002. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel. Translated by G.L. Archer, Jr. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1958.

432

General Bibliography

Jillette, Penn. “ ‘Computer expert’ cracks Dead Sea Scrolls,” PC-Computing 4/12 (Dec, 1991): 430. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2000. Jokiranta, Jutta, and Hanna Vanonen. “Multiple Copies of Rule Texts or Multiple Rule Texts? Boundaries of S and M Documents.” Pages 11–60 in Crossing Imaginary Boundaries: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Context of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mika Pajunen and Hanna Tervanotko. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2015. Jones, Andrew R. Review of Søren Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. Dead Sea Discoveries 18 (2011): 378–80. Joosten, Jan. “Imperative Clauses Containing a Temporal Phrase and the Study of Diachronic Syntax in Ancient Hebrew.” Pages 117–32 in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. Joosten, Jan, and Jean-Sébastien Rey, eds. Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Justnes, Årstein. “Divine Violence and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 217–32 in Encountering Violence in the Bible. Edited by M. Zehnder and H. Hagelia. Bible in the Modern World 55. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. Kalman, Jason. Hebrew Union College and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College—Hebrew Institute of Religion, 2012. Kampen, John I. Wisdom Literature. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. ———. “Wisdom in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literatures.” Forthcoming in a volume in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Series. Edited by G. Xeravitz. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kaufman, Ben. L. “Secrets of Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (4 September 1991): A1, A10. Kaufman, S. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Kazen, Thomas. Emotions in Biblical Law: A Cognitive Science Approach. Hebrew Bible Monographs 36. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. “The Title ‘Son of David’ in Matthew’s Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 591–602. Kitts, Margo. “Religious Violence from a Literary Perspective.” Pages 410–23 in Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. Edited by Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Kloppenborg, John S. “The Representation of Violence in Synoptic Parables.” Pages 323– 51 in Mark and Matthew I. Edited by E. Becker and A. Runesson. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

General Bibliography

433

Knibb, Micheal A., and Edward Ullendorff. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in The Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Köhler, L., and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Laws of Wisdom: Sapiential Traits in the Rule of the Community (1QS 5–7).” Pages 1–15 in Fassberg and Clements eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. Krieg, Matthias. “Mo’ed Naqam—ein Kulturdrama aus Qumran: Beobachtungen an der Kriegsrolle,” Theologische Zeitschrift 41 (1985): 3–30. Kugel, James. “The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi,” Harvard Theological Review 85 (1992): 1–34. Kugler, Robert A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. ———. “Whose Scripture? Whose Community? Reflections on the Dead Sea Scrolls Then and Now, By Way of Aramaic Levi,” Dead Sea Discoveries 15 (2008): 5–23. ———. “Ethnicity: A Fresh Context for Locating the ‘Religion’ of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by G. Brooke and C. Hempel. London: T&T Clark. Forthcoming. Kutscher, E.Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). Leiden: Brill, 1974. Landau, Y.H. “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah,” Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 54–70. Lange, Armin. “ ‘The False Prophets Who Arose Against Our God’ (4Q339 1).” Pages 205–29 in Berthelot and Stökl Ben Ezra, eds. Aramaica Qumranica. ———. “The Essene Position on Magic and Divination.” Pages 377–435 in Legal Texts and Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995: Published in Honor Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Leahy, T. “Studies in the Syntax of 1QS,” Biblica 41 (1960): 135–57. Lee, Thomas R. Studies in the Form of Sirach 44–50. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 75. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Lehiste, Ilse. Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988. Leibner, Uzi, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee. An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ———. “The Origins of Jewish Settlement in Galilee in the Second Temple Period: Historical Sources and Archaeological Data,” Zion 77 (2012), 437–70 [Hebrew]. Lev, Yehuda. “Our Town—Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (13–19 September 1991): 4. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21–36. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

434

General Bibliography

Lied, Liv Ingeborg. “Nachleben and Textual Identity: Variants and Variance in the Reception History of 2 Baruch.” Pages 403–28 in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall. Edited by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian and Hellenistic Period. Leiden: Brill. 2013. ———. “Media Culture, New Philology, and the Pseudepigrapha: A Note on Method.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 19 Nov. 2012. Online: https:// www.academia.edu/4131828/Lied%20._Media_Culture_New_Philology_%20 and_the_Pseudepigrapha._SBL_2012. ———. “Response to Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Non-Canonical Scriptures.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Baltimore, 25 November 2013. Lim, Timothy H. “Kittim.” Pages 469–71 in vol. 1 of Schiffman and VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Lim, T.H., H.L. McQueen, and C.M. Carmichael, eds. On Scrolls, Artefacts and Intellectual Property. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 38. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Longacre, Robert E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Lyons, Christopher. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Mack, Burton L. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985. Macomber, William F. Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts from Abba Garima, Asatan (Church of Saint Mary), Axum (Church of Zion), Dabra Bizan, Dabra Damo, Dabra Libanos, Gunda Dunde, Kebran, Lalibala (Church of the Savior of the World; Emmanuel Church), Maqale, Ura, Kidana Mehrat, Monastery of Dabra Daga (Church of Saint Stephen), Monastery of Lake Zeway, Dabra Maryam, National Library and Haiq, from Microfilms in the Collection of Dr. Donald Davies, De Land, Florida and Godfrey, Ontario and of the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota. Collegeville, Minn: privately reproduced, 1979. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. “Toilet Practices at Qumran: A Response,” Revue de Qumran 22/2 (2005): 277–78. ———. “Toilet Practices, Purity Concerns, and Sectarianism in the Late Second Temple Period.” Pages 51–70 in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity, and Rituals. Edited by Benedikt Eckhardt; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 155. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

General Bibliography

435

Mankowski, P. Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian and Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 38 (2007): 457–512. ———. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. Matras, Yaron. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. McCown, Chester C. “The Density of Population in Ancient Palestine,” Journal of Biblical Literature 66 (1947): 425–36. McInerney, Jeremy, ed. A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean. London: Blackwell, 2014. McNamara, Martin. Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers—Translated, with Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 4. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Michalak, Aleksander R. Angels as Warriors in Late Second Temple Jewish Literature. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/330. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Michaud, Henri. “Une apocalypse nouvelle: La guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils des ténèbres,” Positions Luthériensses 3 (1955): 64–73. Middleton, J. Richard, and Brian J. Walsh. Truth is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995. Milik, J.T. “Le travail d’édition des manuscrits du Désert de Juda.” Pages 17–26 in Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg 1956. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 4. Leiden: Brill, 1956. ———. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. London: SCM, 1957. ———. “Deux documents inédits du Désert de Juda,” Biblica 38 (1957): 245–68. ———. “Milkî-Ṣedeq et Milkî-Rešaʿ dans les anciens écrits Juifs et Chrétiens,” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 95–144. Milik, J.T. and M. Black. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Miller, David. “The Meaning of Ioudaios and its Relationship to Other Group Labels in Ancient ‘Judaism,’ ” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2010): 98–126. ———. “Ethnicity Comes of Age: An Overview of Twentieth-Century Terms for Ioudaios,” Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2012): 293–311. Mithun, Marianne. “Grammars and the Community.” Pages 45–69 in Payne and Weber, eds., Perspectives on Grammar Writing. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentaries 19. New York: Scribner, 1927. Mor, M. “The Geographical Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Pages 107–31 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome. Edited by P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

436

General Bibliography

Moreland, Martin. “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaelogical and Literary Evidence.” Pages 133–59 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. A Region in Transition. Edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Mroczek, Eva. “Thinking Digitally About the Dead Sea Scrolls: Book History Before and Beyond the Book,” Book History, 14 (2011): 241–69. Mulder, Otto. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concept of the History of Israel. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Verb Complementation in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 92–149 in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. ———. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 193–214 in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., Diggers at the Well. ———. “The Morphosyntax of the Construct Phrase in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 125– 32 in Joosten and Rey, eds., Conservatism and Innovation. Muraoka, Takamitsu, and John F. Elwolde, eds. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University 11–14 December 1995. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———, eds. Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University 15–17 December 1997. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Muraoka, Takamitsu, and John F. Elwolde, eds. Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Murphy, Andrew R. The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Murphy, Catherine M. Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 40. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Naudé, Jackie A. “Qumran Hebrew as a Null Subject Language,” South African Journal of Linguistics 9/4 (1991): 119–25. ———. “Qumran Hebrew Syntax in the Perspective of a Theory of Language Change and Diffusion,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26 (2000): 105–32. ———. “The Distribution of Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27 (2001): 91–112. ———. “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion.” Pages 189–214 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. London: T&T Clark, 2003.

General Bibliography

437

———. “A Perspective on the Chronological Framework of Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 30 (2004): 87–102. Neville, David J. “Toward a Teleology of Peace: Contesting Matthew’s Violent Eschatology,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2007): 131–61. Newmeyer, F. “Linguistic Typology Requires Crosslinguistic Formal Categories,” Linguistic Typology 11 (2007), 133–58. Niccacci, Alviero. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 86. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Nissinen, M. “The Dubious Image of Prophecy.” Pages 26–41 in Prophets, Prophecy, and  PropheticTexts in SecondTemple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert  D. Haak. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 427. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Neufeld, Edward. “Hygiene Conditions in Ancient Israel (Iron Age),” Biblial Archaeologist 34 (1971): 41–66. Neusner, Jacob. The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Neusner, Noam M.M. “Scholars Feud Over Bootlegged Scroll,” Detroit Jewish News (13 September 1991): 32–33. Nicholson, John. “The Delivery and Confidentiality of Cicero’s Letters,” Classical Journal 90 (1994): 33–63. Nickelsburg, George W.E. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 575–600. ———. “The Epistle of Enoch and Qumran Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 333–48. ———. “Social Aspects of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypticism.” Pages 641–54 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by David Helholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. ———. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pages 89–153 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Michael Stone. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2/II. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. ———. “The Apocalyptic Construction of Reality in 1 Enoch.” Pages 51–64 in Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium. Edited by J.J. Collins and J.H. Charlesworth. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. ———. “Revisiting the Rich and Poor in 1 En. 92–105 and the Gospel According to Luke.” Pages, 579–605 in vol. 2 of Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1998. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. ———. 1 Enoch 1. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W.E., Klaus Baltzer, and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A Commentary On the Book of 1 Enoch. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001.

438

General Bibliography

Nickelsburg, George W.E., and James C. VanderKam 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Nielsen, Eduard. “La guerre considérée comme une religion et la religion comme une guerre.” Studia Theologica 15 (1961): 93–112. Nitzan, Bilhah. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 12. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Noegel, Scott B. “The Ritual Use of Linguistic and Textual Violence in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East.” Pages 33–46 in State, Power, and Violence. Vol. 3 of Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual. Edited by Margo Kitts et al. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Nolland, John. Luke 9:21–18:3.4. Word Biblical Commentary 35B. Dallas: Word, 1993. Nongbri, Brent. Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Noonan, Michael. “Grammar Writing for a Grammar-Reading Audience.” Pages 113–26 in Payne and Weber, eds., Perspectives on Grammar Writing. North, Robert. “ ‘Kittim’ War or ‘Sectaries’ Liturgy?” Biblica 39 (1958): 84–93. Notley, R. Steven. “The Kingdom of Heaven Forcefully Advances.” Pages 279–311 in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition. Edited by C.A. Evans. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 33. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Nötscher, F. Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texte. Bonn: Hanstein, 1956. Olyan, Saul M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” Harvard Theological Review 80 (1987): 261–286. ———. “The Exegetical Dimensions of Restrictions on the Blind and the Lame in the Texts from Qumran,” Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001): 38–50. “Opening the Scrolls,” The Cincinnati Post (26 September 1991): A14. Ortner, D. and W. Putschar. Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Washington, D.C.; Smithsonian Institution Press, 1981. von der Osten-Sacken, Peter. Gott und Belial: Traditiongeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Pardee, Dennis, et al. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. Pastor, Jack. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. London: Routledge, 1997. Payne, Thomas E. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Payne, Thomas E., and David J. Weber. Perspectives on Grammar Writing. Benjamins Currents Topics 11. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2007. Penner, Jeremy. Patterns of Daily Prayer in Second Temple Period Judaism. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 104. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

General Bibliography

439

———. “Nocturnal Prayer in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Studia Liturgica 44 (2015): 234–46. Perrin, Andrew B. The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Forthcoming. Peters, Dorothy M. Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 26. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. ———. “The Sword in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism.” Pages 125–37 in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments. Edited by L.L. Brenneman and B.D. Schantz. Studies in Peace and Scriptures 12. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2014. Pfann, Stephen et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Plaut, W. Gunther. “Dead Sea Scrolls are Taking too Long to Decifer,” [sic] Canadian Jewish News (24 October 1991): 11. van der Ploeg, Johannes P.M. Le rouleau de la guerre: traduit et annoté, avec une introduction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 2. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Portier-Young, Anathea E. Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Puech, É. “Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQMelkîsédeq,” Revue de Qumran 12/4 (1987): 483–513. ———. Qumran Grotte 4. XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. ———. “Le Testament de Lévi araméen, Cambridge a–b et f. Corrigenda et addenda,” Revue de Qumran 23 (2008): 544–545. ———. Qumran Cave 4.XXVII: Textes araméens, deuxième partie: 4Q550–575a, 580–587 et Appendices. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 37. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Punt, Jeremy. “Violence in the New Testament and the Roman Empire: Ambivalence, Othering, Agency.” Pages 23–42 in Coping with Violence in the New Testament. Edited by Pieter G.R. de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten. Studies in Theology and Religion 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Pustet, R. “Adjectives.” Pages 60–63 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Second Edition. Edited by Keith Brown; Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006. Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. ———. “An Interpretation of the List of False Prophets,” Tarbiz 63 (1993–94): 273–75 [Hebrew]. ———. Review of Martin G. Abegg Jr., James E. Bowley and Edward M Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Israel Exploration Journal 56 (2006): 236–40. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings, Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2010 [Hebrew].

440

General Bibliography

Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell, eds. Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma’aśe Ha-Torah. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Rabinovich, Abraham. “Bootleg Scrolls,” The Jerusalem Post International Edition (week ending 26 October 1991): 11. Reece, M. et al. “Sexual Behaviors, Relationships, and Perceived Health Among Adult Men in the United States: Results from a National Probability Sample,” Journal of Sexual Medicine 7/5 (2010): 291–304. Reed, Jonathan L. “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee: A Demographic Perspective,” Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 343–65. Reeves, John C. “The Meaning of Moreh Sedeq in the Light of 11QTorah,” Revue de Qumran 13/52 (1988): 287–98. ———. Trajectories in Near Eastern Apocalyptic: A Postrabbinic Jewish Apocalypse Reader. Resources for Biblical Studies 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Regev, Eyal. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross Cultural Perspective. Religion and Society 45. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Reid, Barbara E. “Violent Endings in Matthew’s Parables and Christian Nonviolence,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 237–55. Reinhartz, Adele, “The Vanishing Jews of Antiquity,” Marginalia: A Los Angeles Review of Books Channel, 24 June, 2014. http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/ vanishing-jews-antiquity-adele-reinhartz/. Reiss, Albert J., and Jeffrey A. Roth. “Summary.” Pages 1–27 in Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 1. Edited by Albert J. Reiss and Jeffrey A. Roth. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993. Rey, Jean-Sébastian. 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatology. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 81. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Reymond, Eric D. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology. Resources for Biblical Study 76. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Rhoads, David. “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies—Part I,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 36 (2006): 118–33. ———. “Part II,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 36 (2006): 164–84. ———. “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Biblical Studies.” No pages. Online: http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/rhoads_performance.pdf. Rice, Keren. “A Typology of Good Grammars.” Pages 143-171 in Payne and Weber, eds., Perspectives on Grammar Writing. Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Riches, David. “The Phenomenon of Violence.” Pages 1–27 in The Anthropology of Violence. Edited by D. Riches; Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

General Bibliography

441

Robert, Jeanne, and Louis Robert. “Bulletin épigraphique,” Revue des études grecques 83 (1970): 362–488. Roberts, J.J.M. “Melchizedek.” Pages 264–73 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 6B. Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth et al. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Roberts, J. and J. Cohrssen. “History and Examination Findings Related to Visual Acuity Among Adults: United States 1960–1962,” Vital and Health Statistics 11/28 (1973): 74–1284. Rofé, A. “The ‘List of False Prophets’ from Qumran: Two Riddles and Their Solutions,” ha’Aretz 13 April 1994 [Hebrew]. Rollinger, Robert. “The Terms ‘Assyria’ and ‘Syria’ Again,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65 (2006): 284–87. Römer, Thomas. Dieu obscur: Cruauté, sexe et violence dans l’Ancien Testament. Essais bibliques. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2009. Published in English as Dark God, Cruelty, Sex, and Violence in the Old Testament. Translated by Sean O’Neill. New York: Paulist Press, 2013. Rosen, E. “The Invention of Eyeglasses,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 9 (1956): 13–46. Rowland, Christopher et al. The Mystery Of God: Early Jewish Mysticism And The New Testament. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. Samely, Alexander in collaboration with Philip Alexander, Rocco Bernasconi and Robert Hayward. Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity: An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Satlow, Michael L. “4Q502 A New Year Festival?” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 57–68. Saxey, R. “A Physician’s Reflections on Old Testament Medicine,” Dialogue 17/3 (1984): 122–28. Schachter, Jonathan. “Scholars Issue Unauthorized Version of ‘Secret’ Scrolls,” The Jerusalem Post, (5 September 1991): 1 and back page. Reprinted in, “A Tale of an Unauthorized Scroll,” Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia), (13 September 1991): 5, 79. Also reprinted in “Exposing the ‘Secret Scrolls,’ ” The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (13–19 September 1991): 19–20. Schama, Simon. The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words 1000 BCE–1492 CE. London: The Bodley Head, 2013. Schattner-Rieser, Ursula. “Levi in the Third Sky: On the ‘Ascent to Heaven’ Legends within Their Near Eastern Context and J.T. Milik’s Unpublished Version of the Aramaic Levi Document.” Pages 801–819 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in Ancient Languages, Texts, and Culture. Edited by Armin Lange et al. 2 vols. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 140. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

442

General Bibliography

Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Purity and Perfection: Exclusion from the Council of the Community in the Serekh Ha-‘Edah.” Pages 373–89 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem, April 1984. Edited by Janet Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985. ———. “Piecing together the saga of the scrolls,” The Jewish World (11–17 October 1991): 3, 14. ———. “The Relationship of the Zadokite Fragments to the Temple Scroll.” Pages 133– 45 in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center, 4–8 February, 1998. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther Glicker Chazon, and Avital Pinnick. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Schmidt, Francis. How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism. Translated by J.E. Crowley. Bible Seminar 78. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Schniedewind, William. The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm for Textual Development of the Community Rule. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schröder, Ingo W., and Bettina E. Schmidt. “Introduction: Violent Imaginaries and Violent Practices.” Pages 1–24 in Anthropology of Violence and Conflict. Edited by Bettina E. Schmidt and Ingo W. Schröder. London: Routledge, 2001. Schuller, Eileen. The Dead Sea Scrolls: What Have We Learned? Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Schultz, Brian R. “The Kittim of Assyria,” Revue de Qumran 23 (2007): 63–77. ———. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 76. Leiden: Brill, 2009. ———. “Compositional Layers in the War Scroll (1QM).” Pages 153–64 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, et al. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. “Not Greeks but Romans: Changing Expectations for the Eschatological War in the War Texts from Qumran.” Pages 107–27 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mladen Popović. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. “Re-Imagining the Eschatological War—4Q285/11Q14.” Pages 197–212 in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Edited by Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

General Bibliography

443

———. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Scott, James. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. ———. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale: Yale University, 2009. Screnock, John. “Word Order in the War Scroll (1QM) and Its Implications for Interpretation,” Dead Sea Discoveries 18 (2011): 29–44. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees—Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Shahar, Meir. The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2008. Shanks, Hershel. “BARview: Failure to Publish Dead Sea Scrolls is Leitmotif of New York University Scroll Conference,” BAR 11/6 (Sept./Oct. 1985): 4, 6, 66–72. ———. “Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 (July/Aug. 1986): 38. ———. “When 5,613 Scholars Get Together in One Place: The Annual Meeting, 1990,” Biblica Archaeology Review 17/2 (March/April 1991): 63. ———. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Adventures of an Archaeology Outsider. London: Continuum, 2010. Shemesh, Aharon. “ ‘The Holy Angels are in their Council’: The Exclusion of Deformed Persons from Holy Places in Qumranic and Rabbinic Literature,” Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 179–206. Shiloh, Yigal. “The Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas, and Population Density,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 239 (1980): 23–35. Silberman, Neil. A Prophet from Amongst You: The Life of Yigael Yadin, Soldier, Scholar, and Mythmaker of Modern Israel. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1993. Sim, David C. “The sword motif in Matthew 10:34,” Hervormde teologiese studies 56 (2000): 84–104. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. The Anchor Bible 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skinner, Joseph. The Invention of Greek Ethnography: From Homer to Herodotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Smith, Mark. The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. ———. “Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main Verb of Clauses (Predicative Participle) in Direct Discourse and Narrative in Pre-Mishnaic Hebrew.” Pages 278– 332 in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages.

444

General Bibliography

———. “The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey.” Pages 256–68 in Muraoka and Elwolde, eds., Diggers at the Well. Smith, Morton. “Ascent to the Heavens and the Deification in 4QMa.” Pages 189– 220 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplements 8; JSOT / ASOR Monographs 2. Hapog Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies at New York University. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.” Smith, Robert Houston. “The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period,” Levant 22 (1990): 123–30. Smith-Christopher, Daniel, ed. Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in Religious Traditions. Cambridge, Mass.: Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, 1998. ———. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Overtures in Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. ———. “The Quiet Words of the Wise: Biblical Developments Towards Non-Violence as a Diaspora Ethic.” Pages 129–51 in Character Ethics and the Old Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture. Edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and Jacqueline E. Lapsley. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Smoak, Gregory. Ghost Dances and Identity: Prophetic Religion and American Indian Ethnogenesis in the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Sollamo, Raija. “War and Violence in the Ideology of the Qumran Community.” Pages 341–52 in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen. Edited by H. Juusola, J. Laulainen and H. Palva. Studia orientalia 99. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004. Starcky, Jean. “Un contrat nabatéen sur papyrus,” Revue Biblique 61 (1954): 161–81. Stassen, Glen H., and Michael L. Westmoreland-White. “Defining Violence and Nonviolence.” Pages 17–36 in Teaching Peace: Nonviolence and the Liberal Arts. Edited by J.D. Weaver and G. Biesecker-Mast. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments.” Pages 189–220 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplements 8; JSOT / ASOR Monographs 2. Hapog Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies at New York University. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

General Bibliography

445

———. “How to Connect Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments.” Pages 245–55 in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review. Edited by Hershel Shanks. New York: Random House, 1992. ———. “Computer-Generated Dead Sea Scrolls Texts 98% Accurate,” Biblical Archaeology Review 18 (1992): 70. Stegemann, Hartmut, with Eileen Schuller eds., and Carol Newsom (translations). Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Stern, Menachem. “Jerusalem Which Is in the Land of Assyria in a Fragment from the Work of the Historian Asinius Quadratus,” Zion 42 (1977): 295–97 [Hebrew]. Steudel, Annette. “‫ אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 16/2 (1993): 225–46. ———. “Basic Research, Methods and Approaches in the Qumran Scrolls in GermanSpeaking Countries.” Pages 565–600 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective. Edited by Devorah Dimant. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 99. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Stewart, Pamela J. and Andrew Strathern. Violence: Theory and Ethnography. London: Continuum, 2002. Strugnell, J. “Notes on 1QS 1, 17–18; 8, 3–4 and 1QM 17, 8–9,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967): 580–82. ———. “375. 4QApocryphon of Mosesa.” Pages 113–15 in Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Para­ biblical Texts, II. Edited by Magen Broshi, et al., eds. Discoveries in the Desert of Judah 19. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Strugnell, John, Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., and Torleif Elgvin, eds. Qumran Cave 4, XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “4QInstruction And The Possible Influence Of Early Enochic Traditions: An Evaluation.” Pages 245–61 in Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Edited by Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 159. Leuven: University Press, 2002. ———. 1 Enoch 91–108. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. ———. “Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse in the Dead Sea Documents: From the Aramaic Texts to Writings of the Yahad.” Pages 295–326 in Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem ( July 6–8, 2008). Edited by Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 93. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

446

General Bibliography

Suter, David. “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): 115–35. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Syon, Danny. Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee. The Evidence From Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction. Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society. Forthcoming. Tabor, James D. “A Pierced or Piercing Messiah? The Verdict is Still Out,” Biblical Archaeology Review 18/6 (1992): 58–59. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Between the Bible and the Mishna.” Pages 214–57 in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989. ———. World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1989. ———. Sha’arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. ———. Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible. Form and Content. Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1993. ———. Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns: 2010. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civiliation and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960. Terefe, Melaku, Steve Delamarter, and Jeremy R. Brown. A Handlist of the Manuscripts in the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Volume Three: Remaining Materials beyond those of the Christian and Islamic Traditions. Ethiopian Manuscripts, Texts, and Studies. Eugene Ore.: Pickwick. Forthcoming. Teeter, Andrew. “Isaiah and the King of As/Syria in Daniel’s Final Vision: On the Rhetoric of Inner-Scriptural Allusion and the Hermeneutics of ‘Mantological Exegesis.’ ” Pages 169–99 in vol. 1 of Mason et al., eds. A Teacher for All Generations. Thackeray, H. Josephus, The Jewish War. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 1927. Thomas, Samuel I. The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 25. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Thomas, Samuel. “Esoteric Knowledge in Qumran Aramaic Texts.” Pages 403–28 in Berthelot and Stökl Ben Ezra, Aramaica Qumranica. Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. “4Q499 48+47 (Par 4Q369 1 Ii): A Forgotten Identification,” Revue de Qumran 18/2 (1997): 303–6. ———. “The Addressees of 4QInstruction.” Pages 62–75 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, F. García Martínez and Eileen M. Schuller. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

General Bibliography

447

———. “Working with Few Data: The Relationship Between 4Q285 and 11Q14,” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000): 49–56. ———. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 44. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. “Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Fragmentary Manuscripts: Illustrated by a Study of 4Q184 (4QWiles of the Wicked Woman).” Pages 26–47 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. “Research of Qumran Scrolls in the Netherlands.” Pages 487–510 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective. Edited by Devorah Dimant. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 99. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library. Brigham Young University, Revised Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Tov, Emanuel, and Donald W. Parry, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Parts 1–6. Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. Second Edition, vols 1–2, 2013. Tov, Emanuel, and Armin Lange, eds. Textual History of the Bible. Leiden: Brill. Forthcoming. The United States in International Context: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. Washington D.C.: US Census Bureau, 2002: 6; http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-11.pdf. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. “Daniel, Book of.” Pages 170–174 in vol. 1 of Schiffman and VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic Monographs 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. ———. The Book of Jubilees. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 511. Scriptores aethiopici 88. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012. Van Hecke, Pierre. “Constituent Order in Existential Clauses.” Pages 61–78 in Joosten and Rey, eds., Conservatism and Innovation. ———. “Constituent Order in ‫היה‬-Clauses in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 83–104 in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. de Vaux, Roland. “Fouille au Khirbet Qumran,” Revue Biblique 60 (1953): 206–36. ———. Les institutions de l’Ancien Testament: Institutions militaires. Institutions religieuses. 2 vols. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961. ———. Ancient Israel. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

448

General Bibliography

Vermes, Geza. “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 85–90. ———. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin Books, 2004. de Villiers, Pieter G.R. and Jan Willem van Henten, eds. Coping with Violence in the New Testament. Studies in Theology and Religion 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Vlassopoulos, Kostas. Greeks and Barbarians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. Hebrew Union College Monographs 8. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. Wacholder, Ben Zion with the collaboration of Martin Abegg. “The Fragmentary Remains of 11QTorah (Temple Scroll)*: 11QTorahb and 11QTorahc plus 4QparaTorah Integrated with 11QToraha,” Hebrew Union College Annual 62 (1991): 1–116. Wacholder, Ben Zion, and Martin G. Abegg. “After 30 Years of Yearning, We Saw the Texts Suddenly Appear,” Los Angeles Times (29 September 1991): 3. Wassen, Cecilia. Women in the Damascus Document. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Wee, John Zhu-En. “A Model for the Composition and Purpose of Columns XV–XIX of the ‘War Scroll’ (1QM),” Revue de Qumran 21/2 (2003): 263–83. Weitzman, Steven. “Warring against Terror: The War Scroll and the Mobilization of Emotion,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 40 (2009): 213–41. Wenham, Gordon J. “The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua,” Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971): 140–48. Wenthe, O. “The Use of Scripture in 1QM,” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 290–319. Werrett, Ian C. Review of M. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 173–76. ———. Ritual Purity in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 72. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “A Scroll in One Hand and a Mattock in the Other,” Revue de Qumran 23/4 (2008): 475–89. Wilder, C.S. “Prevalence of Selected Impairments: United States 1971,” Vital Health Statistics 10/99 (1975): 75–1526. Wilford, John Noble. “Computer Breaks Monopoly on Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The New York Times (5 September 1991): A1, A7. ———. “Dead Sea Scrolls to be Published,” New York Times (20 November 1991): A7. Winford, Donald. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Wink, Walter. “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way,” Review and Expositor 89 (1992): 197–214. Wise, Michael O. “‫מי כמוני באלים‬: A Study of 4Q491c, 4Q471b, 4Q427 7 and 1QHa 25:25– 26:10,” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2000): 173–219.

General Bibliography

449

Wise, Michael O. Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents. Cambridge, Mass.: Yale University Press, 2015. Wold, Benjamin G. Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 201. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered.” Pages 177–213 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays In Honor Of James L. Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 83. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004. Wood, Bryant G. “The Search for Joshua’s Ai.” Pages 205–40 in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. Edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Wright Benjamin G. III. “ ‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 190–223 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by P.C. Beentjes. Biehefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. ———. “The Discourse of Riches and Poverty in Ben Sira.” Pages 559–78 in vol. 2 of SBL Seminar Papers, 1998. 2 vols. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. ———. “Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location in Sirach and 1 Enoch.” Pages 105– 21 in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth A. Clements. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. “The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature.” Pages 101–23 in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 20–22 May, 2001. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. Review of Accordance Qumran Module for Macintosh, Version 5.6.1., Oak Tree Software, Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 373–76. ———. “Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Pages 89–112 in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism. Edited by B.G. Wright III and L.M. Wills. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 35. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Wyse-Rhodes, Jackie. “Sex, Knowledge, and Evil: Violence and Peace in the Book of the Watchers.” Pages 114–24 in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments. Edited by L.L. Brenneman and B.D. Schantz. Studies in Peace and Scriptures 12. Eugene, Ore: Pickwick, 2014.

450

General Bibliography

Yadin, Y. “Expedition D,” Israel Exploration Journal 11 (1961): 36–52. ———. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Edited With Commentary and Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. ———. Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. New York: Random House, 1971. ———. Megillat Ha-Miqdash. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977 [Hebrew]. ———. The Temple Scroll Volume 3: Supplementary Plates. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Yadin, Y., J.C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni and B. Levine. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri. Israel Exploration Society/Institute of Archaeology/Shrine of the Book: Jerusalem, 2002. Yarbro Collins, Adela. Mark. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Yardeni, Ada. Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, 2000. ———. “The Decipherment and Restoration of Legal Texts from the Judaean Desert: A Reexamination of Papyrus Starcky (P.Yadin 36),” Scripta Classica Israelica 20 (2001): 121–37. Yishay, Rony. “Column 19 of the War Scroll (1QM),” Meghillot 8–9 (2010): 175–92 [Hebrew]. Yoder Neufeld, Thomas R. Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2011. Zehnder, Markus, and Hallvard Hagelia, eds. Encountering Violence in the Bible. Bible in the Modern World 55. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. Zerbe, Gordon M. Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 13. Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Zewi, Tamar. “Content Clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 289–98 in Fassberg, Bar Asher, and Clements, eds., Hebrew in the Second Temple Period. Zias, Joseph. “Current Archaeological Research in Israel: Death and Disease in Ancient Israel,” Biblical Archaeologist 54 (1991): 146–59. ———. “Qumran Toilet Practices, A Response to a Response,” Revue de Qumran 22/3 (2006): 479–84. Zias, Joseph E., James D. Tabor, and Stephanie Harter-Laiheugue, “Toilets at Qumran, the Essenes, and the Scrolls: New Anthropological Data and Old Theories,” Revue de Qumran 22/4 (2006): 631–40. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1—A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Translated by James D. Martin. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Zissu, Boaz. “Village Razed, Rebel Beheaded,” Biblical Archaeology Review 33 (2007): 32–41.

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, M.G. 3, 9 (5×), 13, 14, 14 n.4, 15, 15 n.7, 16 (4×), 17 n.9, 18, 18 n.10, n.12, 19 (4×), 19 n.15, n.18, 20 (4×), 21 (3×), 21 n.26, n.27, 22, 23 (4×), 24 (4×), 24 n.1, n.6 n.7, 25 (3×), 25 n.8, n.9 (2×), n.11, n.14, n.15, 27, 26 (4×), 26 n.17, n.21, 27 (2×), 28 (3×), 28 n.31, 29 (3×), 29 n.36, 30 (5×), 30 n.41, 31 (6×), 32 (2×), 33 n.48, 34 n.51, n.52 (2×), 36 n.54 (2×), 38 n.57, 41 n.62 (2×), 44 n.67, 45 n.68 (5×), 49 (2×), 49 n.3 (2×), 50 (5×), 50 n.4, n.5, n.6 (×), n.7, 51, 51 n.7 (2×), 53, 53 n.13 (2×), 56 n.22 (3×), 57 (3×), 57 n.25, n.26, n.28, n.29, 58 (4×), 58 n.31, 59, 59 n.33 (2×), n.34, n.35, 62, 62 n.45, 66 (4×), 67 n.*, 70 (5×), 70 n.15, n.16m n.17, n.18 n.19 (4×), n.20, n.21, 71 n.22, 72, 75 n.35 (2×), 108 n.6, 115 n.30 (3×), 116 n.33, 117 n.35, 119 n.39, 125 (2×), 126 (3×), 126 n.3, 127 (4×), 127 n.4 (4×), n.6, n.7, 128 (2×), 128 n.9, n.10, 129 (2×), 129 n.15, 135, 135 n.21, 138 (2×), 138 n.26, n.27, 141 n.36, 142 n.39 (2×), 144 n.45, 145, 146, 147 n.*, n.3, 149 (2×), 149 n.10, 150 (4×), 150 n.17, 152 n.20 (2×), 157 n.38 (2×), 163, 175 n.*, 204, 238 n.3 (2×), 260 n.*, 261 n.6, 262, 262 n.8, 275 n.* (2×), 278 n.14 (3×), 279 n.18, 287 n.32, 293, 293 n.48, 295 n.* (3×), 319 n.1 (3×), 342 n.2, 350 n.36, 364 n.*, 391 (2×) Abdel-Aty, M.A. 311 n.45 Abdel-Hafez, K. 311 n.45 Abraha, A. 311 n.44 Acsádi, G. 308 n.35 Adcock, J.S. 302 n.16 Ådna, J. 332 n.40 Aharoni, Y. 366 (3×), 367, 367 n.6 Albright, W.F. 307 n.34 (2×) Aldridge, S. 400 n.12 Alexander, L. 187 n.36 Alexander, P.S. 54 n.17, 153 n.24, 168 n.14, 182 n.20, 205, 205 n.4, n.5, n.6, n.7, 206, 209 n.23, 239 n.4, 288 n.36, 298 n.6, 315 n.58, 341 n.1, 342, 342 n.2 (2×), 350, 350 n.37, 352, 352 n.39 Allegro, J. 19 n.17

Amit, D. 369 n.13 Amitai, J. 300 n.12 Angel, J. 288, 288 n.38, 289 n.39, 308 n.36 (2×) Argall R. 220 n.27, 221 n.29 Arnold, R.C.D. 52 n.12, 56 n.24 Askew, R.J.A. 62 n.47 (2×) Attridge, H. 321 n.5, 322 n.12 Austin, J.L. 55 n.21 Avalos, H. 217 n.10 Avery-Peck, A.J. 57 n.26 Aviam, M. 321 n.5, n.9, n.10 Avigad, N. 367 n.6 (2×) Avi-Yonah, M. 385 n.53 Baarda, T. 255 n.40 Baek, K.S. 12, 185 n.30, 342 n.4 Baggins, B. 125 (2×) Bahr, G.J. 381 n.40 Baillet, M. 126 (4×), 126 n.1, n.2, 128 (6×), 128 n.10, n.11, n.12, n.13, 129 (2×), 129 n.14, n.16, 130, 130 n.*, 132 (2×), 133 (2×), 135, 135 n.22, 136, 138, 141 (2×), 141 n.36, n.38, 144 (2×), 144 n.46, 145, 145 n.47, n.49, 149, 168 n.13, 298 n.6 Baker, D.W. 206 n.12 Baker, M.C. 74 n.34 (2×) Baltzer, K. 123 n.49 Bammel, E. 360 n.28 Bar, D. 307 n.31 Bar-Adon, P. 367 n.6 (2×) Barag, D. 321 n.7, 336, 336 n.51 Bar Asher, M. 68 n.4, 71 n.24 (5×) Baron, S.W. 307 n.34 (2×) Barthélemy, D. 147 n.4, 148 (2×), 148 n.5, n.6, 152 n.19, 153, 364 n.1, 365 Barton, J. 262 n.10, 264 n.15 Batsch, C. 257 n.43 Baruchi, Y. 369 n.12 Bauckham, R. 342 n.5 Baumgarten, A.I. 153 n.24, 355 n.1, 364 n.1 Baumgarten, J.M. 24, 24 n.3, 285 n.25, 302 n.17 (2×), 303 n.21, n.22, 305, 305 n.25, n.26 (2×), 306 n.26 Baumgartner, W. 18 n.13 209 n.19 Beale, G.K. 119, 120, 120 n.44

452 Becker, E. 357 n.14, 359 n.23 Beentjes, P.C. 176 n.3, 219 n.18 Bekins, P.J. 75 n.36, 76 n.41 Ben-David, H. 321 n.8 Ben Ezra D.S. 109 n.9, 246 n.18, n.19, 269 n.25 Benoit, P. 364 n.1 Berger, P. 273 n.38 Bergren, T.A. 156 n.35 Berhane, D. 394 n.7 Berlin, A.M. 228 n.66 Bernasconi, R. 54 n.17 Bernat, D.A. 217 n.10 Bernstein, M. 55 n.18, 270 n.29, 303, 303 n.20 Berthelot, K. 109 n.9, 246 n.18, n.19, 269 n.25, 270 n.29 Betz, H.D. 358 n.19, n.20, 359 n.22 (2×) Beyer, K. 376, 376 n.28, 380 Beyerle, S. 222, 222 n.37 Beyerlin, W. 356 n.6 Biesecker-Mast, G. 216 n.8 Black, M. 122 n.48, 123 n.49 (2×), 360, 360 n.28 Blenkinsopp, J. 262 n.10, 264 n.15, 308 n.36 (2×) Boccaccini, G. 140 n.33, 329 n.33, 339 n.57 Bockmuehl, M. 110, 110 n.12, 111 (4×), 111 n.16, n.17, 112 (4×), 112 n.18 (2×), n.20, 113 (2×), 118, 119, 119 n.43, 124, 350 n.36 (2×) Body-Gendrot, S. 177 n.4 Bohak, G. 239 (3×), 239 n.4 (4×), 240 n.7, 245, 247, 249 n.28, n.29, 250 Borchardt, F. 139 n.29 Bouchwet, Françoise, 303 n.22 Boustan, R.S. 175 n.1, 330 n.36, 339 n.58 Bow, B.A. 221 n.29 Bowley, J.E. 11, 15 n.7, 17 n.9, 19 n.18, 21 (2×), 21 n.26, n.27, 45 n.68 (2×), 50 n.4, 261 n.6, 262 n.10, 273 n.37 Bremmer, J.N. 255 n.40 Brenneman, L.L. 215 n.2, 217 n.10, 225 n.51 Brueggemann, W. 63 n.51 Brodd, J. 61, n.39 Brooke, G.J. 39 n.57 (2×), 163 n.1, 176 n.2, 187 n.36, 262 n.10, 264, 264 n.15 Broshi, M. 269 n.23 (2×), 270 (2×), 270 n.26, 307, 307 n.31, n.32, n.33, 385 n.53 Brown, H. 16 Brown, J. 394 n.6, n.7 (3×), 400 n.12.

Index of Modern Authors Brown, K. 79 n.43 Brown, R.E. 14 n.3, 16 (4×), 17, 24, 110 (4×), 110 n.12, 111 (3×), 111 n.14, n.15 (2×), n.18 (2×), 112 (5×), 113, 113 n.26 (2×), 114, 114 n.28, 118m 123, 124 Byatt, A. 307 n.31 Bybee, J. 73 n.32 Calloway, J. 295 n.2 (2×) Cappizi, J.E. 58 n.30 Caquot, A. 30, 30 n.40 Carmichael, C.M. 28 n.30 Carmignac, J. 167 n.9, 185 n.29, n.30, 195 n.56, 198 n.65, 202 n.71, 275, 275 n.5, 315 n.58 Carr, D.M. 220 n.23, 267 n.21 Carroll R., M.D. 229 n.74 Carney, T.F. 308 n.35 Carson, C.A. 28 n.30 Carson, M. 56 n.23 Carter, W. 359, 359 n.23, n.24, 360 n.25 Ceccarelli, P. 381 n.39 Cerquiglini, B. 140 n.32 Chang, D.D. 10, 154 n.29 Charles, R.H. 187 n.35, 253 Charlesworth, J.H. 115 n.30, 123 n.49, 129 n.15, 147 n.4, 149 n.12, 152 n.19, 176 n.3, 179 n.11, 287 n.34, 319 n.1, 335 n.47, 349 n.34, 369 n.11 Chazon, E.G. 55 n.18, 156 n.35, 292 n.44 (3×), 306 n.26 Chilton, B.D. 57 n.26 Chomsky, N. 73, 73 n.33 (2×) Clements, R.A. 50 n.6, 68 n.4 71 n.24 (5×), 219 n.20, 223 n.41 Clines, D. 74 Cohen, S.J.D. 218 n.13, 269, 269 n.24 Cohrssen, J. 310 n.40 Collins, J.J. 49 n.3, 62, 62 n.46, n.47, 63 (3×), 63 n.48, 108 n.5, 123 n.49, 141 n.36, 142 n.40, 152 n.18, 170 n.16, 175 n.1, 207 n.14, 211 n.28, 216 n.6 (3×), 219 n.19, n.20, 221 n.35, 222, 222 n.36 (2×), n.37, n.38, 223 n.41, 226 n.55, 260 n.2, 324 n.21, 330 n.35, 342 n.5, 343 n.7, 345 n.13 Collins, M.A. 61 n.40 (2×), 261 n.7 Comrie, B. 74

Index Of Modern Authors Cook, E.M. 17 n.9, 18, 18 n.10, 21 (2×), 21 n.26, n.27, 25, 25 n.14, 45 n.68 (3×), 50 n.4, 51 n.7, 67 n.**, 115 n.30, 142 n.39, 144 n.45, 147 n.3, 157 n.38, 261 n.6, 262 n.8, 275 n.*, 319 n.1 Cooke, G.A. 213 n.32 Cotton, H. 364 n.1, 371 (2×), 371 n.18, 372 n.21 (2×), 382 n.44, 386 (2×), 386 n.55, 387 (4×) Coughlin, E.K. 27 n.28 Cranfield, C.E.B. 343 n.8 Cross, F.M. 26, 41 n.62 Crouch, C.L. 64 n.54 Crystal, D. 74 Cussini, 383 n.47 Dandamaev, M. 308 n.35 Dávid, N. Davies, D. 393 n.4 Davies, P.R. 54 n.15, 60, 60 n.38, 151 n.18, 158 n.43 (2×), n.44 (2×), 168 n.11, n.12, n.13, 176 n.3, 181 n.16, 195 n.56, n.57, n.58, 197 n.62, 202 n.71, 222, 222 n.38 Davis, K. 9 (3×), 139 n.30 140 n.34, 278, 278 n.14, 331 (2×), 331 n.37 Delamarter, S. 394 n.6, n.7 (3×) Delcor, M. 315 n.58 De Troyer, K. 302 n.16 Devillers, L. 387 n.59 di Lella, A.A. 154 n.25, 155 n.33, 207 n.14, 211 n.28 Dimant, D. 24 n.1, 45 n.69, 51, 51 n.8, 117 n.37, 136 n.24, 138 n.25 DiTommaso, L. 109 n.9 (2×), 260 n.2 (2×) Doran, R. 337 n.54 Douglas, M. 230 Drazin, I. 213 n.31 Drawnel, H. 247 n.22, 252 n.33, 254, 254 n.36 Dresher, B.E. 78 Driscoll, M.J. 140 n.32 Dryer, M. 73 n.32, 74 Duhaime, J. 49 n.3, 54 n.16, 115 n.30, 119 n.40 (2×), 121 n.46, 127 n.4 (2×), 129 n.15 (2×), 135 n.22 143 n.42, n.43, 145 n.47 (2×), 149 (2×), 158 n.44 (2×) 159 n.46 (2×), 167 n.8, 168 n.10, n.11, n.12 (2×), 181 n.17, n.18, 182 (3×), 182 n.21, n.22 (2×), 183 (2×), 183 n.26, 184 n.27,

453 185 n.30, 187 n.36, 190 n.44, 192, 195 n.55, n.57, 198, 198 n.63, 200 n.68, 275 n.4, 277, 277 n.13, 306 n.30, 315, 315 n.56, n.57, n.58, 342 n.4 Dupont-Sommer, A. 185 n.29 Du Toit, J. 35 n.53 Eck, W. 388 n.62 Eisenman, R.H. 15 n.5, 42, 42 n.64, 342 n.2 Eitan, A. 36 n.56 Ellens, H.J. 176 n.3 Elliott, M.A. 176 n.3 Elwolde, J.F. 68 n.4 (3×), 69 n.11, 70 n.13, n.14 Elgvin, T. 11, 215 n.3, 303 n.22, 324 n.19, 329 n.33, 338 n.55 Erho, T. 185 n.30, 186 n.32, 188 n.38, 189 n.40, 342 (4×), 342 n.4 (2×), 343, 343 n.6 Eshel, E.E. 11, 127, 127 n.8 (2×), 136 n.24 (3×), 155, 155 n.34, 156 n.35 (2×), 210 n.26 (2×), 238 n.2, 246 n.18, 254, 288 n.35, 369 n.12 Eshel, H. 187 n.36, 188 n.38, 190 n.44, 204 n.* (2×), 207 n.13, 210 n.26 (3×), 252 n.34 (3×), 272, 272 n.36, 332 n.39, 340 n.59, 364 n.1, 369 n.12 (3×), n.13, 372 n.21, 385 n.52, 386 n.54 Eskhult, M. 71 n.24 Evans, C.A. 7, 11, 51 n.7, 56 n.22, 288 n.36, 342 n.5, 343 n.7 (2×), 344 n.11, 345 n.14. n.17 Fabry, H-J. 153 n.24 Falk, D.K. 11 (2×), 54 n.15, 145 n.47, 223 n.41, 232 n.86, 257 n.43, 278 n.15, 279 n.16, n.17, 287 n.32, 291 n.43, 292 n.44, n.45, 391 Fassberg, E. 68 n.4, 71 n.24 (5×), 152 n.19 Feldman, A. 63 n.51 Feldman, L.H. 184 n.27, 256 n.40, 287 n.32 Fiensy, D.A. 228 n.68, 322 n.10 Figueroa, J.L. 311 n.44 Finkelstein, I. 307 n.31, 320 n.4, 329 n.34 Fitzmyer, J.A. 14 n.3, 24, 346 n.19 Fletcher-Louis, C.H.T. 276, 276 n.11, n.12, 285 n.26, 289, 289 n.40 Flint, P.W. 18, 18 n.12, 45 n.68, 51 n.7, 53 n.13, 56 n.22, 70 n.19, 127 n.4, 185 n.30, 222 n.37, n.38, 279 n.18, 342 n.4, 343 n.7, 369 n.11, 391

454 Floyd, M.H. 263 n.10 Flusser, D. 188 (4×), 188 n.38 (2×), 189 (2×), 189 n.39, n.40, 191 n.46, 208 n.17 (2×), 279, 279 n.20 Fox, J. 82 n.46 France, R.T. 344 n.12, n.13 Frey, J. 232 n.86 (2×) Friar, B. 308 n.35 Frye, N. 59 n.36 Frye, R.N. 189 n.40 Fuller, L.C. 311 n.44 García Martínez, F. 108 n.5, 116 n.33, 117 n.35, 119 n.39, 128 n.9 (2×), 145 n.47, 149 (2×), 149 n.8, 150 (2×), 150 n.15, 156 n.37 (2×), 158, 158 n.42, 167 n.8, 168 n.14, 176 n.3, 183 n.25, 184 n.27, 190 n.45 214 n.35, 223 n.41, 232 n.86, 255 n.40, 270 n.29, 278 n.14 (2×), 298 n.6, 349 n.34 Garrett, S.R. 343 n.7 Gaster, T.H. 115 n.31 (2×) Geiger, G. 369 n.12 von Gemünden, P. 61 n.42 Gil, D. 74 Gillihan, Y.M. 164 n.2 (2×), 336 n.50 Gilner, D. 24, 24 n.3, n.4 Gitin, S. 270 n.26 Gladd, B. 109 n.9 (2×), 110, 110 n.11, 112 (6×), 112 n.21, n.22 (2×), n.23 (2×), 115, 115 n.31 (2×), 120 Gleuck N. 36 n.54 Gmirkin, R. 181 n.17, 186 n.33, 315 n.58, 342 n.4 Gnilka, J. 343 n.8 Goff, M.J. 215 n.3 (2×), 218 n.15 (2×), 220 n.21, 223 n.41, n.42, 227 n.59, n.60, 228 n.65, 229 n.71, 232 n.86, 233 n.87, 316 n.59 Goldstein, J.A. 156 n.36 (2×), 186 n.34, 324 n.20, 325 n.24, 326 n.25, 384 n.49 Goodblatt, D. 187 n.36, 207 n.13 Goodman, M. 355 n.1 Gordon, M.B. 309 n.38 Gori, A. 394 n.7 Gottschalk, A. 36 n.54 (2×) Grabbe, L. 263 n.10 (2×), 264 n.15, 265 n.18 (2×), 336 n.50, 339 n.57 Gray, R. 263, 263 n.14 Greenfield, J.C. 156 n.35, 238 n.2, 254, 370 n.14

Index of Modern Authors Grimm, W. 345 n.15 Grintz, Y.M. 189 n.40 Grossman, M.L. 19 n.15, 53 n.13, 70 n.19, 136 n.23, 216 n.6, 223 n.44 Grossman, R. 28 n.29 Guelich, R.A. 343 n.8 Gurtner, D.M. 180 n.13 Haak, R.D. 263 n.10 (3×), 265 n.18 de Haan, W. 177 n.4 Hagelia, H. 190 n.43, 215 n.2, 217 n.10, 319 n.1 Hägerland, T. 351 n.38 (2×) Haile, G. 394 n.8 Haiman, J. 73 n.32 Hall, J. 164, 165 n.6 (2×) Hallermayer, M. 324 n.19 Ham, C.A. 356 n.7 Hammerschmidt, 395 n.9 (2×) Haran, M. 156 n.37 Harlow, D.C. 49 n.3, Harrington, D.J. 215 n.3, 218 n.15, 219 n.19, Harrington, H.K. 299 n.9, 301, 301 n.12, n.15 (3×), n.16, 302 n.16, 303 n.19 (2×) Harter-Laiheugue, S. 303 n.22 (2×) Hartman, L.F. 207 n.14, 211 n.28 Haspelmath, M. 73 n.32, 74 Hawkins, R.K. 322 n.10 Hay, R.J. 311 n.43, n.44 Hays, C. 58 n.32 Hayward, R. 54 n.17 Healey, J. 383 n.47 van Hecke, P. 71 n.24 Heinemann, J. 279 n.16 Hempel, C. 122 n.47, 151 n.18, 152 n.21, 153, 153 n.21, n.22, n.23, n.24 (2×), 160, 160 n.51, 161 n.51, n.52, 163 n.1, 176 n.2, 232 n.86, 260 n.1 Hengel, M.G. 181 n.14, 228 n.67, 335 n.47 van Henten, J.W. 61 n.39 Henze, M. 140 n.33 Herman, G. 109 n.8 Hess, R.S. 295 n.2 Hilhorst, A. 153 n.22 Hillers, D. 383 n.47 Himmelfarb, M. Hobsbawm, E.J. Hofny, E.R.M. 311 n.45 Holladay, W.L. 355 n.6

455

Index Of Modern Authors Holm-Nielsen, S. 276, 276 n.7 Holmstedt, R.D. 8, 9 (2×), 72, 72 n.30 (2×), 78, 85 n.48, 89 n.49 Holst, S. 53, 53 n.13, 71 (3×), 72 (2×), 72 n.28 (2×) Horbury, W. 323 n.18, 324 n.21, 325 n.24 Horsley, R.A. 216 n.5, 217 n.13, 220 n.25, n.29, 221 n.33, 222 n.39, 361 n.30 Hughes, J.A. 268 n.22 Hunzinger, C.H. 127 n.8 (2×), 128, 128 n.12, n.13, 132, 133 (2×), 136, 137 n.24, 145 n.47 Ibba, G. 49 n.3, 54 n.15, 55 n.20 Ilan, T. 374 n.25, 381 n.38m 382 n.45, 386 n.57, 387 n.58 Isaksson, B. 71 n.24 Israeli, R. 28 n.30 Jacobs, J. 400 n.12 Jaffee, M.S. 139 n.30 (2×) Jassen, A. 10 (2×), 62, 62 n.44, 175 n.1 (2×), 176 n.2 (3×), 178 n.10, 180 n.13, 181 n.14, n.15, 215 n.1, 234, 234 (2×), 234 n.90, 235, 235 n.92, n.93, 263 n.10 (2×), 264 n.15, 265, 265 n.16, 330 n.36 (2×), 339 n.58, 361 n.33 Jeanseau, B. 400 n.12. Jefferies, D. 216 n.7 Jellicoe, S. 210 n.26 Jerryson, M. 178 n.9 Jillette, P. 40, 40 n.60 Jobes, K.H. 210 n.26 Jokiranta, J. 139 n.29 (2×), 216 n.6 Jones, A.R. 72 n.28 de Jonge, M. 156 (3×) Joosten, J. 68 n.4, 69 n.11, 71 n.24 (3×) Jost, G. 396, 400 n.12. Juergensmeyer, M. 178 n.9 Justnes, Å. 190 n.43, 215 n.2, 234, 235 (2×), 235 n.92, n.94, 329 n.34 Juusola, H. 60 n.37, 176 n.3 Kalman, J. 7 (2×), 9, 15 n.7 (2×), 35 n.53, 49 n.3, Kampen, J.I. 10 (2×), 50 n.7, 215 n.3, 216 n.4, 218 n.15, 223 n.41, n.42, 224 n.48, 226 n.58, 227 n.60, 231 n.80, n.81, 232 n.86, 270 n.29

Kaufman, S. 25, 25 n.13, n.16, 26 n.18, 383 n.46 Kazen, T. 53 n.14 Khan, G. 85 n.48 Kister, M. 219 n.20 Kitts, M. 178 n.9 (2×), 202 n.72 (2×) Klawans, J. 217 n.10 Klingbeil, G.A. 295 n.2 Kloppenborg, J. 357 n.14, 358 n.15 Knibb, M.A. 123 n.49 Koehler, L. 18 n.13, 209 n.19 Kratz, R.G. 151 n.18, 152 n.18, 152 n.19 (×) Krieg, M. 198, 198 n.65, 275, 275 n.3, 276 (2×), 276 n.9, 293 Kugel, J.L. 184 n.27, 255 n.40, 256 n.41, 287 n.32 Kugler, R.A. 10 (2×), 163 n.1, 167 n.8, 239 n.6, 245 n.13, 247 n.22 (3×), 342 n.5, 391 Kutscher, E.Y. 68 n.5 (2×), 69 (2×), 69 n.7 Landau, Y.H. 228 n.69 Lange, A. 122 n.47, 232 n.86, 254 n.37, 263 n.10, 269, 269 n.25 (2×), 270, 270 n.27, n.29 (2×), 271, 271 n.31, 288 n.35, 302 n.16, 323 n.17 (2×), 401 n.13 Lapsley, J.E. 229 n.74 Laulainen, J. 60 n.37, 176 n.3 Leahy T. 67 n.2, 69, 69 n.8 Lee, T.R. 154 n.25, n.26 Lehiste, I. 379 n.33 Leibner, U. 320 n.3 (2×), 321 n.5, n.6, n.8, 322 n.11, n.12 Leonhard, C. 291 n.43 Lenzi, 176 n.2 Lethbridge, E. 140 n.32 Lev, Y. 29 n.35 Levine, B.A. 206 n.8, n.9, n.11, 370 n.14 Lewis, N. 370, 374 n.25 Lichtenberger, H. 122 n.47, 232 n.86, 288 n.35 Lied, I. 139 n.31 (2×), 140, 140 n.33 (2×) Liesen, J. 176 n.3 Lim, T.H. 28 n.30 (2×), 216 n.6, 261 n.7, 341 n.1 Lindholm, C. 379 n.31 Löhr, H. 291 n.43 Longacre, R. 72, 72 n.26 Lyons, C. 75 n.36, n.37, n.38, 76 n.40

456 Mack, B. 154 n.27 (2×) Macomber, W.F. 393 n.4, 394 n.8 Maeir, A.M. 204 n.3, 292 n.44, 336 n.51 Magness, J. 204 n.3, 292 n.44, 303 n.22 (2×), 304 n.22, 323 n.17, 336 n.51 Mankowski, P. 383 n.46 Martin, D.B. 321 n.5, 322 n.12 Mason, E.F. 189 n.41, 252 n.34 Mason, S. 164 n.5, 217 n.13 Matras, Y. 380 n.34 Matthews, S. 339 n.58 McClosky, J. 74 n.34 (2×) McCown, C.C. 307 n.31, n.34 McInerney, J. 165 n.6 McNamara, M. 213 n.31 McQueen, H.L. 28 n.30 Medina, R. 72 (2×) Meir, A.M. 323 n.17 Mendels, D. 335 n.47 Meyer, A.R. 9 Michalak, A.R. 346 n.20 Michaud, H. 315 n.58 Middleton, J.R. 62 n.43 Milik, J.T. 7, 24, 24 n.7, 122 n.48 (2×), 123 n.49, 147 n.4, 148 (2×), 148 n.5, n.6, 152 n.19, 153, 185 n.29, 204, 204 n.2, 254 (2×), 254 n.37, 284 n.24, 332, 332 n.39, 364, 364 n.1 (2×), 365 n.2, 369, 370 (2×), 370 n.15, 371, 371 n.16, 380 Miller, D. 164 n.5 (3×) Mithun M. 73 (2×) Montgomery, J.A. 207 n.14, 211 n.28 Mor, M. 386, 386 n.56 Moreland, M. 322 n.12 Morray-Jones, C.R.A. 110, 110 n.12 Moule, C.F.D. 360 n.28 Mroczek, E. 139 n.29 Mulugetta, Meley 393 n.5 Mulder, O. 154 n.26, n.28 (2×) Mumchuglu, K.Y. 303 n.22 Muraoka, T. 68 n.4 (3×) 69 (2×), 69 n.11 (5×), 70 n.13, n.14 Murphy, A.R. 217 n.10 Murphy C.M. 223 n.41 Najman, H. 110 n.10 Naudé, J.A. 67 (3×), 69, 69 n.6 Nemeskéri, J. 308 n.35

Index of Modern Authors Neufeld, E. 309 n.38 Neusner, J. 29 n.35 (2×), n.36, 57 n.26, 154 n.27, 299 n.9, 324 n.20 Neusner, N.M.M. 27 n.25, n.28 Newman, J.H. 110 n.10 Newmeyer, F. 73 n.32, 74 Newsom, C.A. 21 n.24, 114 n.28, 269 n.22, 287 n.34 Nicholson, J. 388 n.60 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 123, 123 n.49 (3×), n.51, 211 n.29, 219 n.19, 220 n.28, 221, 221 n.32 (2×), n.34 (4×), 225 n.50 (2×), n.53 Niccacci, A. 72, 72 n.27 Niccum, C. 400 Nielsen, E. 276, 276 n.8 Nissinen, M. 263 n.10, 265 n.17 Nitzan, B. 195 n.57, 197 n.60, 199, 199 n.66, 279 n.20 Noam, V. 333 n.43 (4×) Noegel, S.B. 202 n.72 Nolland, J. 345 n.15, n.16 Nongbri, B. 164 n.4 Noonan M. 73 (3×) North, R. 275 (2×), 275 n.1, n.2 Nötscher, F. 118, 118 n.38 O’Dea, T.F. 273 n.38 Oegema, G.S. 325 n.24 (2×), 329 n.33 Olyan, S.M. 155 n.30, n.32 (2×), 300, 301 n.12, n.13 Oppenheimer, A. 208 n.17 Oppenheimer, R.S.Z. Ortner, D. 312 n.49 (3×) von der Osten-Sacken, P. 195 n.57 Oxtoby, W.G. 14 n.3, 24 Pajunen, M.S. 139 n.29 Palva, H. 60 n.37, 176 n.3 Pardee, D. 378 n.29 Parker, S. 11 Parry D.W. 20 (2×), 30 n.43, 50 n.6 (2×), 57 n.25, 287 n.32 Pastor, J. 229 n.73 Paul, S.M. 152 n.20, 182 n.20, 209 n.23, 315 n.58, 341 n.1 Payne, T. 73 (3×), 74 (2×) Penner, J. 58 n.31, 288 n.38, 289 n.41, 290 n.42

Index Of Modern Authors Penner, K.M. 58 n.31 Perrin, A.B. 246, 246 n.15 Person, R.F. Jr. Peters, D.M. 11, 155, 156 n.34, n.35, 215 n.2, 234, 234 n.91, 257 n.42 Pfann, C. 21 n.25 Pfann, S.J. 21 n.25, 169 n.14, 205 n.4, 298 n.6, 342 n.2 Phelps, M. 24 n.1, 25 n.17, Pietersma, A. 319 n.1 Pinnick, A. 187 n.36, 207 n.13, 306 n.26 Plaut, W.G. 29 n.35 van der Ploeg, J.P.M. 34 n.52 (3×), 35 n.52, n.53 (3×), 54 n.15, 185 n.29, n.30 Polotsky, H.J. 370 (3×) Popovic, M. 168 n.12 Porter, S.E. 56 n.22, 58 n.29, 288 n.36 Portier-Young, A.E. 182 n.19, 218 n.14, 222 n.39, 229, 230 Puech, É. 21 n.24, 27, 248 n.26 (2×), 349 n.34, n.35, 371 Punt, J. 61 n.39 Pustet, R. 79 n.43 Putschar, W. 312 n.49 Qimron, E. 22 n.28, 28, 49 n.3, 67 n.1 (2×), 69 (2×), 69 n.9, n.10, 115 n.30, 116 n.32, 128 n.9, 141 n.38, 149 (2×), 149 n.9, 150, 150 n.16, 185 n.29, 270 n.26, 385 n.53 Quinn, J. 140 n.32 Rabinovitch, A. 27 Rappaport, S. 24 n.1, 208 n.17 Ray Jr., P.J. 295 n.2 Reece, M. 312 n.51 Reed, J.J. 61 n.39 Reed, J.L. 309, 309 n.38 Reed, S. 30, 30 n.41, 35, Reeves, J.C. 50 n.7, 261 n.5, 266, 266 n.20 Regev, E. 260 n.1, 355 n.1 Regourd, A. 394 n.7 Reid, 357 n.13 (2×) Reinhartz, A. 164 n.5, 165 n.5 Reis, A.J. 177 n.5 (2×) Rey, J-S. 68 n.4, 69 n.11, 71 n.24 (2×), 216, n.4 Reymond, E.D. 67 n.1 Reynolds, N.B. 30 n.43

457 Reynolds, B.H. III 000 Rhoades, D. 56 n.23 (2×) Rice K. 73 (3×) Richards, E.R. 382 n.43 Riches, D. 177 n.5 (2×) Robert, J. 228 n.69 Robert, L. 228 n.69 Roberts, J. 310 n.40 Roberts, J.J.M. 349 n.34 Robinson, J.M. 15 n.5, 42, 42 n.64 Roetzel, C.J. 175 n.1, 330 n.36, 339 n.58 Rofé, A. 270 n.26 Roitman, A.D. 248 n.23 Rollinger, R. 189 n.40 Rollston, C.A. 262 n.10 Römer, T. 63 (2×), 63 n.50, 64 (3×), 64 n.55, n.56, 65 (2×), 65 n.57, n.58 n.59 Römheld, D. 288 n.35 de Roo, J.C.R. 58 n.29 Rosen, E. 310 n.41 Roth, C. 336 n.52 Roth, G. 379 n.31 Roth, J.A. 177 n.5 (2×) Rowland, C. 110, 110 n.12 Runesson, A. 357 n.14, 359 n.23 Samely, A. 54, 54 n.17 Sanders, J.A. 391 (2×) Satlow, M.L. 279 n.19 Saxey, R. 310 n.38 Schachter, J. 28 n.31, n.32, 29 n.33, 33 n.48 Schäfer, P. 386 n.55, n.56, 388 n.62 Schantz, B.D. 215 n.2, 217 n.10, 225 n.51 Scharma, S. 51, 52, 52 n.9, n.11 Schattner-Rieser, U. 254, 254 n.37 Schiffman, L.H. 27, 29, 29 n.36 (2×), 49 n.3, 130 n.17, 141 n.36, 184 n.27, 204 n.3, 207 n.15, 287 n.32, 292 n.44, 300, 300 n.12, 301 n.13, n.14 302 n.18, 304 (2×), 304 n.24, 305 n.26, 310 (2×), 310 n.42, 312 n.50 (2×), 313 n.52 (2×), 323 n.17, 336 n.51, 341 n.1 Schmidt, B. 177 (2×), 177 n.4 (2×), n.6, n.7, 178 (2×), 178 n.8, 184 (3×), 184 n.28, 192 (2×), 192 n.49, 195, 199 (2×), 199 n.67, 202 (2×), 248 n.23, 260 n.1 Schmidt, F. 222, 222 n.40 Schniedewind, W.M. 265 n.17, 391

458 Schofield, A. 151 n.18, 152 n.18, 170 n.16, 175 n.1, 329 n.33 Schoonover, K. 295 n.2 Schröder, I. 177 (2×), 177 n.4 (2×), n.6, n.7, 178 (2×), 178 n.8, 184 (3×), 184 n.28, 192 (2×), 192 n.49, 195, 199 (2×), 199 n.67, 202 (2×) Schuller, E. 114 n.28 (2×), 141 n.36, 223 n.41, n.44, 232 n.86 Schulte, L.L. 270 n.29 Schultz, B. 10 (2×), 54 n.15 (2×), 58 n.29, 127 n.4, 129 n.15, 138, 138 n.28, 145 n.47, n.48, 157, 157 n.39, 158 n.44 (2×), 159 (5×), 159 n.45, n.46, n.47, n.48, 160 n.50, 168 n.12, 169 n.15, 185 n.31, 187 n.36, 188 n.37, n.38, 189 n.40, 190 n.45, 193 n.50, n.51, n.52, 195 n.57, 196 n.59, 197 n.62, 204 n.3, 208 n.16, n.18, 209 n.20, n.22, 277 n.13 (2×), 280 n.21 (2×), 281, n.21, n.22, 297 n.4, 298 n.7, 314 n.55 (2×), 334 n.45, n.46, 336 n.53, 342 (2×), 342 n.3 Schürer, E. 383 n.48 Schwartz, D.R. 187 n.36, 207 n.13 Schwartz, S. 217 n.13, 219, 219 n.20, 220, 220 n.22 Scott, J. 165 (3×),, 165 n.7, 166, 167, 167 n.8, 230, 230 n.76 Scott, J.M. 57 n.28 Screnock, J. 8, 9 (2×), 67 n.2, 72 (3×), 72 n.29 Segal, M. 211 n.29 Shahar, M. 61 n.41 Shanks, H. 13, 13 n.2, 14 (2×), 24 n.1, 26, 26 n.17, n.20, 28, 28 n.30, 29, 29 n.35, 30 n.38, n.40, 36 n.56 (3×), 41, 41 n.62 (2×), n.63 (2×), 132 Shiloh, Y. 307 n.31 Short, S. 400 n.12. Silberman, N. 367 n.6, 368 n.8, n.9 Silva, M. 210 n.26 Six, V. 395 n.9 Skehan, P.W. 154 n.25, 155 n.33 Skinner, J. 165 n.6 Smoak, G. 171, 171 n.17 Smith-Christopher, D. 216, 2l7 n.8, 229, 229 n.74, 230 n.75, n.77, n.78 Smith, M. 70 (2×), 70 n.12, n.13, n.14, 141 n.36, 144 n.46 Smith R.H. 228 n.68

Index of Modern Authors Smithuis, R. 239 n.4 Sokoloff, M. 270 n.26 Sollama, R. 60, 60 n.37, 176 n.3 Spierenburg, P. 177 n.4 Stalker, D.G.M. Starcky, J. 364 n.1, 369 n.11, 371 Stassen, G. 216, 216 n.8 Stewart, P.J. 177 n.4 Stegemann, H. 15, 15 n.6, 21 n.24, 29 (2×), 29 n.37, 30 n.38, 114 n.28, 130, 130 n.17, 132 (2×), 132 n.19 (2×), n.20, 136 Sterling, G.E. 219 n.20, 223 n.41 Stern, E. 210 n.26 Stern, M. 189 n.40, 208 n.17, Steudel, A. 137, 138 n.25, 206 n.10, 260 n.3 Stökl, J. 176 n.2 Stone, M.E. 55 n.18, 117 n.37, 156 n.35 (3×), 211 n.29, 238 n.2, 254 Strathern, A. 177 n.4 Strugnell, J. 24 (3×), 24 n.2, 27 (2×), 28, 41 n.62 69 n.10, 121 n.46 (2×), 215 n.3, 218 n.15, 272, 272 n.33, n.34 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 122 n.47, n.48 (2×), 123 n.49 (2×), n.50, 247, 248 n.23, n.24 Sukenik, E. 298 n.5 Sussman, V. 35 n.53 (2×) Suter, D. 221, 221 n.31 Swete, H.B. 210 n.26 Syon, D. 320 n.3, 321 n.6 (2×) Szabó, X. 218 n.16 Tabor, J.D. 303 n.22, 341 n.2 (2×), 350 n.36 Talmon, S.T.B, 57 n.27, 340 n.59, 390, 390 n.2 (4×) Talshir, Z. 30 n.42 Taylor, J. 338, 338 n.56 Tcherikover, V. 228 n.67, 229 n.70 Teeter, A. 189 n.41 Teixider, J. 14 n.3, 24 Terefe, M. 394 n.7 (2×) Tervanotko, H. 139 n.29 Thackeray, H.St.J. 270 n.28 Thomas, S. 107 n.1, 108 n.3, n.7m 109 n.8, 110, 110 n.11, 111 n.14, 113 (4×), 113 n.24 (2×), n.25, n.26 (2×), n.27 (2×), 114 n.29, 117 n.37, 118 (2×), 119, 119 n.41 (3×), n.42 (2×), 120, 124, 139 n.30, 246, 246 n.19

459

Index Of Modern Authors Thompson, S. 73 n.32 Tigchelaar, E.J.C. 26 n.19, 116 n.33, 117 n.35, 119 n.39, 136, 136 n.23, 149 (2×), 149 n.8, 150 (2×), 150 n.15, 157 n.37, 168 n.14, 204 n.1, 214 n.35, 215 n.3, 223 n.41, n.42, 224 n.47, 292 n.46, 298 n.6, 349 n.34 Toews, C. 17 n.9 Tolkien, J.R.R. 125 Tov, E. 5, 7 (2×), 9, 20 n.19, n.22, 21 n.26, 36, 36 n.54, 50 n.6 (2×), 56 n.22, 279 n.18, 293 n.48, 390, 390 n.3, 401 n.13 Tromp, J. 156 n.35, 347 n.23 Tso, M. 335 n.48, n.49 Tzoref, S. 248 n.23 Ullendorff, E. 123 n.49 Ulrich, E. 18, 18 n.12, 21 n.27, 45 n.68, 57 n.25, 70 n.19, 207 n.15, 287 n.32, 390, 390 n.1 VanderKam, J.C. 39 n.57, 53 n.13, 56 n.22, 64 n.52, 123 n.49 (2×), 187 n.35 (2×), 207 n.15, 211 n.29, 260 n.1, 279 n.18, 298 n.8, 323 n.17, 324 n.22, 341 n.1 Vanonen, H. 139 n.29 (2×) Vermes, G. 52 n.10, 64 n.53, 65 n.60, 149 (2×), 149 n.7, 150, 150 n.14, 168 n.14, 205, 205 n.4, n.5, n.6, n.7, 206, 298 n.6, 342 n.2, 350 n.36 (3×) de Vaux, R. 156 n.37 (2×), 364 (2×), 364 n.1, 365 (2×), 365 n.3, n.4, 369 (2×), 383 n.48 de Villiers P.G.R. 61 n.39 Viviano, A. 267 n.21 Vlassopoulos, K. 165 n.6 Vogt, E. 110, 110 n.13 Wacholder, B. Z. 5 (2×), 6 (2×), 7, 14 (4×), 14 n.4, 15 n.7, 23 (3×), 24 (6×), 24 n.2, n.6, 25 (2×), 26 (6×), 26 n.20, n.21, 27 (4×), 28 (3×), 29 (3×), 29 n.35, n.36, 30 (5×), 30 n.42, n.43, 31 (3×), 33 (5×), 33 n.48, n.49, 34, 34 n.51, n.52 (5×), 35 n.52, n.53 (5×), 36 n.54 (2×), 37, 38 n.57, 41, 41 n.62, 42, 44 (5×), 49 n.3 Walsh, B.J. 62 n.43 Wassen, C. 58 n.31, 223 n.44 Weaver, J.D. 216 n.8 Weber, D. 73 (2×), 74

Weber, M. 379, 379 n.31 Wee, J.Z.-E. (2×), 276, 276 n.10, 280 n.21, 281, n.21, n.22 Weitzman, S. 183 (3×), 183 n.23, n.24, 192, 197, 197 n.61, 198 Welles, C.B. 381 n.39 Wenthe, D.O. 185 n.31, 188 n.38, 195 n.56 Werline, R.A. 221 n.29 Wenham, G. 297 n.3 (2×) Werrett, I.C. 299 n.9, 302 n.17, 303 n.22 (3×), 316 n.59 Westmoreland-White, M. 216, 216 n.8 White Crawford, S. 41 n.62 (2×) Wilder, C.S. 311 n.48 Wilford, J.N. 27 n.22, n.23, n.24, n.28, 42 n.64 Williams, J. 400 n.12 Williams, R.J. 245 n.14 (2×) Williamson, H.G.M. Wills, L.M. 218 n.17 Winford, D. 380 n.34 Wink, W. 361 n.29 Wise, M.O. 11, 18, 18 n.10, 45 n.68, 51 n.7, 115 n.30, 136 n.24, 141, 141 n.35, n.36, n.37, 142 n.39, n.41 (2×), 144 n.45, 147 n.3, 157 n.38, 262 n.8, 271 n.30, 275 n.*, 319 n.1, 325 n.23 (2×), 330 n.35, 333 n.42, 341 n.2, 342 n.2, 350 n.36, 372 n.19 Wittich, C. 379 n.31 Wold, B.G. 223 n.41, 224 n.47 Wolfson, E.R. 109 n.10 (2×) Wood, B.G. 295 n.2 van der Woude, A.S. 34 n.52 (2×), 35 n.53, 168 n.14, 214 n.35, 298 n.6, 349 n.34 Wright, B.G. III. 19, 215 n.4 (2×), 218, 218 n.17 (2×), 220 n.24, n.26, n.29 (2×), 221 n.29, n.30, 223 n.41, 224 n.47, n.48, 319 n.1 Wyse-Rhodes, J. 225, n.51 Xeravits, G.G. 60 n.38, 168 n.13, 218 n.16 Yadin, Y. 34 n.50, 35 n.52, 55 n.19, 57, 57 n.27, 66, 121 n.46 (2×), 149, 150 (3×), 150 n.13, 157 n.40 158 n.43 (2×), n.44 (2×) 160 n.49 (3×), 167 n.9, 182 n.20, 185 n.29, 186, 186 n.32 (2×), 187 n.36, 188 n.38, 189 n.40, 190 n.44, 191 n.47, 193, 193 n.50, 194 n.53, n.54, 195 n.55, n.56, n.57, 197 n.62 (2×), 198 n.64, 200 n.69, 201, 201 n.70,

460 Yadin, Y. (cont.) 202 n.71, 275, 275, 286 n.28, n.29, n.30, 300 n.12 302 n.18, 313 n.52 (2×), 315 n.58, 340 n.59, 352, 352 n.39, 366 n.5, 367 n.6 (3×), 368 (2×), 369 (4×), 369 n.10, n.11, 370 (4×), 370 n.14, 372, 382 n.44, 384, 384 n.50, 386 n.55 Yarbro Collins, A. 344 n.9, n.10 Yardeni, A. 269 n.23, 270 (2×), 270 n.26, 364 n.1, 370 n.14, 371, 371 n.17, 372 n.20, 374, 374 n.24, n.25, 375 n.26, 376, 376 n.27, 379, 379 n.30, 381, 382, 384 n.51 Yishay, R. 54 n.15, 168 n.10 Yoder Neufeld, T.R. 217 n.10, n.12

Index of Modern Authors Zafren, H.C. 36 n.54 Zamorani, S. 49 n.3 Zangenberg, J. 321 n.5, 322 n.12 Zehnder, M. 190 n.43, 215 n.2, 217 n.10, 319 n.1 Zerbe, G.M. 61 n.42, 257, 258 n.44, n.45 Zevit, Z. 270 n.26 Zewi, T. 71 n.24 Zias, J.E. 303 n.22 (3×), 311, 311 n.46 Zimmerli, W. 213 n.33 Zissu, B. 385 n.52 Zsengellér, J. 218 n.16 Zuckerman, B. 25

Index of Ancient Sources Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Cairo Geniza CD (Damascus Document) 6, 7 (3×), 17, 25, 43, 44 (2×), 151 n.18, 157, 161, 191, 191 n.48, 235, 278, 285 (2×), 294, 298, 302, 348  1:9 348  1:14 333 n.43  1:20 359 n.21  4:4 343  4:17 227 n.63  6:2–11 219 n.18  6:15 227 n.63  6:16 227 n.63  7:10 263 n.12  7:18–21 336  8:5 227 n.63  8:7 227 n.63  8:11 348  9:23–10:3 302  10:4–7 302  12:22–23 194  12:22–13:2 286  13:1–2 194  16:2 348  19:6 235 n.94  19:13–14 235 n.94 Ben Sira ms. A 108, 109, 219 n.18  14:4 155 n.32  15:6 155  31:26 108 n.4  51:10 108 n.4 Ben Sira ms. B

323 n.18, 325

2. Qumran Cave 1 1QIsaa 1QIsaiaha 18 n.11, 68 n.5, 69

1QpHab 1Qpesher to Habakkuk   179, 265, 267, 274 (2×)  2:3–10 267  2:6 191  2:10–4:17 179  5:4–5 334  5:12–6:12 179  7:1–8:3 267  7:4–5 265, 268  7:5 114 (2×)  7:7 267  7:8 114 (3×)  7:13–14 114 (2×)  7:14 114 n.29  7:14–16 267  7:17–8:3 268  8:2–3 332  8:8–9 331  8:8–13 331  8:11 227 n.63  9:2–8 331  9:3–7 180  9:8 227 n.63  9:9–12 235 n.94  11:4–8 179  10:13 179  12:1–6 227 n.63  13:2–3 65  22:4–8 359 n.21 1Q16 (1QpPs) 1Qpesher to Psalms 261 n.6 1Q17–1Q18 1QJubilees

169

1Q20 (1QapGen) 1QGenesis Apocryphon 108, 246 n.18, 248, 251, 257 n.42  5:18 252 n.32  5:20–25 246  6:9–26 246  6:12 246  14:19 246  19:13–14 257 n.42

462 1Q21 (1QTLevi) 1QTestament of Levi 169, 221 n.29, 239 n.5, 254  8 247, 248  8 1 248  37a 1 254 1Q26 1QInstruction (cf. 4Q415–4Q418 below) 1Q27 (1QMyst) 1QMysteries  1:2 114 (2×) 1QS (1QS) 1QRule of the Community 7, 51 (2×), 64, 151 n.18, 152 n.19 (2×), 152 n.21, 153 (3×), 153 n.21, 160 (4×), 162, 169, 170 (2×), 180, 235 (2×), 264, 284, 285, 289, 298  1–2 267 n.21  1:3 263 n.12  1:9 348 n.32  1:10 348 n.26  1:16–2:18 160  1:18 346  2 284  2:3 267 n.21  2:4–10 284  2:4–17 235  2:5 246  2:16 348 n.32  2:19 246  2:19–23 286  3:13 348 n.32  3:13–4:26 180  3:20–23 113  3:23 114 (3×), 117  3:24 348 n.32  4:6 112  4:11 348  4:14–16 287 n.32  4:18 112, 114 (2×)  5:1–2 333 n.43  5:2–3 153 (2×)  5:12 235 n.94  5:21–22 153  8:15–16 264

Index of Ancient Sources  9:7 153 (2×)  9:9–11 263 n.13  9:11 333  9:14 348 n.33  9:16 348 n.28  9:22 348 n.28  9:23 334  9:26–10:8 289  10:1 287 n.32  10:14 286  10:19 63, 227 n.63  10:19–20 334  10:20 348 n.28  11:3–4 114 1Q28a (1QSa) 1QRule of the Congregation   57 n.29, 152 n.19 (2×), 152 n.21, 153 n.21, 159 (4×), 160, 162, 276, 285, 298, 301, 302 n.16  1:1 260  1:2 153  1:6–9 302  1:9–11 302  1:17 286 n.30  1:24 153  1:27 302  2:3 153  2:3–11 300  2:15 286 n.30  2:22 286 n.31 1Q28b (1QSb) 1QRule of Benedictions 10 (2×), 147, 147 n.4, 148 (3×), 152(3×), 152, n.19 (2×), 152 n.20, 152 n.21, 153 (3×), 153 n.21, 155, 156 (3×), 161 (2×), 162 (3×), 336  1:1 152  1:1–2 152 n.20  1:1–3 150 n.13  1:1–20 152 n.20  1:21–2:20 152 n.20  2:21–3:21 152 n.20  3 150 (2×)  3:22–4:19 152 n.20

Index Of Ancient Sources  3:22 152  3:22–23 152  3:22–25 156  3:22–5:19 148  3:23 152, 156 (2×)  3:23–24 156  3:25 156  3:26 147, 148 (2×), 150 (2×), 152, 155 (3×), 161 (2×), 162  4:20–5:19 152 n.20  5:20 152, 152 n.20  5:20–6:20 152 n.20  5:27–29 336 1Q33 (1QM) 1QWar Scroll 3 (2×), 3 n.1, 6 (2×), 7 (3×), 8 (5×), 9 (5×), 10 (6×), 11 (4×), 12, 49, 49 n.2 (3×), 50 (5×), 51 (6×), 52 (2×), 53 (2×), 53 n.13, 54 (4×), 54 n.15, 55 (4×), 56 n.22, 57 (3×), 57 n.29, 58 (2×), 59 (7×), 60 (6×), 61 (3×), 61 n.40, 61 n.42, 62 (3×), 62 n.43, 63 (5×), 64, 65 (5×), 66 (4×) 68, 70, 71 (2×), 72 (4×), 74, 75 n.35, 76 (3×), 76 n.39 (4×), 77 (2×), 78 (3×), 79 (3×), 84, 85 (2×), 87, 89, 90 (2×), 93 (4×), 94 (3×), 95 (3×), 95 n.62, 96 (2×), 97 (3×), 98 n.72, 102 (4×), 103 (3×), 104 (2×), 105 (2×), 107 (3×), 107 n.2, 110, 111 (2×), 114 (3×), 114 n.29 (3×), 115 n.30, 117, 118 (3×), 121 (2×), 121 n.46, 122 (3×), 123 (2×), 124 (3×), 126, 136, 138 (6×), 143, 143 n.42 (2×), 144 n.46, 145, 145 n.47, 147, 147 n.4, 148 (2×), 149 (2×), 150 (2×), 158 (2×), 159 (10×), 159 n.46, 160 (5×), 160 n.49 (2×), n.51 (2×), 161 (3×), 162 (2×), 163 (3×), 167, 168 (5×), 169 (8×), 170 (3×), 171 (2×), 176 (6×), 180 (2×), 181 (4×), 182 (10×), 183 (13×), 184 (2×), 184 n.27, 185 (2×), 185 n.31, 186 (3×), 188 (2×), 189 (2×), 190 (5×), 191 (3×), 192

463 (8×), 193 (4×), 194 (3×), 195 (3×), 195 n.57, 197 (4×), 197 n.62 (2×), 198, 199 (5×), 200, 202 (14×), 204 (4×), 208 (5×), 211, 212, 213 (2×), 214 (2×), 234 (2×), 261 n.6, 262 (2×), 266, 275 (5×), 276 (5×), 277, 278 (4×), 279 (3×), 280, 284 (3×), 285, 286, 286 n.31, 289 (2×), 291, 292 (2×), 293 (4×), 294, 297, 298 (10×), 299 (6×), 300 n.10, 301 (3×), 302 n.16, 303 (3×), 304 (4×), 305 (2×), 306 (3×), 306 n.27, n.28 (2×), 307 (3×), 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 n.50, 313 (2×), 314 (2×), 315 (4×), 315 n.58, 316 (4×), 329, 334, 335, 338, 341, 342 (3×), 342 n.4, 346  1 64, 91, 185, 187, 188 (4×), 190, 191, 193, 277 n.13 (3×), 278 (2×), 280, 308  1–9 275  1:1 77 (4×), 91 (2×), 92, 103, 185, 287 n.32, 348 n.26, n.32  1:1–2 104, 334, 346  1:1–2:14 167  1:2 77 (6×), 78, 91, 92, 103, 185, 314 n.55 (2×)  1:2–3 57  1:3 77 (2×), 92, 93 n.50, 94, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 98, 103, 348 n.32  1:4 77, 80  1:4–5 188  1:5 77 (2×), 93 n.50, 94, 94 n.56, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 287 n.32, 346  1:5–6 80  1:6 76, 77 (3×), 189 (2×), 190  1:6–7 63 n.49  1:7 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 348 n.26  1:8 78, 93 n.50, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 103, 104, 348 n.33  1:8–9 94 n.57  1:9 77, 80, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 103, 104, 190, 348 n.32  1:9–12 190

464 1Q33 (1QM) 1QWar Scroll (cont.)  1:10 77, 80, 84, 89 (3×), 348 n.26  1:10–11 104  1:11 80, 104, 287 n.32, 348 n.32  1:12 77 (2×), 84 (2×), 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 287 n.32  1:12–13 314  1:13 77, 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 101 n.73, 287 n.32, 348 n.32  1:13–14 185  1:14 80, 287 n.32  1:14–15 190 (2×), 346  1:15 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 287 n.32, 346, 346 n.20  1:16 81  1:17 80  1:20 77  2 193 (8×), 308, 314 n.55  2–9 277 n.13 (2×)  2:1 59, 91, 96 n.64 (3×), 99, 100, 103  2:2 77, 91, 96 n.64 (3×), 96 n.66, 99, 100  2:2–3 159  2:3 78  2:4 91, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 102 n.77  2:5 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 103  2:6 87 (2×), 91, 94 n.53, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 99, 102, 102 n.77, 193  2:6–7 80, 88  2:7 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 102, 314 n.55  2:9 77, 91, 94 n.52, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 99, 102 n.77, 193  2:10 77 (3×), 87, 88, 96 n.66, 100, 101 n.73  2:11 77 (7×), 85 (3×), 86, 92  2:12 77 (2×), 80, 81, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  2:13 77 (4×), 85 (3×), 86, 91, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 102 n.77  2:14 77, 87 (2×), 88, 91, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 101, 102 n.77

Index of Ancient Sources  2:15–15:3 167  2:16 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  2:16–3:11 194, 199  2:20–3:2 104, 105  3 308  3:1 76, 81, 287 n.32, 351  3:2 81, 105, 201  3:4 91, 92  3:5 81, 94 n.55, 94 n.59  3:5–6 91, 104, 201  3:5–9 201  3:6 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 287 n.32, 348 n.26  3:7 287 n.32  3:7–8 201  3:8 76 (2×), 81 (2×), 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 201, 351  3:8–9 107, 111, 117 n.36, 124, 201  3:9 91, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 114 (2×), 115 (3×), 117, 201, 348 n.26  3:10 286 n.31  3:11 77  3:12–18 286  3:13 77, 80, 85 (3×), 86, 94, 94 n.51, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  3:13–4:17 194, 199  3:14 77 (2×), 85 (3×), 86, 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 100  3:16 91  3:16–18 194  4 308  4:1 77, 200  4:1–2 200  4:2 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 287 n.32  4:3 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.58  4:4 81  4:5 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  4:6 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 200  4:7 76, 81, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 200, 351  4:8 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  4:10 81, 287 n.32  4:11 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.58  4:12 84, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.58, 94 n.59  4:12–13 94 n.56

465

Index Of Ancient Sources  4:15

91, 94 n.51, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 96 n.64, 98 (2×), 100 (2×), 102 n.77  4:16 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 100 (2×), 102 n.77  4:17 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 102 n.77  5:1 59, 77 (3×), 79, 91, 94 n.51, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 96 n.64, 100, 104, 105  5:1–2 160 (2×)  5:2 91, 96 n.64, 100, 103  5:3 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 286 n.31, 287 n.32  5:4 89 (2×), 94, 94 n.52, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  5:5 104, 105  5:6 91  5:7 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 102 n.77  5:7–8 89 (2×)  5:8 105  5:8–9 84  5:9 91  5:10 80  5:11 80, 89 (2×), 90  5:12 84, 80, 84 (2×), 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  5:13 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66 (2×)  5:14 89, 90, 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  5:16 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66  5:17 91, 101, 102 n.77  5:17–18 85 (4×), 86  6–7 306  6:1 79, 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 286 n.30, 287 n.32  6:2 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  6:3 76, 81, 82, 89, 90, 351  6:4 91, 94 n.53, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 97, 98 (2×), 286 n.30, 287 n.32  6:5 76, 82, 287 n.32, 351  6:5–6 103  6:6 77, 82, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59  6:8 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  6:8–9 91, 96 n.64, 97, 101  6:9 96 n.64, 98, 101, 101 n.73  6:10 91, 93 n.50, 94 (2×), 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 99 n.72, 100 (2×), 101 (3×), 101 n.73

 6:11

94 n.52, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 99 n.72, 100, 101 (2×), 101 n.73  6:11–12 87, 88  6:11–7:3 299  6:12 80 (4×)  6:13 87, 88, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59  6:13–15 307  6:14 91, 96, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 100, 101 n.73, 102 n.77  6:15 101 n.73  6:16 94 n.52, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 105  6:17 76, 82, 351  7 299  7:1 91, 96 n.64, 101 n.73, 102 n.77, 307, 308  7:2 76, 82, 91, 94 n.55, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 101 n.73, 102 n.77, 351  7:2–3 94, 307  7:3 76, 91, 94, 94 n.52, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 100, 101 n.73, 102, 102 n.77, 302  7:3–4 307 (2×)  7:3–6 302 n.16  7:3–7 300, 306 n.28  7:4 77, 82, 89, 90, 94 n.57, 94 n.58  7:4–5 85 (4×), 86, 103, 105, 303, 311 n.47  7:4–6 309  7:5 79, 81, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 103, 190 n.45, 303, 314  7:5–6 85 (3×), 86, 302, 313 n.52  7:6 76, 79 (2×), 81, 101, 301  7:6–7 303  7:7 80, 93 n.50, 94 n.51, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 102 n.77, 303  7:9 80, 103  7:9–10 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  7:9–9:9 161 n.51, 196 n.59, 304  7:10 77, 80, 91  7:10–11 89 (2×), 90, 105  7:11 91 (2×), 92 (2×)  7:12 59, 94 n.51, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.66, 101 n.73, 196 n.59

466 1Q33 (1QM) 1QWar Scroll (cont.)  7:14 77, 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98 (3×)  7:15 77, 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  7:16 77, 91, 96 n.64, 287 n.32  7:17 93 n.50, 94 n.56, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 95, 105  7:18 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  8:1–2 96 n.64, 96 n.66  8:2 91, 159  8:3 159, 286 n.30  8:4 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 287 n.32 (2×)  8:5 89, 90, 91, 92, 159  8:6 91, 92, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 286 n.30  8:7 91, 92, 159  8:8 91  8:8–9 96 n.64, 96 n.66  8:9 76, 77, 80, 82, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 159, 351  8:10 80, 91, 92  8:11 76, 82  8:12 80  8:13 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66  8:14 89 (2×), 90, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 287 n.32  8:15 77, 94 n.53, 94 n.58, 159  8:16 80  8:17 286 n.30  8:19 82  9 277 n.13  9:1 82, 94 n.52, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  9:2 76, 82, 103  9:3 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  9:4 87, 88, 91, 94 n.52, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 287 n.32  9:4–5 91, 96 n.64, 99 n.72, 100, 101, 304, 314  9:5 88, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 99 n.72, 101  9:6 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  9:7 76, 77, 82  9:7–9 299, 305, 306 n.28  9:8 76, 79, 81, 82, 306, 306 n.28  9:9 77, 305  9:10 287 n.32

Index of Ancient Sources  9:10–11  9:11  9:12

104 (2×), 105 84 (2×), 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98 79, 81, 91, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98, 102 n.77  9:13 91, 94 n.52, 94 n.54, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98 (2×), 101 n.73  9:14 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 101, 287 n.32  9:15 77 (4×)  9:16 77 (4×)  9:end–10:8 284  9:end–12:end 281 (2×)  10–12 282  10–14 195, 195 n.57, 277 n.13 (2×), 281, 284  10–18 64  10–19 275  10:1 80 (2×), 85 (3×), 86, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.58  10:1–8 195  10:2 59  10:2–5 196  10:3 77, 79, 81  10:5 82, 91, 92, 93 n.50, 94 n.52, 94 n.55, 94 n.59  10:5–6 105, 384  10:5–8 196–97  10:6 77, 82 (2×), 85 (3×), 86, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59  10:7 87, 88, 103  10:8 77, 80  10:8–9 85 (3×), 86  10:8–17 284  10:8–12:end 198  10:9 77, 80, 85 (2×), 86, 91 (2×), 92, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  10:9–10 91, 92  10:10 82, 89 (2×), 90  10:11 82  10:12 82, 88  10:13 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  10:16 86  10:end­–11:5 284  11 198  11:1 76, 77 (2×), 80, 89, 90, 91 (2×), 92 (2×), 198  11:1–3 198  11:2 77, 80, 92, 198

Index Of Ancient Sources  11:3 77, 80 (2×)  11:4 85 (2×), 87, 198  11:5 80  11:5–7 85 (3×), 87  11:5–12 284  11:6 77 (3×), 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  11:6–7 336  11:7 77  11:8 77, 91, 93 (2×)  11:8–9 65, 96 n.64, 96 n.66, 98  11:9 82, 89, 90  11:9–12 190 n.44  11:10 82  11:11–12 189 n.42  11:13 82, 94 n.51, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 198  11:14 82, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59  11:16 77, 87, 88, 93 n.50, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  11:11 77 (2×)  11:11–16 117 n.36  12 280, 281 n.21, 282 (2×), 283  12:1 82  12:2 94 n.51, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  12:3 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59  12:4–5 301  12:7 282–83  12:7–10 283 (2×)  12:7–12 60  12:8 77, 79, 81  12:10 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  12:11 76, 91, 93  12:12–13 105  12:13 77 (3×), 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  12:14 94, 94 n.52, 94 n.55, 94 n.59  12:14–16 159  12:16 77  12:17 77  12:18 77  12:end–14:1 198, 281  13 284 (3×)  13:1 56 n.22, 77 (2×), 91, 93, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 159  13:1–2 279

467  13:1–4 346  13:2 77 (2×), 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 287 n.32, 346 n.20  13:3 94 n.52, 94 n.55, 94 n.59  13:4 77, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 287 n.32  13:4–5 284  13:4–6 285, 290  13:5 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  13:6 93  13:7–9 280  13:8 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 150  13:9 287 n.32  13:10 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 287 n.32, 348 n.33  13:10–11 94 n.59  13:11 77, 91, 93, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 287 n.32, 346  13:12 91, 93, 287 n.32  13:13 77  13:14 279  13:15 105  13:16 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 348 n.26, n.32  14 277 n.13  14–19 143  14:1 77  14:2 76, 94 n.52, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 306 n.27  14:2–3 299, 306  14:2–4 281  14:2–end 198, 281  14:3 76, 85 (2×), 87, 306 (2×)  14:4 77, 94 n.52, 94 n.54, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 115  14:4–5 87, 88 (2×), 280  14:5–6 105  14:6 76, 80, 89, 90  14:7 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 159  14:8 87, 88 (2×), 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  14:8–10 118  14:9 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 111 n.15, 114 (3×), 115, 287 n.32, 346  14:11 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59

468 1Q33 (1QM) 1QWar Scroll (cont.)  14:12 91, 93, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.58  14:12–14 289, 290  14:13 94 n.53, 94 n.59  14:13–14 289  14:13–15 118–19  14:14 79, 81, 114 (4×), 114 n.29, 120 (3×)  14:17 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59, 348 n.26  14:18 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59  14:19 94 n.53, 94 n.58  15–18 138  15–19 168, 170 (2×), 171, 276 (2×), 277 n.13, 280 n.21  15–20 277 n.13  15:1 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 287 n.32  15:2 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.55, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 94 n.59  15:2–3 94 n.56, 191  15:3 77, 87, 88, 190 n.53  15:4 59, 77, 91, 93, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 159  15:4–5 293  15:4–8 196 n.59  15:4–9 56 n.22  15:4–18:8 316  15:5 78, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  15:6 59, 87, 88, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  15:7 12, 94 n.51, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  15:9 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  15:10 89, 90, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.58  15:10–11 94 n.56  15:11 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  15:13 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 94 n.59  15:14 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.57, 94 n.59  15:16 77  15:17 77  16–17 126  16:1 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 191

Index of Ancient Sources  16:3 77, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 143  16:3–14 143  16:4 287 n.32  16:5 286 n.30  16:6 77  16:7 76, 77, 80, 94 n.53, 94 n.58, 96 n.64, 98  16:7–8 94 n.56  16:8 76, 77, 81, 94 n.52  16:9 76, 77  16:11 76, 77, 94 n.55, 94 n.59, 114, 115, 117 (2×), 117 n.36, 143, 157, 158, 316 (2×), 346 n.20, 348 n.26  16:11–12 116  16:11–17:9 316  16:11–19:9 162  16:12 80, 91, 93  16:12–13 143  16:13 59, 196 n.59  16:13–16 56 n.22  16:13–14 157  16:14–17:9 158  16:15 76, 117, 121, 157, 316  16:15–16 116–17  16:15–17:9 157  16:16 114, 114 n.29, 115, 117, 157, 158  17 144, 150 (2×)  17:1 94 n.53, 157 n.40, 316  17:1–9 143–44  17:2 77 (4×), 81, 85 (2×), 87, 91, 93, 94 n.51, 158 (2×)  17:2–3 59 n.34, 150, 151 (2×), 157, 162  17:3 77, 147, 149 (2×), 150 (6×), 151 (2×), 159, 161 (2×)  17:4–8 143 n.43  17:5 77, 89, 90, 93 n.50, 94 n.55, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 103, 144, 159, 287 n.32  17:6 77, 144, 158, 287 n.32  17:7 12, 77 (2×), 158  17:7–8 144  17:8 77, 91 (2×), 93, 93 n.50, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.57, 94 n.58, 94 n.59, 144, 158  17:8–9 120, 124, 157  17:9 91, 93, 114, 115, 121, 121 n.46 (2×), 157, 157 n.40, 316  17:10 287 n.32  17:11 93, 286 n.30

469

Index Of Ancient Sources  17:12 77  17:13 76, 77, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  17:14 77, 94 n.52, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  17:14–20 143  17:15 77  17:16 76  18–19 282  18:1 77, 81, 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58, 287 n.32 (2×), 346  18:1–3 346 n.20  18:1–5 194  18:2 77 (3×), 189 n.42  18:3 77 (2×), 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.58  18:4 77, 93 n.50, 94 n.52, 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  18:5 59, 77, 85 (2×), 87  18:5–6 282, 290  18:5–8 160, 160 n.50  18:5–19:8 282  18:6 77  18:6–7 56 n.22  18:6–8 280, 290  18:7 81  18:10–11 291  18:11 287 n.32  18:12 291  18:12–13 282  19 143 n.42, 281, 281 n.21, 282, 283  19:1 79, 81  19:2 93 n.50, 94 n.53, 94 n.59  19:5 77 (2×), 94 n.53, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  19:6 94 n.52, 94 n.55  19:8 77  19:9 282 (2×)  19:9–10 282  19:10 76, 77 (2×), 87, 88, 94 n.51, 94 n.56, 94 n.59, 189 n.42  19:10–11 168  19:11 191, 361 n.31  19:12 77, 94 n.56, 94 n.59  19:13 56 n.22, 77 (2×)

 3 2

93 n.50, 94

1Q34 (1QLitPra) 1QFestival Prayers 279 1Q34bis (1QLitPrb) 1QFestival Prayers 279 1QHa (1QHa) 1QHodayota 21, 51 (2×), 137 n.24, 141 (2×), 141 n.38, 264, 265 (2×), 267, 271, 274, 276, 278 (3×), 286, 287 (2×), 289  4:26 265  6:25 265  6:29 361 n.31  7:12–20 287  8:26 278 n.15  8:29–32 286 n.30  9:11–14 287  9:19 287 n.32  9:21 265  10:18 346  10:19–35 179  10:24 286 n.30  11:21–24 286 n.30  12 268  12:5–6 265  12:6–13:6 268  12:9–11 179  12:11 268 (2×)  12:14 346  12:17 268  12:23 265  12:24 268  13:22 278 n.15  13:38 (olim. 5:36) 114, 114 n.28  16:5–6 112 n.22  16:7 108 n.4  17:23 (olim. 9:23) 114  17:32 265  18:16 278 n.15  19:16 286 n.30  19:30 278 n.15  19:32 278 n.15  19:35–36 278 n.15  20:7–14 289  20:14–16 264–65  20:26 287 n.32

470

Index of Ancient Sources

1QHa (1QHa) 1QHodayota (cont.)  21:27 (olim. 3:7) 114, 114 n.28  22:15 286 n.30  26 127 n.8, 141, 278  26:7 286 n.30  26:9–14 141  26:36 286 n.30 Cave 2 2Q19–20 2QJubilees

169

Cave 3 3Q5 (3QJub) 3QJubilees 169 Cave 4 4Q70 (4QJera)

140 n.34

4Q112 (4QDana)

108

4Q115 (4QDand)

108

 1–10 ii 18–20  1–10 iii 7–8  1–10 iv 8–10  3–4 iii 12

179 179, 180 179 191

4Q174 (4QFlor) 4QFlorilegium [ 4QMidr  Eschata?]  1–2 i 2 343  1–2 i 8 348 n.27  1–2 i 12 343 4Q175 (4QTest) 4QTestimonia 270 n.29, 332 (4×),   332 n.38, 333  1 1–8 332  1 9–13 332  1 12–13 336  1 14–20 332  1 21–30 332  1 23–24 333 n.43

4Q158 (4QRPa) 4QReworked Pentateucha  1–2 8 227 n.63

4Q176 a, 4Q176b (= 4Q176 frags. 19–21)  4QJubilees? 169

4Q161–4Q165 Isaiah pesharim 329

4Q177 (4QCatena A) 4QCatena A  1–4 8 346

4Q161 (4QpIsaa) 4QIsaiah Peshera 261 n.6, 335  5–6 335  8–10 335  8–10 17 343 (2×)  8–10 17–24 335

4Q201–4Q212 4QEnoch 108

4Q162 (4QpIsab) 4QIsaiah Pesherb  2:1 343 4Q163 (4Qpap pIsac) 4QIsaiah Pesherc  23 ii 10 343 4Q169 (4QpNah) 4QNahum Pesher 261 n.6  3–4 ii 2 343 4Q170 (4QpZeph) 4QZephaniah Pesher 4Q171 (4QpPsa) 4QPsalms Peshera  1–2 ii 13 191  1–10 ii 14–15 179  1–10 ii 18–19 179

4Q204–4Q212 4QEnochc–g 287 n.32 4Q204 (4QEnc ar) 4QEnochc  1 i 21 287 n.32  1 i 26 287 n.32  5 ii 25–29 122  5 ii 26 246 4Q205 (4QEnd ar) 4QEnochd  1 xi 5 287 n.32 4Q212 (4QEng ar) 4QEnochg  1 iv 12–13 256  1 iv 15–17 256 4Q213–4Q214b 4QAramaic Levia, c 221 n.29 4Q213 (4QLevia ar) 4QAramaic Levia 239 n.5



471

Index Of Ancient Sources 4Q213a (4QLevib ar) 4QAramaic Levib 239 n.5  1 i–ii 254  3 247 n.22



4Q213b (4QLevic ar) 4QAramaic Levic 239 n.5 4Q214 (4QLevid ar) 4QAramaic Levid 239 n.5 4Q214a (4QLevie ar) 4QAramaic Levie 239 n.5



4Q214b (4QLevif ar) 4QAramaic Levif 239 n.5 4Q215a 4QTime of Righteousness 58 4Q225–4Q227 Pseudo-Jubilees 169 4Q245 (4QpsDanc ar) 4QPseudo-Danielc 325 n.23, 333  1 i 10 325 n.23 4Q247 (4QApocWeeks?) Apocalypse of  Weeks? 261 n.6 4Q252 (4QCommGen A) 4QCommentary on  Genesis A 38 (2×), 38 n.57, 39, 39 n.57 (3×), 40, 41 4Q255–4Q258 4QRule of the Communitya–d 153 n.24, 161, 169, 170 4Q255 (4QpapSa) 4QRule of the Communitya 291



4Q256 (4QSb) 4QRule of the Communityb 161



4Q258 (4QSd) 4QRule of the Communityd 161 4Q259 + 4Q319 (4QOtot) 4QRule of the  Communitye + 4QOtot 4Q260 (4QSf )  4QRule of the Communityf  3:10 348 n.33

4Q261–4Q264 4QRule of the Communityg–j 153 n.24, 161, 169, 170 4Q265 4QMiscellaneous Rules 303  3 3 303  7 11–17 303 n.19 4Q266–4Q273 25  4QDamascus Document  6 ii 2–4 303 n.19 4Q266 (4QDa) 4QDamascus Documenta  5 ii 5 161  5 ii 8 161  5 ii 9–10 161  5 ii 12 161  11 285, 294  11 9 278 n.15  11 17–18 294 4Q269 (4QDd) 4QDamascus Documentd  8 ii 3–6 306 n.27  11 ii + 15 285 4Q270 (4QDe) 4QDamascus Documente  2 ii 12–13 112 n.22  2 ii 13 108 n.4  7 i–ii 285  7 i 12–13 303 n.19  7 ii 294 4Q272 (4QDg) 4QDamascus Documentg  1 ii 7–17 303 n.19 4Q274 (4QTohorot A) 4QPurification Rules A  1 i 0–9 303 n.19 4Q276 (4QTohorot Ba) 4QPurification  Rules Ba 25, 25 n.8, 50 4Q277 (4QTohorot Bb) 4QPurification  Rules Bb 302  1 ii 3 306 n.27  1 ii 7 302 4Q280 4QCurses

24, 285

4Q284 4QPurification Liturgy 279

472

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q284 4QPurification Liturgy (cont.)  2 ii 5 279 n.19  3 3 279 n.19

4Q379 (4QapocrJoshuab) 4QApocryphon  of Joshuab  22 ii 7–15 332

4Q285 (4QSM) 4QSefer ha-Milhamah 7, 24, 25, 25 n.8, 50, 59, 168, 169, 204 (5×), 205, 214 (2×), 214 n.35, 261 n.6, 298 (2×), 341, 341 n.2, 342 n.2, 350, 350 n.36, 352  4 205  4 5–10 10, 214  7 350, 351  7 3–4 341  7 4–6 350  10 351

4Q385a (4QApocrJer Ca) 4QApocryphon of  Jeremiah Ca 331  5 7–8 331  5 8 191, 331

4Q286 (4QBera) 4QBlessingsa  7 ii 1–2 284  7 ii 2–5 284  7 ii 6 348 n.27 4Q287  6 5

(4QBerb)

4QBlessingsb

348 n.27

4Q320–4Q330 4QCalendrical Documents 25 4Q339 4QList of False Prophets 269, 271, 274  1 1 269  1 2–9 269  1 8 270  1 9 270 4Q375 (4QapocrMosesa) 4QApocryphon of  Mosesa  265 n.19, 271, 272 (2×), 273 (4×), 274  1 i 4 272 n.35  1 i 4–7 272  1 i 6 272 n.35  1 ii 272 4Q378–4Q379 Apocryphon of Joshua 332 (2×), 332 n.38

4Q386 (4QpsEzekb) 4QPseudo-Ezekielb  1 ii 3 348 n.27 4Q387 (4QApocrJer Cb) 4QApocryphon of  Jeremiah Cb. 331  3 4–9 331  3 6 191  3 7–8 331  3 15 331 4Q388a (4QApocrJer Cc) 4QApocryphon of  Jeremiah Cc 331 4Q389 (4QApocrJer Cd) 4QApocryphon of  Jeremiah Cd 331 4Q390 (4QApocrJer Ce) 4QApocryphon of  Jeremiah Ce 331  2 i 6 331  2 i 8–12 331  2 i 9 331  2 ii 10–11 331 4Q394–4Q399 4QMMT 28, 69, 167 n.8, 299 (3×), 380  B 17 161  B 79 161 4Q394 (4QMMTa) 4QHalakhic Lettera  3–7 i 6–8 299  3–7 i 16–19 306 n.27 4Q397 (4QMMTd) 4QHalakhic Letterd  6–13 10–11 299 4Q398 (4QMMTe) 4QHalakhic Lettere  11–13 4 260 n.3

473

Index Of Ancient Sources 4Q400–4Q407 4QSongs of the Sabbath  Sacrifice 286, 287 (2×), 347 n.21 4Q403 (4QShirShabbd) 4QSongs of the  Sabbath Sacrificed  1 i 12 288 n.34 4Q405 (4QShirShabbf ) 4QSongs of the  Sabbath Sacrificef  23 i 7 287 n.32 (2×)  23 ii 7 288 n.34 4Q414 (4QRitPur A) 4QRitual of Purification A 279  1 ii–2 i 1–2 279 n.19  2 ii–4 5–6 279 n.19  7 11 303 n.19 4Q415–4Q418 Instruction (incl. 1Q27) 10 (2×), 215 (2×), 216 (3×), 218 (2×), 218 n.15, 223, 224 (5×), 225, 226 (3×), 226 n.57, 227 (2×), 228, 229, 230 (3×), 230 n.77, 231, 232 (2×), 233, 234 (2×), 235 (3×) 4QInstructionb

4Q416  1  1 6  2 i–iv  2 ii 4–5  2 ii 6–8  2 ii 8  2 iii  2 iii 2  2 iii 8  2 iii 9  2 iii 12  2 iii 12–13  2 iii 14  2 iii 15  2 iii 18  2 iii 19  4 1

223, 226, 226 n.57 226 n.57 (2×), 227 227 230 231 231 108 n.4, 112 n.22 223, 227 223 n.45, 227 223 n.45 224 n.46 223 n.45 227 n.62 224 n.46, 227 n.61 223 n.45 224 n.46 223 n.45, 227 233

4Q417 4QInstructionc  1 i 3–5  1 i 6–7

233 233 n.88 232 n.83

 1 i 7–8  1 i 8–12  1 i 16–18  2 ii 8–11

233 232 n.84 231 231 n.79

4Q418 4QInstructiond  1–2  3 3  8 6–8  9 12–13  9 + 9a—c 8  69 ii  69 ii 4  69 ii 7  69 ii 8  69 ii 10  69 ii 12–13  81–81a 4–5

226 n.57, 232 226 n.57 232 231 n.79 227 n.62 227 n.61 226 226 226 226 226 226 232 n.85

4Q427–4Q432 4QHodayot 21 4Q427 (4QHa) 4QHodayota 141  7 i 127 n.8  7 i 13–18 141 4Q431 (4QHe) 4QHodayote 141 4Q433a 4QHodayot-like text B 291 4Q436 (4QBarki Napshic) 4QBless.  Oh my Soulc  1 i 7 361 4Q444 4Qlncantation  1–4 i +5 1  1–4 i +5 4

288 n.37 288 n.37 288 n.37

4Q448 4QApocryphal Psalm and Prayer 328, 329, 329 n.32  2 1–9 328  2 3–4 328 n.31  3 1–8 328 4Q471 4QWar Scroll-like Text B 25, 25 n.8, 50, 168, 169, 298

474 4Q471b 4QSelf-Glorification Hymna 127 n.8, 136 n.24, 298



4Q491–4Q496 4QMilḥama 149, 168, 169 (2×), 261 n.6, 262

Index of Ancient Sources  11 i 9  11 i 9–10  11 i 10  11 i 12–13  11 i 15  11 i 20  11 ii

4Q491–4Q497 4QWar Texts 6, 10, 76 n.39, 126, 204, 298 4Q491 (4QMa) 4QWar Scrolla 9 (2×), 114 n.29, 125 (2×), 126 (3×), 127 (7×), 127 n.4 (7×), 127 n.5 (3×), 127 n.8, 128, 129 n.16, 135, 136 n.24 (2×), 137 n.24, 138 (8×), 140, 141, 144, 145 (2×), 145 n.47, 146, 169, 293, 298  1–3 126, 127 n.4, 145 n.49  1–3 6–8 300 n.10  4 127 n.4  5–6 127 n.4  7 127 n.4  8–10 i–ii 126 (2×), 127 n.4, 145 n.49  8–10 i 1–2 279  8–10 i 12 114 n.29, 119 n.40  10 ii 13–15 56 n.22  10 ii 17 114 n.29  11 114 n.29  11 i 119 n.42, 125, 126 (3×), 127 (2×), 127 n.4, 128, 129 (2×), 132 (5×), 133 (7×), 134 (2×), 135 (9×), 136 (5×), 137 n.24, 138, 141, 141 n.38, 144 (2×), 144 n.46, 145 (3×), 145 n.49  11 i–ii 126, 128 (2×), 128 n.12, 129 n.14, 129 n.15, 129 n.16, 136 (3×), 138, 145  11 i 2–4 133  11 i 4 133  11 i 5–8 134  11 i 6–7 132  11 i 8–10 134

 11 ii 2–12  11 ii 7–9  11 ii 10–11  11 ii 12–13  11 ii 12–14  11 ii 13  11 ii 13–15  11 ii 13–18  11 ii 14  11 ii 14–18  11 ii 15  11 ii 16–17  11 ii 18  12

 13–15  16  17  18  19–21  22  23  24–28  31–33  35

134, 141 141 143 n.44 133 136 n.24 141, 142 n.41 125, 126 (3×), 127 (2×), 128, 129 (2×), 132 (3×), 133 (10×), 134 (2×), 135 (4×), 136 (3×), 138, 143, 144 (3×), 145 (3×), 145 n.49 143 134 133 143 134 114 n.29 133 143 n.43 135, 144 143 144 134 144 125, 126 (3×), 127 (2×), 127 n.4, 129 n.14, 129 n.15, 132, 135 (4×), 136, 138, 145 (2×), 145 n.49 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4 127 n.4

4Q492 (4QMb) 4QWar Scrollb 298  1 281  1 8–9 282  1 9 282



4Q493 (4QMc) 4QWar Scrollc 50, 169, 170, 293

475

Index Of Ancient Sources 4Q494 (4QMd) 4QWar Scrolld 298 4Q495 (4QMe) 4QWar Scrolle 298



4Q496 [=4Q505 Verso and 4Q509 Verso]  (4QMf ) 4QWar Scrollf 291 (2×), 292, 298 4Q497 4QWar Scroll-like Text A 50, 168, 169 (2×), 291 (2×), 292, 298 4Q499 (4QPEnoshb?) 4QPrayer of Enoshb? 291, 292, 292 n.46 4Q502 (4QpapRitMar) 4QRitual of Marriage 279, 286  6–10 2–3 279 n.19  24 2 279 n.19 4Q503 (4QpapPrQuot) 4QDaily Prayersa 279, 287, 287 n.32, 291 (3×), 292 (2×)  1–3 1–2 279 n.19  1–3 6 279 n.19  1–3 12 279 n.19  1–6 iii 3 287 n.32 (2×)  1–6 iii 4 287 n.32  1–6 iii 7 287 n.32  1–6 iii 14 287 n.32  1–6 iii 15 287 n.32  1–6 iii 21 287 n.32  7–9 2 287 n.32  7–9 4 287 n.32  8 8 287 n.32  10 2 287 n.32  11 4 286 n.30  19 2 287 n.32  29–32 10 287 n.32  29–32 11 287 n.32  29–32 19 287 n.32  33 i + 34 7 287 n.32  33 i + 34 16 287 n.32  33 i + 34 19 289 n.41  33 ii + 35–36 12 287 n.32  37–38 16 287 n.32 (2×)  39 2 287 n.32  39 3 287 n.32



 51–55 2  51–55 8  51–55 14  64 9  67 2  76 4  100 2  215 4  218 3

287 n.32 287 n.32 287 n.32 287 n.32 287 n.32 287 n.32 287 n.32 287 n.32 287 n.32

4Q504–4Q506 Words of the Luminaries 279 4Q505 [=4Q496 Recto and 4Q506 Recto]  (4QpapDibHamb?) 4QWords of the  Luminariesb? 291, 292, 292   n.44 (3×) 4Q506 [=4Q505 Verso and 4Q509 Verso]  (4QpapDibHamc) 4QWords of the  Luminariesc 291, 292 4Q507–4Q509 4QFestival Prayers 279 4Q509 [=4Q496 Recto and 4Q506 Recto]  (4QpapPrFêtesc) 4QFestival Prayersc 291, 292, 292 n.44 (2×) 4Q510 (4QShira) 4QSongs of the Sagea 288  1 4–6 288 4Q511 (4QShirb) 4QSongs of the Sageb 288  1 8 348 n.29  48–49 + 51 2–3 288  63–63 ii 2 288 4Q512 (4QpapRitPur B) 4QRitual of  Purification B 279, 291, 292 (2×)  29–32 8 279 n.19  40–41 23 279 n.19 4Q514 (4QOrdc?) 4QOrdinancesc  1 i 5–6 303 n.19 4Q521 4QMessianic Apocalypse 11, 323 n.15, 336 n.53, 351 (2×), 352 (5×)  2 ii 1 323 n.15

476

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q521 4QMessianic Apocalypse (cont.)  2 ii + 4 1–2 351  2 ii + 4 7–8 351  2 ii + 4 12–13 351  2 iii 6 336 n.53  7 + 5 7–10 352 4Q525 (4QBeat) 4QBeatitudes  25 2 348 n.27 4Q530–4Q532 Book of Giants (incl. 1Q23,  1Q24, 4Q203) 252 4Q531 (4QEnGiantsc ar) 4QBook of Giantsc  19 2 252 n.32 4Q540 (4QapocrLevia ar) 4QApocryphon of  Levia 254 4Q541 (4QapocrLevib? ar) 4QApocryphon  of Levib?  9 59 n.33 4Q542 (4QTQahat ar) 4QTestament of Qahat  1 i 8 245 n.14 4Q545 4QVisions of Amramc  4 15–17 246 4Q548 4QVisions of Amramf ? 254  1 ii 8 348 n.30 Cave 11 11Q5 (11QPsa) 11QPsalmsa

12, 391, 401

11Q11 (11QapocrPs) 11QApocryphal Psalms  6:3 348 n.27 11Q12 (11QJub) 11QJubilees 169 11Q13 (11QMelch) 11QMelchizedek 343 (2×), 344, 344 n.9, 346, 349, 352  2:2 349  2:4 344 n.9, 349

 2:5–6 349  2:6 349  2:8 348 n.32, 349  2:9 349  2:9–11 350  2:12 350  2:13 346, 350  2:24 348 n.33  2:25 346, 350  3 350 (2×)  3:7 350 11Q14 (11QSM) 11QSefer ha–Milḥamah 168, 169, 204, 214 n.35, 261 n.6, 298 (2×), 341, 341 n.2 11QTa (11Q19) 11QTemplea

6, 17, 33, 34 (4×), 35 n.52, 64, 160, 301, 302, 334, 335, 370  22:4–5 160  34:13 160  39:10–11 302  44:5 160  45:7–10 303 n.19  45:7–18 300  46:13–16 303  48:14–17 303 n.19  49:20–21 306 n.27  50:4–9 306 n.27  50:10–16 306 n.27  50:20–51 306 n.27  51–66 64  56–59 334  57:12–15 334  58:3–11 335, 335 n.48, 339  63:3 160

11Q20 (11QTb) 11QTempleb 34 n.52 11Q21 (11QTc?) 11QTemplec 34 n.52 3. Naḥal Ḥever 5/6ḤevPsalms 369

477

Index Of Ancient Sources 4. Masada Mas 1l (MasApocryphon of Joshua) 340 n.59 Mas 1m (MasApocryphon of Genesis) 340 n.59 Mas 1k (MasShirShab) 340 n.59  i 8 340 n.59

Hebrew Bible (𝔐) Genesis

237, 244, 245 (2×), 246, 256, 365  1:1 17, 37  6:11 225 n.51  9:4 305  10 193  10:4 207  34 11, 244  34:5 244 n.11  34:13 244, 244 n.11, 244 n.12  34:25 237, 246  34:25–30 237  34:27 244 n.11  34:27–39 250 n.31  34:30–31 252  37:26 327  38:1 327  44:14 327  49 59  49:1 343  49:5 252  49:5–7 238  49:8 327  49:8–9 326  49:8–12 326  49:9 326 (2×)  49:9–10 332  49:10 170 Exodus 152, 355  15:20 350, 350 n.36  18 194  20 332 n.38  28–29 154 (2×)  40:15 148, 153

Leviticus 304, 304 n.23  3:17 305  4:4–7 305  7:26–27 305  10:1–7 151 (2×)  13 301, 311 n.47  13:46 311 n.47  15:5–22 306 n.27  15:16–18 302  15:19–23 305  15:19–24 302  15:24 305  16:18–19 305  17:10–14 305  19:26 305  21 301, 304  21:16–24 304  21:18–20 304 n.23  21:20 310  24 332 n.38  25:13 349  26:38 244 n.9 Numbers

151, 152, 155, 195, 210, 365, 369 (2×)  2 195  2:2 194, 199 (2×)  3:4 151 (2×)  6:24–26 267 n.21  10 284  10:1–10 194, 199  10:2 199  10:9 194, 197(3×)  16–18 154 (2×)  17:17–18 201  19 306  21:18 219 n.18  22–24 269  24:14 54 n.16, 343  24:14–24 206  24:15–19 170  24:15–24 336  24:17 336  24:24 10, 187 (2×), 206 (2×), 207, 208 (2×), 209 (5×), 210 (4×), 210 n.25 (2×), 211 (3×), 211 n.27, 212 (3×), 213 (4×), 214 (3×)

478 Numbers (cont.)  25 147  25:1–13 59 n.33  25:6–13 245  25:6–15 257 n.43  25:13 147, 148, 148 n.6, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156 n.36  27:20 219 n.18  31:14 194  31:16 269  31:48 194  31:52 194 Deuteronomy

63, 64 (2×), 64 n.52, 66, 160, 196 (2×), 197 (4×), 197 n.62, 219, 265 n.19, 272, 301, 304, 406  4:30 343  6:4–5 64  7:1–6 65  12–23 64  12:16 305  12:23 305  15:2 349  15:23 305  16:18 383  18 273  18:15–22 266, 273  18:20–22 272  20 196 n.59, 284  20:2–7 56 n.22  20:3–4 196  20:5–9 196, 384 n.49  20:8 197 n.62  23 301  23:10 312 n.52  23:10–11 302, 313 n.52  23:12–14 304  23:14 297, 304  27 160  27:14 56 n.22  32:33 348  33 332 n.38 Joshua

5 n.3, 11 (2×), 296, 297 (2×), 301, 304, 316  1:6 297 n.3  1:8 64

Index of Ancient Sources  1:9 297 n.3  1:10 384 n.49  2:1–24 316  3:2 384 n.49  3:5 295, 297  4:12–13 296  6 160 n.49 (3×)  6:2 297 n.3  6:26 332  7:1–26 316  7:2 295  7:3 296  7:4–5 296  7:7 296  7:10–26 296  7:11–12 296  7:13 297  8:1 297 n.3  8:1–2 297  8:1–29 296  10:8 297 n.3  11:6 297 n.3  11:10–13 329 n.34 Judges 406  5:31 244 n.9  11:34 350 1 Samuel  17:5  17:38  17:46  24:19  26:8

326 (2×) 326 (2×) 198, 244 n.10 244 n.10 244 n.10

2 Samuel  18:28

244 n.10

1 Kings  2:45 328 n.31  4:24 328 n.31  5:3–5 326  5:4 328 n.31  8:14 328 n.31  10:22 206  13:11 269  18:20–40 266  22 266  22:24 269  22:48 206

479

Index Of Ancient Sources 2 Kings  20:13 346 Isaiah

170, 209 (2×), 209 n.21, 212, 350, 351, 352  1:2 18 n.11  2:1–4 328  2:2 343  6:3 322 n.15  9:2–7 170  10:27 326 n.25  11 59 (2×), 323  11:1–9 170  11:3 335  11:4 326 (2×)  11:6–10 323 n.16  13:21 210 n.25  14:25 326 n.25  23 209  23:12–13 209, 212, 213  23:13 210 n.25  24–27 170, 323  24:16 108 n.3  26:19 351  30:20 379  31:8 189 (2×), 189 n.42, 190 (2×), 191 (2×)  34:14 210 n.25  34:45–48 191  35:5 351  42:1 355  42:1–3 361  49:2 361, 361 n.31  53 142  59:3 305  60:12 244 n.9  61:1 344 n.9, 349, 351 (3×)  61:1–2 344 (2×), 351, 352  61:2 349  63:3 305 Jeremiah 323 n.17  1:5–10 355 n.6  2:10 187, 207 (2×)  10:11 244 n.9  28–29 266  28:1 269  28:17 270  29:21 269 (2×)  29:24 269  33:21 147 n.1

 46:10 191  47:6 191  50:39 210 n.25 Ezekiel  10:2 381  10:6 381  10:7 381  20:35 57  26:7–14 273  27:6 187, 207 (2×), 211 (2×), 211 n.27  29:17–20 273  30:9 210 n.25 (2×), 213 (2×), 214 (2×)  34:12–13 326, 328  34:27 326  36:24 326  37:12–13 352  38–39 343  38:16 343  39:11–16 350  43:20 305  44:23–24 154 (2×), 156 Hosea 406 Joel 406 Amos 406  5:19 76  8:12 323  9 323  9:11–15 323 n.16  9:12 328 Obadiah 406 Jonah 406 Micah 406  4:1 343  4:4 326 (2×)  4:6 326  4:6–8 327 n.27  4:8 347  5:1–5 328  5:3 322  5:3–5 322, 326, 328  5:4–5 322 n.13, 326  7:6 363

480 Habakkuk 406, 268  2:3–4 267  2:15 179  2:20 65 Zephaniah  3:9 328 Zechariah  2:10–11 329 n.32  2:10–14 328  9:9 356  9:10 322, 323, 326 (2×)  12:3 346 n.19 Malachi 406  2:4 147 n.1  2:4–5 252  2:5 147 n.1  2:8 147 n.1 Psalms

322, 365, 369, 391, 392, 406  2 328, 338  2:1–4 327  2:7 355  2:8 322  2:8–11 322  2:9 326  2:10 326  2:10–12 327  7:7–8 350  7:8–9 350  34:14 359  37:20 244 n.9  37:32–33 179  45 322 n.14  45:16 322 n.14  45:17 322 n.14  45:18 326  47:3 322 n.15  47:8 322 n.15  72 326  72:4 326  72:8 323, 326 (3×)  72:8–11 322  72:17 326  72:17–19 326  77 392

Index of Ancient Sources  82:1 350  89:26 322, 323, 326  105:10 155 n.32  110 327, 328  110:1–2 327  110:5 322 n.15  110:5–6 327 (2×)  114:2 346  118 392  119 392  135 392  136:8 347  145 352  146:6–8 351  146:7–8 351  148 392  150 391, 392 Proverbs  7:26  17:8  20:16  22:26  27:13

230 (2×), 230 n.77, 231 82 n.46 231 n.82 231 n.82 231 n.82 231 n.82

Job  5:15 361 Song of Songs

392, 393

Ruth 406 Ecclesiastes Daniel

230, 230 n.77

10, 108, 188 (4×), 189 n.41, 207 (2×), 208 (5×), 209 (3×), 210, 212 (2×), 215, 218 n.15, 221, 222 (3×), 223, 225 (2×), 226 (3×), 229 (2×), 230, 322, 335, 336, 339, 343 (2×), 344, 344 n.12, 345, 346 (2×)  1:2 380  2 108, 345  2:18–19 246 n.16  2:21 345  2:23 345  2:27–30 246 n.16

481

Index Of Ancient Sources  2:28 343  2:34–35 345 (2×)  2:42 380  2:44–45 345  3:7 350  4 108  4:9 246 n.16  7–12 266, 323  7:13–14 345  7:22 343  8:13 346  9:25 350  9:27 344 n.10  10:14 343  11 208 (2×), 209 (6×), 209 n.21, 210, 211, 212, 213 (2×)  11–12 343, 345, 346  11:14 226  11:30 10, 207, 209 (2×), 210 (2×), 210 n.25, 211 (2×), 212 (5×), 213 (2×), 214 (2×)  11:31 344 n.10  11:32 191, 192 (3×)  11:33 222  11:34 226, 339  11:40–43 188 (2×)  11:40–45 185, 188 (2×), 188 n.38, 190  11:40–12:3 334  11:41 188  11:44 188  11:45 188, 189 (2×), 190 (3×), 191  12:1 344, 344 n.11  12:2 345, 345 n.13  12:3 226 n.56, 344, 344 n.12  12:4 343  12:9 343  12:10 226 n.56  12:11 344  12:13 343

Nehemiah  7:69 380  13:29 148, 153

Ezra  1:7–10 327  13:5–11 343

Onqelos Gen 34:13 Num 24:24

1 Chronicles  1:7

207, 211 (2×), 211 n.27  5:2 327  24–25 286  28:11–18 327 2 Chronicles 65 (2×)  8:6 347  8:18 206  20:15–17 65  34:7 322 n.14  36:21 65

Septuagint (𝔊) 1 Samuel  24:18

244 n.10

Jeremiah 5 Psalms  42:2 322 n.15  42:7 322 n.15  45:17 326  89:25 322, 323, 326  113:2 346  135:8 347  151:supr. 404 Daniel 212  11:5 347  12:1 344  12:3 344, 344 n.12

Targumim

244 n.12 213

482

Index of Ancient Sources

Neofiti Gen 34:13 Num 24:24

244 n.12 213

Pseudo Jonathan Gen 34:13

244 n.12

Apocrypha Tobit 324, 324 n.19  13:1 279  13:8–17 324 Judith 256  4:12 279 n.17  6:21 279 n.17  9:4 257  10:1 279 n.17  12:8 279 n.17  13:7 279 n.17 Wisdom of Solomon  2:10  18:15 Ben Sira

219 n.20 361 n.31

10, 61 n.42, 67 n.3, 70 n.15, 107 n.1, 108, 109, 147 n.2, 148, 152 (3×), 152 n.19, 153, 154 (2×), 154 n.27 (2×), n.28 (2×), 155 (4×), 155 n.32, 156 (2×), 162, 215, 218 (2×), 218 n.15, 219 n.20, 220, 222, 223, 224 (3×), 225, 231, 323, 323 n.18, 325  4:1–3 224 n.49  4:4–10 224 n.49  7:29–31 220  8:18 108 n.4  10:5 219  12:11 108 n.4  13:4–7 224 n.49  13:15–24 224 n.49  29:14–20 231 n.82  34:21–35:12 220  34:25–26 224 n.49  38:24 219

 40:12–17 224 n.49  44:1–50:21 154, 154 n.25  45:1–5 220  45:6–16 154 (2×)  45:6–22 154, 220  45:6–25 147 n.2, 154 (3×)  45:7 155 (2×), 155 n.32 (2×)  45:15 148, 153 (2×), 155 (2×)  45:17 154 (2×), 156, 157  45:18–22 154 (2×)  45:23–25 155 n.31  45:24 148  45:24–26 323 n.18  45:25 153 (2×), 155, 323 n.18  47:11 323 n.18  47:22 323 n.18  50 323 n.18, 324  50:1 154, 155  50:1–4 323 n.18  50:1–21 220  50:3–4 324 n.22  50:24 325  51 391 1 Maccabees

183 n.24, 211, 211 n.29, 212, 285, 319, 324 (2×), 327 (2×), 330, 335, 339  1:54 344 n.10  2 156 n.36  2–5 320 n.2  2:15–28 147 n.2, 156  2:23–68 257 n.43  2:24–27 181 n.14  2:24–28 324, 325  2:26 324  2:54 324, 325  2:59–64 335  3:3 326  3:3–9 325 (2×)  3:4 326, 336  3:7 326, 327  3:9 326 (2×)  3:18–19 257 n.43  3:25 327 n.28  3:42 327 n.28  3:55 194 n.53  4:36 327 n.28  4:59 327 n.28

483

Index Of Ancient Sources  4:60 332 n.40  5 186 (2×)  5:3 186  5:10 327 n.28  5:42 383  5:61 327 n.28  5:62 324  5:63 327 n.28  5:65 327 n.28  7:6 327 n.28  7:10 327 n.28  7:23–24 330  7:27 327 n.28  8:5 213  8:20 327 n.28  9 320 n.2  9:23–26 330  9:73 330  10:10–11 332 n.40  10:14 330  10:61 330  12:34 352  12:36–37 332 n.40  12:39 352  13:41 326 n.25  13:52 332 n.40  14:4–15 325 (2×)  14:5–6 326  14:7–15 332 n.40  14:8 326  14:10 326  14:11 326  14:12 326  14:13 326, 327  14:14 326  14:15 327  14:41 327, 332  14:41–44 332  14:41–45 330 n.35  14:41–47 325, 330 2 Maccabees

183 n.24, 285, 327, 337, 337 n.54, 339  2:19 327 n.28  5:1–4 257 n.43  15:29–36 338 Psalm 151

12, 391 (7×), 391, 393 (2×), 395, 396 (2×), 398, 399 (2×), 401

(2×), 402, 403, 404 (2×), 405 (2×), 406 (2×)  151:supr. 404, 405 (2×)  151:1–5 391  151:1–7 399  151:3 402  151:4 402  151:6–7 391, 403, 404  151:7 398

Pseudepigrapha (alphabetical) Aramaic Levi

11, 155, 156 n.34, n.35, 169,  Document 221 n.29, 238 (4×), 238 n.2, 239 (5×), 239 n.6, 245, 245 n.13, 246, 246 n.17, 247 (3×), 248, 251, 252 (2×), 252 n.34, 253, 254 (2×), 255 (3×), 256 (2×), 257, 258, 259  1 156 n.35  1–2 156, 238, 247  1:1 247, 248, 248 n.26, 252  1:1–3 239 n.4, 255  1:2 249  1:3 252  1:4 255  2 156 n.35  2:1 239 n.4, 250, 252, 255  2:1–5 253  2:4 250  3–13 248  3:1 250  3:6 253  3:11 252, 253  3:13 253  4 255  4:4 250  4:7–9 252, 253  4:13 254  5:1 251  6:1 251

484

Index of Ancient Sources

 Document (cont.)  11:1 251  11:3 251  12:4 251  12:6 251, 252, 257  12:6–7 253  12:9 251  13:2 251  13:8 252 2 Baruch 1 Enoch

110

10, , 108, 110 123 (3×), 218 n.15, 220 (2×), 221, 221 n.29, 222, 223, 225 (2×), 226 (4×), 227, 247, 265 n.19, 266  1 227  1–36 221, 225, 228  1:1–3 248  6–8 225 n.51  6–11 111, 112, 113 n.26, 114, 248  9:1 225  12:4 220 n.28  14 221.  14:1 220 n.28  14:7 220 n.28  15:1 220 n.28  15:11–16:1 225  37–71 220 n.28  56:5–8 243  68:1 220 n.28 (2×)  72:1 220 n.28  81:2 220 n.28  81:4 220 n.28  82:1 220 n.28  83:2 220 n.28  89:68 220 n.28  89:70 220 n.28  89:71 220 n.28  89:73–74 221  89:76 220 n.28  89:77 220 n.28  90:9–10 225 n.53  90:12–16 225 n.53  90:17 220 n.28  91–108 9, 107, 122, 225, 228, 229

 91:5 225 n.52  91:6 225 n.52  91:7 225 n.52  91:8 225 n.52  91:11 225 n.52  91:12 225, 256  91:18 225 n.52  92:1 220 n.28 (2×)  93:9–10 256  94:6–8 225  96:1–3 123 n.49  97:1–2 123 n.49  102:4–5 123 n.49  103:1–3 123 n.49  104:2 344 n.12  104:2–6 123 n.49  104:10 123 n.49  104:12 123 n.49  106:1–107:3 107  106:19 246  106:19–107:1 122  108:1 220 n.28  108:3 220 n.28 4 Ezra 110, 266  13:5–11 343 Ḥazon Gabriel 338  32 338 Joseph and Aseneth 256  23 256, 257  23:8–16 258  23:14–15 258 Jubilees

169, 187 (2×), 212, 213, 245 n.13, 256 (2×), 258, 265 n.19  30–32 147 n.2  30:1 248 n.25  30:2 256  30:5–6 258  30:5–7 247 n.22  30:13 257  30:18 155  37–38 187 Psalm 154 391 Psalm 155

391

Index Of Ancient Sources Psalms of Solomon 319 n.1, 337, 339  2 337  2:3 337  2:13–14 337  4 337  4:20 337  8 337  8:11–13 337–38  11 322, 329 (2×)  17:21–44 337  17:33–35 339 Sibylline Oracles  3:657–731 343 Testimony of the  Twelve Patriarchs

239

Testament of Levi

156 n.35, 245, 245 n.13, 253, 254 (3×), 256, 258, 338, 339  2:3–5:7 254 n.36  2:7–9 254  5:1–4 254, 258  5:3 245  6:1–7:4 156 n.35  6:3 245, 253, 257  6:3–5 155  6:4–5 254  9:2 247 n.20  9:6 247 n.20  11:5 247 n.20  14:4–7 338 Testament of Moses  8:1 344 n.11  10:1 348 Testament of Solomon

347 n.22

New Testament Matthew

12, 344, 345, 354 (5×), 355 (2×), 355 n.2, n.6, 356 (3×), 356 n.7, 357 (4×), 358, 358 n.15, 359 (3×), 360 (5×), 361, 363

485  1:1 354, 355 n.2, n.3  1:1–17 355  1:16 355 n.2  1:17 355 n.2, n.3  1:18 355 n.2  1:20 355 n.3  1:20–21 355 n.6  1:59–61 355 n.6  2:1–3 355  2:1–19 356  2:2 355, 355 n.2, 360 n.26, 361  2:4 355 n.2 (2×)  2:6 356 n.7  2:11 355  2:13 355 n.2  2:16 355 n.2, 362  2:16–18 357  3:2 356 n.8  3:17 355  4:3 355 n.4  4:6 355 n.4  4:17 356 n.8  5–7 358 (2×)  5:4 344  5:9 354  5:9–11 359  5:9–12 361  5:10–11 359 n.21  5:21–26 348 n.25  5:21–48 359 n.22  5:35 355  5:38–42 348 n.25  5:38–48 354, 361  5:41 362  5:43–48 348 n.25  5:44–45 359 n.22  5:48 359, 359 n.22  6:12 359 n.22  6:14–15 348 n.25, 354, 359 n.22, 361  7:10–11 359 n.22  7:12 348 n.25  7:29 356 n.8  8:9 356 n.8  8:12 358 n.17  8:29 355 n.4  9:6–8 356 n.8  9:27 355 n.3  9:36 356 n.7

486 Matthew (cont.)  10 361, 362  10:1 347, 356 n.8  10:1–5 362  10:1–42 354, 361, 363  10:6 356 n.7  10:7–8 347  10:8 362  10:13–15 362  10:16–33 359 n.21  10:24–25 362, 363  10:28 348  10:32–33 362  10:34 357 n.10  10:34–36 360, 361, 363  10:34–37 363  10:34–39 362  10:40–42 362  11:1 362  11:2 355 n.2  11:2–6 344, 362  11:5 351  11:9 263 n.11  11:9–10 333 n.41  11:12 357 n.11, 363  11:25 345  12:23 355 n.3  12:26 347  12:28 347  13:24–30 344  13:36–43 344  13:38 349  13:42 358 n.17  13:43 344  13:46–53 357  13:50 358 n.17  14:1–12 357  14:9 355 (2×)  14:33 355 n.4  15:14 349  15:22 355 n.3  16:15 355  16:16 355 n.2  16:19 356 n.8  16:20 355 n.2  16:21 355 n.2  18:23 355  18:23–35 357  20:30 355 n.3  20:31 355 n.3

Index of Ancient Sources  21:5 356  21:9 355 n.3  21:11 333 n.41  21:15 355 n.3  21:23–27 356 n.8  21:32 358 n.16  21:33–46 357, 358, 358 n.15  21:33–22:10 357  21:38 357 n.11  21:39 358 n.16  22:1–10 358 n.15  22:1–14 357  22:6 358 n.16, 359 n.21  22:7 362  22:11–14 358  22:42 355 n.3  23:10 355 n.2  23:15 349  23:16 349  23:17 349  23:19 349  23:24 349  23:26 349  23:29–39 359 n.21  23:31 349  23:34–35 357 n.11  23:37 354  24:5 355 n.2  24:9 357 n.12  24:9–14 359 n.21  24:15 344  24:21 357 n.12  24:23 355 n.2  24:29 357 n.12  24:41 358  24:51 358 n.17  25:30 358 n.17  25:32 356 n.7  25:34 356 n.7  25:40 356 n.7  25:46 345  26:26–29 352 n.40  26:31 356 n.7  26:49 357 n.10  26:51 357 n.10  26:51–54 360, 361 (2×), 363  26:52 357 n.10  26:63 355 n.2, n.4  26:68 355 n.2  27:3–10 357

487

Index Of Ancient Sources  27:11

355, 355 n.2, 356, 360 n.26  27:17 355 n.2 (2×)  27:22 355 n.2 (2×)  27:27–31 356  27:29 355, 355 n.2, 360 n.26  27:32–50 357  27:37 355, 355 n.2, 356, 360 n.26  27:40 355 n.4  27:42 355, 356, 360 n.26  27:43 355 n.4  27:54 355 n.4  28:11–20 361  28:16–20 354, 363  28:18 356 n.8  28:18–20 362   Mark 343, 357  1:15 343  1:24 341  1:27 347  2:1–12 351  2:5 351  2:9–10 351  2:10 347  3:11 341  3:15 347  3:23–24 347  3:26 347  3:27 341, 347  5:6–9 341  6:7 347 (2×)  6:12–13 347  6:15 263 n.11  10:45 345  11:1–10 333  11:25 348  11:32 263 n.11, 333  12:9 358, 358 n.15  13:14 344  13:19 344  14:22–25 352 n.40  14:58 345   Luke 345 (2×), 351, 360  1:6 279  1:46–55 279, 280  1:68–75 280  1:68–79 279

 2:36 263 n.11  4:16–30 344  4:17–21 351  6:17 263 n.11  6:21 344  6:27–36 348  7:16 333 n.41  7:18–23 344  7:22 351  7:26 333 n.41  7:47–49 351  9:1–2 347  10:6 349  10:18 341, 347  10:19 341, 347  10:21 345  11:18 347  11:20 347 (2×)  12:4 348  12:5 348  12:51 360  13:33 333 n.41  16:8 349 (2×)  20:6 333 n.41  20:9–19 345  20:18 345  20:34 349  20:36 349  21:24 345  22:19–20 352 n.40  24:19 333 n.41   John  1:19–21 333 n.41  1:25 333 n.41  2:19 345 n.18  6:4 333 n.41  7:40 333 n.41  11:49–51 334 n.44  12:36 349 Acts  2:1–18  3:17–22  3:20–23  7:37  13:1   Romans  12:6

263 n.11 263 n.11 333 n.41 333 n.41 263 n.11 263 n.11

488 1 Corinthians  11:23–25  12:8–11  14:1–5  14:24

Index of Ancient Sources 352 n.40 263 n.11 263 n.11 263 n.11

Ephesians  5:10–17 361 Hebrews  4–9 333 n.41  4:12 361 Revelation  1:3 294  1:16 361, 361 n.31  2:16 361  6:4 360 n.27  19:15 361, 361 n.31  19:21 360 n.27, 361, 361 n.31  20:7–10 343

Classical and Rabbinic Sources (alphabetical) Ahiqar  7:18 361 m. ʿArakin  9.2

320 n.5

Cicero Epistulae ad Atticum  2.19.4  6.4.3  6.5.1

388 n.60 388 n.60 388 n.60

m. Demai  7.4

381 n.38

m. ʿErubin  10.15

381 n.38

Gospel of Thomas  64 357

Livy Ab Urbe Condita  45:10 208 Josephus Antiquities  1.128 207 (2×)  1.152–55 257  1.337 256  4.141–42 257  10.3 321  11.326–28 334 n.44  12.265–326 320 n.2  12.327–53 186 n.33  12.414 325  12.419 325  12.434 325  13.72 325  13.181–83 332 n.40  13.213 330  13.254–56 328 n.29  13.257–58 320  13.282–83 333  13.288–92 333  13.299–300 333  13.300 270 n.28  13.318–19 321 n.6  13.372–76 330  13.379–83 330, 332  13.394 321 n.6  13.395–97 320  14.414–17 322  20.97–98 263 n.11, 271 n.32  20.169–72 263 n.11, 271 n.32 Jewish War  1.62–63 328 n.29  1.103–6 321 n.6  1.303 322  1.314–15 322  2.261–63 263 n.11, 271 n.32  2.567 340  2.580 321 n.5  3.11 340  3.399–408 263 n.11, 271 n.32  6.300–9 263 n.11, 271 n.32  7.180–89 385 n.53  7.426–32 325

489

Index Of Ancient Sources m. Qinnim  2.3

381 n.38

t. Šebiʿit  4.14

320 n.5

m. Sotah  7.1

56 n.22

The Life  235

321 n.8

m. Kelim  13.4  13.8

381 n.38 381 n.38

Leviticus Rabbah  21.12

334 n.44

m. Maʿaśerot  1.7

381 n.38

t. Sotah  13.5 334  13.8 334 n.44

b. Menaḥim  109b

334 n.44

m. Sukkah  1.7

Philo Every Good Man is Free  87 61  89–91 338   b. Qiddishim  66a 333 n.43 t. Qiddishim  66a 333

381 n.38

m. Taʿanit  4.2 286 y. Taʿanit  68d

356 n.9

b. Yoma  39b

334 n.44

y. Yoma  5.2

334 n.44